Minutes - 03/13/2008 Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Approved Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
March 13, 2008
I.CALL TO ORDER
Chair called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
III.ROLL CALL
Commissioners Robertson, Beaulac, Carroll, Eggleston, Kogle, Sands and Sharpe were
present.
Staff attending the meeting: Greg McCormick Planning Manager, Scott Kuhta, Senior
Planner, Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager, Lori Barlow, Associate Planner, Carolbelle
Branch, Public Information Officer, Henry Allen, Development Engineer, Christina
Janssen, Assistant Planner, Mike Basinger, Senior Planner, Tavis Schmidt, Assistant
Planner, Heather Morris, Office Assistant, Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant.
IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner Kogle seconded by Commissioner Sands, and
unanimously agreed to accept the March 13, 2008 agenda as presented.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Beaulac to accept the Feb. 14 and Feb. 28 t " minutes
as they were presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kogle and
passed unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
The was no public comment
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
The Commissioners had nothing to report.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
There was no administrative report.
IX.COMMISSION BUSINESS
New Business — Public Hearing Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan.
Senior Planner Scott Kuhta made a presentation to the Commissioners and audience
explaining a brief history of the Plan, Community meetings, and the anticipated time
line for the adoption of the Plan.
Chairman Robertson opened the public hearing at 6:21 pm. Mr. Robertson then read
the rules of conduct for the hearing and the Commission called people to testify.
Robert H May, 11112 E. 31st Ave. — Heard it mentioned earlier that the City lacked
an identity up until now you lacked an identity. I hear this from a number of my
friends. I feel matter of magnitude, especially changing the Appleway couplet to a two-
way and going back needs to go before the voters, to me it is a step backward, it is
not an improvement, I realize a number businesses think it is an inconvenience. I
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 18
think that the residents, at least the people that I speak to, home owners all in favor of
it, as a retired business owner, would not want my name associated with it to go
backward in time to serve my business. Things like this usually stick to you.
Dick Kegley, 1900 S. Century Lane - I agree with the gentleman that just spoke so
I will not double up on what he had to say.
Charles Gillingham, 3719 S. Ridgeview Dr. - I agree first two speakers 100%. I
might add a little something here. I took a survey of my neighborhood of about 50
people, 49 of them were for the couplet, and in fact they wanted to e,xtend it clear to
Liberty Lake. They love the couplet. There was only one that voted against, he is here
tonight and he is a very good neighbor, Mr. Behm, his is against us but that is alright,
everybody (has their opinion). I also have property in Greenacres east of Tschirley, I
contacted neighbors along Appleway, just east of Tschirley, and they are waiting for
this couplet to go through so they can continue improving their properry out there.
Monty Massengel, Allen Arnold, Artistic Landscape, he is waiting for this to go through
so he can start building. Commissioner Robertson asked for clarification if Mr.
Gillingham referred to the couplet as a one-way or a two-way, his response was a one-
way clear through town, like it is now.
Ron Roberts, 1116 N. Willow — I watched this thing grow here, and I always voted
for everything. I am sorry to say, I am not proud of this, I voted against one thing in
49 years, its the new library, its not the one-ways, that is another issue, I just think it
is the cart before the horse. I am concerned about the money, how much is this going
to cost? I know there is no money for grants, Federal State, anywhere, there is no
money for grants. This is pie in the sky. I support the rest of the City plan, everything,
I support it all. But, I am like the first 4 speakers, I don't see going backwards, I don't
like seeing two step forward and one step back. That is exactly this here. I have heard
the old worn out story, from the business people they are here every single time, with
the same story and if I had more than my three minutes I could probably talk to you
for 30 minutes of why they are wrong on this. I would like to hope that you are not
into something that I call lock on lock out. You lock on to only one way of doing
things, you lock out any other possibilities out there, please don't do that. Whether it
is this or any thing else in your life, when you lock on to something too strong it is
dangerous for you, don't do it. This is for long term traffic, if you really know what
long term traffic means go up to Sandpoint, ID. Fifty years ago, they would never
have known they would be in the straights they are in now. They need a by-pass
desperately. The business people and a few people that held that thing up. The
businesses are dying in downtown Sandpoint because they can't get the traffic through
there. I live about Argonne, when we go east to go shopping, if we got to Pines we
take Broadway, but any farther we jump on the freeway and go. So the businesses
that think I am going to stop and shop there, for something I am not going to do
anyway, when I go shopping I want to drive to it in a reasonable manner, without
sitting at every stoplight there is, Sprague is just a nightmare to drive on. I am like
this other gentleman, I have talked to so many people, I mentioned this to Mr. Kuhta,
and he said 'maybe you should bring some of these people with you.' Maybe some of
these people are here. I think you hearing one way right now and I think you need to
hear this. I am concerned that you get to hear this as much from the opposition as
you have given to the planners, your own planners that we paid a lot of money to a lot
of consultants. But don't let that influence you, if that money is gone it is gone, listen
to the people; we are the one who votes for things. Our library failed, let's not let
anything else fail, ok?
Doug Prussack, 2909 S. Man O' War Lane — I am not here to dis(respect) the
change thing. I just feel that transportation should be a large part of this and I know
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 18
light rail has been on the agenda before and it's been voted away. But I think with gas
rising the way that it is, that people will be more responsive to in the future. I think
we should plan 10 or 20 years and make it so that people can get from the Valley to
Sullivan in a half hour. Make it advantageous to put in a light rail or rapid transit
system that will bring people to this new City of Spokane Valley. It would create new
opportunities and enhance the whole future here. I know opposition is to the changing
of the road and slowing people down, but I think we need to look to the future of our
transportation needs. They already have the land there for the bus station, maybe
that corner could be the first terminal to start the light rail and maybe go from there to
Sullivan or maybe the whole corridor to have somewhere to start. Other things would
follow and businesses would prosper and bring people into this area. I think that the
Valley needs to look forward to the future that there could be enough land that we
could have our own fireworks out here some day. People could say the heck with
Riverfront Park, we want to go out to the Valley that is the most fun I ever had - that
new Spokane Valley, they really have it together, they are eco friendly, they have it all
right there, there is no need to go anywhere else.
Ann Ohler, 11219 E. 10th —I have owned land here in the Valley, I pay taxes built
more schools than you can shake a stick at, I do like the idea of moving forward not
backwards, and when I have occasion to come from Spokane or west of here and drive
on what you are calling Appleway, I like it. The idea of tearing up millions of dollars of
good road and putting trees in it, is asinine. Not ridiculous, down right asinine. I
mean, not to contrary to the people who see a beautiful street, but that is what our
property is all about, we put trees in our own yard. We don't need to tear up the
highway to put in trees. It won't make University City any bigger; it will take land from
the coming and going of traffic, rather than add to it. As far as I am concerned,
University City is not going to be very big. It doesn't look like it is a very big project to
entail so much spending of tax payers money to change the looks around. We don't
need new trees. We need a sensible governing group that sees the needs of these
people in this neighborhood, not Liberty Lake or Greenacres. I was hurt when they
developed the other shopping center on the other side of the freeway, where we so
generously contributed to build them an overpass on the freeway and make it so
convenient to move all of the businesses out of University City, I could hardly spit then,
I was so mad. I am glad they want to revitalize University City, but not tear up money
to build, that's all.
