Loading...
2011, 03-22 Regular Meeting Minutes MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meetings Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, March 22, 2011 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Citv Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Gary Hebden of the Intersection Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll, all councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS• Councilmember Gothmann: reported that he was gone for a week in Hawaii; but upon his return attended the Edgecliff fundraiser breakfast. Councilmember Grafos: attended the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) meeting and said a decision is scheduled for next month concerning service reductions, which could include reductions in Spokane Valley; met with this City's Finance Committee where they discussed some options available from a funding standpoint to see if they can move the City out of the economic doldrums it is in presently. Deputy Mayor Schimmels: said he also participated in the Finance Committee meeting; and along with numerous entities through the county, attended the first meeting of the Solid Waste Task Force with the waste and energy situation and said those meetings are slated to continue twice a month or possibly more frequently; and said he and Mayor Towey had a good week in Washington, D.C. Councilmember Grassel: reported that last week she attended the Spokane Regional Convention Visitor's Bureau meeting where they discussed a possible name change, mentioned they are seeing additional conferences being booked, and that they continue to work with cities outside Spokane as well to be sure they get included as part of the regional economic development program. Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 1 of 13 Approved by Council: 04-12-2011 MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey reported that he attended the Spokane Valley Business Association meeting where attendees were introduced to Mako, a Labrador retriever certified to "sniff' out flammable liquids such as gasoline and kerosene that arsonists use to start fires, and said that the dog will be at this Saturday's Greenacres Fire Station Open House; said he attended the County's State of the County address; traveled to Washington, D.0 and met with staff and representatives from Senatar Murray's and Cantwell's offtce as well as Representative McMorris Rogers, and said he wanted to impress upon them that what they do in D.C. has an impact on cities like Spokane Valley. Mayor Towey also reported he served pancakes at the Edgecliff Pancake feed; and meet with the City's Finance Committee yesterday. Proclamations: Mayor Towey read a proclamation honoring Councilmember McCaslin, which was accepted by Mr. McCaslin's son; and then read a proclamation for March for Meals, which was accepted by Pam Almedia of Meals on Wheels. PUBLIC COMIVIENTS: Mayar Towey invited general public comments and explained that this is the opportunity for citizens to speak on any topic not on the agenda for action, and he explained the difference between the action and non-action items. Mary Pollard. 17216 E Baldwin: extended compliments to City Manager Jackson in his dealing with community members, and to Parks and Recreation Director Stone. Ms. Pollard said she would like to see the City Council provide public policy in order to allow a public works department to have an early and continued process of jobs that affect regional transportation and impact people, by putting up signs at the design stage and not at the end; she said that the kind of work load and the amount of staff precludes really wanting to be engaged with the public; and said putting this into policy takes care of a lot of problems we have been having since the inception of the city; she said she can no longer tolerate being the "last one at the table" and said that Skilling Connelly is doing acquisition services and property real estate things, and said the woman who works that in their neighborhood lives in Montana, and that Skillings Connelly's headquarters is in Latah and different places, and said we are paying a$34,000 budget that public works had, and said it seems when we have local real estate people here we should be providing local jobs for our local economy. Clvde Cordero. 6526 E 17` said he is one of the applicants for the vacant council position and he wanted to introduce himself to council and the public. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Amended 2011 Transportation Improvement Plan — Steve Worley Mayor Towey opened the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. Engineer Worley explained that this is an annual process; that the information in the packet is mostly identical to that from last week, with a few additions to the list as staff learned last week that we have been awarded funding for those projects identified on the Request for Council Action farm, that of the Sidewalk Infill Project, the Mansfield Extension, and the SpraguelSullivan ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) project, which runs fiber through the street conduits. Mayor Towey opened the floor for public comments; no comments were received and Mayor Towey closed the public hearing at 6:24 p.m. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE WNOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 03/04/2011 22289-22313 $72,126.42 03/04/2011 22314-22339; 228110020; 304110010 $1,737,451.44 03/09/3011 3463-3466, 3474, 22340-22344 $203,140.11 03/11/2011 22345-22394; 309110167 $382,802.13 GRAND TOTAL $2,395,520.10 Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 2 of 13 Approved by CounciL• 04-12-2011 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending March 15, 2011: $254,851.82 c. Approval of City Council Study Session Format Meeting Minutes of March 1, 2011 d. Approval of City Council Executive Session Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2011 e. Approval of City Council Formal Format Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2011 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS 3. Second Readin�posed Ordinance 11-004 Animal Raising and Keeping — Christina Janssen After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve ordinance 11-004 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.40.150. Assistant Planner Janssen explained the difference between the current regulations for keeping chickens and the proposed changes and added that staff listened to the transcript of the Planning Commission meeting and that the intent of the Planning Commission was to make sure the birds were contained on the property where they belong, and suggested council might want to consider changing the verbiage. After brief discussion that the main issue when this ordinance was first passed was on noise complaints rather than sanitation complaints, Attorney Driskell suggested if council wanted to change that language, to change it to "contained within the subject property" in place of "rendered incapable of flight." Mayor Towey invited public comment. Grant Rice, E 16620 Valleywa� thanked council for taking this seriously and said allowing this change will help people trying to feed their families; and said keeping goats and rabbits should also be considered. Lvnda Hurt, 9802 E Sharp: said chickens are wonderful productive creatures, they bring joy, are easy to raise, are healthy food and a good natural resource. Said we hear more about food shortages and higher food prices; there is a"call to go green and get back to our roots, becoming more self-sufficient and contributing to a healthier society, and more sustainable community." She said the cost of a dozen organic chicken eggs ranges from $4.00 and up; and she referenced her written statement and attachment, [which the clerk did not receive], and said people have control over what they feed their own chickens and said eggs from well-tended backyards are healthier; and said that "factory-farmed chickens live their lives without ever touching the soil or being allowed to hunt and peck for bugs and that they are feed unnatural and unvaried diets;" these environmental conditions are designed to produce eggs quickly and cheaply but she explained that the result is an egg less nutritious; and said that eggs from backyard chickens have 25% vitamin E and a third more Vitamin A, and 75% more beta-carotene; and more omega-3 fatty acids then farmed eggs, and said they are also better tasting; and backyard chickens provide insect control, wonderful compost, soil aeration, and food abundance and that she favors changing the verbiage to "contained on the property." Mel Jones, 1404 N Hod�es Road: said he wanted to understand the process about adopting this ordinance; and it was confirmed by the Mayor that if council accepts the motion, this will be in effect. Mr. Jones asked when the ordinance would be effective, and the City Clerk said the ordinance is effective five days after a summary of the ordinance is published in the newspaper, which will be April 1. Mr. Jones commended council on their far-reaching and wise choices in this matter. Bridget Jackson 708 S Pro�ress Road: agreed that the verbiage should be changed from "rendering chickens incapable of flight" as that appears to be a little dramatic; said she didn't hear anything about roosters; and said she understood that Code Enforcement only received one to two complains a month; and asked if there was something to do for the roosters; and said she doesn't even know why we are here as she hasn't seen anyone comment that they are opposed to chickens. There were no further comments. Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 3 of 13 Approved by Council: 04-12-2011 After brief discussion about past noise issues, mention that roosters are not required to produce eggs and roosters are prohibited in areas such as Millwood, Seattle and Vancouver, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to add the amendment to strike the language "rendered incapable of flight" and insert "contained within the subject property. " Vote by acclamation on the amended motion to approve ordinance 11-004 amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.40.150 with the amendment to strike the language "rendered incapable of flight" and insert "contained within the subject property. " In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 4. Second Readin Proposed Ordinance 11-005 Amendin� Adult Entertainment — Lori Barlow After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Depury Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve ordinance I1-005 amending the definition of adult retail use establishment as drafted. It was also confirmed that the current wording in the draft ordinance is the staff recommendation. After Associate Planner explained the proposal, Mayor Towey invited public comment. Bruce Wakeman, 7616 E. Baldwin Avenue said the Erotic Boutique is why we need this ordinance tightened and when this passes it looks like they plan to continue acting like an entertainment establishment like Deja Vu with the viewing booths; and said he doesn't know if this will bring about a lawsuit or not; that he watched the City of Spokane's process for their ordinance, which he said went to the courts where the courts made some decisions and the City of Spokane did not do well in having good representation in the courts, and the matter ended with a consent decree; and said he'd like to see our city do better in court, if it comes to that; he said courts don't decide the laws but interpret the laws; and he reminded City Council that the Supreme Court in 1973 in Miller vs. California said that pornography is not protected free speech under the First Amendment and said pornography is a harmful not a helpful speech, and our city should have good moral standards that are helpful to families. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Grassel said she will support this wording but it is her preference to go with the Planning Commission's recommended stronger language; and suggested we implement this and if it doesn't correct some of the issues, that this matter be addressed again and change the wording; and said she wants assurance from staff that if this does not correct the problem, we will address it again. Mayor Towey said that issue was discussed at the first reading and it was Council's consensus that this would be a two-tiered ordinance in that if passed, it would be passed with the understanding that if it did not affect anything, we would go to the stricter language; and said there is no Washington State ordinance which has the more strict language and that he doesn't want to risk the taxpayer's money on a test case for the state; and said he feels this ordinance is the right step to take; and if it doesn't help, this council can strengthen that if necessary. Councilmember Gothmann agreed and said by doing this step first, if it doesn't work we have built a court case for stricter enforcement. Councilmember Grafos said this is just the first step and it makes sense to go in steps and he feels this is the right approach. Attorney Driskell stated that this is potentially a two-tiered approach, and it is the desire of staff that this will represent the only tier necessary as it will be effective in addressing a potential loophole within the definition of adult retail facility; and that staff will enforce the new language once adopted and staff and the code enforcement and police officers will work together on how to implement this; and added that the proposed ordinance does not apply to one facility although that reference has been made several times, but this would have uniform application to any business that qualifies as adult retail within the city, and is not aimed at one business. