Loading...
2008, 07-29 Special Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting MinutesMINUTES Special Joint Meeting /Study Session Spokane Valley City Council and Spokane Valley Planning Commission Tuesday, July 29, 2008 6:00 p.m. CenterPlace, Great Hall, 2426 N Discovery Road ATTENDANCE: Council Planning Commission Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Diana Wilhite, Councilmember Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Ian Robertson, Chair Marcia Sands Fred Beaulac John Carroll Art Sharpe Absent: Craig Eggelston, excused Gail Kogle, excused There were an estimated 100 citizens in attendance. Staff Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Ken Thompson, Finance Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Kathy McClung, Community Dev Director Mike Basinger, Senior Planner Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Lori Barlow, Associate Planner John Whitehead, Human Resources Mgr Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, PIO Bill Miller, IT Specialist Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., welcomed everyone to the meeting, explained the agenda for the meeting, and asked City Clerk Bainbridge to call roll. City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present; all Planning Commissioners were present except Gail Kogle and Craig Eggelston, who were excused. 1. Action Item: Motion Consideration: Appleway Right -of -Way Litigation, Petition for Review to Supreme Court — Cary Driskell It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to authorize staff to file a petition for review with the Washington Supreme Court regarding ownership of the Appleway corridor east of University Road. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that Council previously authorized staff to appeal the trial court decision to the Court of Appeals, which recently issued an opinion substantially upholding the trial court; and Mr. Driskell stated that staff seeks authorization to file a petition for discretionary review with the Washington Supreme Court, and that any such petition for review must be filed and served no later than August 14, 2008, and said that staffs seeks clarification of who owns the right -of -way upon incorporation or annexation, and added he feels it could be beneficial to pursue this. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Deputy Mayor Denenny said he was hopeful this would have been brought directly from the court of appeals to the Supreme Court, and supports this move. Mayor Munson added that this is not a contentious argument, as both sides believe they are correct, and when such division of opinion occurs, this is why we have the appeal process; and said that he does not believe or expect any acrimony from the County as a result of this appeal. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Special Meeting Council & Planning Commission July 29, 2008 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 2. Workshop Item — Collaborative Planning Options for UGAs — Susan Winchell & Bill Grimes Ms. Susan Winchell of the Boundary Review Board thanked the planning staff for their collaborative planning, and explained that she will be presenting the background of this issue, followed by Bill Grimes of Studio Cascade who will discuss the proposal. Ms. Winchell went through the PowerPoint presentation giving the history of the UGA development regulations, and briefly explained about the joint planning process, the Countywide Planning Policies, gave some background on collaboration background and on the Metro area partners, which include Spokane County, Spokane, Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, Airway Heights, and Millwood. Mr. Grimes then continued with the presentation discussing the CTED (Community Trade and Economic Development) Grant phases, the problem that the UGA development rules appear unclear, and that development on one side of a jurisdictional line impacts land on the other; he explained that it is about zoning, subdivisions, land use actions and compatibility, environmental review, street design and neighborhood character, and gave the example of Moran Prairie and which standards to use: county or City of Spokane; he showed the differences in the density details and explained about the overlay categories and gave some examples, and said that the next steps include revisions to the overlay, further staff review, and that he is hopeful to have an October meeting in this venue to discuss metro -wide planning implementation. Brief discussion included the desire that County and City staffs communicate; that Spokane Valley's low density residential is the least urban of the designations; that it appears we should examine different ways for the County and cities to work together and review applications to meet different zoning standards of each city; the desire for further discussion on the standards for cluster development; mention that the only way to have complete control over development would be through annexation; mention that minimum lot size has been discussed and should be part of this process; the difference between the overlay and the County having a single ordinance or having five different ordinances to adhere to; and that Ms. Winchell and Mr. Grimes encouraged Council and Commissioners to let them know of any suggestions they might have for further discussion. Mayor