Loading...
2007, 03-01 Special Joint Council/Planning Commisison Meeting MinutesAttendance. Councilmembers Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Rich Munson, Councilmember Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL AND SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CENTERPLACE GREAT ROOM March 1, 2007 5:00 p.m. Staff Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Mgr Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Scott Kuhta, Long Range Planner Mike Basinger, Associate Planner Micki Harnois, Associate Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Info. Officer Tavis Schmidt, Planning Technician Marina Sukup, Community Dev Director Inga Note, Traffic Engineer Ken Thompson, Finance Director Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Others in attendance: Troy Russ, Michael Freedman, Bill Grimes Planning Commissioners Gail Kogle, Chair Fred Beaulac Marcia Sands John Carroll Ian Robertson David Crosby Bob Blum Mayor Wilhite opened the meeting at approximately 5:14 p.m., welcomed everyone, and turned the meeting over to Michael Freedman, who also welcomed everyone to the meeting, and then went through his PowerPoint presentation of the "Corridor Revitalization Framework." Michael Freedman began by explaining that the objective of tonight's study session is to present recommendations to retrofit the Sprague /Appleway Corridor for success; to report on the input and feedback received at the Community Workshops; to discuss and clarify these recommendations; and to receive informal direction from City Council to either move forward with the implementation of these recommendations in a subarea plan; or move forward with the implementation of a modified set of plan contents; or to bring back further information and modifications in subsequent study session(s). Mr. Freedman explained that "corridor" means all new development defined by the single - family transition line, and it includes the land across the street. He said that the corridor has been caught in a change which resulted in a tremendous amount of clustered retail development; that customers left the corridor and moved to other freeway interchanges and major crossroad areas; and that such exodus was no one's fault. He said existing conditions drained a huge amount from the corridor and that the corridor suffers from disinvestment. The question he said, is how to bring it back and make it viable. He explained that one way to determine what the community would aspire to have, is through a community survey. He said the survey demonstrated overwhelming community consensus on the importance of a city center; respondents understand there is a lack of designated funds; and community members had several comments regarding Appleway's extension. As a result of several community workshops, he said they determined what were or are the barriers from the various aspects of the community; and what are those entities' or individual's desirable changes, including comment of what they do not want. Joint Meeting Council & Planning Commission 03 -01 -07 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: 07 -24 -07 He said they learned that potential developers of the corridor said it needs an identity, that we need a city center, and we also need affordable housing. Mr. Freedman then went over the listed opportunities such as underground parking; slowing the traffic flow; having a city design center, and the opportunity to create a city center with identity that will draw developers. He also mentioned what property owners' concerns are including barriers such as failure to extend Appleway; whether to keep the couplet the way it is or change it; and what they want in a city center such as getting rid of all vacant buildings. Mr. Freedman said that regarding the state of the corridor, most workshop participants confirmed that the corridor needs revitalization, but a minority disagreed and said business is coming back and there is no need to make any change. He said that major community aspirations included beatification (the corridor is ugly and a detriment); economic revitalization; maintained mobility; enhanced access; and authentic and identify the corridor. Mr. Freedman went over the highlights of key community meetings and workshops and explained what works or doesn't work today, and said that two -way traffic provides better visibility and access and is generally better for business; and that one -way traffic accommodates through traffic. He continued by explaining that the one -way traffic transition is confusing, the turn around time is not good; business access and visibility is not good; and there are not enough north -south cross streets. Concerning future circulation results, Mr. Freedman said that in the workshop with fourteen tables of community members, only one table wanted to see one -way traffic; that thirteen wanted primarily two - way on both Sprague and Appleway; and of those, seven wanted two way on the whole area, while six wanted some combination. He said they came up with a series of recommendations based on those workshops; that workshop participants envision Sprague with bike lanes, wider sidewalks and planter strips, more pedestrian friendly and to have more and safer crosswalks. Troy Russ then explained some of the existing conditions. By using select link analysis, Mr. Russ said they