Loading...
2009, 04-28 Regular Meeting MinutesAttendance: Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Absent: Diana Wilhite, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, April 28, 2009 Mayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the 158th meeting. City Staff PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Munson led the Pledge of Allegiance. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Ken Thompson, Finance Director Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Neil Kersten, Public Works Director John Pietro, Administrative Analyst John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Matthew Larson of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Wilhite. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Wilhite from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: In the interest of time, this was not addressed. Mayor's Report: Mayor Munson read the following Proclamations: Municipal Clerk's Week, Silver Star Banner Day, and Worker's Memorial Day; and Deputy Mayor Denenny read a proclamation for Motorcycle Awareness and Safety Month. Members of the Motorcycle Guild accepted their proclamation. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Munson invited general public comments; no comments were offered. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: SARP — Scott Kuhta Mayor Munson opened the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. and explained that each person will be allotted a maximum of five minutes to speak; and he asked citizens to conduct themselves in an orderly and respectful manner; and added that deliberation on the Plan is tentatively scheduled for May 19. Senior Planner Kuhta gave a brief PowerPoint presentation explaining the project's origin, the planning process, Council Meeting Minutes: 04 -28 -2009 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 05 -12 -09 mentioned the various public hearings and dates of deliberation, mentioned the council's zone district changes and zone map changes, and other significant changes including those found in the Applicability Section, City Center regulations, Pre - located streets, landscaping, signage and Future Street Network. Mayor Munson explained that Council would not be asking questions of the public other then clarification questions, said that the Council is here to listen; and reminded everyone that we will continue to receive written comments through 5:00 p.m. Friday, May 1. Mayor Munson asked City Clerk Bainbridge if she had any letters to read, she mentioned she did not; and Mayor Munson then invited public testimony. 1. Jack Riley, Plantation Restaurant, Vista and Sprague: said he applauds Council for wanting to build a new city center, but with the current economy and the State's huge deficit, he questioned how we would spend $40 million especially when faced with the need for a new wastewater treatment plant at an estimated $200 million; and he rhetorically asked which is more important: a city center or flushing toilets. 2. Art Britton, 18812 E Euclid: said he lives next door to Gary Schimmels; he appreciated it when the road open to get through the valley; but said he doesn't know where the money will come from; that we must have a wastewater treatment plant; that he has a problem with the numerous surveys for a cost of $255,000; and said the County said to keep some for light rail; that he has no use for it so let them built it; and said he would like to see some of the survey money go to the road fund instead of surveys all the time; and he mentioned his property tax valuation went up 64 %. 3. Dave Ochoa, 11616 E Main Avenue: said his concern is the couplet; he said it works, he likes it, and he hasn't spoken to anyone who doesn't like it; said it will be expensive to change it to two -way, and once the population grows, we will have to tear it up and make it one way again. 4. Terry Lynch, President, Spokane Valley Business Association, Board of Directors: read his written comments: that the Spokane Valley Business Association Board of Directors asked him to speak on their behalf; that a report produced by Gonzaga University concludes that the property values, rental rates and businesses in general have suffered with the one -way; that it is his Board's position that in changing back to a two -way, the injustice made to those businesses along that portion will finally be rectified; and that after the County changed it, it became a one -way to Spokane, encouraging traffic to go directly to downtown; he said if, in his thirty -eight years as owner - operator of the Park Lane Motel and RV Park, he had experienced a one -way going to Spokane from the Valley, his business would have failed; and said a two -way road is critical to small businesses; and that the SVBA believes the change to one way was a mistake; and he urged Council to move forward with the changing one -way on Sprague to a two -way route, thus making it our Main Street once again. 5. Joe Jovanovich, General Manager of Walt's Mailing Service: said we pledged allegiance to the flag tonight, and he asked that Council think about liberty and justice for all, and said this plan doesn't represent that and it made him disappointed in American to take away the future possibility of a land owner and give it away; that supporters of this plan are rushing into a mine field; and in reading from his written comments, said that "I predict that this attempt to drive unwanted, self aggrandizing development from the top down will meet the same fate as so much Soviet era planning ... miles of abandoned properties that once were viable, family- owned, small town businesses." He said he pleads that Council not support the plan; or put the plan to a vote of the people. 