Munson said Council appreciates the work done, but that Spokane Valley was setting development standards for the last three years, and it appears we are now being asked to reconsider those standards to accept the overlay; adding that any such change will take time to consider. There was further discussion concerning preserving the characteristics of individual cities' regulations, such as larger lot sizes in Spokane Valley; concern with infrastructure and connections, the comment that this should not be just another layer to make regulations more difficult; and the comment from Ms. Winchell that this would be something that the County would adopt, that the City does not have a role in this but she wants to make sure what the County adopts is agreeable to the municipalities; that there are several months of work ahead of them, and this process has been changing as they move ahead. Mayor Munson called for a recess at 6:50 p.m. and the Planning Commissioners retired from the dais. Mayor Munson reconvened the Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan Mayor Munson went over the ground rules on the procedure for conducting the hearing, explaining that each speaker will be allowed three minutes; he explained that Council will not deliberate tonight, that people will receive answers to their questions but not tonight as Council and staff cannot possibly answer all questions tonight; and he said this is a passionate subject, but he asked citizens to please be civil in their remarks; that Mr. Kuhta will give a general overview, then an overview on each book; followed by public comment on each book. Mayor Munson said that at approximately 8:45 p.m., he will ask how many people want to speak who had not had an opportunity, and based on that outcome, this public hearing could be scheduled for another date. Mayor Munson welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited Mr. Kuhta to the podium. Mr. Kuhta went through his PowerPoint giving an overview of the project's history, including the numerous community meetings, and the public hearing of the Planning Commission; and said that staff anticipates final adoption of this plan this fall. He explained that the Plan is divided into three books; that Book I gives the Special Meeting Council & Planning Commission July 29, 2008 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 community intent; Book II contains the development regulations, and Book III contains the city actions, including transportation. Mayor Munson opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Mr. Kuhta then showed via the PowerPoint slides, the statements concerning the community intent: which is to 1. Transform the visual character of Sprague Avenue 2. Re- position disinvested corridor properties to capture value in the current and future marketplace 3. Instigate the construction of the first City Center 4. Increase the vehicular capacity of the Sprague - Appleway corridor 5. Substantially enhance the development potential and value of the properties currently lining the undeveloped Appleway right -of -way 6. Support the continued growth and success of Auto Row 7. Balance mobility and access, vehicular and pedestrian functionality along the Corridor 8. Incorporate transit planning into the future vision 9. Create a framework for sustainable development 10. Establish a planning framework that builds on and reflects the unique character of the City and Region. Mayor Munson opened the floor for public comments on Book I: Community Intent. Rob Nordhagen, 6708 E Appleway: said he had questions on item numbers 4, 5, and 6 above; he said that this will increase traffic; there are five lanes flowing westbound now, and four that flow eastbound; and that the plans will move to five lanes with two in each direction and a center turn lane; and he asked how that will increase traffic; he mentioned property value and auto row; and asked what we will do with auto row; it states we will try to enhance auto row and he understands we will "stomp out" used car dealers; that he understands existing used car dealers will be grandfathered in; and he feels 4, 5, and 6 above are very confusing. Ron Roberts, 1116 N Willow Road: said he shares the comments from the previous speaker and questioned how this will increase traffic by decreasing the number of lanes on Appleway; he compared what we are doing with what happened in Hayden as they did some revitalization there and he said it was terrible; he also questioned the process concerning who was invited to the public meetings; as it seemed businesses and developers were invited but not the general public; he said he is pleased Council has not made any determinations yet, and he encouraged Council not to lock on to the one way to do something. Mayor Munson remarked that there have been many focus groups which were all open to the public, and there were no restrictions on who was invited or could attend. Jack Riley, 8122 Sprague, owner of the Plantation Restaurant on Vista and Sprague: said he is concerned about the one -way couplet; that they had the one -way since the beginning over five years now; that he has seen buildings being torn down; and asked where will the County get tax money when buildings are torn down; he said he had to borrow money just to pay the property taxes that accumulated over the past year and a half; and he urged Council to turn it back as