Subarea Plan LF Appendix B 10-15-09.pdfAppendix B:Workshop summAry
The Planning Process was organized around a series of Focus Groups, Community
Workshops, and City Council Study Sessions. This section provides a list of the
dates and focus of those sessions, and a summary of comments received from
community members at Focus Groups and Community Workshops.
• July 19, 2006 – Community Focus Groups
• September 12, 2006 - Community Workshop #1: First Steps Toward a City
Center
• September 14, 2006 - City Council Study Session #1: First Steps Toward a City
Center
• October 11, 2006 - Community Workshop #2: Corridor “Centers and
Segments”
• November 30, 2006 – Auto Dealer Focus Group
• November 30, 2006 - Community Workshop #3: Circulation and Street
Design
• January 16, 2007 – Community Workshop #4: Circulation and Street Design
Recommendations
• March 1, 2007 - City Council Study Session #2: Review Recommended Plan
Framework
A p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s u
m
m
A
r
y
pAg e 114
1) Community Focus Group Summary
The following represents a summary of comments received by focus group
participants:
a) Community
Want To See:
1. Something visually appealing.
2. Store fronts on both Sprague and Appleway
3. Bike paths, shops, restaurants, specialty retail.
4. Spaces that facilitate interaction between people, walking spaces.
5. City Hall to create an identity.
Barriers:
1. Lack of designated funds.
2. No set goals by the City.
3. People unwilling to invest until hard decisions set about City Center or the
couplet.
4. No clear City gateways
Appleway extension comments:
1. City and County need to come to terms on right of way for extension.
2. Determine purpose of Appleway and design appropriately
b) Agencies
Desirable Changes
1. Landscaping, greenbelts, more cross streets
2. High density/mixed-use development
3. City Center with Civic, a Library, and City Hall
Barriers
1. Property owners participation
2. Bridging Argonne/Dishman-Mica
3. I-90 connection to University
4. Sprague/Appleway – street width inhibits pedestrian use
5. Couplet indecision
6. City needs to decide the configuration
7. Funding contingencies
c) Auto Dealers
Want To See:
1. Underground utilities
2. Fill vacant buildings
3. Tighten up street, much too wide, way too much capacity
4. Need auto-themed retail businesses to attract people
5. Increase architectural standards
6. Need better accessibility
7. More brands
8. Destination type places
9. Large parking lot for big sales & classic car shows
Don’t Want:
1. No used car dealers, no independent dealers
Couplet Comments:
1. Dealers on north side hurt the worst by one way traffic
2. Remove the couplet.
3. Not fine with the couplet, but too much money to put it back.
4. Why is the couplet so big?
5. Don’t expand Appleway.
d) Developers
Desirable Changes
1. Need an Identity
2. Need a City Center
3. Live/work concept
4. Slow traffic flow
5. Need City Center
6. Create a core with City Hall and City offices
7. Sense of community
8. Affordable housing
Barriers
1. Why is there a couplet?
2. No one is going to stick their neck out until the city takes a stand.
3. There is no long term champion
4. Processes at the City change on a regular basis and developers/contractors
can not keep up with the changes
Opportunities
1. Council has tremendous power to decide how things will go.
2. Create a City Center
3. Underground parking, not a lot of black top
4. Slow the traffic flow
5. City needs strict design standards
6. Good streets with utility infrastructure in place
7. Mixed-use with on street parking
8. U-City is a good place for the City Center
9. Create an identity and it will draw developers
e) Owners
Concerns
1. City Center: what is the time frame?
2. Traffic: Is couplet and light rail coming?
City Center?