6. Duke Vierth, 202 N McDonald: said he was informed this community is $9 million in debt; doesn't know if it's true; but said he doesn't feel $40 million for a new community center is something we should do; said his street is beginning to fall apart and he has appealed to the City to please come out and oil the cracks in the street and he heard the City does not have the money, yet he said he saw AAA Street Sweepers several times; he said we need to take care of our roads and that he is beginning to feel this Council Meeting Minutes: 04 -28 -2009 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 05 -12 -09 Council is taking direction from the Governor of the State. Councilmember Taylor responded that the City's debt is $0.7 million and the other debt is bonds for CenterPlace, which was paid for via voter approved sales tax at the same time the incorporation was approved. 7. Phillip Rudy, 5647 N Fruithill Road, and Chair of the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber: said he watched the efforts to thoroughly review the details of this plan; that the Chamber representatives attended many public meetings, and he commends Council for the diligence and attention to detail; and thanked Council for listening to the public and making changes, that it demonstrates a diligence to constituents. He said the Chamber is also pleased the final street map has fewer pre - located streets which could affect property values; and when property is developed, a case could be made as long as it follows the criteria; he said the Chamber recommends a change for nonconforming use of a property: that now Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 19.20.060 allows legal nonconforming uses and structures after becoming unoccupied for a maximum period of twelve consecutive months; and said for the plan boundaries, they recommend that be extended to thirty-six months to protect the interest of property owners on the corridor who are attempting to rent, or lease their facility; that twelve months is a special hardship on owners of single use businesses like restaurants. Dr. Ruby said he will submit his personal comments in writings later, but these are the comments from the Chamber. 8. Mike King, 9300 E Sprague: said he is a member of the Chamber of Commerce and Board of Directors; that this is not a road issue, but is a twenty to thirty-year plan to revitalization the core of Spokane Valley and create a city center, which will increase the tax base as it is eventually developed; it will create larger tax revenues; and the improvements will make this a more successful and workable plan; that the Chamber's Task Force helped to make this a successful plan, and for the most part, changes over time will be slowly by the developer for the individual properties and not on the citizens; that this Plan is a blueprint to follow and is a long term plan; and that the thirty-six months' relief is justified; he said the different zoning is not a down zoning and it will significantly increase the property use and help the vacated lands; and he urged Council to vote on this. 9. Susan Scott, said she is the owner of one of the properties that will be euthanized by the down zoning; and said when that happens in the name of revitalization, she asked how many business uses will be nonconforming by this plan; that the Plan has an economic impact; that she was told people can always make a request for a zone change: after hiring an attorney, and going through the detailed and burdensome process along with the $850 fees and hearings, on the chance the current zoning will be restored; she said this is not consistent with the comp plan and this isn't how property rights are protected when the fox is in charge of the henhouse; she said people are afraid to speak up about changes; she has seen overzealous code enforcement; and subjective direction given to the Community Development Director which will make the plan worse; that the process has contradictory statements and is inconsistent with public comments; and she said to scrap the plan, cut the losses, and continue with the comp plan. 10. Jim Giles, 719 S McKinnon Road: said when the road was first changed to one way one person on a motorcycle was killed; and two years after it was changed, a person going the wrong way was injured; said he didn't think it was a good idea before but now switching it back will cause some of those problems again; and one -way on one part and two -way on others will be a lot of confusion. 11. Dean Grafos, 16120 E Sprague, and owner of property at 15813 E Sprague Avenue, said in reading his written comments, that this letter is follow up to a letter written on his behalf by land use attorney Stacy Bjordahl; said they are opposed to the implementation of the plan; that it is harmful to most of the property owners in the corridor while enriching a small, select, special interest few; that for his properties it violates the GMA and is an arbitrary and discriminatory action as it is down zoning and will create hundreds of non - conforming businesses along the corridor and is an action that should not be taken lightly by responsible local officials; the existing businesses will become non - conforming making Council Meeting Minutes: 04 -28 -2009 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 05 -12 -09 refinancing, borrowing or selling the property difficult; and said one of the goals of the GMA is and should be the protection of individual property rights. 12. Sean Lumsden, 910 W Garland: said he represents the Auto Row Dealers; he submitted a letter about a week ago with a few requests; he wants a change in the size of the gateway commercial district in one specific area; said all new car franchises are beholding to their parent franchise requirements concerning how buildings look; that perhaps there could be a permit process so franchisees can say the changes are coming from the parent company; and he said he would make a bold prediction and guesses that people don't want to pay more property taxes; he asked how we are going to fund city hall or further programs like the wastewater treatment plant; and he submitted it would be funded with property taxes or retail sales tax, and said that auto row has the opportunity to draw people from all over the region; that as people make their second largest purchase, they would leave us their retail sales tax; that the plan can be funded through retail sales tax by maximizing the opportunities of the auto dealers which will benefit all businesses; and said we need to plant a field before building a barn; and we will have an opportunity to fill the city coffers to fund whatever might need to be funded, further down the road. 13. Julie Lehman, 12605 E 4 said she is against the plan and feels we should not go forward without voter approval; that elected officials are representatives of constituents and are not in office to put forward their own ideas and weren't elected as paternalistic decision makers; that Council's duty is to do what the citizens want is best and they cannot know that without bringing this to a vote; that the Plan incorporates such vast changes to affect so many's property rights that it needs to be brought forward to the people. 14. Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin: said she is speaking for the North Greenacres Neighborhood; that she believes this is a bad policy especially in these economic times; that GMA is not an open mandate to recreate the business district and the life of the citizens but is concerned about job protection and it is about the citizen's taxes; that she hasn't found anyone in her community who thought this was a good idea and auto row and only a few others will benefit from this plan; that this is "nothing short of environmental psychosis ... and would be violating Anti -Trust laws . . and the Sherman Act." She advised not extending Appleway beyond the University area; she said to keep several lanes from Evergreen to Sullivan as reducing traffic lanes will create failed traffic at intersections; that we can't create more east/west roads due to the topographic limitations of the valley; during I -90 construction or accidents, traffic will need these alternative roads; that Pines and Sullivan are "pretty much failed" and she said she can't image getting rid of two more lanes of traffic; that there is a severe economic downtown now and it will create a tax revenue deficit; that you can't ask people to change their business; they can't sell it and they won't benefit from other uses; she mentioned that the Valley Mall filed bankruptcy; and in 2004 people weren't really paying attention to the new city but people weren't shown other choices; and she said Council needs to respect people's dreams. 15. Karla Kaley, said she owns a property management company here; that she loves the Pacific Northwest and loves the area; she invested her life's worth in real estate in Spokane Valley because of what it promised to offer in serving so many communities; but said she has grave concerns about changing from the multiple lane single direction as it is now a nicely designed thoroughfare which serves many of the needs of the downtown area; and said if we increase traffic congestion the communities we serve will find other easier ways to do businesses, such as taking I -90; and if we make it more difficult for people to access us, it will facilitate them shopping off interstate interchanges; that she is against changing the traffic patterns; that it is important for cities to have identifies; and we need to make sure we represent ourselves well and look at who we serve. 16. Lynn Plaggemeier, 11708 E 19 said one of the reasons the citizens voted to become a city was that we weren't getting a fair shot and a fair vote from the county; that this issue should be brought to the voters and he asked where is the money coming from; he said if we are looking at an Environmental Council Meeting Minutes: 04 -28 -2009 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 05 -12 -09 Impact Statement, that could go on for years; said he hasn't seen a SEPA checklist; yet people feel this is a done deal; and he mentioned a sign for "City Hall" along the area of University, and asked if we have already bought that? Mayor Munson explained that the sign he described is just a directional sign. 17. Dan Geiger, 118 S Pines Road: said that this is a complex plan; that he read some of it but not all; said he bought his property about three years ago; it is commercial and has been zoned commercial since 1948 when it was built; but said that under this plan it would be downzoned to residential over time; and he said he realizes that as long as he keeps his business, there is no problem, but eventually it will be downzoned; he said he's not sure it makes sense to have residential there, and he would like Council to consider that before making that change as it is a serious thing to do to someone's property. 18. Jim Nelson, owns Leo's Photograph on Appleway and Farr: said the plan impacts him and that returning to two, two -ways instead of the one way is a bad idea for safety and money reasons; he said he feels we need to move traffic and to get to the city center area can only be done with good flowing roads; and said that half of his building is residential and half isn't and that he would like to see that streets are getting prettier, and mentioned he would also like to see sign regulations a little tighter. 19. Kathy Bonin 2803 S Bowdish Road: she stated that now is a bad time to move forward with something like this; that there are many people out of work; the Valley Mall filed for bankruptcy; and it is not a good time to do this or raise taxes as people can't afford it; and going back into two ways is a bad idea, and she suggested putting it to the people's vote. 20. Dean Davenport, 14420 E Everett: said he doesn't understand the reason of the couplet; with people going broke we don't need a new city hall; he suggested we just take out the curbing in front of Super Supplements and let the people go through; to leave it the way it is and open the traffic going eastbound and that will take care of the problem; he suggested we turn it back around and take the curb out and turn the lights back around and paint the lines back the way they were. 21. Bob Blum, 12722 E 15 said it appears there are a lot of people doing some posturing about economic times and he asked Council to be cautious; that the road is now a quick way to get