Ed-Weilep, 7216 E. 10th — I would like to see Appleway extended clean to Liberry
Lake. Then you have the prefect way to bring Sprague back one-way west. Then you
could instead of putting in light rail, you could put in dual power buses. In Seattle they
have a bunch of busses that run on electricity part of the time and diesel part of the
time. You could e�end the electric line and you could ride the busses out to Liberry
Lake and even e�end it to CDA of you want to. It would be electric going out and
coming back and if you had a detour, you could run the diesel a little bit. Once you
put light rail in, it is pretry well set. I am all for e�ending Appleway clean to Liberry
Lake and bring Sprague back one way west.
Chris Sheppard, 1722 S. Bettman — I just wanted to express my feelings about
keeping Appleway and Sprague the way they are - where you can go one way down
Appleway. It makes the traffic flow better. I think it would be a total nightmare and
like the other lady said tearing up what is already there. Keep it the way it is, I drive
to work every day down Appleway and I drive Sprague home and it is always busy, so
I can not I can not imagine how busy the road would be. It would be like living in
Seattle, just trying to get home in the Valley. Just on a side note, in the City Center
you have planed at the U-City area, I have a little concern, constructing all of that. I
belong to a really big garden club that meets at Decades, which is a big meeting hall at
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 18
U-City and we have about 250 each month at the meetings and I would hate to see
that go away and then we wouldn't have a place to have our meetings.
Pat Lewis, 145 E. 20th — I am against changing the couplet back. I use the couplet
everyday to and from work, and traffic flows. I am for moving the couplet and
Appleway out to Liberry Lake as a one-way and changing Sprague to Spokane Valley as
a one-way. I am also opposed to lowering the speed limit. Because, again it impedes
the traffic flow and I don't to live in downtown Seattle or downtown Spokane, I want
to live in Spokane Valley. So I don't want to see all the development that you are
proposing in your overall plan as it currently stands.
Mike Andrews, 601 S. Shelly Lake Lane —I am an owner of commercial properry
on Sprague. But to preface my remarks I have a friend who was in an accident — Mr.
Andrews tells a story about his friend having one leg cut off as it relates to Appleway
not being finished. Mr. Andrews states this is a situation he see happening right now
in the Sprague Appleway couplet. We, the Valley taxpayers, have put up with the
inconvenience of a partially completed couplet for years, only to now be told by our
city council - our doctors — that it's best for us to go backward instead of forward, and
have our one good leg cut off! Is it any wonder that Spokane Valley residents are so
upset? Yes, specialists have been consulted and paid big dollars for words like
"business disinvestment." But it doesn't take a genius or even a specialist to recognize
"disinvestment" — from my personal observation over the last 8 years there has been a
business turnover of almost 25% on Sprague between Sullivan and University — and
that's the part without the couplet. It only takes a little common sense to see that
much "disinvestment" exists because easy freeway access makes commercial
developments like the Valley Mall, or the rapidly developing Wal-Mart area at Sullivan
on Broadway, and even Liberry Lake more convenient and thus more competitive. Or
to see that traffic has been diverted by the added convenience of the completed
highway widening on I90, or that sales have been sporadically affected by some
serious national economic hiccups since 2000. All factors that have impacted traffic all
along Sprague. But yes, it's undeniable that businesses on Sprague between University
and Thierman have been affected most. Unfortunately, as Mark Twain observed about
cats that sit on hot stoves and how afterward they will never again sit on a stove either
hot or cold — we've learned the wrong lesson. The lesson is not that couplets are bad
— you don't see Spokane trying to undo the Ruby couplet — the lesson is that half-
finished couplets are bad. The eastbound traffic between University and Thierman
that was diverted from Sprague to Appleway was never replaced by additional
westbound traffic, because the uncompleted portion of the couplet acts like a
tourniquet that discourages westbound traffic on Sprague. It's like using a garden
hose to feed a fire hose and then complaining about water pressure. The problem is
not with fire hose — or the good leg that we have, the problem is with the garden hose
— the bad leg. Sprague businessmen, rather than supporting a return to two-way
traffic, should be scared to death. To use my wife as an example, she knows that it
takes twice as long to get to Costco from Sullivan along Sprague as it does on I90 —
even though I90 is 3 miles longer. So she always uses the freeway westbound. On
the other hand, because it takes so long to get back onto I90 at Broadway, even
though it's a few minutes longer she finds the Appleway couplet more convenient on
the way home, but she longs for the day when the couplet is completed so that she
can drive Sprague both ways. Commissioner Beaulac asked Mr. Andrews to wrap-up
his comments, to which he replied he had borrowed a couple of minutes from someone
who had chosen not to speak. Is that ok, is that fine. The response no is heard from a
couple of Commissioners, Mr. Andrews says he is trying to talk like an auctioneer and
apologizes, then continues. But should Sprague again become all two way it will be
impractical for her, and many others like her, to use in either direction, and in fact
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 18
she's so upset that she's decided if Sprague businesses are successful in killing the
couplet that she'll think twice about patronizing those businesses just on principle. Only
today in the paper, it was speculated that one of the reasons the Valley library bond
failed was from its perceived connection to the Sprague/Appleway revitalization plan
aka "killing the couplet". As both businesses and politicians you have to realize that it's
not politically sawy to deny your customers or your voters what they want. This
makes people mad. Mad that they are being forced to pay beaucoup millions for
something they don't want. Mad that they can recognize time is money, and that even
a 3-4 minute added delay on Sprague, taken at 2000 round trips a week and valued at
a meager $10.00 an hour amounts to $1,000,000 loss each year to the public. A
burden they'll bear this year, ne� year, and forever. Mad enough to vote their
dissatisfaction at both the polls and local checkout counters. Even if you as City
Council members were being forced to make a choice between the demands of
businesses and the demands of the populace — your duty would be clear. You were
elected by the people, and the political reality is that public roads belong to and are
paid for by the taxpayer - and consequently the prime function of public roads is to
facilitate the needs and use of the public. The fact that businesses can and do benefit
from public traffic is a highly desirable — but still secondary — consideration.
Commissioner Robertson states that he needs to cut Mr. Andrews off here to let others
speak.
Commissioner Robertson stated that once everyone had spoken once, there would be
opportunity for people to speak again.
Carolyn Gallion, 515 S. Shelley Lake Lane — I own a business on Sprague. I
believe we need a City Center. I love the atmosphere. We have no great restaurants,
we have no Valley atmosphere, and I am excited to see the Plan going forward to
create a City we can be proud of. Go to Seattle and see those freeways they have
going through those little cities. They look like skid row. I am concerned that the
Valley needs an atmosphere, a town we can be proud of. A City Center for our kids,
entertainment for our adults. I am really excited about this, I like the looks of that. I
want to be in a City I am proud of and a Community I can be active in. I am sorry I
am disappointing the community, but I love this, I want great restaurants, I want to
have a place. Thank you guys for all the hard work, I really appreciate it.