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Indiana Avenue Extension — Steve Worlev It was moved by Depury Mayor Schimmels and seconded to award the bid for the Indiana Avenue Extension Project #0112 to Spokane Rock Products, Inc., in the amount of $1,049,282.20 and to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract. Senior Engineer Worley explained that this is the bid award for the construction of the Indiana Avenue Extension project; that eight very favorable bids were received, with the bids coming in about $.5 million less than the engineer's estimate. Councilmember Grassel brought attention to additional materials on this subject, supplied at the dias Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 4 of 13 Approved by Council: 04-12-2011 tonight, and mentioned the letter dated December 27 to Mr. Lewis which letter discusses sidewalks, but said their prior letters show a main concern about Mission becoming one-way going west; and said they have signed the revised temporary access permit for their property, but it doesn't address that; and she asked how they went from being adamantly opposed to this to signing off on a sidewalk adjustment to their properly. Mr. Worley explained that after we received the letters, we invited the people from Appleway Florist to meet with staff to discuss the project; that five members of their business came, and he referenced the conversation meeting log dated December 15, contained in those materials Ms. Grassel mentioned, in which they described what was discussed during the meeting, and according to the log, the meeting ended with the agreement that the family was supportive of the project, and we would work toward getting the temporary access and construction permit signed. Mr. Worley said there is a revised permit because they had asked about relocating some driveway entrances to a more beneficial location; so the plan was revised to accommodate that, and a revised access permit was agreed to and signed by them. Councilmember Grassel said she has been at the site at least three times and went out there today, and in talking with the property owners, they don't want a one-way road in front of their house; she said staff can write that "the family agreed to support the project" but said she doesn't see anything in writing from them stating that; and said in her conversations with the family, that she doesn't feel that is their intention. Councilmember Grassel said she also called the property owner's legal party and said they are not aware of requesting Mission being one-way and they are researching that; and said the original drawings showed one road intersecting the middle of the property and that Mission wasn't affected at that time; and now we get the bid and we see the actual drawing and the whole design has been transformed; and she said it appears the city has not been responsible in addressing all the issues brought before us, before we allow the bid to go through, and said there are apparently some design issues and concerns. Mr. Worley said in the presentation he gave a few weeks ago, he walked through the process on how we got to the current design; because the majority of the right-of-way was being donated by the property owner, staff worked with them to determine how they thought they would like to develop their property based on it being a mixed use zone, and they came up with an initial idea; they met with staff in Public Works and in Community Development to make sure it met all the requirements; and everyone was in agreement so we moved ahead; we put the engineering standards we needed in order to design the road to make it safe for the public; so the design of the road got refined. Mr. Worley said as we moved toward acquiring the necessary right-of-way and the access permits, we contacted each of the property owners that were affected; and in this particular project there weren't that many who were affected; that staff inet with each properly owner including those at Appleway, and said there were five people who met with us; that staff received the letters and understood there were some concerns; we discussed it and the project design, and Mr. Worley said the biggest concern they had was at least two members of the family were concerned about the ability to come out of their business and go east. Mr. Worley said staff described the turn-around at the west end of the proposed project, and while a little more inconvenient to go west and then do the turn-around and come back east on the one-way in order for them to go east on Mission or to get back to Flora, but the other members of the family felt that the road as proposed with the ability for future economic development in that area, was a more positive project for even their business, and they thought it was a more positive impact to the community in that area; and he said the ability to be able to access Sullivan Road, the Mall and I-90 quicker by going westbound then the current �nethod of going east to Flora, down to Broadway and over to Sullivan then back over the freeway, would be a benefit as well; so he said there was a recognition that it would be a little more inconvenient to use the turnaround, but that was outweighed by the other members of the family with all the positive economic benefits; and said staff did not follow up with any formal letter; that when the meeting ended with the majority in agreement, staff understood they were in agreement with the project even though they had some concerns, they were willing to move ahead on granting access to build the improvements in front of their property; so they agreed and signed the access permit. Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 5 of 13 Approved by Council: 04-12-2011 Councilmember Grafos said he thinks this is a good project but he too has some concerns; he said he met with the property owners and visited the site several times; that this only impacts two or three people; but said if you look at this on a long-range basis; assuming that Centennial Properties owns the properties on the north side of the Old Mission Avenue, which Mr. Worley confirmed they do, Mr. Grafos said the drawing shows where they are going to build condos on the north side; so the big parcel now vacant will have people living there; and said the present property owners, since there are only two or three which are impacted by that one-way now, eventually you could have 40, 50 ar 100 people that would have to go west on the new Mission Parkway, then come around and go back to Flora. Mr. Grafos said if we were designing this, wouldn't it make sense in the long-term to modify this proposal a little and since we have $600,000 to deal with, and run another road just to the north of that or maybe move the Mission Parkway just enough, 25 feet so we can get a two-way access that goes directly to Flora; and said he feels that would help the project and also give access from people coming from Montgomery on Flora that might want to go to the trailhead then come back the other way, without having to go all the way around. Mr. Worley said staff looked at issues like that; and one of the things discussed was that there would be some additional changes and additions to this road when those other properties develop; and as mentioned last time this was discussed, the City will not be responsible for any additional roads; but as that property develops with either condos or apartments or houses, then the transportation relative to that new development would also be a part of it; so any additional lanes or roads would have to be addressed as development occurs. Mr. Worley said staff spoke with the property owner about the possible need to provide a cross-street right in the middle of that divided area; and said staff was going to wait and let the development happen based on the proposals coming through the normal public process, and said that staff doesn't know what will happen in the future as those were just concepts from the property owner and Mr. Worley stressed that there has been nothing formally submitted; but when that happens, it would have to go through all the normal platting, binding site plan, public hearing process that every development must go through; and the transportation relative to that would be part of that process. Councilmember Grafos asked if the city couldn't be proactive; that there is an entire neighborhood on the other side of Flora that wants access to that trailhead; and the inconvenience of having to go all the way around that development for maybe the next ten or fifteen years until that is developed, perhaps we should examine that now. Mr. Worley said one of the things staff will look at, which was brought to our attention by Parks and Recreation Director Stone, is that the sidewalk that is proposed on the north side of the road should be wider to accommodate the pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the Centennial Trail to Flora Road; and staff and the TIB are reviewing that to try to add that to this project; bicycles technically are not supposed to use the sidewalks, and to encourage more use of the Centennial Trail, we want to make a wider, safer pathway between Flora Road and the Centennial Trail Trailhead. As far as car traffic, Mr. Worley said this is not yet a developed trailhead, but is an undeveloped right-of-way, a gravel road with a little turnaround; there is no formal parking so it is somewhat limited in how many people can park there; he said he is aware there are a lot of people who use the river in that area; but that those are things to look at as the project develops. One of the biggest things we are trying to do with this project, Mr. Worley explained, is make that connection between Flora and the end of Indiana Avenue so it's easier to get to the Mall area without having to go to the south side of I-90. Councilmember Grafos asked since there is already the trail on the north side of Mission, how much more additional ground would be needed; and Mr. Worley said all of it would fit within the right-of-way. Councilmember Grafos asked Council if Council would want to have the Public Works Department examine that now. Mayor Towey said we are in the question stage now; and if this Council wants to change or delay for more information, then that could be done at the motion. City Manager Jackson said Mr. Worley was talking about increasing the width of the sidewalk from six to ten feet; and Councilmember Grafos was talking about the roadway; so when you talk about additional right-of-way, he said he wants to make sure we are all talking about the same thing. Mr. Grafos concurred, and said his question to Mr. Worley was since we have ten feet there already, how much more additional would be Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 6 of 13 Approved by Council: 04-12-2011 needed to maybe put that road in there. Mr. Worley said the design was very tight and to design it with the opening in the center to allow for commercial development, staff wasn't able to make the curves any tighter than they are in order to meet the design standards; based on a 35-mile-per-hour speed, there must be a minimum 500 foot curve radius, and that is exactly how that road is designed so he said there isn't a way for us to alter those curves and bring a two-lane road into Mission Avenue; that staff tried it and looked at whether that could be done and it could not be done based on the layout and the design standards staff was trying to meet. Councilmember Grafos asked how that might be accomplished in the future, and Mr. Worley said the future would look at whether or not there could be a cross street through the center, or another lane in the middle, or some other way around depending on how the other properties develop. Mayor Towey asked if Council could mandated that in the permit process, and Mr. Worley said he doesn't go through the development process. Councilmember Gothmann reminded everyone that the question before council is whether to approve this bid on this specific set of drawings; and that answer would be either yes or no, and that this is for a specific bid based on a speciftc grant by the TIB; that it is not in the design stage as that stage has passed; and if council wishes to design this further, Councilmember Gothmann suggested there be additional discussion. Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked if a change order situation could be addressed later on anything, including the width of a sidewalk, which would change the scope of the work as far as the contract is at this point and Mr. Worley said yes that the contract has been bid, we are just looking to award it. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he views that as the remedy, and that he does not want to overhaul this project as that is not Council's business at this point. Councilmember Grassel asked for Mr. Worley to clarify phase 1 and 2. Mr. Worley said that as far as the City's project is concerned, there is only this phase; the question was asked a few weeks ago if an additional lane added to this road would be paid for by the City; and he said under one of the original plans that the property owner came up with , it showed an inner lane circling the inside commercial area; and when staff worked with the property owner over that, staff said that is something that will have to be built by the developer when the properiy develops and that is not part of the public project that we got funded; that the project we got funded was to make a connection that is missing to complete the arterial link on the north side of the freeway. Councilmember Grassel asked if the developer has specific plans yet for this property, and Mr. Worley said it was just a concept in order for staff to come up with a designed road; and if the property owner wants to develop this property, he would then have to come up with formal plans and submit them to the city through the normal process. Councilmember Grassel asked why would the owner want the city to move forward with the project if the owner's plans are not finalized yet. Mr. Worley said the property owners are not developers; they might sell portions of their property to other developers and those developers would develop the plans that would come through the City for approval; so they are creating this situation and they might sell the middle area, or the area between the road and the river, or could sell the area between the road and Flora; or even break it up into different pieces and sell it and let each individual buyer decide how they want to develop that property. Mr. Worley continued by explaining that because there were so many options available, we wanted to get the road built to make that connection to increase traffic flow, and let the development proceed as it normally does. Councilmember Grassel said it seems we are "putting the cart before the horse" and she asked why we couldn't do a portion of the road leaving it four lanes going both directions, and at the point that they determine how they would develop their property, then construct the additional land; she said she is not clear about the purpose of having Mission go one-way as that doesn't make sense since the developer hasn't come up with their plans and they might want to change it, then we would put more money in converting it back around. Councilmember Grassel said the original design was one-road that just connected, and said that seems reasonable to her, and she asked if we are accommodating them because of the donation of the land. Mr. Worley said yes; when someone wants to donate land to us we try to look at the opportunities to design the road in the manner that will help them the most; and this design is their concept and we applied our design standards to it to try to match their concept as best as possible to design a safe road; and he said they wanted to create the three different sections you see with the split road. Mr. Worley said when he approached the properiy owner several years ago about possibly Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 7 of 13 Approved by Council: 04-12-2011 partnering with us on this grant and building this road, and the first time it was met with disagreement because they didn't want to see a road that would split their parcel into two halves; someone else approached the property owner a year later and asked if there was a way to make this work, and for whatever reason, that person was able to get the developer to agree to partner with us and donate the right-of-way for this project; and when we got the support letter from the property owner, we agreed that the alignment of the road that we showed in our grant application was not written in stone, that we would work with the property owner to determine an alignment that would work best for his future development of his property; and said that staff felt that was good; that anything we could do to provide the connection to make the traffic flow better, and offer an opportunity to a property owner who can develop this property and provide income to this city, and to do it in a manner that he believes will be the best for his development, then we wanted to make that partnership work; and that is what staff did and Mr. Worley said this was the owner's concept; and traffic-wise, it was safe; and that any changes that would be made would not be made by us; the public right-of-way has been donated and recorded, and the public now owns it even though the road is not in it yet. Councilmember Gothmann said that funding was made as part of the Urban Corridor Program of the Transportation Improvement Board; and the objective of the Urban Corridor Program is to complete a corridor from point A to point B to make transportation better within the corridor; and this project satisfies that which is why we got the grant money. Mr. Worley said when the design concept changed, we presented that to TIB and explained why the property owner was interested in doing it this way and TIB agreed to allow the design to be changed to this current design; and that it still meets their intent of completing the corridor and providing economic incentive for neighboring property owners; and said that is one of the things about an Urban Corridor Project is that it looks for opportunities to create new development, and they saw this as doing that. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Grant Rice, 16620 E. Valleyway: said he wanted to make Council aware that he lives about a mile from where this is going in between Conklin and Flora on Valleyway, and that there are two trailheads there; said he frequently rides down Flora, and if you keep going down Flora and get onto the Centennial Trail to go east from the curb out there on that trailhead, off Indiana; that there two trailheads to accommodate people, because people aren't going to want to have to drive out west, and then turn around and go back east to head out towards Coeur d'Alene. Ms. Pete Miller, 18124 E. Mission: said she has three very short issues: on the SEPA checklist for October 26, 2009, #7 says do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal, and the answer is no. Said she feels people on east Mission that are going to be impacted by this traffic should have been notified; and she distributed via the clerk, a copy of an aerial photo of the area and ex�lained that this means all round-abouts aren't round; she said it might be a solution, if you look at N SO Street on that map, that could be Mission; and the street that would be going north and south to that, there's really no name on it; if you straighten that out that's Flora; get rid of North Saddle Creek Road, get rid of North Happy Lane and possibly one of those other roads, which is Country Club Drive or Country Drive Avenue or could be the Mission/Indiana parkways; that saves Mission and the trailhead; and said if the intent is to save the Old Mission trailhead, and on the new plan, why is there simply not a straight shot from Mission to the trailhead; why do we have to go on the Mission Parkway and then have an abrupt, right-hand turn to get back to it? Mont Lewis, 16913 E. Mission: said he's in favor of a road connecting Indiana to Flora, but to answer Councilmember Grassel's question, it was more a concession on our part then approval; said we were led to believe that due to the donation of the right-of-way, there wasn't much to do with the design, to do two-way access to the trailhead or our property; said he feels a two-way road would be much better especially with the sewer concerns since part of the property would be right over the sewer; that it made Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 8 of 13 Approved by Council: 04-12-2011 more sense to run a two-way road along the sewer line that's already existing so that we could continue to have two-way access to our property as well as to the trailhead. Steve Bailev 17020 E. Indiana: said he understands Council's position with the transportation grant money that grant money is very specific; said he had a couple questions for the developer who spoke earlier; that one was due to the savings, he asked has the city council and the developer looked at purchasing the land; if you saved a lot of money on the donation of land for the roadway, to trade a parking area in place of the Mission Road access parking that's there for the Centennial Trail right now; he asked which five landowners did you meet with; said he's curious if BLM, and State Parks was a part of that meeting; that he understands condos is conceptual now; thinks the City has a unique opportunity to be a part of that development plan; and said he's speaking for the Spokane Community Kayak Club, Eastern Washington University's outdoor program, NW Whitewater Association, John Schwartz the General Manager of Mountain Gear, as well as the Spokane River Forum and some fishing communities; that the current access at the end of Mission Road is a very well used parking access; there is access at the corner of Flora but there's no parking there, it's just access for pedestrian and bicycle; people come down Indiana Avenue; there's no official access there and sneak the guard rail; but if you remove the end of Mission Road, you're limited now to Sullivan Road, which really the parking is coming across the Sullivan Bridge, or Barker Road, so you reduce a lot of parking potentiaL HE said the potential of economic growth for the city with that location if you establish some parking there, maintain it as it is today, aside from standard, or bicyclists and walkers, it's whitewater; said there are features for a natural whitewater park at that location; that this is something the City of Spokane is looking to spend a million dollars for; that there are kayakers that can use these features nine to ten months of the year and said he thinks you have a unique opportunity that as the design phase goes through, to achieve some economic growth. Mary Pollard North Greenacres. Read part of her statement, and explained that one of the suppositions that they are making is this connection is going to relieve the congestion on Sullivan and Broadway is a little bit overstated because you're assuming we're all going to the Mall which is just wrong; said she would take that cut-through and likes the original design and does not like the change; said we will end up taking that cut-through, and end up on Sullivan, so you're going to end up with another congestion problem at the same intersection just going south; said there is a problem that this was a done deal approach to working with the community and it should be addressed at the design stage.; that the Lewises who live on that property, it's been there for 55 years and she resents that she has to go the wrong way to go the right way; so it is this guy and his business, Appleway Florist, who conceded defeat; they like the connection; and she said who wouldn't like the connection; but not at the expense of a one-way and this poor young couple has to travel ten miles a day to just do their daily business; and said she thinks there should have been more transparency about how this is going to affect Mission which is a very dangerous intersection; it's bad but people slide through the intersection; they can't get up the hill; and so the staff already knows they're going to have to mitigate Mission somehow; and so we're feeling like one of the big problems is where this exists into our community when this couplet comes back, there is maybe five car-lengths. She said seventy-two houses on Mission front on this, what would be impacted by the traffic that goes from Argonne to Liberty Lake; that the City stated this is connecting Liberty Lake; that there's enough talk about this foolish mall business; the mall looks like a bowling alley during the week; people aren't busy shopping there except on the weekend. Said she agrees we have a serious congestion problem on Sullivan and that she wants to see that one-way go away, and concluded by stating that she feels Spokane Rock Products is a fine company, but she urged Council to wait to see what can be done to mitigate this and do the project right. Gordon Curr� 14313 E Trent: said he hopes Council and all the people who are concerned with this take a real good look at this; said he's developed land, commercial, residential, built buildings, built homes all over the valley and it's real easy to design something and then later on if you come in, if there's lot of Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 9 of 13 Approved by CounciL• 04-12-2011 vacant land there and the people don't know what they're going to do; it's real simple for them, the planning department to say, well, you can do what you want to do but you gotta go back and tear up five miles of road, build new curbs and do whatever, and he urged Council to give this a lot of thought before jumping in and doing something we could be sorry for down the road. Richard Behm 9405 E. Spra�ue: said he's on a one-way street and it does not encourage development; said he has known Steve Worley for many years when he was an engineer for Spokane County along with Rosskelley as they were the ones who promoted the one-way Appleway, Sprague/Appleway couplet.; and that Mr. Worley is very good at promoting one-way streets because engineers believe on getting traffic from point A to point B; that he thinks Centennial Properties needs to take another look at what they want because one-way does not encourage development as evidenced by what's happened on Sprague over the last twelve years and he asked Council to seriously consider this; that that's the way engineers think, and engineers don't always think like business people and developers, and said that one way is not the way to go. Chris Ho�pe 1100 College Avenue Chenev WashinQton: said he's a graduate assistant at Eastern Washington University and a commercial raft guide for Road Adventures, and spent 100 days on the Spokane River last summer and has commercially guided from Post Falls all the way down to the end of Riverside State Park; and said any development in that area needs to really take that area into account and allow access to that River because it is a beautiful feature that not very many cities in the United States can claim, and to recognize that parking area is a really important resource to the boating community, the kayakers, and also to commercial development through rafting as being a growing demand in the region. City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned she received an e-mail from Alden Sherrodd at 17215 E Mont�omerv Avenue which asked her to pass the exchange into the public record; that there was some exchange with Mr. Worley and Mr. Sherrodd stated that "my concern in this issue is that it appears that the ground work is being laid to take over the Mission Avenue right-of-way; I do understand that this will not happen during the current road project; I would like a public assurance by the officials of our city that they will not ever allow this to happen and that the Mission Avenue Trailhead with existing right-of-way will be preserved for perpetuity. Ms. Bainbridge added that Mary Pollard handed in a one-page written letter from James Pollard, and two-pages from Janice Austin and Clerk asked Mayor for his pleasure to have this read into the record; that it would be included in the minutes either way; and Mayor Towey said he preferred to put it in the minutes and distribute copies to council. Councilmember Gothmann said there is still one question before council; that we have purchased property, or property has been given to us where we wish to put in a road; the property north of Mission and the trailhead are not involved; the property has been given to us for the purpose of a road; he said we now own that right-of-way and the question is, should a road be put on that right-of-way that we now own or "let it sit there and gather weeds;" he said the bids for the project came in about $600,000 lower than expected, which generally means that TIB will provide the grant minus the $600,000; and Mr. Worley concurred. Councilmember Gothmann further said that those saved funds would not be ours to use as they would go back to TIB; and said if someone wants to use their land as this design shows, and that land owner provides the resource to do it, that would be the property owner's choice and Councilmember Gothmann said this project does not involve the river, but rather involves specific land now owned by the City and reiterated that the question before Council is whether to approve the bid made on that specific project; and said he feels council should accept the bid. Councilmember Grafos said we are talking about roads, but also about the opportunity to have economic development on that trailhead; and the people who are north of Mission Parkway who perhaps haven't donated land as did Centennial Properties, but they are just as important; and to preserve the trailhead, help the neighborhood, and provide access to that trailhead with a two-way access is a pretty inexpensive investment for this city to attract people into this city; and said he feels it does not make sense for this council to be short-sighted and push ahead with this Page 10 of 13 Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Approved by Council: 04-12-2011 without looking at low-cost alternatives and added that he would approve the bid with a change order that the Public Works Department looks at changing that one-way so we have two-way access to that trailhead; and said he wants to make sure that on the old Mission Avenue, that no impediment will ever block that trailhead going into the river; and Attorney Driskell said that is correct; that it will remain open as publicly dedicated right-of-way and the only way to change that would be by Council adopting an ordinance following a full public process including a public hearing. Deputy Mayor Schimmels suggested we are opening that area up, there's more congestion coming from the east; there was a comment made that we'd have the connection to Broadway, he said that will never go away and now we'll give the people an alternate there to go down and go to the mall, hit Sullivan Road and the freeway, and said he does not think we are providing congestion; we have a selfish view as far as economic development is concerned, and he said we can look to the west of Flora Road and see what is happening there and said that is just the beginning of that property; and said he doesn't have anything against this roadway project and believes if there is a problem with sidewalks or other incidentals, those can be cured. Councilmember Grassel asked if we could put a suspension on the funding to give council time to review all the issues and postpone this for a few weeks; and Mayor Towey said we would have to have a motion to delay the motion. Councilmember Gothmann stated that most bids have a specific timeline in which to act. Mr. Worley said it would not be a problem if this were postponed a week or two; it would be best to make a decision as quickly as possible since there are two projects scheduled this year, which are tied together; he said the intent was to get this project built by early July as we have another project to concrete the intersection of Sullivan and Indiana, and to build that project, they were going to use this Indiana Avenue Extension as a way for people to get to the businesses on the east side on Sullivan on Indiana the back way; and they coordinated the IndianalSullivan project with the businesses in the mall and those businesses indicated the best time to do this to impact them the least, would be July and August. Mayor Towey said because there are so many unanswered questions concerning this project, he would entertain a motion to postpone this issue. Mr. Jackson said an option would be to withdraw the motion. City Clerk Bainbridge concurred that the easiest way would be for the maker of the motion, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, to withdraw his motion if this is his desire. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said that is not his intent. City Clerk Bainbridge said with that in mind, council could vote on the motion on the floor, and based on that outcome, make another motion if desired; and she reminded Council that the current motion is to award the bid. City Clerk Bainbridge said council also has the option of tabling the motion for two weeks; which means the motion stays as it is, and in two weeks or whatever timeframe Council desires, the motion would come back to council; that council at that time would need a motion to take the matter off the table to discuss; then vote on the original motion at that time and at that time could even withdraw the motion. In the interim two-week period, Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Warley if council could examine some alternatives; and Mr. Worley agreed. Councilmember Grafos also suggested each member of council visit the area to see what an easy fix that would be, in looking at the whole scope of this project; he said he is not against the project, but to be shortsighted enough to close that trailhead off to our citizens is not the right thing to do. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos and seconded by Councilmember Grassel to table this motion for two weeks. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor.• Mayor Towey and Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos. Opposed: Depury Mayor Schimmels and Councilmember Gothmann. Motion is carried and the motion to award the bid is tabled until the April 5 council meeting. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:13 p.m. 6 Motion Consideration• A�plewav Court Drainage License — Carv Driskell It was moved by Depury Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the License Agreement to Appleway Court 202, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any necessary documents related thereto. Attorney Driskell briefly explained that the owner of the property requested we grant a license for their use of some city drainage property so they can put turf on it and a sprinkler system to help with the Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 11 of 13 Approved by Council: 04-12-2011 aesthetic value of their new development; that the stormwater staff looked at this and said it would not affect the functionality of the stormwater. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. 7 Motion Consideration: Motions for March 29 Interviews of Applicants for Council Position #3 Vacancy — Mayor Towev Mayor Towey explained the process, that Council members will make a nomination, that each nomination must be seconded to proceed, and that upon voting, if the nominee receives three or more votes, that person will be interviewed. Mayor Towey opened the floor for nominations. Arne Woodard was nominated by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded by Councilmember Grassel. Vote to include Mr. Woodward as a candidate to interview was unanimous. Mr. Woodard will be interviewed. Steven Neill was nominated by Councilmember Grassel and seconded by Councilmember Grafos. Vote to include Mr. Neill as a candidate to interview: Mayor Towey, and Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos. Mr. Neill will be interviewed. Jennie Willardson was nominated by Councilmember Grafos and seconded by Councilmember Grassel. Vote to include Ms. Willardson as a candidate to interview was unanimous. Ms. Willardson will be interviewed. Ben Wick: was nominated by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded by Councilmember Grassel. Vote to include Mr. Wick as a candidate to interview was unanimous. Mr. Wick will be interviewed. John Baldwin was nominated by Mayor Towey and seconded by Councilmember Gothmann. Vote to include Mr. Baldwin as a candidate to interview: Mayor Towey and Councilmembers Gothmann and Grassel. Mr. Baldwin will be interviewed. Dee Dee Lober� was nominated by Councilmember Gothmann. There was no second therefore there was no vote and Ms. Loberg will not be interviewed. There were no additional nominations offered and it was moved by Depury Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to close the nominations. City Clerk Bainbridge confirmed that those to be interviewed March 29, 2011 include Arne Woodward, Steven Neill, Jennie Willardson, Ben Wick, and John Baldwin, and Ms. Bainbridge confirmed that letters will be sent out to notify everyone of the outcome of tonight's process, and that she will send those to be interviewed a copy of the potential interview questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited public comments. And_y Hale S�okane Valley Fire Department: said that their Greenacres Fire Station will hold an open house this Saturday from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. and he invited everyone to attend; and said that they are celebrating the new station that replaces a temporary facility which was approved in 2007, and that they will have Mako the fire dog in attendance as well. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 8 Comprehensive Plan 2011 Amendments — Mike Basin�er Via their PowerPoint, Planning Team Members Mike Basinger, Karen Kendall and Lori Barlow explained the 2011 proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, which included the purpose of the annual amendments, the process, that there are two privately initiated site-specific map amendments, mentioned that if the SARP (Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan) is eliminated that CPA 01-011 will no longer be relevant. They explained the City-initiated text amendment and that the recent census data was a little lower than the estimate; and briefly discussed urban growth areas. Councilmember Grassel said she was asked by a constituent about a change in the flood plain and what method they would need to address that, and Mr. Basinger said he would be willing to meet with those individuals and the City's floodplain administrators to assist in that issue. Mr. Basinger also mentioned that the findings are still being developed and they will be part of the packet for the April 12 meeting for a first ordinance reading if council concurs. There were no objections from Council in moving forward for a first reading April 12. Council Regulaz Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 12 of 13 Approved by Council: 04-12-2011 9. Public Access Programming Funding Process — Morgan Koudelka Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka went through his PowerPoint presentation explaining the funding process; and that staff recommends reserving $80,000 of the $150,000 for city needs and splitting the remainder between the Education and the Public access programming and to split the quarterly payment from Comcast equally among those as well. Mr. Koudelka also went over the draft contract summary points and said staff seeks general consensus to move forward with this process and there were no objections from council At 9: 00 p. m. it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting for 30 minutes. 10. Advance A e� The issue of the Indiana Bid was brought up by Councilmember Gothmann and Mr. Jackson said that staff will bring additional information to council next week so that council will be ready to look at the bid motion again April 5; that the main focus next week is that we want to make sure we preserve the access to the trailhead and consider or look at the feasibility of adding one-way or maintaining the existing corridor and building the project to keep the two-way to the trailhead; and said the other roundabout issues are resolved, and Councilmembers nodded in agreement. r. Jackson said Council likely won't want to remove that bid award from the table until they are ready to focus on that issue. Councilmember Grafos asked about the railroad quiet zones and said council needs to make a decision on whether to authorize the consultant to move ahead, that it appears the process takes 12 to 18 months and he'd like to discuss that in the next week or so. Councilmember Grassel said she would like to have staff work with council concerning the process of the Transportation Improvement Program; that council get a listing of all the road projects, that some are basic, but she suggested having more information on the larger projects prior to them going to bid so that council will be informed on what the project entails. Councilmembers concurred. INFORMATION ONLY Greenacres Park Bid, Railroad Quiet Zones, Community Development Block Grant Letters of Support, and the Department Reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed. It was moved by Depury Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9: 06 p. m. i � ATTEST: " omas E. Towey, Mayor `� - �� � � � � Christine Bainbridge, ity Clerk v Council Regular Meeting 03-22-2011 Page 13 of 13 Approved by Council: 04-12-2011 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 22, 2011 GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE Please si n in if ou wish to make ublic comments. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOUR COMPLETE TELEPHONE PLEASE PRINT YOU WILL SPEAK ADDRESS ABOUT 5QS N� � R r !' �G� 4 +� 57 ..� oh n��ai�ne S o�'a K � V �c l l e �'7 4� o(� a2 �•� k 6 5 � �7. G. S�r� �� �c�c�.. ���� C`��c1� � �ov�`� �g��, 3ti�-Rc�3 GL�'G �(i � � /o O�� (� �� fi ��' L ` (�� r �l' yyI �� Ix r � v��' h-� d I 1 � Q920� , P�-� �l P r� iti�� � �e�� �� ► rl � �� i � u � u i �� �j�i tcr�c� 1�� .��- �'3�S . � ,�,,��� r = � � � � i%� 1�1� � �Z ��,� ` a�r� ���,� � c� �4'• �.� :��� � �- � �= 1 � ��, ��)! � � 11,�� � "-�.� aC� /j � b� � � � l � 1 �n �1 �� `« 1 , � '� ��z y_ � ��.. ✓1� I�CQ ..�, .�1N�L. �da�� JC �I�r,a n� e_ ,� ' �� �i�i � � ����,� !�i��� r��>; �?�-� � .� h /G� �, �C�S — � 3 �. �hl' � G�U)�z /'a,SS.j�,� %�, , �E s s�r-�'��..�ru s* ��:i��sG��i�Y - `/3 � ,, , . •-�� �L'.�/J F�2;2 /�/> c � �� ` � - -� �i � � �l -_ � v� , q- � � -� �' � ��� �%� �_ � ' � � `�'���� �-��''�' �� �,, L l� l �r , , �� � �t4 � � �� / ��.� r -� , � �,, _ - �- ^ � � ' t�=r� ��'� `� � `r`-��vr�S �c��-L�S� � P t j � Chris Bainbridge From: Mike Jackson Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:37 PM To: Chris Bainbridge Subject: FW: Lewis Family Correspondence concerning Indiana Ave Extension Project Attachments: Lewis Family correspondence on Indiana Ave Ext.pdf Please print copies for council. MJ From: Craig Aldworth Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 12:38 PM To: Mike Jackson Cc: Steve Worley Subject: Lewis Family Correspondence concerning Indiana Ave Extension Project Mike The attached pdf contains the following correspondence to and from the Lewis family concerning Indiana Ave Ext: 12/10/10 letter from Monty and Mike Lewis voicing concerns about the project 12/14/10?? letter from Ashley Lewis. She is the wife of Mike Lewis and lives at the greenhouse on Mission Ave. 12/15/10 Meeting Minutes between City and Lewis Family. Ashley was not present. Two of Monty and Mike's uncles were also present at the meeting, but I did not get their names. 12/27/10 Amended Temporary Construction and Access Permit (TCAP)showing changes requested by family 1/7/11 Signed TCAP Craig Aldworth Project Engineer 1 i t. , _� _ ' �i ., 4 y i � C�` F�.O�'1 �:�3: s, � . � �.���,� � Appleway st '�`����� 8� Greenhouse �,�� � ���Q �� � I:. 1100G SPrngue tl�ontte SPUKr1�\ R`ASHLIG`fQ\ 992Q6-521G � 1 Yliouc92�1-5054 • (888) 345-I1�5 ��� � � �Q�Q �� ti��}nv.ftd.cou�/applewn}• g . December 10, 2010 Craig Aldworth PE City of Spokane Valiey City Hall 11707 E Sprague Ave Spokane Vafley, WA 9920� Dear Crafg: Thank you for coming by today and d{scussing the proposed p(ans for the indlana ExtensionJMission Pa rkway, . � We have severai concerns about access #o our property upon completion of this project. First, one-way I access is extremely Inconvenlent, Second, speed�ng issues are already prablematic wfth drivers using the current dead end road as a drag strip. Third, the raundabout at Mission and FIora, since it is on a hlll, wii( be a large source of trafific accidents. First, we need to have twn-way access tg our property. There could be severai better v�rays to accomplish this than the proposed plan. Why can't there be a two lane road over the existing sewer service? Why can't the two-way stop at Nlissiort �nd �lora be retainedl Why can't the twaway be retainad to the trail head7 We feel this fs a very odd and unique design that will cause much confusion and possible property devaluation due io leck of access. P{ease consider revising to allow two-way access to the tral! head and retaintng the two-uray stap at Missfon and Flora. Thank You, , � j�1�'jh �"� _ _ Monty lewis — Mlchael Lew�s Appleuvay Flor[st & Greenhouse, Inc Appleway Florlst & Greenhouse, !nc Lewis Propert}es of Spakane, LLC l.ewls Praperties of 5pokane, LCC 509-924-5050 509-590-8793 509-998-19�.9 509-g24-5f}54 � ,� , FTD 6 �o�f �.. t �;�C����J� z52�10 Dear Craig, a Hello, you have nof inet me, but you did have a meeting with my husband, IvTtke Lewis and his brothex, Montq, last week about same proposed changes to fhe sfreet that we Iive on, and t1�e business that Mike �nd his b��ofher have at tlus Iocation. I am Mike's wife, Ashley, and after speaking to Mike and seeing the plans for fhe �•oad, I have to say I am veiy upset and wot•ried. I do not �eel #hat this is tha best use nf this road. Firstty, my mai�i conc�in is fhat to go IQO feet, I will l�ave to drive a mile. Lef ine explain my reasoning, Riglct rzow, X can back out of my garage, and go shaigh# u� Mission, ta Flora, and go where ever T need to. If the road becomes a oiie-way, in t�ie dieection af fhe ri�er, then I would have to travel a half of a mile soufhwest of Flara, fhen I have to get fa the #wo-�vay, then fgure out hovsr to do u-t�u�. iuto the opposite lane, Mission Parkway, anci come hack past my house, up to the new roiu�dabout at F[ora. Excuse me far saying, but that is some ioopy driving, £or na good xeason, Why cau't you just niake a two-tana road ovee� the existir�g sewer line in your pieiure, because you cannot build on it, whicl� gives you more rovm to build, and easier, quicker access for alI the proposed business o�vner`s attd thei� nevv cus#ornez•s. Not to mention, my family and I, and the business that al�eady exis ts here. If you put in two one way roads, would it not be easier, to just put in a t��va-Iane road and be dane? "i''ou told my husbatid and his brather t�at in your designs you we�•e altowing for the Fisher fasnily and the large 18-wheeler #hey �ark next to thair house, but yet you are going to znake it virfually impossibla fo get fo my housc, I unders#and tl�at as only one family, only a fevsF people inconvenienced, if may not seem Iike an issue, but the x�ipple effect fhat it would liave is a lat t�rorse. �TJhat happens #o the resale value of my p�•operty and Appleway's properly when there's virtually z�o easy access? What about all tl�e , condomuuums and businesses that are propostng to bui�d here? How witl t�e peapte that live tliere be able to get horr►e if they have to go around this Ioopy one-way/two way road7 And no one �vants to go to a business that 9s hard to �nd and get to. They just go to the store up the road, that is an easier aud quicker drive. Unforhac�afely, sinc� my road is a dead-and road r�ght now, people tend fo use xny z �oad as � drag strip. Ariving as fast as fhey canpossibly gaf tl�eir car to accelerate, hefore the diz�t, and then slann on thei�� brakes, and hun around to da it again, or they race each other up at�d dawn. If you put in a one-way, since they �vant even hav8 ta sIow down anymoie, i# rvill become immensely worse. They wilZ fly around the roimd-about, then accelerate and shoot �ast my housa as fast �s possi6le, up the road, Thaf is extremely dangeraus. �Ve have nlready had cars cras�i inta ; our fence, flip right outside our door, and Ioose confrol and gv straight into retaiiiing bouldecs in � fiout of fhe field. Please, do not make it easier far people to get hui�t. ff my ciaughter, or one of � my dogs weae outside �vhen: sotneone piled into the fence, they could be serlously h«��t, oi even killed, I can't imagine a parenfs greate�.' fear, of �arin cozning to theu c1�i1d. A�id I already woriy about someoz�e killing us as we walk down tlie road to the Centenniai TraiL I have already had I rocks flung at me and my chiid as we fake a walk, with cars zooining ttp and dawn the street, please don't tnake it worse. I understand fhaf I am one person, and you will probably still do whatever it is you feel like doing to my road, and my family and our busiuess isn't really a factor an your deoision, but I hope qou'll consider us and this letter anyr��ay. Thank you for your time. �incerely, � �;��• � � CITY OF ' Public Works Department ���,�,� Cap/tallmprovemenf Program �all�y�� 11707 E 5pragua Ave Suite 106 0 Spokene Valley WA 99206 509,921.1000 � F ax: 509.92 0 cftyhalEC�spoka � - � �onversationl�lee�ing Lag Prolect� 'T�J.d�z �i-rJ�'� �'� �i� C{PNo: �l/_Z— $Y ' � � �� t�1 d�✓�- . Date: ( � 1 � S� �U Tlme; � 4 a -�6+A ParE[cipants; r � f � '��+,� t+-` � f�L�7� �LCTrI�� i R8: r, V-t�<;i�t`� L�?'