home; he likes travelling that way; he suggested having an updated traffic count to confirm which way the traffic moves; mentioned that when snow is piled up as it was last winter that we lose a lane; and again stated he would like to see Appleway stay the way it is now. 22. Kermit Anderson, 7108 E 2 stated that this plan is huge and he heard it could take twenty to thirty years; that it should be called re- zoning and not revitalization; that he has a business at the west end of this plan next to the freeway and it doesn't fit the plan and is not the kind of business we want; but said he realizes it will probably be grandfathered in; but said if he wants to expand it will probably have to conform but he doesn't know what it would have to conform to, and he asked if people will be hanging in limbo for twenty to thirty years while this plan is being fulfilled; and he asked why we are doing this gigantic thing; said he's opposed to this plan and is pretty happy with the valley the way it was; that Sprague goes through a down period as seen in the past; and is like Havana which is coming back; and said this will discourage and affect a lot of businesses who have been there; and said that people put a lot of money into their plans. 23. Nancy Nishimura, 15103 E. Valley Way; said she owns Green Thumb Nursery; that she is opposed to the Plan as it currently is, and as explained in her written letter, she said it calls for businesses along Sprague to change their current configurations and relocate the buildings to the curb area with parking at the rear, the plan calls for the redirection of the business district, calls for rezoning commercial property, calls for rezoning business property from commercial to residential for the Appleway Couplet but does not actually own the land; and said that this city and this Plan really don't need or want her business or Council Meeting Minutes: 04 -28 -2009 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 05 -12 -09 VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 04/10/2009 17065 — 17092 $40,224.74 04/14/2009 17094 — 17132; 3022009; 406090008 $1,525,732.67 04/17/2009 17136 — 17169 $115,746.28 GRAND TOTAL $1,681,703.69 her; that she made an effort to somewhat participate in government, but in the end felt like a fool paying taxes to this city; and said she will work hard to make sure this plan does not come into being as it currently is; that it seems to be out of touch with the reality of this community; and having a city center is one thing, but redirecting the entire Sprague corridor is not feasible. 24. Tony Lazanis, E Empire Way: said we have wasted enough money on studies as the valley never will be what we are planning to do as we don't have the money; that he would like to see Sprague two ways again; it would help businesses and people. 25. Grant Rodkey, 11524 E 24 Avenue: said this idealistic street plan is similar to the Riverstone Development in Coeur d'alene which is loosing its anchors as they're backing out; he said something to keep in mind is we like the view of the mountains; and we don't want to create a claustrophobic affect when drawing buildings close up to the road; that changing the road back will create congestion; and said he doesn't even drive on that; and said there should be a public vote on this issue as it affects the quantity of taxpayer's dollars and it will be the people who will bear the burden; that this is the least representative body and said Council doesn't seem to take into account what the majority want; that he hopes it will change over time and if not, there is a petition that may change that; and said that it is not easy to cross traffic; said he hopes this will continue to be a representative body, but when Sue Scott calmly went through her presentation, asking her to sit down is an example of the censorship of her view and that this is the kind of thing that leads to totalitarian thinking and he's opposed to that. 26. Jim Dempsey, 4518 S Bowdish Road: said he has an apartment building along the Appleway project; there is some possibility he'd want to change that and add some more units and apparently it fits in the plan; said he doesn't pay sales taxes so he won't contribute much to the $40 million price tag; mentioned that Home Base went out of business ten years ago and it took nine years to find another to come in and use that; that we sent $400,000 to see if this was a viable business corridor and it seems the market is speaking loud and clear that people want to build elsewhere; he said he is concerned the City might be involved in takings in terms of guiding development and business money and said businesses and developers go where they want and you can't force them or guide them to come if they don't want to; and said that the businesses on Sprague pre -date the city; he sees disincorporation signs around; so they'll likely be there longer then the city of Spokane Valley. Mayor Munson invited further public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Munson closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Claim Vouchers: b. Payroll for pay period ending April 15, 2009: $264,012.57 c. Approval of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Agreement d. Approval of April 7, 2009 Study Session Meeting Minutes It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Council Meeting Minutes: 04 -28 -2009 Approved by Council: 05 -12 -09 Page 6 of 7 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: 3. Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan - Councilmembers Mayor Munson mentioned the upcoming meetings where this Plan will be discussed and deliberated upon; and said the public will have further opportunity to comment when the ordinances for the plan are considered for adoption, which is scheduled for later this summer, tentatively set for May 26; and said setting this for later May will give staff time to put together all the comments made tonight as well as the written comments we might received through Friday; and said that the deliberation of this Plan is tentatively set for May 19. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Munson invited general public comments; no comments were offered. INFORMATION ONLY: The Spokane Valley Fire first quarter report, and the various department reports were for information only and were not discussed or reported. EXECUTIVE SESSION: n/a There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Christine Bainbridge, ity Clerk Richard Munson, Mayor Council Meeting Minutes: 04 -28 -2009 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: 05 -12 -09 NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS TELEPHONE , , nay' E�iI 0cl Gti1 1,0 y 0 1- 1, I i 7 7/1404 4 f Atel �� « uP ego yb� � L ,v C�i S�'�A iZ y �zz w �v�� 3EkJOt2/ � s b �r� - Z 73 s A c_s, K L-e- � P.6 _4 ri‘ - t a/0 t c2— �U4navr,&4 tioVIspoe 9io c -s i ke V i e--0 -YvigtotJ/1/7/o_. Mc D ��a r'2) 1141 u L 2vay sc4 I1/rx-vmi,c.z_ /1e 4-0 us- >s`od L� 00) 7,30d f S'r'a 9a74ad a.5z.tu Bectt 20S E3 9 I Z -)i - irt -f-z-i 7/7 5 ilic/6 - 70 , 1-47 .t.exv X.r fl/k f ..,> -- .44) WW1 5- Del/ 1/0 bv 614164,Lif 7 r; V e h 9 z/Te M‘ O - - - C 1 ?nwto ait )' 9.)-V ?el ( -)72-( ju,L ( c LEi-livo-t\i 13-(;.b 5 C Sp61an� jUalley SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, April 28, 2009 Please sib n below if ou would like to speak at the S s rac ue /A lewa 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. Y NAME PLEASE PRINT v TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU ADDRESS TELEPHONE WILL SPEAK ABOUT 7 A c R � C l fJ C 1 4 - ',,,,l, ',,, 4 7 ., (3 /‘ s " tqi /,' a .7-- f �� 2 , iif2 -' 1,t i` < ?';)-4---(s' o 40 J et(_ ■ 1 1 . <- de t • 4" 1: "r-- _0i4s . at) t -ilk0- C% L44 � C /2 Q3 E N, KEN &II-0Ni � ‘ c (4y� (4 t 0 - 141 C t i i, i 4• C=, f „ , , A ; . ` 1 W - - . i`( (,- c Cy r-t,,,w.- // - 4 ice! 4ateb s � . GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 28, 2009 GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS (Sign up to speak on topics other than the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan) YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES Sign in if y ou wish to make public comments. Slioa"lane j Valley SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, April 28, 2009 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. NAME PLEASE PRINT 71/1-q PoLareb ADDRESS /7;1,66' TELEPHONE Spoka � Valley SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, April 28, 2009 Please si n below if ou would like to speak at the S ra ' ire/Al s lewa 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. NAME PLEASE PRINT t 'YYk i,i. C 1 ADDRESS c. I5l 0`3Valle 4 \Aau Public Hearing TELEPHONE q-Zio Tuesday, April 28, 2009 Honorable Mayor, City Council Members Ladies and Gentlemen The Spokane Valley Business Association Board of Directors asked that I speak on behalf of their commitment to the Sprague Avenue revitalization being discussed this evening. To begin, 1 ask you to visit our web site www.svba.us and read the report produced by Gonzaga University. As a neutral party, the report comes to the conclusion that the property values, rental rates and businesses in general have suffered with the one way to Spokane option imposed upon property owners along Sprague Avenue. It is our position that if you change Sprague Avenue back to a two way route, a great injustice on businesses along that portion made one way, would be rectified. For many generations, small businesses thrived along the avenue; it was the MAIN STREET for the Spokane Valley. After the change over by the County, it became truly a one way to Spokane encouraging traffic to go directly to downtown for services and product. I know that if in my thirty eight years as owner - operator of the Park Lane Motel and RV Park I had experienced a one way going in to Spokane from the Valley, I would have failed no matter how many hours I worked or how creative I was as a small business person. A two way road is critical to small business. The SVBA Board believes the change of Sprague Avenue to one way was a mistake. Our studies show it was done with the intent to relieve pressure on the interstate highway but if you look at more recent studies done by Spokane Valley City, the pressure from the number of vehicles from Sullivan to Havana has not justified the impact on the property owners where it was put in place. We urge you to move forward with changing the one way on Sprague to a two way route, to make it truly o MAIN STEET once again. Sincerely Terry Lync • 'res SPOKANE VA EY BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 2009 ent �-J The Park Lane Motel, Suites & RV Park To compete the Park Lane was the first in Spokane County to: • In room movies from Umpqua Cable Company • Queen Beds • First with Motorist Information Signs on I -90 • All Color TV • Water Beds available • Free Guest Continental Breakfast • Free Local Calls To compete, we needed street traffic on SPRAGUE AVENUE for visitors to find us. In the real world, unexpected factors help or hinder your ability to be successful. In the serving of "visitor" traffic— the ease of finding the lodging property is paramoupt It is my expectation this is not different from any retail merchant For the most of thirty eight years, we competed with the large I -90 off ramp chain properties and corporate firms. The Park Lane Motel, Suites & RV Park To compete the Park Lane was the first in Spokane County to: • In room movies from Umpqua Cable Company • Queen Beds • First with Motorist Information Signs on I -90 • All Color TV • Water Beds available • Free Guest Continental Breakfast • Free Local Calls To compete, we needed street traffic on SPRAGUE AVENUE for visitors to find us. For the most of thirty eight years, we competed with the large I -90 off ramp chain properties and corporate firms. In the real world, unexpected factors help or hinder your ability to be successful. In the serving of "visitor" traffic— the ease of finding the lodging property is paramount It is my expectation this is not different from any retail merchant Nancy Nishimura E. 15103 Valley Way Veradale, WA 99037 509- 928 -7775 Green Thumb Nursery E. 16816 Sprague Veradale, WA 99037 509- 927 -0990 Dear Members of the City Council and Fellow Citizens, I am opposed to the Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan as it currently reads. IThe reason are as follows: 1. The plan calls for the businesses along Sprague to change their current configurations and relocate the buildings to the curb area with parking at the rear. This is not economically feasible, especially in the light of the current economic climate. It does not seem physically possible as well. The rezoning to nonconforming use is a tactic to phase out the current businesses and replace them with something else. It should be noted that the zoning does not apply to any of the big box stores and it should be noted, the big box stores are not locally owned. 