Doug Rider, 19410 E. Buckeye — I don't want to see Sprague Ave. changed back to
a two-way, I want to see it e�ended all the way to Tschirley, the couplet e�ended
east. The one thing I would like to see is more interest in light rail. I get an
engineering magazine and I could bring you hundreds and hundreds of articles about
how cities like ours in the United States like ours are putting in light rail. The longer
we wait the more it will cost. With the fuel prices and the traffic movement, people
are starting to see that maybe they want to ride public transportation. I hope that you
will give that a serious thought.
Art Britton, 18812 E. Sprague Ave. — I know Doug well but I disagree with him. I
agree with what they say about changing the couplet but the first time they opened
that I drove down Sprague, and I never stopped from University till I got to the
freeway and I haven't ever been on that thing since it was built. If you want to go
anywhere east of University on Sprague any day of the week, about 4:00 in the
afternoon, every major cross street is all piled up. And it's every day of the week. We
don't need to make more congestion, we need to relieve it. I live out off of Barker; I
guess we are going to get a new Bridge this summer, but any how. I agree with
everybody that's been up here but the congestion thing. I question why they can't put
more cross streets in between the streets down in the section where it's been done?
There are a few streets maybe that would alleviate business feeling like people can't
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 18
get to them. My wife can't find stuff down there. She can't find it if she can't see it
from the car.
Raymond Seely, 11021 E. 22nd — I am just a private citizen and I was on the
committee for the City and proud of it. I agree with everybody else I just want to add
one thing. Two-way traffic is horrible, you are going to meet somebody head-on. Keep
it one-way. I know where Zips is at, I can go around the block. I know where Skipper
Bills I at, I can go around the block. Get it all the way to Liberty Lake one-way. If you
really want to go to a business you know how to go around and get to it. It is just a
bag of worms to have two-way traffic. Sprague, 1 St , 2nd 3rd in Spokane is one-ways,
Ruby-Division, Maple-Ash, town's not suffering. I like the Valley here better, keep it
one way, get the people through.
Robert Wesner, 1211 Seven Mile Road — I implore you to change back to two-
way. I am for light rail, I like what you are doing, I think it is going to make something
of this city, otherwise no one knows where this City is unless you have lived here for
60-years. I was at the first meeting and I don't know what happened because
everyone there at that time, was for it was for this change. Apparently some people
have changed their mind, or whatever it is. I am for changing it back.
David Gnotta, 805 S. Marian — We have been following this pretry careful since the
beginning. We like the general concept, the redevelopment, I think we do desperately
do need that. But there are a few things I would like to comment on. First of all when
you get in and look at the plan, one of the central presences is the concept of reducing
the demand and congestion by having residential property of that area incorporated to
it. The idea being you would have less cars moving around the area. I would actually
challenge the logic of that some, if you think about it, the residents that are likely to
occupy that new housing opportunity would be new people coming into the area, you
are not going to have all the people who live in this house around it suddenly decide
that they can be a little bit closer to the shopping that is in there if I live in one of
those condos or apartments. I think there is a little bit of a fallacy there. The other
think I think maybe that is misconstrued, when you go in and look at some of the
details in the plan, and you see the beautiful pictures and stuff, you see the vibrant
shopping areas, I travel quite e�ensively so I see a lot of places like this, one of the
things that you see is a lot of really nice shopping facilities, stores like Macy's and so
on. Need to be a little bit realistic here. With all the major shopping areas we have
around here, we are not going to be attracting another Macy's or that type of shopping
into these areas. What is most likely going to happen is we are going to get more
convenience type things, sit down restaurants, that type of thing. The service
industries, the Home Depot, the Lowes, but it is not going to be a destinations
shopping. So that means our citizens are still going to be commuting in and out that
area all the time. Whether it is to go to downtown, or get out to Sullivan for the
shopping out there or just whatever or just to go back and forth to work. So if you
know you are going to have the traffic continuing anyway, I think inhibiting the flow of
that traffic, is going to be like so many people have said here, is really going to push
people off of Sprague, push them off of Appleway. They are going to try and go
around it. Before the couplet existed as it is now, my wife and I avoided it like the
plague. If it went back, we would go back to doing the same thing. In terms of what
to do about this I think there is a compromise here, I like the idea of having it broken
up into segments, I think we need to do that. Development is good, it is finding the
balance. Between what the citizens are quite obviously are telling you they want, and
trying to do as much as we can to make sure that the business that remain there are
vibrant. First of all, I think we have to have nothing or all, is a fallacy that when you
have this type of thing that is more pedestrian friendly, you could do other things,
perhaps you could reduce the lane-age in actual commercial area and then put some
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 18
kind of pedestrian zone in the middle of it, so if you have some little old lady who is
trying to get across it, they say it is too many lanes for her to cross. There would be
some little stopping point there that would be more pedestrian friendly instead of only
saying we are going to punch this thing completely down.
Grant Rodkey, 11524 E. 19 - I came back from Portland, hoping to find a more
progressive Spokane not a more regressive Spokane. I have seen regressive things
going on in Portland, they might call progressive, and they took great traffic moving
roads and turned them four lanes down to two lanes with a worthless turn lane in the
middle. The traffic on Broadway is a good example from Pines to Sullivan and despite
all testimony that was given to City Council; they stood in favor of two entities, the
School district and the fire district. They disregarded all the comment that was given
from the people along that road. That road is a morass. I don't even drive it any
more. Anytime I do drive it, I notice the traffic is backed up a half a block down, just
for people to get through the traffic. This couplet is the most efficient traffic mover in
the County of Spokane. I agree with this woman back here, it is asinine to change it
back to something that is not as efficient of a mover. I would disagree with the
planner here that says it is going to move more traffic. How many traffic lanes do we
have going now? Four or five lanes going each way? I anticipate adding trees and
those kinds of things that on Appleway one lane each way with pedestrian things and
what not and trees, and on Sprague 2 lanes each way, that's three lanes of any given
direction. Base on what I see going on down there, you are going to need more lanes.
You have a growth management act that is condensing population here, squeezing
more people into less space. You are going to have to have some where to move
those people. If you take away lanes from the traffic you are going to have an
experience down Sprague that is going to be road rage. It's not going to be a pleasant
one. All the traffic studies that were done by the County to make this project happen,
were those just foolishness, they didn't have any wisdom when they made this decision
to put in the couplet? There was a lot of money that was spent, that we paid for, and
that we are going to pay for if this goes through, that was I think, foolish This other
thing too, about the businesses, if the businesses favor this then they need to think
about the disruption to their business while the roads are torn up and also the
association by the people who are driving by whether that business is in favor of their
decreased commute their slower speed limit on there, the road, whether there is
someone there who won't shop at those businesses out of (turned his head away,
could not hear) I am opposed.
Phillip Basso, 12110 E. 24th — I oppose the changing back two-ways. It is going
backward. I kind of like the idea of town center but put it someplace where it's not
going to interfere with peoples lives so much maybe over at Mirabeau Point or
something.