determined where people are coming from who are on the corridor; and that the goal is to make sure people can get through the entire corridor as fast as possible; that I -90 is a regional main street and Sprague is our main street. He also explained that of the 1,945 getting off onto Appleway during peak hours, only 80 are going completely through the corridor and getting out, and that is a very small percentage. Moving west bound, he said that of those 27,600 passing through, only 110 are actually coming to the end of Sprague; so therefore it is not the through street many think it is, but it is more of a "main" street. He said that morning rush hour on Sprague west bound at Mullan has about 553 vehicles; and Appleway during evening peak is about 1750; and that the level of service between Evergreen and McDonald is a "C" (on a grading scale of A -F); but some intersections are "D" which some cities consider acceptable. Mr. Russ further explained that the corridor circulation options to serve the land use vision of a city center include: no change; extend Appleway one -way or the whole corridor into a one - way couplet; or not complete the one -way couplet but convert Sprague to two -way and Appleway to two - way even when extended and at the two way street switch it to one way — so half two ways and half one way; or complete the conversion of the entire area from I -90 all the way down. He said that their conclusion is that the best transportation strategy is a one way couplet or two way and not a hybrid, and that their study showed that the difference in travel time was significant when a hybrid was involved. He added that this study is not today's traffic but is future traffic, about 20 years out. There was some discussion on Spokane Regional Transportation Commission's traffic model and the changes made over time; and it was mentioned that Mr. Russ's figures are the figures from the highest traffic model. Recommendations, stated Mr. Russ, are in the long run, building a two -way system is worth the additional 60 seconds delay; it will strengthen businesses along the entire corridor; eliminate uncertainty over the ultimate configuration of auto row. He then explained the five stages to implement the recommendations, and concluded that the two -way conversion done in phases means that (1) two -way Sprague to Argonne - Mullan can be done now; (2) two -way Sprague to I -90 and two -way Appleway to Thierman can be done now; and the (3) roundabout at I -90 won't be needed until after 2021. Joint Meeting Council & Planning Commission 03 -01 -07 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: 07 -24 -07 Councilmember Gothmann brought up the survey done quite some time ago, wherein it was shown that 65% preferred the one -way. Mr. Gothmann said to change that perception there should be significant reasons for us to go against that; that it could be justified by direct access from both Appleway and Sprague, but he asked if putting the roundabout up front would that be more efficient. Mr. Russ said that the roundabout won't be needed until about 2030 and that perhaps Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) could be engaged to assist. Mr. Freeman added that surveys tend to be interpreted differently; when he came here he heard that 65% preferred the one -way; but answers can change based on how the questions were posed; and in the workshops, there was overwhelming response to two -way at this point, which tells him that at some point some large percentage of the community says things have changed since that older survey was done; that he is not clear about what the survey said about any strong preference one way or the other; and it is highly unlikely that that large percentage would actually favor the one -way. Mr. Russ said that when this survey was conducted, there was no conversation about having a town center or city center, so lots of things have changed and the assumption going into this is different now. Discussion ensued regarding traffic issues, including mention that Pines has the worst intersection; brief discussion of one -way versus two ways; what to do first to get the most "bang for the buck "; timing issues; changing the number of lanes; the use of the corridor for through traffic; multi -modal transportation which includes automobiles, bikes (bike lanes), pedestrians, light rail or other rapid transit; the desire to have an appealing city center; and the mention by Mr. Freedman that the businesses and city center would be better served by two -way streets. Mr. Freedman added that so far he has not heard anyone way they don't want this; and that they are hearing a level of comfort sufficient to suit them they are on the right path. Mayor Wilhite asked if there is a consensus to continue with this; and several Councilmembers nodded in agreement, and Deputy Mayor Taylor voiced his agreement. Councilmember DeVleming, however, stated that he feels this is a step backwards, but he realizes he is only one councilmember. Deputy Mayor Taylor said that it appears it is six to one in favor of continuing. Mayor Wilhite said we will therefore procee. She thanked Mr. Freedman and Mr. Russ for the presentation, and called for a recess at 6:51 p.m. She resumed the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Freeman continued the presentation by moving to land use development within