�1 S �'�7l?� .r1 �'��'6 ���'�i 1 �St/.�b �i' _ �� r e�>.l V W N�Sv`�, ' ��G� �'�-� t,v �� �� �1 '� �-D �U ����- w�� ��n�� ,�� �'���nn����� ��t� �/�� `t�i��.-. �`v� I�-'� �'t�1 �"+�1'� �'� 7��'z �r�r r.<,�.�. ,�r� � ����~` � r ,� t'�� '�� �U r�� , ,�''-�'-�s i� ' +`� �f�c�l � �= c-a�-�.�'~ �'t2�=�Na+r�� � ��1 dxJ �V � c}�Z W�U+� �l� rZ{ �'!f I� �U �s� � r�1 i2c,�l�� TU�-+t m3�" b� _ `�r �l��c�'� � W � �..w — ��y�� d� t� _ t� e `�� . �� `�17.�'�� i��1���1 tr�C_t���1� �- �-�'1 '��� �C.��P L.�� ' - i '� ,d�u-� [•� �c� a��'�-1 `�.� t� �- � � � � , �' gtSU b"� � !�.'f 1C��`�' /S�`� ��� I"� � �—{r?"'�f �r "L_, /..il L. C.,� 'i't?�l.f �� �3 �r r� .��" ��3'� ��=7�, � "{��' i��yt� ��1� ,� lE--t ���� �',�-o�'{�',� � /'�.�� i�"u��� �'� '"�f�i ��- �� ��-f u1tc�� ��uc�'�"� �-�Ul�L- T1 Lti � '7� ��4 7�' ��3��� �'�C e4 �-l�et�%l`� Z3Y��c� � J ) f !�` _.t �, r r� (Z'�t Gcc�-4 v�-Fa;'L�sal� `�i"�N�t,- �7'�'b�� ��i2,..- V� c.�..� ��'� �r� `� ,Sc�u.� � � � L �'� , .� "t`wlu�l�� d� � �f�� `� �"'���n.wr,�i�cc�r2 �G��'�� !k?A�'-�'�'1� "3� `�'� �-Fr-t��7 �d� �k� �� . . ' '�� � r.�e �,t�'� -� .� � �'a� '"17-'� �P�,�i� �� tu��/.� „� S l�v"t��- . ��s�1f'� 'T� ��[�,�.� ���tvt��� �Pr�'-� G�z=1��� »�� � t� ,�,c�, r;�r�t�rj,�"� t '' G � ,��� �'Y - �c�� G P �',� ��r�.- � �- � �Y�it��' `� �"f � � c�' ¢�-�� ('��' _ ` ��.� `�'�`�� Pubiic Works ��o��.�.� ������ Capi��t lmprovem�nfi Progt��tn 11707' � Sprague Ave Suike 10G 0 Spokane Valley WA 44206 509.92Q•9000 9 Faxt 50 �1U08 � ctryhatf�spokanevaltey.org ���_-��, - - - - ...�,._-..� �. Decentber 27, 2010 M��. Nionty �.e�vls 11QOb �, Sp��ague Ave Spokane Vailey, WA. 9924& Re; Revised Tem�ora�y Consf��uctton and Acc�ss Permit fo�• property locatetl �t 16�113 �, Mission Ave, I��dlana Avenue Exteytslaia P��o,�ect Dear Monty: TI1RSI�C y011 AIICI YOUP f&tllily �OP ineeting wlth the Steve Worley, Randy Budano &nd 1t76 on Dece�nber 1 Sth, We ltave revlssd tl�e attaol�ed Tei���orary Consfctiction anci Access 1'e��mtt (TC & Ap} ancl �xlziblts foi� �ou�° revl�w, At your request we h�ve �noved the weste��n drtvaway approach on your eastarn lot to the east slc�e of tlie estchbasin and inereased the wicith to 30 feet. Yoti will ltave a 30 foat driveway epproacli otl tlie $�st side o� your eastern lot. , Tlie City wlii #ransition feotti bROk of slde�valk to existing gtttde� to the sotttlt o� your exlsfing fence, Ii� o��der fo constcttct ss smootli a tcansifion as p�ssible between yot�r . dci�eway elevations as�d the proposed �oadway curb, we �sk you►� per�nisslotito atlaSV the City's cont��ACto� to work tel� feet ivlchi�i yo��c property at eaoh di�Ive Svay approacl�, Please sign flie ai#ached Teinporary Cos�sft�tctloi� �nd Access Permit {3'CAP) to. allo�v tli� Clty's Co�rt��actor aceess to work and i�tail a copy back ta xue. Tl�e P��blio Works Direbtoz� wlll exectite flie TCAP and I�vill it�atl � eapy back to yot� for your rceo�cfis. �f you I�avc qitestions during consiciictfo�� please call rne at (509) 720 � Sluce�•ely, G' %�� cr� Atativo�•tli Project �nglne8r Clty of Spokane Vsltey 11'�0? E, Spragtia Ave,, Suite 30� Spokane Vaticy, WA 9920G Pli: (509) 720-504] I�t: (S49) G88•02b] BncL' Tctttporary Constntctton tutd Access Per+nit � � �' �'" � `'� ProJect No. 0112 ���`�� Map Na(s). ������' cYm� or spox�tv� �vAt���v �'II�I,IC ZVORKS b�PARTMENT Spokane Vatlay, Wnsl�iiigto�t T�MPD�ARX CONSTRUCTION AND ACC�SS P�RNXI�' IN T� MAT1'Elt b� T�iattR �vsi►ua Exteiisloi� 1'rojsct KNOW ALL �viS1�I BY THESB PRESBNTS, that the Oratitor{s) Monty I,vtis•!s, foy' flucl i�i conslderRtiot� of Mntt�ftl Bafieflts, gr�nfs fo tlie CIty of Spoka�ie V�lley aild its asslg��s, fl�e rlglit, privtIege Riid perinit of fugress aud egrass over, across auct t►pon the herel��efter ciescrl�ed la�ids fro�n the .date hereof until tile co�vple{toii of t(ie �Uo�a t�eference�i rvad proJeot. Lt tt�e avent thnt the GraE�tor se11s sald prope�ty after tlie exectitlon of tliis ageeament bi�t j�r3or to tl►e cotnpletiott of cq�tsi►ucfioit, fha C�rentor ageees to lEifoi�m ti�e prospecttve ptir4hsser of tt�e ter�ns oftlils agreainei�t and #hat the tiran�ai• has baen flE)ly compe�isaied a�td 11►e »e�v o�v»ar �v(lt jiot ieceive aiiy Rdclitia►►a) cos3►peEisntio�i flo�tt fi�e City nf Spoka�►e V�110y unEess proJect daslgn alt�agas rec�ulra additlonat negatfaftons 6ehvee�1 fiie Cl�y s�cd the ire�v o�viiez•, For the pucpose of; ^ Cm�sf���tetiu�it�tvewfly annroaelk. sttte�ralit a�iti ��e- ��� �cllz�g to exlsflrs¢ urouu�T elevatloi�s �! (As sl�otvli o�i atfachett pF•oposed i�tlprQVeme��k exl�lblt,) ; � t Sald lflttds �ihiated 'ui tlie City of Spoka�ie Va}ley Co�iF�ty of Spokaaie, State of �Yashbtgton, aud descrlbed as follo�vs: i Assessois Pacesi No(s).s �5124.0204 Property Adclress/CIty/StateIZip Cocte; 1G913 E Misslon Ava, SpokA�te Valley, WA ��21G Malling Addrass: 1 I04G E. S��rag��e Ave, Spoka�ie Va11ey, WA 99206 It Is tiuBersRood that as cansideratton tlie Clty of Spoknt►c VRifey �vi11 �octistnict i��iproveinents shotint on tlie attachecl exlilbit, Dated tlils Clfty 0� , 2010. g y ; Da3�itut� Tetepho�ie: � Praparty O�v�ief� g T G'?.�; �(,�i W asr.ql �-. OFf1ce Telephone; , 509-72�•5001 �ro,�ect Conslc�tction Engtneer Address iiiquf�es ralai[c►g to pro�eat co�ish�iicfioii ta the ProJect Coust«tctioit�3�gtizeer. AI'pitOV�b; g� Dste , 2010, Nell Karsteri, Pttiblic �Yorits D'u•eotor, Gty ofSpokane Vflltey 1 a O q ` z � s �� - �,� ° �� F � ��� � � � � y �Q� � C, � h ���*�o. �`��- °'' ,� nl � �" W R d �.� ...,.,�� .� � °U � �w � w ?.�.,:� �;�N � o ; a.�a o �w � t� a ` o ��$ � � � � , � �� 0 O � p�� Z U � � V.d ,-� � ��� �_ S�t :"' ,_�� < � :_: ___ : � E � 1 � . e �? � � �� � t � � - ' � � C.-� k� . ., t � � � � '�{ �', f � r } 4 c.. � '� �� ` � .� 5 + _ > r a r,. ; � � d . '# s n -. � � � � ` U r f Y ` u': � ; f � �d _ � -. � F ; � Q � ' � `� - s _ , � � o� ; : � t k -� ti t0 d � ` 4 `_ � f t� - ! �: i �' r S - a F a � � ?- -� ` � � � � ' � - � �) � � � � � -� t � �p� � � U E � � � S p � 3 � t � �QL I(Ki. f ! � f y� �'� � tld ;,-.� �' , r - s'� W J 4. �3 `� - f�� CO D "L � ' ' + � � -� � - - _ .�� (-� � � � ` ' S " � � { 1 1 . � f,' �� �: < � ; i (�' - _ ~ �3 r p � a � � 3_ � - _ _Ui � � f 'L - ' �� � � � i � � T � F � �� v Q {Y N � �� � i f } ! Sl. r - f � � r 't �,¢£ ' � _ :i � I � . f M Q '� U-. 3f t E F S' � 6 -- : N) � � � e �' ; � � _, 5 � : ? -� O V � I � V .'. �� � � '� � � �- s „ � �.� . i � � 5 # ; � � � o i � �. � r f ��' _ � - ,-� t `� � (� . � - ����� � � s � � �' e t �� $ � � � � � � '. � � ��'� F� �� � i J` � � � � � "/ � � �� �� x �� ��} i� - 1 � ' _� i � �� s � � 1--. , d �Y i � ,� ft � �� >. n' � x �+ � y� �� d ` �z �1Y� � 3 S, � '�C� � LL � � Q ��� Y ��. t � � �� � t r � k� �d Q � � � � .. - . L . ��. .:t Q P. � �- _ � z � , a ���dd� tNt �r�� � � � � ;�` i n d :O 2 � tr� ,.� � 1 p - ( f �� � a � -� � U y � �.1.� � �c # � .4 Y � r�'" {;J_, i .. � 4�.� � - $ : % � � C3 f ' . � ' 3 C7 � `� - r. � z -�t"F r i 1 � s' — � CO `� � i� � r �� ' � . r � � 3 � , { � � �� � f 4� E3 � � .t. �� �� � �� w � °� �' � :�� , �_ s � � ( a � Aa a �o � � t ���� � o � z z 4 j C �� OU � - - _ t � �, � �3 �� �s-�-� __ _ _ _ , _ _ ` i � : ;�, _ 1 � . V# 9�101 S ��7�?t .+' �3i7iace�tt5 B[3?t•�'Ar.a�a�ycvr�++l•iIID � �akt�t np.ti? � o a � � �� � � 0 ,� , ��. ' ,,Q,,�, V �, � � � ��-. q • � � ti t :�� G` ��w a �� O� � � ���rt�.����� o � O 4�4 � � 'd' c� .i � �q� � . � � � ��� � rZ S ��� � � � � . � y4 � � VV � � � 4 � � i � , � � Ice.-- — - . ., .. i ; • ' � � �„ 4 : 1 �� i � � '� a � ' �& r , � � Q I � f � ��r `$' 1' �< Q :i� � � � ��� � S i` � I � a � `� �� 0 'r � w a ° d .,�, i � I � ' l - Q � �=- '. � 1�1 � �� � ... _ 1 ,!. A a ; � 1 t� � o� Y w � � "' � � � � � � � � ' a t � Q � � � �' , � (� r�' � � � �U i � � `� d' o � �i`+ r ' � ��, N L ��- --�-, �� � i w� c� Q� ° r � I � d � - ' ���� N � ^ � � �� � Q a°-a� � ,� o cn t� d- � � � ' � ; c� ��, � ; � ,-, � �OM !� . o � ,-- � .---� a , co � Cp � a � � � ( �� � �a �O r �1 � � M " ' �� p ��� a � OU p in R t7 4 � � �; � K$ul� �d e»U1 �---�' Q};i �5 ) l�V'd19'. J, . l��.t.IqCUil4Widi63C. � vn a�yrlayq•:tt0 r Wf TY>A? �dr�� r�e � Public Works ������ Cap9ta( Improvement Pragram 99707 � Sprague Ave Suite t06 � 5pokane Valley WA 9920b a � .�� 509,92�-3000 � Fax: 509.92�,9008 0 cityhall@spokanevat(ey.org January 7, 2Q1 i Mx. Monty Lew�s I1006 E. Sprague Ave �pokane Vallay, WA 99206 Re; Revised Temparary Construction and Aecess Permit forproperty loaated at 169�3 �, Missian Ava, Indiana Avenue Extension Projeot Dear Monty; � A.ttached is the axecuted Temporary Construction and Access Permit (TCAP) for youx� records, Tf you have questions during consfzuc#zon please call me at (509j 720-5001. Sineerely, ► Cxa' Aldworth ' Px�oject Engineer City o£Spoka�e Valley 11707 E, Sprague Ave., �uife 304 �pokane Valtey, WA 9920b ' Ph; (509) 720-5001 Fx: (509) 588•fl261 Ej�cl: Temporary Construction aqd Access Pennit ' � � T , � � Project Na 0112 ����� Map I�o(s). � ��.�.��� - cz�x ar �ro��azv� v.azLEX PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMJ?NT . Spokane Vallsy, Washu�gton T�M�ORARX CONST�tUCTION AI�TD ACCESS PERMIT W THE MA.TTER OF . Ind�a�ia Avsnue Exteusio�i Proiect KNOW ALL MEI�T BY THESE PRLSBNTS, #hat the C3r�urtor{s} Mo��ty Lewis, for and in consi@eratian of Mi�fual Benefits, granfs to the City of Spokana V�Iley and its asslgns, tha righf, privilege anci permit of ing�ess and egress ovet, across and upon the hsrei�ia#ter descrlbed lauds from tha date herea£ unfil the cotn�letion of tha a6ave raferenced road projecf. Tn the event that the Grantox' salls said property aftar the exeaution of this agreement but prior to the completlon of aoiisf��uctlon, the Grantor ag��eas ta infoi�m tUe prospective purc�iasei of the farms of this agreenzent and that the Gi•antor has heen fulty co�npensated sncl fhe Yietiv otivner wi11 noY receive any addittona2 compensation fi•om tha City of Spokane Valley unless pYOject design changes requi�e aciditional negofiations behveen the City ancl ft�e ne�v otiv3iei�, Forthapt�rpose of � ConstR��tcfin� dzive�vav an»i•oae�t, sidewaik aud re-s�•adin� to exisfiu� oround elevattous (As shativn on attached propased i�nprovement exhib�t.} Said lands slfuafed in the City o£Spaknne Valley, Cottnty of Spoksne, State of Washing#ou, and desczibed as folio�vs: Assessors Parcal No(s).: 4512�.Q244 Pxoperty AddresslCitylState/Zip Code: 16913 E Mission Ave. , Spokane Valley, WA 99216 Mailing Address: 110pG E, Sprague Ava, Spakana �Talley, WA 99206 It is unclerstood that as consideration the City of Spokane 'Valley tiviil construct improveraents sl�own on tl�e aftaahed exhibit, ' � � S�� ` ��'°!� Dated t� ��� aay o£�, 20zQ. 5 v�-- qa L l �S� �a B , Daytime Telephone; . �J v � ' � � 8 ` �� � ( �'roperty O�v e � �'CZ�' �(� W� �-. Offce Telephone: 509-720-5001 Pro,ject Conshuctio�t Engineer Address inquires'relathig to project construcfion to tha Projeof Constn3etion Engineer. APPROVED: � � ; Date ,� y Neil Kersten, PuUlio Works D' e r, City of 8pokane Valley I / � Indiana/Mission Couplet Summary of Concerns North Greenacres Neighborhood J ' Mary Pollard/Chairwoman March 22, 2011 ;,, , 7 � �'����' ����� ��� i' �, Thank you for your time and the opportunity for the neighborhood to provide comment of the Regional Transportation project that �� connects traffic from Argonne to Liberty Lake. � c� ., ` (� �� , �%" / � G";'� Let s start with the positives �� � � �� ,,,' Roun da bout re duces casualties for cars and reduces speeds. ��� �� Ris k for c h i l dren and elderly are lowered and will be considerably � helped since City staff is including adding the Conduit for future I ���� Pedestrian Actuated signal when school is built. ��°';,� Wide Multiuse path on north of Mission much better for bikes going `� � east. Keep them off the Couplet. , , � Huge Problems - Impacts ignored and suppressed by staff. �� � � � v Action Requested of City Council Do not approve this project with the one way road on Mission until we redesign a more appropriate connection to the couplet. Public � ► �� ;; �� � Works erred in empl divide -�-��L���-c.��� , �� Please mitigate this problem by causing the couplet to enter and exit "^� �;�� on Centennial Properties, allowing two way traffic on Mission from � ,�, ,� I�`� the Trailhea d to F lora. �� �.