Commission took a break
Gene Hinkle, 11916 E. Sprague — This is about these couplets. The so called
transportation consultant in a study they did is not the same as the same as the
County's and i feel they did a very legitimate study and that is how we got where we
are now. They did not have any preconceived results. If the couplet were to go back
it would result in drastically affecting a great many people for the convenience of a
few. We got where we are due to a lot of colliding factors, the owners and developers
of the old U-City mall got a shopping center going and then they basically road the
horse with now improvements until it died. In the mean time, we had the North Town
Mall, which was expanding, Downtown did redevelopment and expansion in many
areas, then what happened the Valley Mall developed and then, wow no surprise, the
business along this corridor had a problem, because the couplet had gone in at that
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 18
time. Every business along the couplet finds it very convenient to blame the couplet
for all their problems, and as one of the other speakers mentioned this is not valid, and
it is not so. There are several businesses that are thriving in the couplet, many of
them in fact. In our City now there is an intense effort to backfill with homes and
apartments, and there are a huge number of living developments that are coming to
fruition. We badly need enhanced traffic flow or we will have gridlocks. Seattle has it
and Wenatchee has it. They don't have an easy way to fix it or get out of it. I have
been on Sprague for more than 30 years as a small business owner. Nowhere in the
deed to my properry does it say that I have the right to grid lock the traffic or to keep
traffic hostage so that I can market them. Businesses are not successful; they need to
change their marketing plan, and treat people with respect. No business, whether they
have been there a short time or a long time are entitled , but there are a lot of people
in our area that think they are entitled to it. They are just not.
Rich Bryant, 12025 E. 31S Ave. — Tonight we are here to discuss the future of the
City of Spokane Valley, particularly the Appleway corridor for transportation. In the
coming months there are going to be some hard decisions made. First of all, the
bottom line is you are trying to create a plan that creates economic development.
Plain and simple. You want to get money in your coffers, without having to hit the
private citizens, property owners at the residential level, their pocket books. I am here
tonight, not to shoot down any particular plan but for the corridor itself. The deed for
the deed says for future high capacity transit. I have looked up several definitions of it
and no where does it say a road. Light rail, everywhere it has been put in it's been a
fantastic economic tool and down to the last individual said they would not go back.
The property tax has pretry much stayed the same but the City is rolling in the tax
revenue from the businesses that have come to the town. Another thing that we need
to worry about the future is Spokane, for years and Spokane Valley was a non-
attainment area for air quality. The last 5 to 7 years we have been free and clear. But
the EPA is about to come out with stricter air quality. That doesn't mean we are still
going to meet attainment there. At least with a light rail electrified system it does not
create stop and go traffic as does automobiles. After all our State is called the
Evergreen State. We should be in the forefront of green planting. Our neighbors to
the north, British Columbia have just announced a 14 billion dollar transit plan for the
whole province. In other words, try to get fewer cars on the roads. No where in that
plan does it say anything about a freeway or roads, it was all high capacity transit.
There are plans at a national level for the old Milwaukee railroad from Milwaukee to
Seattle to make a national bike trail. It is gaining momentum. It splits in Idaho. Part
of it comes here and of it goes through Tekoa and Rosalia. I'd like to see part of it
come up through here so we could generate the tourism dollar. As part of the Inland
Empire Rail Transit Association we are looking out for not only the economic
development of this area we are looking out for the air quality. More information and
studies that we have done, and we had no preconceived notions, we said let's just let
the cards fall where they fall, those studies are available at our website
www.inlandrail.org.
Angela Wakan, 2702 55th Ave. — We have barely moved from Salt Lake, but I grew
up here, I am really excited about the plan you guys have, the progress that I see that
can be possible if the vision allows it. I am the mother of two young children who like
to follow me everywhere. From the demographics here, I feel kind of out numbered in
my age group, but as part of the working class that id going to be working a little bit
longer„ that is looking to buy a house, possibly in the Spokane Valley area. This is
something that would bring our family to the Spokane Valley instead of somewhere
else, one of the outlying areas. I really do like, with the transportation issues, the
possibility of a light rail. In Salt Lake City, they put train and we could go from our
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 18
apartment to downtown, and see everything there. And the thing about downtowns
that are vibrant are because the people are there, not because the cars are there. I
am definitely for more ideas to get the pedestrians there, not cars there. A Commuter
rail. I do like mixed use of the zoning, I like the high density housing ideas that are
there, open areas for kids to play in, I would not mind buying a condo or a townhouse
in the downtown. I just want to say I am excited about the plan and the future of it. I
say go for it.
Dwight Hume, 9101 N. Mount View Lane — I represent a land owner, a group of
investors who own property at the corner of SE Appleway and Farr. In looking at the
plan as you propose it tonight, it has designated for the most part, all of the south side
of Appleway into residential boulevard zone. In looking at the intent of the Plan and
the category, and looking at the restrictions and the limitations on the use. We find
that we go from commercial to a down zone that no longer permits our pending
purchasers needs for senior housing, which has of all things a limitation on the size of
the building. That won't allow us a foot print that will accommodate the senior
tenants. In difference to your plan and in respect to try and not blow it apart. I would
suggest that what you do is that you expand the City Center category westerly, since it
does straddle Appleway at this time, and move it over to the east border of Farr Rd. So
that the City Center ends at Farr Rd. There are several reasons for that which are in
the letter I submitted, but fundamentally, you have a controlled intersection at
Appleway and Farr. You have north/south circulation between Sprague and Appleway
at Farr. So it makes a very accessible convenient route to City Center if you take it
over to that point. What it does for us it is gives us the ability to do what we were
planning to do. We thought we would be there a lot quicker than we are, we have
rezoned the property, you then changed the zone in the Comp Plan to what is currently
in place, but that is still ok, that's Corridor Mixed Use. But now you are going into this
residential boulevard which does not accommodate us what so ever. We would like to
preserve that, preserve your plan, move that, move the category of City Center over to
that point and save everybody the headaches of other problems that might come from
this. Mr. Chairman, I would also submit a letter from Jim Bonicelli that reflects their
side of this issue. One of the primary investors in that property.
Fred Haitt, 3610 S. Woodruff Rd. — It seems like the general consensus here is that
the County did a pretry good job deciding to put the couplet in, in the first place. You
all exist here probably because the couplet was put in. That was the main impetus for
creating a Valley City, to counter act what the County was doing. I suspect there is a
few people in this room, myself included, who would like to go back to County rule.
The things that you are talking about in the published information here. You believe
that our taxes are so low; this is weird, because I am normally not on a no tax, I love
taxes, and generally I love taxes. Because they generally beat good things out. But I
suspect from knowing who runs for public office, that everyone of you up there has
taken a stance at some point in your voting record or something that has voted for
people who do not like taxes. And yet, you are stating here that based on i-5 corridor,
you could double our property taxes, no problem, and be well within what you feel
would be fair for everybody involved. That's residential and commercial. Am I wrong?
ECO stated that I guess. The people you hired to. Commissioner Robertson
interrupted Mr. Haitt to explain that the Planning Commissioners are not elected. Mr.
Haitt stated that' you are a layer of government that is here, created by election.