1. Substantially large area to provide things people will want
2. Get rid of all vacant buildings
3. Have University be an interchange off I-90
4. City needs to make a commitment to City Center
5. City Center should be at U-City
6. U-City is the center of the City
7. All City services need to be contiguous and associated
8. Extend Appleway
9. Maybe we shouldn’t extend the couplet
10. There should be a dedicated Town Center staff person
11. Hold the traffic down a little bit and compete with freeway
Barriers
1. Failure to extend Appleway
2. Keep the one-way couplet
3. Decide where the City Center is going to be
4. Confusion on what the City wants
5. More cross streets
6. People need to slow down and look
f) East Businesses
Current Conditions
1. Economic damage west of University came about as a result of couplet
2. Rosauer’s is the best and busiest grocery on the corridor.
3. High vacancy rates, especially big box.
4. Sprague is bleak; north/south corridors are doing well.
Want To See
1. Need to diversify uses, and be more creative.
2. Where you have people, they need retail services.
3. Downtown Spokane is converting uses to address vacancy rates and low
rents
4. One good project will start a rippling effect.
5. Ease of access is more important than beautification.
6. Beautification can block stores, we want people to see stores.
Final Comments
1. Why would you make Sprague into another freeway when you have I-90?
2. Cut the couplet back to Argonne.
3. Converting to office not that difficult; not sure about multi-family but it
could be positive.
4. Two -way traffic is very important. Research has indicated that the couplet
had a negative effect on small retail business.
5. One-way killed one business, it relocated further east and business is doing
well.
A p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s u
m
m
A
r
y
pA g e 115
2) Workshop #1 Summary
The following represents a summary of comments received by community
workshop participants in response to consultant presentations regarding first steps
toward a City Center:
There was a strong desire for a City Center and general consensus to locate it
near the University Rd. intersection:
1. Make it happen!
2. Auto Row supports the City Center site
3. U-City is a natural hub
4. Counteract tendency toward sprawl . . . encourage concentration
5. Optimum distance from transportation and City Center?
There was some interest in keeping options open:
1. [We] should put City Center at Pines & Sprague – Albertsons
2. Good to have more than one [City Center] site this early in the process
Ideas about what the City Center should have, look like, and feel like:
1. City Hall
2. Sidewalks should be wide enough
3. Mix in parks and urban density residential next to the City Center
4. Historic buildings should be included if possible
5. Would there be a place around city center for a park? Could you use the
park that is across the street from U-city?
6. I see a ‘dress code’ for the buildings as an attempt to avoid atrocities of
architecture.
3) Workshop #2 Summary
The following represents a summary of comments received by community
workshop participants in response to consultant presentations regarding land use
and development:
Most workshop participants confirmed that the corridor is in need of
revitalization:
1. With the changes over the last 10-15 years there have been definite
declines in the economics on Sprague.
2. Ground level parking is an eyesore and a waste of land
3. Absolutely something needs to be done for the Sprague/Appleway
corridor area. As a representative for the auto dealerships, we embrace
this wholeheartedly
4. [There is an] oversupply of Commercial Zoning
A minority of participants disagreed:
1. I am a property owner and I think that the area is not ‘struggling’ and ‘in
trouble’ like you would lead us to believe.
2. I think that overall, business is coming back and moving in the right
direction. There’s no need to change the development on Sprague because
there’s no real peaks and valleys in Spokane Valley’s or the region’s
economics.”
3. I don’t think we should do it.
4) Auto Dealer Focus Groups Summary
The following represents a summary of comments received by auto dealer focus
group participants:
We heard comments about how Sprague works in Auto Row with its existing
configuration:
1. 60% of our customers come from Sprague
2. A one-way couplet could create an Auto Row loop
3. Customer needs a way to get across the wide one-way road
4. People are all making illegal moves because of the wide one way road.
5. Can you narrow Sprague Ave.?
6. It is difficult to walk across Sprague, the speed limit is too high.
7. Sprague has become I90 A
Auto Dealer’s primary concerns are visibility, access, and identity:
1. Want to pull in outside customers.
2. Like the idea of a Landmark sign
• They suggest pursuing signage for Pines/Argonne for West-
bound I-90 traffic.