� v� Eastward approach of Flora from the Couplet is too close to the I corner when you consider the pedestrian will be hit first by inattentive drivers. They are coming from a curve and when all of �� this area is built it will be very dangerous for crossing. Pulling this back a further distance from the corner would be better for all and ensure the commercial opportunities of property owners on the northside of Mission ,p d` Trailhead must be kept for perpetuity. The oneway traffic again � makes problems for negotiating this access. � One way design - limits economic development of properties on Northside of Mission. - �� � �-� 1 It will not satisfy the hurt and betrayal to hang the staff on the wall of shame. They are well meaning and overworked. We need public policy that requires early transparency. We need signage on the street so public can see meetings/notice posted as they drive the area. It is not the time to look for solutions to problems that were overlooked or unimportant to staff . The time is in the design stage, when it is merely a line adjustment, etc. There is extra money left due to low bids. Let utilize some of this money in order to see what we can do to move the intersection where eastbound traffic merges into Mission so we protect pedestrians as this intersection will become exceedingly busy in the future. No one would conceive of having their children, toddlers, biking on Sullivan and forget the lights, use a series of round abouts. Future signaling that is activated by pedestrians is a must in Acquiring future funding. There is the option of contacting the TIB board and negotiating a small delay to try to incorporate these changes to allow the Lewis family the ability to travel east without clocking 2 miles a trip through the couplet. Couplets generally are not a good way to do business. Appleway Florist has long been a commercial business that creates jobs and adds to our economy. Mike and Ashley Lewis are part of this multi- family member business and their residency on the property needs to be counted. It is nonsense in the name of economic development to disadvantage the existing commercial use on the other side of the street. Lewis family resides on this landlocked Mission properties growing plants for the family Appleway Florist business. They have to drive an additional 2 miles to get back to Flora to make his 5+ business trips to avoid the Sullivan Congestion. i While couplet is to ease traffic congestion of westbound Sullivan/Broadway intersection There will be an impact to the southbound Sullivan/Broadway intersection - from Indiana Couplet traffic goes south. City is concerned about changes to design that would impact state grant monies. These issues could have been easily considered and mitigated two years ago. Instead, staff without public input mitigated by silencing any objections by working from the done deal end of the project. This is an ATYPICAL road. This infringement of property rights by governmental fiat produces present and future problems for community. Win/Win for Centennial Properties. They limited competition from the North, we must use couplet to turn around to go east if on Mission. We are creating less desirable properties due to access problems this couplet creates. Public Works needed to tell Mike & Ashley Lewis they could appeal to the City Council or the City Manager. They were told to send their letter to Craig Aldwood and it never saw the light of day outside of Public Works. They picked off those with impacts one by one with "eminent domain' as their calling card. Centennial Properties would have been easier to negotiate with than the city staff and the staff cut the Lewis' off from contacting them. They were told Centennial Properties was funding this project by 80%- there would be no changes. The railroading of a community to give economic advantage to Centennial Properites/Hanson Corp by disadvantaging the north side of the road is more profoundly unethical by calling the need to do this economic development. This commercial use already exists and you have made it harder for this young family to go about their day and do their daily business. The Local Access Road was classified as an arterial so they could get State funding but this is and has been a local access road - until this major regional change. We need to be included in the design phase. Good communities do this. Lake Oswego has 10 homes per acre and they work with neighborhoods from the design phase. Public Works will not change their mode of operation until the City Council mandates by policy that we include public notice with signage on the street and letters to recognizably interested parties as during the design phase. Public Works deliberate minimized the impacts but ignoring that this is regional transportation Planning Public Works ignored the existing and future uses of our neighborhood. This is an ATYPICAL road. The one-way design on Mission creates present and future problems. The Lewis reside on Mission where the City is changing the two way road in front of their home for the last 55 years. This is a family business Ashley and Mike Lewis live there with their toddler. When Craig Aldwood approached them, they were told they had no recourse. They were told not to contact Centennial Properties and any letter they should send to him. The City Public Works made sure that there was no way to solicit any changes to project during the design phase and forced this family to have to drive 2 miles out of their way every time they need to go east. This is an existing Commercial use and limits access to any future retail business they had hoped to open in the future. The City determined the Fisher's use of their property at 1603 N. Flora to park their 18 wheel truck used in his business was hazardous to traffic and while negotiating ROW - created a loss that was compensated at a pittance of the real cost in loss of use, he had enjoyed since 1988. It is too expensive to move and the economy help the city low ball residents in compensation, setting up fear, conflicting stories of how much they need. Offers, withdrawals of offers, and fears of eminent domain. Health problems and work leave little time to research problems the City is creating. Originally staff told Fishers they would leave 102 ft of right of way needed to park his 18 wheeler. Staff relayed a decision by some group that it was too hazardous for traffic due to the proximity of his property to the Roundabout to continue to the turn distance to park his truck The city negotiated only leaving them a 30 ft easement on Mission. We are unaware of any Council/Planning Commission consideration of ending their use. This goes beyond property acquisition to build a road. This is the railroading of a community. This isn't progress. RESTORE TWO "TIZAFFIC ON MISSION - DO NOT discontinue two way traffic on Mission. The Couplet (parkways need to stay on their property) to ensure they do not destroy present use of two way access of properties on north side of Mission by permanently redirecting local tr�c. These properties are forced to drive the Couplet. The City violates the constitutional rights of existing properties by promoting business that makes Centennial Properties King of the Road. This limits future development value of these parcels and clouds possibilities for these properties by creating a traffic problem that never existed with this one way street. This is a public road. One property owner should not receive special rights, grants etc to gain direction of an existing public road without public hearings. This entire process circumvented public process to fully disclose present and future problems. The one way on Mission takes away convenient present of Mission Parcels and limits future development value due to the inconvenience of creating one way tr�c on a dead end road. For the temporary promise of economic development we are destroying local access. This is immoral and unethical. Existing public roads should not be changed to assist rich landowners at the expense of the existing community. It is high time we learn to count every single property and retain their access and use without reconstructing roads from napkin drawings. This process has circumvented critical review with enough ; information to make informed decisions, as is typical before a Hearing Examiner. Changing the direction of traffic should not be based on supposition of a napkin drawing. It takes away the two way local access use of Mission and totally ignores impacts to the properties on the Northside of Mission just west of Flora, No matter who the developer. No one should have the power to create permanent inconvenience of having to drive the loop de loop couplet through a couplet to get home. What about future developments on North Mission? What about their property rights? going west, g on this regionally important transportation project. As you are aware the neighborhood has some concerns about how the project has proceeded and how the design affects the neighborhood. We recognize that the road is part of the city transportation plan and is intended to provide connection between Barker and Sullivan Road. This is Regional Transportation Planning - not merely a private development access road. A high standard of design and community involvement is warranted. It also has a major impact on our North Greenacres neighborhood. It will carry traffic from Argonne to Liberty Lake. We prefer and request that the City construct the original design of a normal two way road that was proposed a few years back That design provides the intended connection without all the complications inherent in the revised couplet design and is probably cheaper to construct since there is only one alignment to build. �"There does not appear to be any pressing need to build this road this ' year, the $1.5 million of state funds should be able to be extended for � another year, allowing time to do this right. The Public Works Department is very good at acquiring and keeping transportation funds. Last meeting, Public Works said that the road was redesigned, probably at City expense to accommodate the needs of the property owner. When we questioned the future plans for the Mission Road Centennial Trail access, which is shown as being eliminated on the preliminary development plans, we were told that the they were meaningless, not any better than back of napkin concept drawings. This doesn't make sense (or someone is lying) about the proposed future development, why would the City design a road for a development on the basis of a napkin sketch? Whoever develops the property can design and build the other half of the couplet to meet there specific needs if is needed. We like that roundabouts reduce casualties and reduce speeds. WE also know children, elderly and otherwise disabled will have problems with these crossings. Please ensure in the contract that conduit is placed for future addition of a pedestrian actuated signal. There are quite a few issues and questions about this project that we don t think have been addressed adequately. They include: Pedestrian Safety Atypical road design with multiple intersections and atypical traffic flow. The one road option provides fewer, clearly defined road intersections. Pedestrian safety will be at risk Public Works while negotiating ROW from the Fishers disclosed in October 2010 they had not done any pedestrian studies nor did they study the impacts with Mission hill. Concern for pedestrians crossing during winter months - will they have to climb big snow berms to get across the pedestrian crossing? There is a bus stop on the corner. How will these be maintained? Adjacent Property Owners This is an atypical road based on a supposition (napkin sketch). We do not know how the north side of Mission will later develop and how this road design will impact them as their property will be landlocked except for Mission. We do know that if Mission becomes a one way they will have to drive around the commercial parkway before they can go east. All future development will no longer have direct access we have all historically enjoyed. Since when does one property owner decide the direction of the road and force extra miles of driving that was once straight access to your driveway. Property Assessments City should explain how Public Works allowed $8 per sq ft for ROW for the road given as an in kind contribution �TAX write-off - both to Centennial Properties and Hanson Corporation. While the resident on the corner of Flora and Mission property only received �2.14 per square foot for newly purchased ROW. That is less money paid into taxes due to this high allocation of value. Equal value not given to smaller parcel owner. Same Road - same value. Where are actual bank appraisals? This looks like building anti- competition from the northside of the street as prime future residential or commercial properties have convoluted access problems engineered by our own City using our tax dollars. Will it ever stop? Piecemeal Planning This project affects regional transportation and there are other plans for the area that have not been adequately addressed. The grade at the Flora Intersection needs to be decreased to meet road and site distance standards. It has been stated that this will be looked at when Mission is rebuilt. The ROW negotiated for this project and the increased traffic that necessitated the roundabout (See David Evans study) is going to continue down Mission, affecting 72 homeowners directly on Mission between Flora and Barker. As Public Works stated at the last meeting they are connecting Liberty Lake to Sullivan and the Valley Mall. This violates Section 3.10, paragraph TP 1-1 of the Comprehensive Plan. 3.10 Goa1s �nd Policies Streets and Roadways Goals & Policies TP Street design should provide for connectivity between residential neighborhoods and collectors Discourage cut-through traffic At the very least the neighborhood should have been involved in the decision making process for this project, it affects all of us. Neighborhood Requests: Retain two way traffic on Mission - Centennial properties is taking all the advantage and creating disadvantaged properties in getting access to their homes or future homes when developed. Consideration of what exists is not included. This deal essentially clouds options of future use of existing parcels on the north side of Mission. The one way forces them and future development on this land to have to use the parkway - drive a couple miles the wrong way to get home. Forget something at home - they have to take the couplet drive the roundabout to get back on Mission in front of their home. That is just nuts. The river is at the end of this street. This essential landlocks the properties and limits Mission access. If Couplet is the only choice the City desires then please move the merge point onto Centennial Properties so it merges on there property not onto the e�cisting Mission ROW. This makes couplet enter Mission further from Flora intersection. Much better for pedestrians, traffic flow, and future development on north side of Mission. Solution showing conduit in the work for future Pedestrian Actuated crossing possibly when the school is built needs to be included in this project. 