Commissioner Sands also voiced that the Commissioners are appointed by the City
Council, that the PC members do not have any fiscal responsibility that they are simply
here to try and implement the plan. Mr. Haitt spoke over Commissioner Sands and
continued — the Federal government has let us down tremendously over the last
several years, I don't know if I want to even blame it on the current administration.
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 18
The 800 pound elephant or gorilla in this room is the dollar is in bad shape. All of us
are teetering on it. The Fed has just loaned the bank 200 billion dollars. To be fiscally
responsible, to maintain this layer is fiscally irresponsible, and everything that you have
laid out here. It is gorgeous, it is beautiful, it is great. But do I want to lose my house
because somebody has this idea? No I do not. I do not want to lose my business,
because somebody's got this idea that this is good for everybody. I think you have to
look at the reality of what is going on in this world now. It is not the same world that
it was. We are not the I-5 Corridor. We have shipped our jobs away; we don't have
the economic base to support what you are planning. I wish, Federal government has
let us down, State's not doing too badly, and County is doing ok. You are considered
my local government now and I do not want to be let down by my local government,
because it is the only people we have to truly communicate with at this point. This
plan is a total let down. Because it is not financially feasible or responsible.
Susan Scott, 2312 S. Bolivar Rd. — I have waited a long time for this hearing, since
the fall of '06 when I attended the first Community workshop for this plan and I saw
what was coming down the pike. My husband and I have owned business and
commercial property at 205 s evergreen, for the past 28 years. The property lies along
the south side of the proposed Appleway blvd. Under this subarea plan our entire
property would be reduced from commercial to residential. This down zoning
represents a 40 to 60% loss in land value. This business is our livelihood and the land
was our retirement. Being grandfathered in is cold comfort under the terms City's non
conforming ordinance. It takes the business, our business, a healthy business, and
puts it on life-support with the planning departments hand on the plug. The plans for
grand residential blvd. were overlaid on properties boarding Appleway with out regard
to the existing uses or the impact on the families and business associated with these
parcels. Each of these parcels has a face and a life attached to it. Although the foot
print of this Plan are supposedly cast in stone, until this hearing. Various parcels have
been moved in and out of the plan, district overlays have been expanded and
contracted. In fact the most recent flyer mailed out for this hearing has a different
graphic of the plan than the one in the official public hearing draft book. This is the
Valley; people have lived here because they like the life style they already have. It's
not California, it's not Florida, it is not even Seattle WA. It is conservative,
hardworking and practical. There is really not much patience with frivolous spending
and pie in the sky planning. You the planning Commission represent the people in this
equation we are counting on from trying to reinvent the wheel. Follow the Comp Plan
you just passed, plan a modest City Center, we can actually afford. Drop the subarea
plan and all this new coding. Above all do not pit businesses and property owners
against each other by taking existing entitlements from one group and awarding them
to another. Let market forces within the existing regulations work it out.
Chris Venne, Community Frameworks, - Our organization represents a potential
buyer of Appleway and Sprague. Our intention is to develop affordable senior housing
on that site. I know your Comp Plan discusses e�ensively about the need for
affordable housing. We know that 20% of the population is senior, and that is rising.
There just isn't enough affordable housing, especially for seniors in your community.
We have great client, who is a strong provider of senior housing, who is moving into
affordable means. We have spent almost 9 months looking for the best site in the
metropolitan area. We have looked from Airway Heights to NorthPointe, to Moran
Prairie, and the site we believe we have found, really suits the need for senior housing
about the best that we can find. In terms of services, walking distances, banks,
doctors, shopping, transit, near by. There is just everything that just favors affordable
housing at that site. We were surprised to see that the subarea plan, the details in the
requirements would actually prevent us from building at that site. We think it is
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 18
probably not the intent, it is certainly. There are two big issues. Number one, in the
residential blvd. area at this point multifamily housing is not included. We hear that
maybe a mistake, but if it is not included then our project is simply not possible there.
What will happen is that we simply won't buy the property, and we will build some
other part of Spokane County and not in the City of Spokane Valley. The second piece
is along that corridor the building width is limited to 80 feet facing Appleway according
to the Plan. That would work fine if the parcel if the parcel was oriented north to
south. But the existing parcel is orientated east to west. The only way you could fit in
the units is that way trying to build economically, would be to separate it into to four
buildings. That would mean four elevators rather than one, eight laundry rooms rather
than two; cost would increase significantly for the project. But more importantly when
you are building for a senior housing unit, you want to build a supportive community,
an interactive community. You want to support circulation and interaction among the
residents. They all support each other; they walk around and talk to each other. They
are early warning systems for each other's health. Generally that whole pattern is
what keeps people independently. So we don't want to build four separate units. We
could make the building look like it meet that requirement with architectural features.
But it needs to be connected. Our concern is that some of the details in the plan are
so specific that they are going to rule out some things that you really want. We hope
that the plan will allow this kind of use in that area.
Kris Jeske, 203 N Washington — My comments are directed toward the zoning
aspects of the Plan. I applaud the work that you have done with the Corridor Subarea
Plan. I agree with the overarching goals to revitalizing the area while creating a city
center for the City of Spokane Valley. I also recognize while we are hearing a lot of
the challenges of this plan that this plan will have. I did have a few comments to
further improve on the plan. One, I would recommend that permitted or prohibited
uses be more clearly and consistently identified within the Plan. Case in point, we are
working with a local financial institution that would like to locate a facility in Mixed-Use
segment along Sprague Ave. We have been working with the planning department
and have been told that under the current draft, this use would be prohibited, even
though it seems like a compatible use. In reviewing the document, on page 8, figure
1.16, it identifies examples of compatible development within the Mixed-Use segment
includes a photo of another local credit union so there may be a little bit of a conflict
here. We feel a bank with a drive-through located in a Mixed-Use segment is in
keeping with the overall goals of the plan for the following reasons; banks a typically
stable institutions with a high level of quality, aesthetic character, site security, and
strong maintenance regime. They are conducive to the types of development
identified as medium box, drive-through restaurants. They will contribute to increased
values of adjacent properties and structures and they foster pedestrian and vehicular
traffic, and will help to increase the vitality, functionality and safety of the area. For
these reasons we recommend the plan be amended to clearly allow financial lending
institutions to be located in Mixed-Use segments. On a more general note, we would
recommend that specific prohibited and approved uses be clearly identified with in the
plan, as it is a little vague right now.
Lloyd Benson, 16309 E 22nd Ave. — I heard Scott here, and as everybody in the
room, and one of the things that really got me is he said this is for the citizens of the
Valley. The citizens. Why is it not going to be on the ballot? That is where it should
be, so we can vote on it. We can save a lot of money instead of redoing what we
already paid for. I think I heard him correctly say that we are going to put parking
back on Sprague, put the buildings up to the sidewalk, then put parking on Sprague
again? I don't know, I think everybody in this room that spoke, is using that Appleway
couplet and thinks that it should be e�ended, and Sprague made one-way. And other
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 18
areas that they have made one-way, it hasn't hurt the businesses per say. It has
taken a while to adjust. Then put no light rail in, that young girl that spoke here, I
don't think she will ever see it. Because it costs money to put it in and you have to
have riders to ride on it. I don't see that with the population figures that go this way.