• They suggest pursuing signage by the Sprague off-ramp, for
east-bound I-90 traffic.
3. Like auto display street treatments
4. Telephone poles create visual clutter.
5. Concerned about the area looking like a sea of asphalt
A p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s u
m
m
A
r
y
pAg e 116
All workshop comments were
collected and reviewed . . .
The following represents a summary of
what was said.
Workshop Materials
The images on the following slides were selected by over 100
members of the community from 34 images presented at the
November 30 Workshop. Images were grouped in four categories:
• City Center
• Sprague: Typical Mixed Use segments
• Appleway: Residential Segments
• Auto Row
The images were first reviewed and rated by individual participants,
then fourteen small groups of 6-8 discussed the images, selected their
Greatest Hits in each category, and recorded comments on each one.The intent was for participants to not simply choose their favorite
images, but the ones they thought were the most appropriate for each category in the envisioned future.
Below:
highest scoring images from each category
Street Design Character
5) Workshop #3 Summary
The following represents a summary of comments received by Community
Workshop participants as part of the interactive workshop on Circulation and
Street Design Character.
A p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s u
m
m
A
r
y
pA g e 117
A p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s u
m
m
A
r
y
pAg e 118
•Large right of way
•Good theme
•Colorful
•Green grass median
•Feature announcing
arrival
•Greenery
•Flags/signs
Auto RowAuto Row
Greatest HitsGreatest Hits
•Sophisticated
looking building
•Nice sidewalks
•Limited access to
dealerships so
pedestrians can walk
•On-street parking
•Car display
•Looks nice
•Pedestrian
friendly
•Access to
services
City CenterCity Center
Greatest HitsGreatest Hits
•Mix of warm colors
& varied materials breaks up mass
•Mix of materials
and textures
•Street parking off to
side of road
•Not too congested
•Outdoor seating
•Pedestrian areas
•Good lighting
•Store fronts
•2-way street
•Green
•Trees
•Angled parking
•Center public space
•Pedestrian friendly
•Green space
•Retail and pedestrian friendly
•Identifies the place
•Turn lanes
•Is nice for residences
•Shade
•Separate from roadway
•Greenspace for
families
•Bigger front yards
ApplewayAppleway::
Residential SegmentsResidential Segments
Greatest HitsGreatest Hits
•Trees are good
buffer
•Parking on street
•Like separation
of pedestrians
from traffic
•Greenery
•Pathways with
trees
•Multi-use path
•Large right of
way
Sprague:Sprague:
Typical Mixed Use SegmentsTypical Mixed Use Segments
•Good pedestrian
environment
•Nice trees
•Wide sidewalks
•2-way
•Gardens
•Shopping
Greatest HitsGreatest Hits
•Grassy
Boulevard
•Easy access to
parking in rear
•Greenery
•Bike lane on
street
•Cool lights
•Taller buildings
•Good visibility
A p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s u
m
m
A
r
y
pA g e 119
6) Workshop #4 Summary
The following represents a summary of comments received by community
workshop participants in response to circulation recommendations:
Community Support for Recommendations
1. I think the plan for Sprague to be two-way is fair but especially for the
businesses on the north side, but for all businesses. I think this plan is
excellent, I think this plan is unbiased. Congratulations everybody.
2. I am thrilled at the prospect of having a two-way street.
3. I’m very excited about stage one. I look forward to Appleway going
through, which makes it even easier to use when you have some traffic
4. I would like to emphasize that [the plan] eliminates the uncertainty for
the whole corridor and . . . eliminating the uncertainty is crucial for
attracting business back to Sprague
5. The Spokane Valley Business Association did a Gonzaga study around
the I-90 to University and suggested that a two way from Sprague Ave.
These two gentlemen that worked on this seemed to articulate very
eloquently what the two ways to do both on Sprague and Appleway.