the current configuration isn't working for anybody; he said we need more industry to attract more quality jobs for people here. Mayor Munson reminded the audience that Council is seeking comments now on Book I. David Gnotta, 809 S Mariam: said he speaks on behalf of himself and his wife Sylvia; that they are in favor of redevelopment; and regarding the one way corridor, of the meetings he attended it appears that the vast majority of the citizens felt that transportation was the overriding factor and he said it makes one wonder why that is being ignored; he said that having some cross streets would address the issue; or having destination spots like the auto dealers would be helpful; that the idea of entertainment attractions would be a great draw and help a lot of businesses along the way; and that it seems to be working, so why spend millions of dollars to change it; that it makes you wonder where the priorities are and who has power to affect the ballot; he suggested that business clean up the area and said we are not a cash rich city. Special Meeting Council & Planning Commission July 29, 2008 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 Dan Harter, 9020 E Sprague: he voiced concern with #6 above; said that he supports continued growth and asked why used vehicles services are not permitted; said he wonders who we are supporting there and that it is un- American to restrict businesses there. David Casey, Valley Liquidators, corner of Sprague & Evergreen: concerning #6 above; he asked why there would be discrimination of independent auto dealers; that that is his livelihood; and he questioned why we would give the area just to the new car dealers. Chad Barnhart, 9601 and 9611 E Sprague: said he is concerned about #6 and limiting business and opportunity for the corridor; that he has seen a lot of businesses leave, and people are looking for more opportunities. Glen Kivett, N 17 Walnut Road: said he owns about 100 feet north of Sprague and that he didn't buy property for speculation purposes; that he is in favor of the corridor remaining the same only extending it clear to Missoula if possible as it is a most fabulous means of transporting oneself through the valley; he said this plan reminds him of the guy who wears size 32 pants and buys a size 40 belt because they're cheap and he'll grow into them; but the guy who has all the food is down the road a ways and he said that guy is the guy in the mall. He said he feels we are looking down the wrong line; and he doesn't think it'll work. Margaret Kivett, N 17 Walnut Road: said she is Glen's wife and agrees that they like the way it is now. Mike Dalton, 8617 E Sprague: explained that he purchased some property based on the plan the County had at the time; that a few years ago he had a business on Sprague, and decided to go with the 20 -year county plan; that he bought the property and worked on zoning to get it to where he could build a new building on Appleway, that he invested a lot of money on that property and a lot of time over the years; that if the intention of the plan is to support continued growth and success of auto row , that he's in auto row but it doesn't encourage him to continue with his project; that he knows there will still be good traffic flow, but that the whole intention is to drive the customer and shoppers to Sprague Avenue; that shoppers are brought in by advertising of car dealers, and if it changes to two -way, there will be no reason for customers to go to Appleway; that businesses were lost when it changed but most came back in time, and for him this change is not promoting growth. Joe Lane, representing First Choice Auto Sales: regarding #6, he said he has a marketing degree from the University of Nevada; and he questioned if anyone realizes how much time and effort people put on marketing their property and trying to get people to come to Appleway, and people on Sprague trying to do the same thing in marketing their property; and he's concerned about the new car program in section 6, that it does not say "new auto row" it says auto row; and he feels Council needs to educate themselves on how many new car franchises can be brought into an area based on the demographics; and he feels that is a large injustice not bringing in the used car dealers; and he questions how Council expects these people to re- market their property. Philip Rudy, business address of 720 N Argonne, home address of 5647 N Fruithill: said he is concerned with #8: incorporate transit planning into the vision for the corridor; that he suggests putting monorail on the list as opposed to mass transit /light rail, as a monorail can go in about any time, it can go across parking lots, is fairly quiet, the initial cost is more but maintenance cost is almost minuscule compared to light rail, and he added that monorail is very safe. Patricia Lewis, 145 E 20th Avenue: said she uses the address of Veradale as she doesn't like the way Spokane Valley is heading, that she didn't move here to have six hundred neighbors, she doesn't want three -story parking garages; that she disagrees with #7 : balancing mobility and access; that she agrees there is a need for Special Meeting Council & Planning Commission July 29, 2008 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 re- vitalization but it is working well the way it is; and asked how can you limit where you can put a drive - thru restaurant, as limiting where people can put business doesn't help anyone. Gene Hinkle, 11916 E Sprague: he said we got here because the old University mall got run into the ground; that the vacancies didn't happen because of the couplet and everybody knows that; that now the City wants to make that their centerpiece; and said the same individual who ran it into the ground owns the property we want to develop; and he cautioned Council to make sure they know what they are doing with such an agreement. Larry Deemer, 6008 E 18 stated that he wants to know where we got the "community" in that title of community intent; that bond votes show that people were against it; that it doesn't represent the people specifically on two points, that it supports auto row is obvious and it is inappropriate to single out a business like this for development; and concerning sustainable development, he asked what that means as if feels the meaning is sustainable business development, but he asked what about sustainable agricultural, and where does that come from? Duane Wakan, 2702 E 50t Avenue: explained that he was a former intern for the City of Spokane Valley; said he and his wife moved here from Salt Lake, and he likes the intent based on #7; that they had that in Salt Lake and had options to get people from point A to point B rather then just relying on cars, and he would like to see that here; he said he has had conversations with folks his age and people want to get out of Spokane and move to cities that have things like Portland and Seattle; and he encouraged marking a place that would be interesting for people to move to. There were no further comments on Book I and Mr. Kuhta gave a brief overview of Book 2. Mr. Kuhta explained that the bulk of this Subarea Plan and this section describes how property will be regulated and zoned if and when the plan gets adopted; he showed the district zones map; and explained the desire to locate some residential at least on the south side; and said that what will be applicable will be applicable to all new development; but that the regulations do not require any change to existing properties if those existing properties have no changes; that this section includes new signage regulations for each zoning district; and said that this is consistent with our current regulations; that property can be sold or transferred and no changes will be required if the property is used for the same purposes. Mayor Munson opened the floor for comments on Book II: Zoning. Jim Scott, 2312 S Bolivar: said he owns property at 205 South Evergreen, that it has been used commercially for 68 years and that this plan takes away long standing commercial zoning and replaces it with residential building; he said it will decrease the value of property and that is unconscionable and wrong to downzone; he urged Council to move to exclude their property as staff and the Planning Commission have done for other parcels; and said that a plan of this magnitude and cost should be put to a vote of the people. Carlos Landa, owns property at Opportunity Shopping Center, 12109 E Sprague: said he feels the 20% rule would have restricted putting a new side on the building; that the cost of tearing those down and re- locating to a corner as the new plan goes also means people trying to break leases; that he can't get a new building because of this 20% rule; and suggested if maybe the rule were more than 40 or 50% it would be better; he mentioned the high cost of building costs today compared with the assessed value and said that the 20% rule would be very restrictive; he said that if you want to continue with the corridor as one -way and if you want to make the going home street Appleway you could kiss retail goodbye on Sprague; and other than that, he supports the plan and realizes there have been years spent asking the community about how they feel and he feels there was valuable input. To clarify, Mr. Kuhta said that exterior improvements exceeding 20% of assessed or appraised value of property would be required to meet only the architectural regulations contained in the plan. Special Meeting Council & Planning Commission July 29, 2008 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 Mike VanDimter, 15018 E Shelly Court: said he is past president of the Washington State Independent Auto Dealers and is concerned about used car sales not being permitted; that he would like to discuss this to help this city address this and would like to meet with someone to express concerns about this; that he wasn't aware this existed prior to this meeting, and said he has property on this corridor in auto row. Dean Grafos, 16120 E Sprague: said he is a business owner and owns real estate on the corner of Conklin Road and Sprague, that he has 630 feet of frontage on Sprague, 700+ on Appleway; and gave a copy of his comments to the City Clerk; he said the current zoning on his property is Community Commercial and was down zoned from B -3 and Light Industrial; and said that it appears he is faced with another proposed downzone; and as noted in his handout, he asked that his property be removed from the Mixed Use and Residential Boulevard downzone, and that they retain their current Community Commercial Zoning. Frank Ide, 106 W Mission, of Taylor Engineering: he explained that he was retained by AutoNation to provide assistance in redeveloping their Appleway Toyota property at 8600 East Sprague; that it appears some standards would hinder redevelopment such as frontage requirements and maximum lot sizes; and he suggests the frontage coverage requirement be reduced to 25% and said they'd like to rearrange the building to north/south and that would require more than 40% frontage; and as noted in his handout, he had suggestions for Sipple Road and for the maximum block size. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that anyone can submit any length of written comments; and that there is no ending date set yet for the City to receive written comments. Ron Roberts, 1116 N Willow said he endorses change but doesn't like change just for the sake of change which is what he feels is what we are doing here; he said we are being pushed into something we can't get back out of or will regret; that the businesses seem to say that the one -way caused the demise; he said he's lived here over 40 years and saw the decline; and saw how they were poor caretakers of the property; and said just because there is a two way street doesn't mean there will be buildings there; that the shops went to the mall as that is where the population went; he suggested not going backwards and said this is most regressive thing he has seen; and he has reservations about letting something get this far after people put in the best thing we ever had, and he said to go backwards is mind boggling. David Knotta, 809 S Mission: said there is a concept about farming out some people; that it turned out he can stay and things won't affect him unless certain things happen; that he has a commercial building and can keep that same purpose even if he transfers it to someone else for the same use. Mayor Munson said the rules require we cannot discriminate for businesses. Susan Scott, 2312 S Bolivar Road: said her husband spoke about the impact of down zoning, that they own property at 205 South Evergreen and it will have issues of nonconforming and problems for new regulations for developing; that the property is long and narrow and the plans will be void because of this Plan; she said Appleway will prohibit access to her property on the south and the new setbacks to front on Appleway will block their only access to Evergreen; she asked why there would be regulations on a road that doesn't exist and that the Plan places an opened moratorium on any development or redevelopment of a property; that they could be put out of business with no development options and she implored Council to look beyond the vision and see the unintended economic consequences on existing businesses and properties, and she asked to have her property taken out of the plan. Dan Harter, 9020 E Sprague: said he is confused, that his property is in the gateway commercial, the way he understands it it says new vehicles will be permitted not used vehicles unless sold by the new car dealers; and said we should not discriminate on businesses; and he asked how that applies if he sells his property ten years from now; and Mayor Munson said that staff will investigate. Special Meeting Council & Planning Commission July 29, 2008 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 Joe Jovanovich, 9610 E 1s Avenue: said he has been down zoned, and said he forgot his next comments; and Mayor Munson said he could come back later and speak again. Stacy Bjordadhl, 505 W Riverside: said she has problems with the plan as it exempts public projects; it is only applicable to private projects as explained in her handout; and said that the plan would exempt City Hall from compliance, and that it is unfair that only the City's landowners and businesses must comply with the Plan; yet the City is immune from the very same plan it drafted and promotes as serving the best interests of the City; she said it appears the adoption is premature until we own the right -of -way; that the plan downzones a significant number of properties and is contrary to the Growth Management Act to protect property rights; that a number of terms and concepts are void or vague and it will be expensive for property owners to comply; that property owners will need to hire an architect to comply; that the plan uses language such as "preserve and enhance" but she is not certain what that means; and she asked how does one measure "significant" amounts of traffic; that the plan explains that fences and walls have to be attractive and compatible with the Spokane Valley character and she asked how to measure those types of criteria; that she has concerns about discrimination and equal protection and the plan has inconsistencies and discrimination in terms of where a property is situated; and said there is no uniformity; and that lenders are not happy loaning on nonconforming buildings. William Berry, 13107 E Apache Pass: he said he owns property in Spokane Valley and cannot comment on the book in three minutes; and he realizes he can put his comments in writing; he said of the three properties he owns, one will be impacted as it will have two zones; the other will have two new zones and all that is different from where they were last October; that he owns 126006 East Sprague, that he asked for a had a meeting with Scott Kuhta for about an hour; that this business has been there for 18 years as an auto service location and that it will be nonconforming and he understands about that; but said he will have