35 inch raising of Intersection at Flora - please ensure that retaining walls are provided instead of grassy slopes since this is expensive, unsightly and difficult for residents to care for. Retaining walls are a good permanent solution with low maintenance. Public Works needs to create a construction route that keep traffic away from the residential community as much as possible. Keep truck traffic west of Flora on their property during construction. This is the sixth (6 straight construction year in the neighborhood. Once again no way out without construction including Flora/Mission, Sewer construction, and I-90 construction. Continued access along Mission to the Centennial Trail. Most direct route for much of the neighborhood. Staff has promised that they will keep this access open and provide a widened paved trail as part of this project. THANK YOU. Council needs to request Public Works include the above requests on the plans as an addendum or if the contract is approved tonight a change order. There is a bit of neighborhood distrust of this project, to much has been kept secret, it is pretty easy to SHOW US your intent by revising the PLANS. WE ARE A CITY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NOT RESISTING CHANGE - WE ARE DEMANDING HIGH STANDARDS PLANNING THAT IS NOT PIECEMEAL - I appreciate your commitment to the community! Mary Pollard North Greenacres Neighborhood Chairwoman 17216 E. Baldwin Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99016 Indiana/Mission Couplet Summary of Concerns North Greenacres Neighborhood Mary Pollard/Chairwoman March 22, 2011 Thank you for your time and the opportunity for the neighborhood to provide comment on this regionally important transportation project. As you are aware the neighborhood has some concerns about how the project has proceeded and how the design affects the neighborhood. We recognize that the road is part of the city transportation plan and is intended to provide connection between Barker and Sullivan Road. This is Regional Transportation Planning - not merely a private development access road. A high standard of design and community involvement is warranted. It also has a major impact on our North Greenacres neighborhood. We prefer and request that the City construct the original design of a normal two way road that was proposed a few years back That design provides the intended connection without all the complications inherent in the revised couplet design and is probably cheaper to construct since there is only one alignment to build. There does not appear to be any pressing need to build this road this year, the $1.5 million of state funds should be able to be extended for another year, allowing time to do this right. The Public Works Department is very good at acquiring and keeping transportation funds. From the last meeting we heard from Public Works that the road was redesigned, probably at City expense to accommodate the needs of the property owner. When we questioned the future plans for the Mission Road Centennial Trail access, which is shown as being eliminated on the preliminary development plans, we were told that the they were meaningless, not any better than back of napkin concept drawings. This doesn't make sense (or someone is lying) about the proposed future development, why would the City design a road for a development on the basis of a napkin sketch? Whoever develops the property can design and build the other half of the couplet to meet there specific needs if is needed. We like the Roundabout. It is much safer. Reduces speed and it reduces casualties. Please ensure in the contract that conduit is placed for future addition of a pedestrian actuated signal. There are quite a few issues and questions about this project that we don't think have been addressed adequately. They include: Pedestrian Safety: Atypical road design with multiple intersections and atypical traffic flow. The one road option provides fewer, clearly defined road intersections that reduce pedestrian impacts. Eastbound intersection on Mission from Couplet is too close to alert inattentive drivers to the pedestrian crossing. This should have been pulled back There should not be one way traffic Lewis' live on Mission. Their commercial property rights were diminished - sent on a daily wild goose 2 mile chase - a trip they made of 100 ft only at 5 trips per day is now a ten mile jaunt. That is not economic development Time for changes are during design - not during the bid process. There was misrepresentation of this project This is regional transportation - It connects Argonne to Liberty Lake There needs to be signage alerting the neighborhood to the public works project. It effects 72 homes that front on Mission. The couplet should remain on the Centennial Property No one way son Mission. This violates GMA - ongoing and continuous because it violated the comprehensive plan by disregarding our recognized neighborhood boundaries and allowing cut through traffic - engineering it - not discouraging it. Concern for pedestrians crossing during winter months - will they have to climb big snow berms to get across the pedestrian crossing? There is a bus stop on the corner. How will these be maintained? Adjacent Property Owners This is an atypical road based on a supposition (napkin sketch). We do not know how the north side of Mission will later develop and how this road design will impact them as their property will be landlocked except for Mission. Property Assessments City should explain how Public Works allowed �8 per sq ft for ROW for the road given as an in kind contribution *`TAX write-off - both to Centennial Properties and Hanson Corporation. While the resident on the corner of Flora and Mission property only received $2.14 per square foot for newly purchased ROW. That is less money paid into t�es due to this high allocation of value. Equal value not given to smaller parcel owner. Same Road - same value. Piecemeal Planning This project affects regional transportation and there are other plans for the area that have not been adequately addressed. The grade at the Flora Intersection needs to be decreased to meet road and site distance standards. It has been stated that this will be looked at when Mission is rebuilt. The ROW negotiated for this project and the increased traffic that necessitated the roundabout (See David Evans study) is going to continue down Mission, affecting 72 homeowners directly on Mission between Flora and Barker. As Public Works stated at the last meeting they are connecting Liberty Lake to Sullivan and the Valley Mall. This violates Section 3.10, paragraph TP 1-1 of the Comprehensive Plan. 3,10 Goals and Palicxes Streets and Roadways Goals & Policies TP-1.1 Street design should provide for connectivity between residential neighborhoods and collectors. Discourage cut- througn traffic At the very least the neighborhood should have been involved in the decision making process for this project, it affects all of us. Neighborhood Requests: If Couplet is the only choice the City desires then please move the merge point onto Centennial Properties so it merges on there property not onto the e�risting Mission ROW. This makes couplet enter Mission further from Flora intersection. Much better for pedestrians, traffic flow, and future development on north side of Mission. Solution showing conduit in the work for future Pedestrian Actuated crossing possibly when the school is built needs to be included in this project. 35 inch raising of Intersection at Flora - please ensure that retaining walls are provided instead of grassy slopes since this is expensive, unsightly and difficult for residents to care for. Retaining walls are a good permanent solution with low maintenance. Public Works needs to create a construction route that keep traffic away from the residential community as much as possible. Keep truck tr�c west of Flora on their property during construction. This is the sixth straight construction year in the neighborhood. Once again no way out without construction including Flora/Mission, Sewer construction, and I-90 construction. Continued access along Mission to the Centennial Trail. Most direct route for much of the neighborhood. Staff has promised that they will keep this access open and provide a widened paved trail as part of this project. THANK YOU. Council needs to request Public Works include the above requests on the plans as an addendum or if the contract is approved tonight a change order. There is a bit of neighborhood distrust of this project, to much has been kept secret, it is pretty easy to SHOW US your intent by revising the PLANS. WE ARE A CITY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NOT RESISTING CHANGE - WE ARE DEMANDING HIGH STANDARDS PLANNING THAT IS NOT PIECEMEAL - I appreciate your commitment to the community! Mary Pollard North Greenacres Neighborhood Chairwoman �� � Dear Mike t�,��' Thank you -for your time. Big thanks. ( Year 6 of North Greenacres Neighborhood Construction) Sorry for any redundancy. Out of time. Prefer original alignment of one (two way road as this is a typical road and on map for years. Hearing Examiners do not make road decisions based on supposition or napkin conceptual drawings. This makes road enter Mission further from Flora intersection. Much better for pedestrians and future development on north side of Mission. If the Couplet atypical concept stays then move back the place where the one ways merge into two way traffic the same as it does on the West end near Hanson's property. Ideally, this keeps the Mission impact to one road Intersecting onto the original Mission and keeps the integrity of our alignment. Request: Move couplet back onto Centennial Properties so there is only one road that exit/enters on Mission. Fewer Road intersections will reduce pedestrian impacts. This is a atypical road based on supposition. We do not know how the north side of Mission will later develop and how that will impact them as their property will be landlocked except for Mission. This is Regional Transportation Planning - not merely a private developer building a road. Sullivan has Lights and we wouldn't send children /anyone across the street on Mission without a light - dodging cars and hoping for a gap in round abouts. I like the Roundabout. It is much safer. Reduces speed and it definitely reduces casualties. Ensure in contract that conduit is actually placed for future addition of pedestrian actuated signal. Concern: Land acquisition price per square ft on northwest corner was 795 sq. ft. of ROW bought at $1,700 that is �2.14 a sq. ft. While Centennial Properties and Hanson Corporation both were allotted $8 per sq ft. That is Less money paid into taxes due to this high allocation of value. Equal value not given to smaller parcel owner. Same west side of street, just other side of Misson. Same ROW needed for building round about. Dollars probably are somewhere in between. There was ROW negotiated in this road work and additional traffic that necessitated the roundabout (See David Evans study) is going to continue down Mission as it effects 72 homeowners directly on Mission between Flora and Barker. Again, this is really regional transportation planning. As Public Works stated they are connecting Liberfiy Lake to Sullivan - possibly to contribute to economic development. This violates our comprehensive plan that states �.1U C�a�ais �nd P+plicies Streets and Roadways Goals & Policies Goal TG-1 Establish appropriate design standards for transportation facilities. Policies TP-1.1 Street desi�n should provide for connectivity between residential neighborhoods and collectors. Discourage cut-through traffic Road Update. �iequesting City to go to original road alignment - 1 road - not couplet If Couplet is the only choice City desires then push it back onto the property of Centennial Properties so it merges On there property Not On Mission. This is regional Transportation Hearing Examiner does not approve conceptual drawings in a public hearing - neither should we This is a Public Road = while on private land. Less road ins and outs on Mission is safer for pedestrian Traffic. Future use of land on north side of Street not considered. The couplet should bring traffic back to two way on their property not on Mission. Developer Can build a couplet in the future if he desires - this is an ATYPICAL Road ATYPICAL road was about a conceptual plan that does not show Mission as going through to the trail. While developer might not follow this plan - certainly the couplet interferes with community use Of the trail Council needs to request Public Works to SHOW ME on the PLAN - not trust me. Future grade changes to Mission have not been shown to council there is a 35 inch elevation of the flora Intersection No More PIECEMEAL Planning this is Regional Transportation that is creating Cut through traffic down Mission effecting 72 homes. Where is the rest of the fix and how will it effect Mission Since they will need to reduce the grade approaching Flora Intersection to meet standards. Next year is too late - cliff hangers work in novels but are not appropriate to be employed by Public Works Solutions to widen path on North Side of Mission west of Flora needs to be shown on a plan that is dated and approved Solution showing conduit in the work for future Pedestrian Actuated crossing possibly when the school is built Needs to be shown. We are not settling for promises. Public Works needs to create a construction route that keep traffic away from the residential community as much as possible. Keep truck west of Flora on their property during construction. Resolves conflicts with residents City needs to explain how Public Works allowed $8 per sq ft for ROW for the road given as an in kind contribution �TAX write-off - both to Centennial Properties and Hanson Corporation. While the resident on the corner of Flora and Mission only received �2.14 in purchased ROW. Same Road - same value. 35 inch raising of Intersection at Flora - please ensure that retaining walls are provided instead of grassy slopes since this is expensive, unsightly and difficult for residents to care for. Retaining walls are the very best permanent solution and low maintenance. City needs to provide for weed control on their ROW Concern for pedestrians crossing during winter months - will the they have to climb big snow berms to get across In the pedestrian crossing? There is a bus stop on the corner. Please ensure there is funding to provide for prioritizing these clearings. When wealthy developers are getting a tax break at inflated valuations that is less tax money added back to our the Tax base for projects. We pay and they pay less. WE ARE A CITY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NOT RESISTING CHANGE - WE ARE DEMANDING HIGH STANDARDS PLANNING THAT IS NOT PIECEMEAL - City Negotiated loss of property use telling Fisher's that parking his 18 wheeler on his property since 1988 is too hazardous due to property proximity to the round about. I am unaware of any consideration of property impacts considered by Planning Commission/City Council in deciding this couple must settle with less use of their property. Mrs. Fisher's offer to have city meet with her neighbors was turned down as unnecessary. It had a lot of earmarks of being railroaded. There is evidence of the Public Works staff contacting residents with need for acquisition, then rescinding size of acquisition, amount of offer and withdrawing offers. This very unsettling for people and this seems to be the practice that is utilized. Properry Document Type: Deeds - Recording Number: 5974914 - Entiry: City Clerk - Scanned By: SPOKANEVALLEY\CBainbridge - Prop Document: Warranty Deed; Donald & Connie Fisher, 1603 N Flora Road - Parcel Number: 45124.0203 I appreciate your commitment to the community! Mary Pollard North Greenacres Neighborhood Chairwoman North Greenacres Neighborhood Transportation Notes March 20, 2011 Our transportation Chair Nancy Miller (Pete) looked this up on this link and found that City also bought ROW from the northwest corner property for the roundabout road improvement and the City bought 795 sq. ft. for $1,795. That is $2.14 � sq: ft; �fou�r �c�mp�re; The other side of the road — same Mission Ave. — Centennial Properties was given a value of in kind contribution of $8 a sq ft. — which becomes a tax write — off that cheats the people of tax dollars to bring to bear on future public needs. Are they over inflating Centennial Properties land directly across the street — both on the west side of Flora or are they cheating the landowner that is an average homeowner that isn't a big land owner by only giving him $2.14 a sq ft. While it is great to get a bargain - that is $6 a sq ft. difference