I just can't understand why we are going to spend $500,000 to get somebody else
from some place in here, when we elected, I think, competent people who can think.
Don't they talk to other people besides business men? That is what I have heard
maybe three or four objections of going back and they were all business men? They
were all businesses, not businessmen, but all businesses. I want to be able to go to
the other side of town and not be jammed up like I was before. This couplet, the only
thing wrong with it is that it extended with it.
Gene Monaco, 14820 E Sprague Ave - I have been cognizant of the Valley building
for the last 50 years; we have been here quite a few years more than that. My
business has been expanded many times in Spokane County and was taken over by
Spokane Valley. We still have not made our next expansion. I appreciate the
opportunity to be able to attend the public hearings and hope to come back for the
ne� one. I agree 201 s pines lady and her concerns. My concerns with some of the
zoning is the safety of the children, if children are in the area. I would like to thank
the group of people of who got me here tonight and would be happy to talk to them
later on.
Bill Coil, Plant Land Nursery - Everybody realizes that change is very difficult. In
order to change, for cities to become progressive, they have to think, they have to
change and they have to make difficult decisions. Progressive cities have progressive
transportation systems. I come from Portland OR, where their light rail is a shining
example where it was fought tooth and nail originally when it first started, nobody
would ever change that again. In terms of what I am seeing in terms of the core,
progressive cities need to revitalize. The businesses that have complained about
change in the past are businesses that have refused to either change their business
practices or business models, and if they are not out of business yet, they are going to
go out of business. The demographics in this room, I don't see any Gen X or Gen Y
people here. They are the future of a new city like this and I really applaud the
changing of the city core to invite new and progressive businesses to that area. Retail
businesses, if you are going to stay in business you are going to have to change
constantly to survive. I really believe the couplet needs to be e�ended to Liberry
Lake and it needs to remain one-way in both directions. I believe that is vital for the
success and the vitality of the core to bring people quickly and easily into this City
Center that I think is really great. Business centers that offer green friendly spaces will
draw progressive businesses, new restaurants, unique shops, new perspectives. In
terms of the zoning on this flyer that I recently received. It does not seem to me that
a residential a residential zone north of Appleway is a valid use. If we are talking
about transportation I believe residential use north of Appleway should be limited. I
agree the lady who spoke about her business change from commercial status to a
residential status. For the business along that corridor I believe that is going to be a
determent to the future development and future vitality of those businesses. I applaud
your work, but we have to concentrate on change and the pain that change creates.
Ann Ohler, 11219 E 10th — I think this is a little premature to ask me or anybody
else to vote on signs, when we haven't even vote on whether we are going to have a
revitalization of University City. And just exactly do you mean by signs? Commissioner
Robertson explained that the Plan has a sign code in it and then referred the question
to Mr. Kuhta. Mr. Kuhta explained the sign code related to the Plan. Ms. Ohler again
spoke — I would seem to me having a nice pretry little plan of your own that somebody
is going to dictate to, will that be the Commissioners or the zoning commission, on how
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 18
these buildings are going to look, where these buildings are going to set, where their
parking is going to be and now you are going to tell them what kind of a sign they can
have when you haven't even told them yet that they can build.
Ray Perry, 2020 N Eli — I have been a member of the sign committee for the Valley
City. I spent two years on it; we visited every sign type you can think about. We were
a very progressive group. As far as I have read, that the sign ordinances are the
same as we set aside a few years ago. I just want to bump on one other little subject.
I have heard a lot of people talk about Sprague Ave. and the couplet. The reason
Sprague Ave is the way it is now, branches off at university, and it a one-way from
there into the City. A few years back, a group of us, that I am a member of, Spokane
Valley Business Association engaged the University of Gonzaga to sample the
businesses along Sprague Ave. to see what they thought of the one-way and how it
effected them or how it would effect them. From the way it was at the time it was
change at University down into the City of Spokane and two-way from there out. We
sampled all the businesses, and I understand that people don't like businesses, maybe
at times, but you know someone has to pay the taxes. We sampled every one of those
businesses. We can show you that at that time, business people who, as we have
heard tonight, people who are wanting to buy property here can't do it because of
certain changes. But we sampled every one of them. We have a booklet and I can
show you I think that you people have a booklet on it, that they wanted two-way
traffic. Why? Because everybody is coming out Appleway one-way and going in on
Sprague another. They are thinking about two things, them getting home to dinner,
and two they don't want any traffic in those areas, and we can understand that. But
taking the businesses out of Sprague Ave. was a tough blow to swallow. People who
had big dollars invested in that property, sunk because of it.
John Johnston, 1134 W. Providence — I was a member of the ad-hoc sign
committee for the City of Spokane Valley for two years. I spent two years working on
the document, which was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission,
unanimously approved by the City Council and is part of the Comprehensive Plan. The
document that we had for our sign code was eight pages. The sign code for the new
overlay is 16 pages, and it only addresses the overlay. Probably the most devastating
sign document I have read in my 39 years. The sign code we have worked, and have
implemented is not relevant at all, in this document. Scott had mentioned the pole
sign situation, or free standing sign situation. They will be allowed in a limited
situation; however this is a limited situation. I would imagine that if this program is
adopted and all 8 or 9 miles of Sprague is put under this situation there are gong to be
some signage changes that are that are going to be some what dramatic. Also with
your agenda of adopting this in June, and implementing this, what happens with this
16 page sign code? Does that start then? So the business that is on Sprague,
Rosauers that is down here on Sprague decides to close and it is dark for 30 or 60 days
and someone moves in there, does that mean they have to go under the new sign
code, where they don't get a freestanding sign? Or if they do, it has to be 15 feet back
from the right-of-way? Or 14 feet back from any ingress? The wall sign situation is
incredibly limited, in my opinion. I have an opinion; I am a sign guy, after 39 years in
the sign business, and two years working on a sign document. This is a document that
adopts to this plan, but very, very restrictively. When this comes into fruition, this sign
code needs to be looked at much more strongly than it has been. Some of the
recommendations in it are absolutely devastating and I don't think the business
community will stand for it.
Mike King, 9300 E Sprague Ave.— I support your plan over all. I think it is a good
idea, it is a good impression. It may go a too far, too fast, but I don't think that any
one person should kick the legs out from under it and defeat it. I think it is a good
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 18
overall concept. Once adopted I think the Commissioners need to stick to it and not
waver politically. As far as what I would like to address, the 15% rule, any building
that an improvement greater than 15% of its assessed value of the building, or 15% of
the building foot print. I think that is too restrictive, to tight, too small and will lead to
stagnation and decay. I have studied this quite a bit and thought about it more than
that and i feel that a 25% rule is more realistic. I think the 15% rule is way too tight.
If you keep it at 15 percent or even 20 percent, that stagnation and great hardship you
will put on businesses and building owners will be doomed for failure and I don't think
realistic. Pertaining to the roads and on Appleway. Designing Appleway and e�ending
it two-way better, if you keep it design and e�end Appleway two lanes is destine to
fail. You are building too small; you are not building with a broad-brush sense. So
whatever design you do, two-way traffic, one-way traffic, two lanes e�ending
Appleway, you are not looking at the future.