to give up about 25' on Appleway when Appleway widens to 100'; that he worries about stormwater drainage swales and landscaping; and when all is done he will be left with 75' depth on his property; and that he will have the privilege of paying for all that. Joe Jovanich, 9610 E 1s Avenue: thanked Council for allowing him to continue; he asked Council to think about this package; that the concept is gorgeous and he wonders who will be the first person who has to buy the property he or his neighbor is on; he said the first people who sell out, he imagines building a residential building facing his commercial lot site, and if so, it won't sell; so the area will end up with more blighted areas; he questioned putting a residential area next to a modern business already out there; and asked Council to think how you would feel if selling that property in a restrictive area that is not in compliance with the rest of the site. Larry Ryder, Spokane Valley Fire, 102319 E Sprague: said that the city annexed into his fire district, and he asked if there is an appeal process; that he will have trouble re- formatting fire stations with certain portions of the building against the street; that there is talk of having a round -about in the middle of his area (Fire Station 6) and asked if that were to take place, is the City looking to have a fire station in the same corridor area; and sad that cross streets are important in getting the fire department in the right direction. Rob Nordhagen, 6708 E Appleway: he mentioned cross streets, especially between Thierman and Park that works tremendous because there are those cross streets; but he said he is curious if anybody would want to move further down Appleway; that we are talking about taking a corridor and turning it into a residential area; that there are corridors sitting empty downtown; and he asked if we are trying to create a city like downtown; as most people move here to have the room; and he said we need to go back to the drawing table; that he would support something like a small arena in the valley and that businesses would support that use for games or small concerts; as it would bring people to the valley. Special Meeting Council & Planning Commission July 29, 2008 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 Richard Poston, 12703 E 9 he asked who will pay for all this huge stuff; and said Sprague should be left as it is; and to leave the one way alone; and to leave Appleway coming back alone, but to finish it off with three lanes as far as Pines Road as that will show people we are ready to do something; and for the plans for a beautiful city hall, he asked what's wrong with this property out here [meaning CenterPlace], as it is a beautiful area and there is a nice park here; and it worries him that property taxes will go up considerably. As it was 8:45 p.m., Mayor Munson asked for a show of hands of those who have not had the opportunity to comment but wish to. Based on the showing of hands, Mayor Munson said he closes tonight's hearing at 8:48 p.m. and said council will reschedule another hearing soon to receive comments on Book III Mayor Munson adjourned the meeting 8:49 p.m. Special Meeting Council & Planning Commission July 29, 2008 Page 8 of 8 Approved by Council: 08 -12 -08 NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS TELEPHONE 1 I 4 1 C,y l %lo E Ili Atc. 7P1 5 21(- 99, 372o ' / 2-. i - -•- �; . ' (l 6' ejPD1f � / 67og f'r°. -?,vAy ;/--, /1/ LO i r gp avid_ �nD 8 9 s 110 r7 V/ - Jt >► b> 3 90 5 S Ro AZ_ 9 ._3SF' GE x / g 11 / j. E I IQ 1(D E Sp-ra 9- - 13 . • • •00 g 8 -' 53v--03,y_ St I fijA 0 1 5i)c Of kiiriAL____ 7S i z z. ,rte / &��,el (30 / 7 c:' 4q4. r -43 y 92 g -- "/SK 2 -4: 1114/ t,i-:-)e-C‘- /.3 V 4 1.:____Cc_r 99-9.--221 ' y,ln ." Chh �- e )0 n mmdoc g_a'►'TC_ CITY j NAalley SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, July 29, 2008 Please si n below if ou would like to speak at the • S ra • ue /A > >lewav Revitalization Plan 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. Public Hearing NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS TELEPHONE [3 ,44/ F D 1?b izl 4 .)i) 621/-245 i-z,,, by 9',2 - ' 5 397 -4 2, 'pfi k) AI41eTE" ,,_% 1 _ E S'RA c2Z1 P. & SDL I I J/ _. 2.512 S . { s v r 3`i4 l 97_4'3991 'I-d i- 7Mo 7 t 1;y-t r.__el I f a)Sc.U., Scott of -u-t e L. it v b y 720 N 44t 6 y yr -: 3/6-t <Izo2S .) verr/ 6 e k(..*- 5 1 1 1 Pva1 YeF , y7-‘-F 3237_0 kc k av c p e s 9 ii /2 03 EM Ave, 772-_47e 37_ 7 C 7[/ ba Sc 4 cr, S /7 r cr C1 ✓e ei Ai .'f D -- 1 / 06 cam, 41 ax, v i/ / `, "i01 1-; 2()_-4eciadk -,nQI 5 s-r., 13ZP337/ 47-za./.3i 4- :- utd K4-zror_ /\1, SiZkane SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, July 29, 2008 Please sin below if ou would like to speak at the S rarue /A »lewav Revitalization Plan Public Hearing PRAT 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 P RANT ADDRESS TELEPHONE / OA/ / ' j /�� /1 /1 /%' � /7 t (i✓. e • -,,,,, b,,r,, ,,r�) ' -- - 4 fi 1 / a iT� 9z,--6--.69, y 2 ‘ —- L c. i 7A( aJAl - o 7 t J 1� �A�•s % %% gl, Z /.?i S. s' 4 at yc i 9U- 93W •, E LA d ) 2 O 5 . if l 5-. VY3 - Z(.o 75 .7 .e. _121 % i --- 5, - A s - e 7 q17 ___6___dc?____ SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, July 29, 2008 Please si _ n below if ou would like to speak at the S ra'ue /a lewav Revitalization Plan Public Hearing 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.