2. The plan calls for the redirection of the business district. .The members of the City Council were quoted as saying that there is too much retail on Sprague. As a small business owner who pays taxes employs 13 to 17 employees and who works 12 hours a day, this seems to be a callous disregard for the efforts of the business community as well as the citizens of the Spokane Valley. Where does the City Council think that the revenue for this city comes from? On this note, the Revitalization Plan appears to redirect the business area to an area at University City that has already been damaged by the implementation of the one way couplet. 3. The plan calls rezoning Commercial Property. Two years ago, I was appointed to the Sign Committee by the mayor. I met the planning director at the time. We did not see eye to eye on several issues. I attempted to stand my ground and speak for the business community. I also learned more about the politics of this city. After the committee concluded its work, I discovered that my family's property on Sprague had been rezoned as non - conforming use. Our business and all greenhouse and lumber yards on Sprague we deemed non conforming. When I finally was allowed to ask why at one of the numerous meetings that I sat through, I was told that it was really a matter of storage, that open piles of fertilizer, soil, bark was not allowed. My business does not have these items. I visited all of the greenhouse businesses on Sprague, none of them had any of these items in front of their buildings. Only the big box stores did, and these were in bags. I think all of the businesses are just trying to do business. Is this wrong? 1 couldn't really understand what the city's agenda was. Now that I hear that there are apparently too many of us on Sprague, I feel disenfranchised. 4. The plan calls for rezoning business property from Commercial to Residential for the Appleway Couplet, but does not actually own the land. This also appears to be unrealistic. The plan should be dealing with enhancing what is already here. Instead of treating our businesses as bothersome effluent to be used for obtaining taxes and then apparently dispatching with us like beheaded victims of a terrorist regime, the businesses on Sprague should be embraced. There are much simpler means of making the city look better. I often visit Woodburn, Oregon. They have huge beautiful hanging baskets for miles along their main street. It actually looks much like Sprague, but the baskets make to unique. These baskets are sponsored by various organizations like the Lions Club, Rotary, Clubs, etc. The street still has lots of businesses just like our Sprague, but in a much simpler way than The Revitalization Plan, it is beautiful and I think that the people there feel like they are participating in their city and not being railroaded into something that they really can't afford In closing: This city and its Revitalization Plan really doesn't need or want my business or me. I have made an effort to participate somewhat in the government, but in the end, I feel like a fool paying my taxes to this city. However, I am a very tenacious person. My family and I have worked very, very hard at our business and have tried to support our community. I will work hard to make sure that this plan does not come into being as it currently stands. It seems to be out of touch with the reality of this community. Having a city center is one thing, but redirecting the entire Sprague corridor is not feasible. Thank you for listening to me. Nancy Nishimura North Greenacres Neighborhood Planning April 28 2009 TOPIC: Public Comments on Sprague /Appleway Corridor Growth Management is not an open mandate to recreate the business district and the life of the citizens. Neither is it intended to stifle competition. In fact, growth management is concerned about job protection. Please remember that while this is an interesting intellectual game for you, your life savings are not invested, but ours, the citizens. It will be our taxes. I have not found one person in our area that thought this was a good idea. It's like paying for the creation of a symphony for a community that only likes Blue Grass music. Your not playing to your audience. Other than the few who benefit from this plan, namely Auto -Row and the University City imagined complex, it has put business in the tight fist of the inflexible regulations that have been contrived to discourage the continuance of the existing businesses on Sprague. It is their pocket book that will be uncompensated. This is nothing short of environmental psychosis. Wouldn't this be violating Anti -Trust Laws. The Sherman Act? I believe the state is still subject to not violating these laws. 1. Do not extend Appleway beyond the University. 2. Keep 7 lanes from Evergreen to Sullivan Reducing traffic lanes will create failed traffic flow at intersections. There is not the ability to create more east/west roads due to the topographic limitations of the Valley. Broadway, Sprague and Trent, as well as 1 -90 are the primary roads that can be utilized to get to the downtown area or to travel east. During any 1 -90 road construction or accident, traffic must flow on these alternative roads and going downtown to hospitals or offices. Sprague and Broadway are the only viable choices. Snow conditions will eliminate one lane of traffic that we are all familiar with this last winter. 