the circulation of the corridor. He gave an overview of previous meetings where the city center core was discussed, including all that the core might entail such as mixed used buildings to include shop fronts, clear glass, a civic building; and housing facing the road. He then moved to the question of where to start to in order to allow growth to the area; and he discussed new development on Main Street, the possible location at U -city; retail possibilities, and shorter walking distances. He explained the concept of using both sides of University in order to get equal entitlements and to have the core area not look too long, but have it so it invites walking; and that he recommends no on- surface parking. Things to consider, he explained, would include which types of colors and materials to use; streetscapes; improved infrastructure; building to the front; parking in the rear; and the concept of what the outside city center would be comprised of as opposed to the core; and he said to keep in mind zoning by use and density; and to prohibit anything in the City Center that would not promote the center; and to also focus on not having the area too congested. He mentioned the need to have good lighting and turn lanes, outdoor seating, and street parking off to the side of the road. He explained the concept of "neighborhood center retail: and defined "neighborhood centers" (community commercial) as serving retail and services featuring contiguous small scale shop fronts. He continued through the remainder of the slide presentation. Further discussion /comments ensued and included how to pay for everything; business offices along the corridor, some on Appleway but most on Sprague; keeping and marketing auto row with other uses such Joint Meeting Council & Planning Commission 03 -01 -07 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: 07 -24 -07 as restaurants; underground parking in the city core and whether the private sector would support that or the City would provide it; more green space; future light rail; and a "gateway" to the city. Mr. Freedman asked if is enough consensus to allow marketing of an auto row, but to keep in mind that the "gateway" entrance to the City would be different from the actual physical entrance of auto row. Councilmember Denenny said tonight's meeting gave him much to digest as Mr. Freedman consolidated all the information he's heard over the last several months; and that all along he agrees with the way Mr. Freedman has set up the city center. Regarding auto row, Councilmember Denenny said we are already seeing development in communities where they are drawing dealers away and if we do not react appropriately, we are likely going to lose that tax revenue. Councilmember Munson responded that he'd like to move forward but would like more detailed information about the cross streets at north/south; and Deputy Mayor Taylor stated that he would agree with those comments, but if we move to a two -way system on the couplet, that would negate the need for mandatory through cross streets; that if you're sticking with one ways on the couplet, you have to have more turn streets; in this case you can just put in the additional blocks, and you'll still going have the two -way traffic on Sprague. Mr. Freedman asked if there is a enough level of comfort with the key ideas in terms of the land use development patterns they are recommending, to implement them in a series of detailed standards and guidelines in the sub -area plan, with a list of every one with the traffic patterns as well as bring it back in its usual form for the public hearing process through the Planning Commission. Mayor Wilhite asked for consensus, and Deputy Mayor Taylor responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Munson responded that there is still one sticking point, which is do we hire a consultant to look at the best way to buy the land or not buy the land; and would that delay the overall plan. Mr. Freedman responded that that will not change the plan; that we have to determine the desired outcome, because if we don't know what we want, we might as well forget it. He stated that the sub -area plan's main job is to entitle the property, but it doesn't tell where to entitle the property, or on which side of the street to build the city center. The plan makes its own provision, he explained, so the sub -area plan allows you to get the plan incrementally or all at once; as long as you know you want it, the kind and place, you're ready to act; he recommended talking with property owners and ultimately pursue the property. Councilmember Munson said to Mayor Wilhite that he feels we should move forward; and Mayor Wilhite and Deputy Mayor Taylor vocally concurred. Mayor Wilhite said that we like this concept absolutely. Mr. Freedman said he will work with the core team to draft a plan with all these parts for a hearing, and bring it back in roughly a couple of months. Mayor Wilhite agreed. Mayor Wilhite and council thanked Mr. Freedman and his assistants, and thanked everyone for attending. The meeting attended at approximately 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: r Diana Wilhite, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, Ci Clerk Diuxikkeo. w, thAtic Joint Meeting Council & Planning Commission 03 -01 -07 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: 07 -24 -07