F7 Dullanty, 422 W Riverside - here on behalf of University City LLC. — Have
submitted comments in writing. We have been working with Heartland, LLC who is a
real estate property developer and advisor. Many of you are aware that U-City owns
many of the properties within the proposed City Center zoning corridor designation,
most notably the properties comprising the University City Mall. In fact, U-City is
currently in discussions with city with respect to the location of City Hall, at the U-City
site as other civic facilities. We are supportive of the City to recruit a town center
developer to begin the City Center. We applaud you in your efforts, and some of the
pain you have to feel in being here this late and listening to others over and over
again. We applaud the City in advancing a plan that examines new ways economic
development of the corridor. We support many of the concepts numerated in the
corridor plan, such as Mixed-Use development, and a greater emphasis on pedestrian
orientation. We understand that future development will have to be done differently
than in the past. We are generally willing to take a leap of faith that the market will
embrace those changes but we need help. We need the City's help to make that
happen. We need the support and we need that carrot out there to help us go through
and take that risk that you are asking us to take. That said there are several reasons
for concern about details in the proposed plan. The first is the prelocated core street.
This regulation is specific only to University City. We understand the intent is to insure
the creation of the core street for the City Center. Even assuming there is no
developer around, the City will still get its City Center and still have its core street. The
reality is that a deal with a developer is not possible; the regulation will serve as an
impediment to the actual development itself. It places an unfunded mandate on future
development alternatives. We are supportive of qualitive development on the corridor
giving the City giving the city tools to make that development happen. But the degree
which one property owner is burdened by a regulation created for community benefit
and the vagueness of the language relating to a specific location and composition is of
the core street a e,xtreme concern to us. Typically a development agreement is the
best tool a city can have to link regulatory requirements unique to a site for desired
public policy outcomes. We support including the core street standards in a
development agreement as opposed to the regulatory framework of the City's zoning
code, with a potential developer. You take the standards you want and incorporate
that into a development agreement as opposed to a flat City standard. Should the core
street regulation be removed from the proposed code and included into a development
agreement concept instead then we would support the identification of the location of
a core street in a goals, vision and intent section of the plan. So you take it from the
regulatory framework and put it into the policy part of the plan and you mandate that
it is part of the development agreement. Our second issue relates to the proposed
zoning of city center. Regulations assume an infrastructure and uses that are not
market based. For example when viewed in combination with each other, the
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 of 18
regulation necessitating structured parking can not be financially supported by
development, especially upper level uses, such as office and residential uses, will not
support in an area that size. We have discussed other regulations with respect to two
story development, building frontage and coverage, and we'd ask that you consider
those written responses and comments. We welcome the opportunity to work with
you in the future and on this project.
Randy Grinald- 521 E Shoreline Dr. — I am a property owner in the subarea plan
area. I had the opportunity to come in and talk to Scott about a couple of different
issues. One of them that he brought up, the gentleman in the first row, 15% plan. I
would like to, this is a long range plan so I would like to give you a long range
example. Some day this fine building, that my dad built, is going to need a face lift.
Under the current plan that is being proposed here if the cost of face lift is more than
15 percent of the assessed value, then they are going to have to abide by all aspects
of new zoning code and plan. And that would include the setbacks. Well pretly much
everything along Sprague in the subarea plan would be a non-conforming setback. So,
what you would be asking people to do on a building such as this, or Safeway or any
large buildings that are set back off the street, is either to tear them down and move
them up to the street or add on to them. Causing other problems, ok now you have
added on to the building now you increase the parking, you have to rearrange your
landscaping, maybe the ingress and egress, and I think that is putting an undue
burden on a lot of buildings, on a lot of buildings that are on the Sprague corridor. If
you take his option (Mr. King) of raising it to 25 percent or another number, excluding
the setback provision of that I feel as he does, it is going to cause stagnation. If I am
a building owner and I know I am going to have to a lot of work, like adding on to the
building, changing the parking, landscaping excreta just because I want to make my
building look nice, I probably won't do it. I think it will have the reverse effect to what
you are trying to accomplish here, for a lot of buildings. There are lots of examples if
you just think of this building by itself, moving it towards the street is going to be
e�remely difficult. A lot of them are like that along Sprague Corridor. Another
comment I would like to have goes back to transportation, and I have heard a plan C.
All I have heard is Plan A and Plan B. I had the opportunity to graduate from Montana
State in Bozeman and they have a main street called Main Street just like Sprague and
they kept it two-ways. On either side of that street they have a one-way street. One
goes east and one goes west. We have the one going east started why don't you get
one going west like Broadway or Valleyway? It keeps both sides of the isle happy and
you have your corridors for going east and west and then you have anyone who wants
to go up and down Sprague two-way satisfied.
Allan Laubenfels, 13120 E. 6 — I am a retired planner and I have the benefit of
seeing the future that I dealt with when I was a young man. I want to say something
a little bit different than what you have heard, since you have heard it so many times.
Spokane Valley is not an island unto itself. In the future there are not going to be
fewer people here, there are probably going to be more. People are going to need to
move around and they will probably move around in cars. So there is going to be a
need to carry more cars, some how some way. So that means that the couplet is
going to have to carry more cars It is very likely that in the lifetime of some of the
people around here that they are going to be talking about a second freeway,
connecting downtown Spokane to the east. We talked about where that might be
located when I worked for the County. That will be in the future sometime. None the
less we can't think in terms that the future is going to looking like it does now. The
future is going to look different than it does now. So the idea of going backwards
where the idea of carrying traffic is concerned is a non starter, the future will be upset
with us for doing that. The other thing that I think we need to look very carefully at is
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 of 18
that there are about 250 cities in the state of Washington. There are fewer than 10.
which are smaller than our city. - Our city deserves to have its own character, and
because of that I fully support the plan you are talking about. I know full well that that
plan will not just suddenly come in to existence. This is something that will be worked
in time, little bits of pieces here and there. It is not something that is just going to
magically appear. It is a good idea and something that ought to be the basis for
discussion and we have had a lot of good discussion here, and a lot of good thought
here and I think that is really great. I am really looking forward to it and I think the
people are to be commended for that too. You listen well and I think this a really good
thing that this has occurred. But keep it in perspective. The future is a long ways off
and we have to be conscious of that future and that nothing is going to stop right now
and stay like it is, it is just not going to happen that way. We have got to be part of
that future and if not we are going to be obstructing, and if we do that the future is
going to be sorry if we do that.