3. During the severe economic downturn, the downzoning of properties and the elimination of commercial zoning designations will create a tax revenue deficit. Instead, of stimulating the economy — you will be destroying it. Please note the illogical notion that these businesses need to do a different type of business — that they have Tots of other options. Their investment and training that makes their businesses an asset they can sell to another is expressly due to the fact that this is their area of expertise. Re- inventing the wheel is costly and creates losses. 4. The cost of these changes are largely being asked to be borne by the business community. 5. The City Council should be striving to expand their lists of business opportunities to provide every possible ability of businesses to continue their jobs without government intrusion. I object to the misinformation that this was a mandate from the community. Please note: The very first comprehensive plan community process had to include three ways to organize the City. Only one of those options were every fleshed out and explained. It was the City Center option. The City provided a picture of a re- invention of University City without the permission of the property owner — who actually balked at the idea after it had been paraded as part of the comprehensive plan process. This was an inappropriate use of someone else property. I also heard that Center Place area is not considered for the City Center because we didn't want another River Front Square scandal with the Cowles family. Instead the City went into arrangements with The Magnuson properties after he later decided to play along with the City's scheme. 6. The Freeman Consultants Group stated that the City Center needed to be by a freeway entrance. It is not and it is an inconvenient place for most people to travel to that don't live in that neighborhood. 7. Please consider that the Valley Mall has filed bankruptcy. Why would this new shopping area succeed in such dire economic times. We absolutely oppose continuing the City Center concept beyond University and Sprague. We oppose extending the couplet as you have already frozen people's assets to sell their properties for any other use by going to the courts. This is a heavy handed use of City authority through manipulation of a public process to come to a predefined conclusion. Sincerely, Mary Pollard North Greenacres Chairwoman 17216 E. Baldwin Ave. Greenacres, WA (aka Spokane Valley) 99016 April 28, 2009 Dear Council Members, As you continue toward your goal of creating a city center for the city of the Spokane Valley, we would request that you consider our objections to several aspects of the S.A.R.P. Our property, located at 118 South Pines Road fronts Highway 27 and is the a north/south corridor off of Interstate 90. We purchased this commercial property to house our business, Polka Dot Pottery. Your recent letter telling us that your plan could affect our zoning is the first notification of its kind from the city. Your original full color promotional flier did not properly inform us of your intentions. This alone shows deceptive practices. As property owners, we should have been clearly notified long ago. We were not. On several occasions, Polka Dot Pottery has been mentioned at your meetings. We have both spoken at the meetings, yet none of you have visited our property or even taken time to phone us. That speaks volumes to us as property owners in Spokane Valley. You simply don't care. Polka Dot Pottery is not in question. Our commercial property is the item of concern. Under the rezone /downzone in the SARP, our property would be changed from commercial to residential. Should we choose not to operate our own business, the SARP drastically reduces the types of tenants we could rent our property to. We object to the stealth reduction that this residential zoning casts on our property. The SARP's narrow vision of a vibrant city, is clouded by the belief that the city center is a panacea for commerce. The city of Spokane has shown that encouraging strong neighborhood centers such as Perry District, Hillyard District, Garland District and the current district that I am forming in the Audubon Park neighborhood proves to be a catalyst toward creating pride and beautification throughout the city. Your six mile redistribution of "zoning wealth" is counterproductive to a long range plan of building a vibrant city. A city is not defined by its "City Center" It is defined by the community. Your cookie cutter vision of the new urbanist community does not allow for diverse opportunity across the valley. We object to the rezoning of our property to residential on grounds that our property is a part of the Pines neighborhood corridor and should remain community commercial as our neighbors to the north. This major intersection coming off of the freeway should include our property as part of the neighborhood center. Additionally, the SARP shows inconsistencies in building elevations and the question of a second story. Many months ago it was determined that the city center buildings should not be required to have to have a second story due to financial objections by developers within the city center area. It is incredulous that you would not remove the second story requirements from all areas. This type of action shows discriminatory practices. We object to a second story requirement. ly Geiger 118 5. P Road(499 -0589 GENERAL CONTRACTOR REAL ESTATE GRAFOS INVESTMENT, INC. My name is Dean Grafos at 16120 E. Sprague, and we are the owners of a property located at 15813 E. Sprague Ave. This letter is a follow -up to a letter written on our behalf by land use Attorney Stacy Bjordahl, dated: Jan. 30 2009. We are opposed to the implementation of the Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan, which is harmful to most of the property owners in the Sprague Appleway corridor while enriching a small, select, special interest few. For my properties I repeat the following objections: 1. The proposed downzone of this property violates the GMA and is an arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the City. 2. Down zoning and creating hundreds of non - conforming businesses along the Sprague Appleway corridor is not an action that should be taken lightly by responsible local officials. 