in price. Who was cheated? The taxpayers by contributions we might receive by giving inflated donated value of ROW or the homeowner receiving $6 less per sq. ft. At Centennial Properties Price that homeowner should have been paid $7,800 not $1,700. Average people could do a lot with $6,100. It's a pittance to the big companies. Please ask to see all appraisals of property that was purchased. Also Steve Worley mentioned that they only have a public meeting when they have ROW to purchase — well they did buy some land and it did impact everyone near this intersection. I mentioned in the last email that they violated the comprehensive plan to discourage cut through traffic. I already asked Planning and they told me this isn't cut through traffic. This is certainly a regional use of this road that goes beyond a local access road. It is cut through traffic, Engineering Cost — They also paid Taylor Engineering to do a lot of their road design. Ingress/Egress Agreements were worked out in letters Dec 8, 2010 — Why is this all done without Council knowledge or approval and then we are all to hurry to OKAY a plan that is worked with the idea that Mission near the trail head will be closed? These are conceptual plans. A Hearing Examiner does not make road approval decisions without seeing real plans - why is the city pushing council to make decisions without drawings to mitigation dated showing changes needed. i. e. wider multi use path in north side of Mission. Hanson Contributed 4, 905 sq. ft at a market value of $39,240. $8 a sq. ft. Please note that the property on the Northwest corner of Mission/Flora was paid $1700 for 795 sq ft of ROW — that is $2.14 a sq. ft. while just across the same side of the street but it is owned by Centennial Property they got a valuation of $8 a sq ft. Where are the appraisals and why the disparity? Same value if considering it is needed to build the same road. It impacted Brian and Heather Baker at 1527 N. Coach. The City will not put in boulders for them but said they would put in a curb. This is another example of people worried about traffic coming into their yard after they bought and being told that the City is not going to do much to alleviate their fears for their safety in their yard if a stray car leaves. Read the letter. They at least will have a curb. We could not even get a curb on our side of the street. Parcel 55182.4006 The City stated the addition of boulders would make the right of way difficult to mow and maintain so they'll put in an additional curb. They care more about their convenience that the safety of a human being and a family. Unbelievable! Why isn't there planning when this was first built and finished in 2007. This is ridiculous. There is a letter to the Homeowners Association there asking permission to do work in Tract A. What happened to the Public Works rule that when they need to acquire ROW or work in front of homes that they have a public meeting. They have been doing some contacting here and negotiating access and ROW. Please note this is providing Regional Transportation Connection — violates comprehensive plan of discouraging cut through traffic through neighborhood. City has a map of our neighborhood boundaries and we are a very recognizable neighborhood since 2004. Despite all the money spent without any public input — The original design one road with two way traffic should be built since it is further down Mission and provides a safer approach to Flora for all local uses. I believe the original alignment was the best alignment as the landowner is not developing and is selling to another developer. The community should not have to change the use of the public road. The ATYPICAL ROAD alignment should not be based on supposition. Napkin drawings as these conceptual drawings were referred to. IN both drawings original and revised there is not consideration of the use of Mission by the properties that may be built later on the north side of Mission near the State Park land. This development may not take place for ten years while the community has to live with a road that enters way too close to the roundabout and has another convoluted road further down and a weird slip to get to the trail. Leave Mission the way it is used and build the original design and if the developer later wants his couplet - leave it on his property as Hanson has his normal lanes of traffic splitting into the couplet on Centennial Properties land. That is where that splitting of traffic should also occur on from the Mission Side. This is what is best for the people not for developer. There are too many problems here that pose future problems. Once the road is built as in the expensive changes to the two developments on the east corners of Flora/Mission that were just built in 2006 and finished in 2007. Where was the city's transportation plan to ensure that when the roads and developments were created the city considered their long range plan and mitigated the changes needed for the round about at that time. Now this is another expensive retrofit — Piecemeal. Raising the road 35 inches for the flat intersection is necessitated to ensure the approach is not too steep but Public Works stated they may have to make changes to Mission when they open that up possibly next year. Another piecemeal attempt at planning? Are we to get all our information in bite size pieces and wait for the cliff hanger ending the following year? Marjorie Walsh commented to Mrs. Connie Fisher that the City allowed an inflated value of the value of the Centennial Properties and Hanson Properties. We should investigate the assessed values and do the comparisons. Mary P011ard 17216 E. Baldwin Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99016 22 March 2011 To Spokane Valley Mayor and City Council, I am requesting that the following be entered into the record at tonighYs City Council meeting, which I am unable to attend. Under NEW BUSINESS: • Proposed Ordinance 11-004 Animal Raising and Keeping. I would like to speak in favor of the keeping of chickens, under the ordinance as revised to assure that it specifies that they be confined to the owner's �roperty. • Ordinance 11-005 which amends the Adult Entertainment ordinances seems to be as well written as is possible, considering the subject matter, without unduly infringing on the rights of property/business owners. • The Appleway Court Drainage License appears to be a win-win situation. I am pleased to read that it is to be written for a reasonable period (20 yrs.) which allows for adjustments to be made, if necessary, according to the conditions that are current at that time period. I would like to voice my support for approval. On the motion for consideration of the bid award for the Indiana Avenue Extension: This is in regards to the"Indiana Avenue Extension Project": I hope you will delay this until another reading until you've done further investigation on the issue of the roundabout, for a number of reasons, not all of which have been brought to the public's attention. I sent letters to each Council Person on this matter before 5:00 (I double checked) the date of the last meeting, but am told the Internet Gremlins failed to deliver in a timely manner but I was assured they were sent to the parties addressed. I may be repetitious here, but the attending public might also be quite interested. In the the meantime, I have spent a great deal of time reading the most recent comments and explanations from Staff (Steve Worley) in the archives of that meeting and am amazed at some of the statements. He speaks of a roundabout being the best solution for all the traffic that development will bring to this intersection by 2035. That's some crystal ball! I am wondering why he presupposes that "all" the traffic from the development will necessarily come through that intersection? I can tell you that it was not a problem for Planners to send it all through this particular intersection when they shut off the Barker Rd. bridge for 2 yrs., leaving all points N. of the freeway in this section of Greenacres the option of Mission and Flora or way out of their way from this end to go to Barker. That was the traf�ic from essentially all the new development in N. Greenacres and much of that from beyond Barker on Mission, who would be going to Sprague and Sullivan and/or Broadway big box stores between Flora and Sullivan. They did not see fit to widen Broadwav between Conklin and Flora while they were putting in a(ridiculous) roundabout there (again at the bottom of a hill as you come down off the freeway overpass!) and the Flora/Broadway intersection--- purportedly "because notmuch traffic goes East from Conklin". ?!? What were they thinking?---that the people just go shopping and never go home? That simply never made sense. And now we are being told a revised version---now the traffic coming East is simply going to burgeon to critical mass!? The property in question is zoned for business type uses. What they are looking for is ready access to freeway. Perfect location for that—in�ress/egress is right there @ Sullivan. There is no need to make freeways through neighborhoods. The freeway already divided neighborhoods. I have seen the prelim. plans for "Mission Ave. improvements" which make a mockery out of any consideration for neighborhoods. An arterial does not have to become some mass th�oroughfare. That's what freeways are for! They are adding more lanes to that; direct the traffic to it. I repeat what I said previously in that the roundabout at the bottom of a hill is nuts! So the engineers can raise the road level to "make it better"? They are difficult to see in inclement weather. I can bet not one of those engineers has gotten out on foot, carrying something, or disabled in some way, and tried to cross when traf�'ic is moving at good numbers; try it at various times of day and daylight and weather conditions. Why should everything be altered to accommodate such a thing anyway? People are still capable of functioning without lights; stop signs seem to have worked as well as anything for many, many years. I've lived at the top of the hill on Mission since 1966. The number of accidents there have been minimal, most all inebriated young partygoers or speeders, and few and far between at that You are now proposing to alter the geography to accommodate your engineers' vision, which is intended to make a freeway out of Mission as it goes through the neighborhood East of the intersection. You are not even mentioning that part of the equation! . Some of the following is material I sent to Council members previously. I would like it to be read into the record as it applies to this issue and others later to follow. On a personal note, the degree and intensity of construction activities, particularly diesels running back and forth up and down Mission past my house, have put me into congestive heart failure and COPD needing supplemental oxygen. At the time of the sewering/paving along Mission by my house, I was not diagnosed with either and was very active physically. Since then, I have deteriorated to needing supplemental oxygen 24 hrs. a day, with very limited mobility and deteriorating markedly. Additionally I now have a(medical) hypersensitivity to inhaled diesel fumes and/or soot. The other day I was reminded again of the distress it caused during all these "inconveniences" of being cut off, road-wise, wondering what would happen if one were to need an ambulance: Sirens were coming up Flora from the other side of the freeway, then came on up Mission. That means 2 roundabouts they would have to go through. What happens to the road traffic in these instances? With the dividers leading up to them, it seems they would have now�iere to go to get out of the emergency vehic;les' way. What do you da if have also raised the road? Ambulance arrival time is a critical matter. I think it is reasonable to expect that there are no-idle restrictions for � diesel equipmernt in place during all of these construction projects. Enforcement should be rigidly applied. Anything less shows complete contempt for all the citizens who live in the Valley, as we are all breathing the same air. financing behind the couplet extension. Thank you for considering these points. i G7�,��=..c'— ' ��"'c�"-�--�.''e'�'"'. Janice Austin 17222 E. Mission Ave. March 22, 2011 James F. Pollard 17216 E. Baldwin Ave. Spokane Valley, Wa. 99016 (509) 926-8899 Extension of Indiana Avenue Mayor Towey and City Council Members, A number of citizens feel there was a lack of transparency during the Indiana Avenue road extension process. It appears the only involvement tax payers had in this process, as in most other Public Works projects, was to pay for them. It's my understanding that at the time details of this road project were first presented before our City Council for approval, road construction bids were already being requested by Public Works. I believe the "six year plan" called for a"typical" roadway to extend Indiana Avenue to Flora Rd. Public Works intends to use our tax money to build a roadway through the Cowles property, with a couplet section, which affords four times the commercial road frontage than a standard roadway would. Basically, Public Works has picked money out of my wallet to fund a road project which enriches a chosen few but adds to the financial burden of the rest. This roadway is a part of regional planning, not local profiteering. ` The "gifting" of property for right-of-way by Centennial Properties, which I understand is owned by the Cowles family, is portrayed as being extremely generous in a Spokesman Review article dated March 12, 2011. It's actually nothing more than a numerical shell game. In this same article, Steve Worley, Senior City Engineer, made the remark, "Access to the Centennial Trail will be maintained." I notice he didn't say "current access" will be maintained. I'm certain the moment this new roadway is completed the City of Spokane Valley will be asked to vacate existing public right-of-way to the trailhead, allowing for construction of condos along the river. I'm also certain that if staff trends continue then, under the guise of "economic development", this request will be quickly approved. It's my understanding that right-of-way on the Cowles properly was valued at $8.00 a square foot, while right-of-way purchased from a citizen for this same project was valued at $2.14 a square foot. Our Ciry spent hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars on the SARP, which condemned the Sprague/Appleway couplet as being bad for business. Now the City wants to spend hundreds of thousands of our ta�� dollars to build a couplet for the Cowles family. We have a new city manager and a new city council which must decide if things are to remain the same, or change. ! � �_�� � � ., � ��.��� ,, .� �"'` � .a 'c ;� ' �;' - - : � � _ �� �' „ c , _..'+������ A� � � � ;�_ - � . � ,;� ` �, y . ���� � , �P . .+e `e - - � � 5� - � :�. '/_. � - .."`�� . � , 4 "� y ` \ ., .++�4_ . \aC � � +' :� . W N \T�� �� ,� t „ ... +"�F+ .. •, (t _, Y. 1'� w � I....A .� . yK � �IK y �� � �.l'] . . �. � +� � ... '�'-'. - � ' ��wil�l� �[ � r1 �PPY ly � �i � ` ..r �pow Blvd �- � ' �� - . =� � . _ � Y '�, } -"'� _, ,�`�� � � �. , _ � �., � , .�� � ._ � �ii. N r�► � � r . � �, � �;'' � ° �t� C �;`� , �� `� . . . F Z � � ����� _ �� ~ �� tl . � � �� . . � = a� i '" �, .. � . 4 � '" . . .. . „r � � k : ..� :s - . � � =� _ . �` ��.. f�.�� f1'�, ���� �-� -��