6. I don’t want you to believe that everyone is screaming no roundabouts
because there are a few people [who do want them]
7. I think there is a need for extending Appleway out.
Additional comments against one way traffic:
1. The couplet already damaged businesses. If we extend the couplet it
may hurt more
2. I have been very unhappy that it has been turned into one-way streets.
3. One way streets don’t work for retail.
4. The couplet was ruinous.
A few participants remained unsure:
1. For some of the smaller businesses, I’m sure there is impact. The bigger
businesses like the Auto Row, it seems to me that if I am buying a car it
doesn’t matter to me if it is a one-way or two-way I’m going to find it
either way.
2. I’m not sure about two way on Auto Row. To do more construction
and see no immediate improvement seems like money wasted. I battle
with that. I don’t want to see more time down, I want to see more
development, more improvement. It seems like we are going backward
six years instead of moving forward.
3. “I recommend that we turn [Sprague] into a six lane road”
4. My property goes back to Appleway which has not been developed and I
kinda like it that way. I know the extension is needed, but I can go back
there now and it’s quiet. None of my neighbors have it developed and
personally I would like to leave it that way.
5. There can be big problems with these roundabouts, and that definitely in
my opinion, needs a great deal of study.
A p
p
e
n
d
i
x
B
:
W
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s u
m
m
A
r
y
pAg e 120
Acknowledgements
City Council: Bill Gothmann
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor
Gary Schimmels
Mike DeVleming
Richard Munson, Mayor
Rose Dempsey
Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor
Planning Commission: Art Sharpe
Bob Blum, Vice-Chair
Craig Eggleston
David Crosby
Fred Beaulac
Gail Kogle, Chair
Ian Robertson, Chair
John Carroll, Vice-Chair
Marcia Sands
City Manager: Dave Mercier
City Staff Core Team: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Kathy McClung, Community Development
Director
Michael Basinger, Associate Planner
Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner/Project Manager
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Other Participating
Departments: Caroline McRoberts, Administrative Assistant
(former)
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Marina Sukup, CD Director (former)
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Mike Jackson, Parks Director (former)
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager (former)
Consultants: Freedman Tung & Bottomley (FTB)
Land Use and Urban Design
Development Regulations
Public Participation
Plan Preparation and Publication
FTB Project Team:
Michael Freedman, Principal
Hiroyuki Sasaki, AICP, Principal
Gregory Tung, Principal
Trent Greenan, AICP, Senior Associate
Erik Calloway, Associate & Project Manager
Michael Kritzman, Urban Designer
Alexa Lawrence, Urban Designer
EcoNorthwest
Economics
Terry Moore, Vice President
Anne Fifield, Planner
Radcliffe Dacanay, Planner
Page Phillips, Planner
Glatting & Jackson
Traffic Engineering
Troy Russ, AICP, Principal, Senior Urban
Designer/Transportation Planner
Joel Mann, AICP, Urban Designer
Studio Cascade
Community Outreach
Bill Grimes, AICP, Principal
Rick Hastings, Associate
Special Thanks The City and its consultants would like to thank
all those who participated in the community
workshops and those who contributed to
the development and implementation of this
document.
A c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
PA g e 121
A c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
PAg e 122
Separately Bound Compendium
The following reports can be found in a separately bound compendium
Ap p e n d i x C: Tr A n s p o r T A T i o n
Analysis of Circulation Alternatives for the Sprague-Appleway Corridor
Prepared by Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin, Inc.
March 2007
Ap p e n d i x d: po l i C y
Public Policy Environment Summary
Prepared by Studio Cascade
July 2006
Ap p e n d i x e: eC o n o m i C s
Sprague/Appleway Corridor: Evaluation of Market Opportunities and Constraints
Prepared by ECONorthWest
September 2006
S e
p
e
r
a
t
e
l
y
B
o
u
n
d
C
o
m
p
e
n
d
i
u
m
pa g e 123
S e
p
e
r
a
t
e
l
y
B
o
u
n
d
C
o
m
p
e
n
d
i
u
m
pa g e 124