3. Down zoning a commercial property does not maintain the commercial property tax or Sales tax base now present under its current commercial use. 4. The existing business on this property will become non - conforming making re- financing, borrowing or selling the property very difficult. 5. One of the most fundemental goals of the GMA is, and should be, the protection of individual property rights. 4/28/09 COMM /RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION LAND DEVELOPMENT 16120 E. SPRAGUE AVE. • SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99037 • (509) 922 -2912 • FAX (509) 922 -2933 C Stacy A. Bjordahl sbjordahl@pblaw.bii Deanna Griffiths City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PARSONS/BURNETT/BJORDAHL , ,,, ATTORNEYS January 30, 2009 Re: Sprague & Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan Grafos Property /Parcel No. 45133.1444 Dear Ms. Griffiths: This letter is written on behalf of Elizabeth and Dean Grafos who own approximately 29,000 square feet of commercial property located at 15813 E. Sprague Avenue. The Grafos' have owned the property for over 10 years and it is currently developed as a used car lot. The property is currently zoned Commercial. The City is proposing to downzone the property to Neighborhood Center under the proposed Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan. A downzone of this property is inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, the property is and has been used for commercial use. A downzone from Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial will make the existing business non - conforming. A non - conforming status is extremely problematic for property owners because lenders are very reluctant to lend money on such property. This makes re- financing, borrowing and selling of the property very difficult. Finally, a downzone of property which,has.been purchased,, developed and utilized for commercial uses for a number of years will significantly decrease the value of the property and nullify the significant investment that have been made to this property. Downzoning property is an action that should not be taken lightly and is rarely done by communities. A downzone of this nature is contrary to one of the most fundamental goals of the Growth Management Act: the protection of property rights. The GMA provides in pertinent part: "the property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory action." RCW 36.70A.020(6). Based upon the above facts, the proposed downzone of this property violates the GMA and could be construed as an arbitrary and discriminatory action. The GMA, as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan, also encourage economic development and a diverse economy. Downzoning a commercially zoned and used parcel of property does not 505 W. Riverside Ave, Suite 500, Spokane WA 9920I • T (509) 252-5066 • F (509) 252 -5067 • www.pblaw.bv. A Limited Liability Partnership with office, in Spokane and Bellevue • Ms. Deanna Griffiths January 30, 2009 Page promote or maintain the economic benefits that the City presently enjoys from this property in the form of commercial property tax base, sales tax, etc. Base upon the above, we respectfully request that the property be either removed from the Subarea Plan in its entirety or the property retain its Commercial zoning designation. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me. Thank you for your courtesies. Sincerely yours, PARSONS /BURNETT /BJORDAHL, LLP Stacy A. Bjor C: Mr. and Mrs. Grafos April 27, 2009 City of Spokane Valley Council WALT'S MAILING SERVICE 9610 E. 1ST AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY, WA 99206 -3686 (509) 924 -5939 While it quickly became painfully apparent very early on in this SARP "discussion" that this council's intention to adopt the SARP plan was never in doubt, I feel I must offer a sincere word of warning about the consequences I see if this plan is adopted. Based on my own personal dealings with the City's Chief Planner, Planning Commission and City Council, it is apparent that a "damn the torpedoes" mind -set exists to "get this thing done" with as little consideration for the fallout that the inconsistencies, oversights and false assumptions from which this document is built are going to provide generations of lawyers, taxpayers, business owners and others td unravel in the future. This rush to approve the SARP has dangerously overlooked serious problems and shortcomings with the plan's language, intent and the unintended consequences of trying to do so much, so fast, without regard for the property fights of many owners whose properties are being negatively affected to provide benefit for a chosen few. The lack of clarity, cohesion and foresight in this administration's understanding on how future individual expansions or building can proceed or is to be regulated on re -zoned parcels and the impending ramifications of trying to sort it out on the fly later will produce endless controversy, legal and political confrontation, staff overtime, taxpayer expense and Toss of this and future councils' focus for other, more basic, issues of city governance. Direct Mail Advertising Doesn't Cost - - -- It Pays C Supporters of this plan are rushing into a mine field with eyes wide shut. I predict that this attempt to drive unwanted, self aggrandizing development from the top down will meet the same fate as so much Soviet era planning...miles of abandoned properties that once were viable, family- owned, small town businesses. Is this the legacy you envision for your tenure on this council? I plead with you...do not vote to adopt the Sprague - Appleway Revitalization Plan. Sincerely, Joe Jovanovich General Manager