Nancy Nishimura, 15103 E Valleyway, - I am an owner of a business on Sprague,
GreenThumb Nursery at 16816 E. Sprague. I was also on the sign committee. I have
mixed feelings about corridor; I really do think that there is maybe more than one way,
a plan A and plan B. I think that the businesses have suffered. I think that Ray Perry's
comment about the study that was done by Gonzaga should not be ignored. It not
that, people are saying that'oh, if you are a business you should not be commenting'
and people won't come to your business. This is America, this is a democracy. We did
fight so that we could speak and be honest. I guess you have the right to not shop at
my store if you don't like my ideas. I think that returning to a two-way-street in some
areas would be a good thing for the businesses and pedestrians. I took my car, one
day to get tire fixed and I will walk down and across the street to my business and it
was horrible. There was no way to get across the street really safely. I was hoping
people would see me standing in the center turn lane, but it is really not pedestrian
friendly. I think that is something that should be kept in mind. I think the character of
the valley is something that should be kept in mind. I like progress but I also thing
that there are really important things we want to retain, personally I don't have any
large animals, but around me when I was little, we always had large animals that we
allowed. That was part of the character that was allowed. We should not get rid of
that. Having a city center that is pedestrian friendly is a really good thing. I want
good restaurants that I want to eat at in Spokane Valley, there are very few at this
point. I like the idea of light rail, I think that is an important thing.
Gene Hinkle, - 11916 E Sprague Ave — I am talking about exits on the freeway.
When I moved here it was thought by most of us thought there was going to be an
exit on University. What I don't understand how an exit got put in for the mall okay
and you need that all there. Now they are going to one put in for Cabellas, just across
the state line. So, I don't think they tried very hard here to get an exit for University.
And if you think not putting an exit in for city center-doesn't make a whole lot of sense
to me.
Ron Roberts, 1116 N Willow — I want to see the city do well, I want this
recognition all of over the state, I want us to be known nationally. I would like to be
known as a good place to come to. I think we need to start from the ground level, I
am sorry but we are sitting in a building we are renting space in. We don't have
enough room to accommodate all the citizens who wanted to get in here tonight. I
think what we need to do is focus on one thing and that is our city center and get a
facility there. Down at U-city area I really support that, if you have good restaurants
people will come to them. Some of the old strip malls over time look old, they look
bad. Who's really to blame? Is it the fault one way two way, I don't think so. I think
it's the fault of the people running and owning and managing these places. You are
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 18
not going to come into my house if it's dirry and things are not right. You are not going
to want to come back. I want to go back to any business that I feel welcome in and
have a good product and good service anything I want I can find. I am sorry but I
think if our businessmen-if they had control in the 1950's, we wouldn't have Interstate
90 through here. All the traffic would have been forced on Trent and Sprague. That's
the mentality we are using on a different basis. I think what we have to do is keep an
open mind like this one gentleman said — for the future. We have to look at the future.
We are going to have to find another way, because our Gods in the West side are not
going to grant us another lane and very soon, that freeway that was planned in the
1950's and they just gave us another lane — just to Sullivan. That's the only lane they
have given us in 50 years. It's not going to be the State that's going to help us; we
are going to have to help ourselves. This community is vibrant in a way.
Bob Nevers, 10620 E Nixon Ln. — I own some commercial land. I understand that
you are going to take some commercial land and change it over to residential land. Do
you have any idea what that means? I have been paying for my commercial land for
20 years, so you just chop it right in half and it's worth half as residential land. You
can't do that to small people that take 20 years to build up their savings and
commercial land and just change it like that storage place that that one lady was
talking about.
Philip Rudy, 720 n Argonne Rd. - I wish that a lot of these people that have spoken
so emotionally had been here for some of the things that the consultant had said
because it gave a very good example of the business in Georgia, that survived 400
years and it had to do with the layout and how the roads were that had allowed that
city to survive so long and flourish through so many changes. It remade itself many
times. As far as the two-way, I am in favor of it going to two-way all the way like you
are suggesting like your consultant suggested. For a couple of reasons: 1) it helps
probably to accumulate a lot of people in one area. It lends itself much better to mass
transit systems. You have heard of large buses, light rail and my favorite is monorail.
For a couple of reasons I like monorail because it has grade separation from the traffic.
Monorails don't run over people, it can be moved later if you want to, they can be
taken across parking lots and they don't have the maintenance that light rail has.
Monorail costs a little more going in, but it is less to maintain because you don't have
the grade encumbrances with traffic. With light rail you have to deal with all the lights
and those get expensive. People will go where it is business friendly and business will
go where it is people friendly. The risk takers and aren't going to make an investment
unless they know they are going to get a reasonable return on their investment. One
of the things that F.J. Dullanty said he doesn't want you to force the road on his
property. Then that confines what they can do with that property. I agree with him. I
think you should open up where you are going to put city center. You have the
concept, but there is a whole lot of area around east Sprague and I think you should
let the big boys fight it out, duke it out. Let them come to you with suggestions of
what they think the City Center should be and where it's at and what they are willing
to make for the concession of having City Hall there and library. As your consultants
pointed out, library is a great magnet. Spokane Valley consists of 45 square miles.
That is roughly 30,000 acres; the City Center that you are talking about encompasses
about 30 acres, that is 1/1000 of the entire area of the City. That is 10 of 1 percent.
Berry Loshlel, 2018 N Locust — The freeway needed to be three lanes when I
moved here in 1979, I am glad it is three lanes now, now it probably needs to be four.
I am all for the one-ways both ways all the way to the end of our Valley and all the
way to Liberry Lake. For this gentleman we do have Gonzaga so we kind of are on the
map. I like the Planning Commission's concept and everything. I don't know if it is
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 18
feasible, is beautiful, the brochure the whole 9-yards. It is going to take lot of money,
the businesses make the money, the people spend the money but if we make enough
money, we have taxes going up on our property. It went up on mine; I am sure on
everybody else's also. If I don't have any money to spend on the businesses, it is not
going to do me any good; it is not going to do any of the businesses any good. That's
the bottom line to me. I believe that part of the problem is that the government
seems to be out of control. Somebody here said the state government is doing a good
job, I rarely disagree with that. I know Gregoire has hired 6,000 employees that make
way more money than I make and I am footing the bill. What I believe is that if we go
small, take small steps, don't do too much at once, this will all work out. The economy
will turn around, things will look a lot better. And I am just asking that the people be
judicious with our money. Because it is all of our money that we are pitching in we
don't need it (excuse my language) pissed into the wind, like everybody else is doing.
Pat lewis 14502 E 20 Ave. — Earlier I spoke from personal experience but I am
also in property management, and I am concerned about the zoning changes from
commercial to residential. On behalf of my current property. One of the examples
down on Evergreen and Sprague, where the Safeway backs up against Appleway right-
of-way. The Appleway right-of-way is currently 40 feet, according to the plan the
residential boulevard needs to be 100 feet. That is 60 feet that you have to take from
either the back of the Safeway or the gentleman with the storage area. And that
continues all the way down until you end the Appleway couplet. I feel that is truly an
unfair burden on the current property owners. They will lose not only the landscaping
that they paid to put in, the access roads that access their loading docks, they will
have to find an alternate route to get product into their store and that puts trucks,
semi trucks, into the frontend or side of those properties. That really is just not
pedestrian friendly at all.
Commission discussed continuing the public hearing and when they should end the
comment period. Commissioner Kogle made a motion to continue the Public Hearing
to March 20 and close the public comment period on March 21nd at 5:00 pm.
Commissioner Sands second the motion, vote is unanimous.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Commissioners Eggleston and Sands will not be able to attend the March 20 meeting.
XI. AD70URNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 pm
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Ian Robertson, Chairperson
3/13/2008 Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 of 18