Loading...
Minutes - 12/09/2010 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. December 9, 2010 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance IIL ROLL CALL Commissioners Carroll, Eggleston, Hall, Mann, Sands, Sharpe and Woodard were present. . Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung Community Development Director; Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney; Lori Barlow, Associate Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor; Dean Grafos, Councilmember; Brenda Grassel, Councilmember; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Sands made a motion which was seconded and unanimously approved to accept the December 9, 2010 agenda as presented. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Woodard reported he had attended the City Council meetings. Commissioner Carroll stated that he had met with a citizen in regard to an upcoming proposed code amendment on adult retail use. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director McClung stated that during the next council meeting the Mayor would be announcing the new Planning Commission members. The director also stated that this would be Commissioner Eggleston and Sharpe's last meeting and thanked them for their service. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. New Business: Study Session — Code Amendment CTA-09-10, Adult Retail Use Establishment Associate Planner Lori Barlow made a presentation to the Commission regarding the proposed code amendment to modify the definition of Adult Retail Use Establishment. Ms. Barlow explained the difference between an Adult Entertainment establishment and an Adult Retail Use Establishment. An Adult Entertainment Establishment example would be Deja Vu, they are required to follow different regulations and allows for viewing movies, arcades and live entertainment. These types of 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 12 establishments are governed by the zoning code Chapter 19.80 and must be licensed according to Chapter 5.10, Adult Entertainment Establishments. An Adult Retail Use Establishment example would be Castle Superstore, where themed merchandise is for sale or rental. Adult Retail Use Establishments are governed by the zoning code, Title 19.80. The current definition is being proposed to be amended as follows - Adult retail use establishment: A retail use establishment which, for money or any other form of consideration, devotes a significant or substantial portion of stock in trade, to the sale, exchange, rental, loan, trade, or transferrin�, �Y �=Y��WYYY� of adult-oriented merchandise. The retail use establishment ma�permit patrons to view the adult-oriented merchandise for possible purchase or rental, but such on- premises viewin� shall not be in exchan�e for money or anv other form of consideration. Ms Barlow stated that the issue at hand is that the final phrase in the original definition `the viewing of adult-oriented merchandise' is becoming difficult to say it does not allow the viewing of merchandise for sale or rental in an adult retail use establishment, and that you cannot charge money to do so. Both uses are allowed in the same zoning districts, but are regulated differently. The proposed language will remove the incentive to view the movies in the retail use establishments since they cannot charge money to do so. Commissioner Mann asked if an establishment showed a movie for free to get people in the door would that be would be ok? Acting City Attorney, Cary Driskell, stated that to look at the question in a different way: that if Blockbusters or Hastings were to show a movie up on the wall or if an Adult Retail Use Establishment were to do the same we could not tell them "no" because the City cannot differentiate based on the message. The appellate courts have stated that would be unconstitutional, it violates the first amendment regarding freedom of speech. The City has drafted the language this way in the definition in order to protect the first amendment and still restrict viewing in the retail use establishments. We cannot tell them they cannot view something, or that they can't look at the cover, that is considering viewing, and considered part of the decision to purchase or not purchase. Within the constraints of the first amendment and the case law, we can say they can show it, but cannot charge for it. The reason we can enact this regulation is that we have defined the conduct, `viewing of adult themed content for a charge' is adult entertainment. It has licensing requirements, it has different zoning requirements and from that aspect we have drawn the regulation as close as we feel we safely can within in the law. Commissioner Mann asked if the City was attempting to change behavior, in the retail use establishments? Mr. Driskell responded the City Council defined that activity, viewing for a charge, as being adult entertainment. It has been brought to the City's attention that that the "or viewing" can be interpreted in such a way that it allows that behavior to be conducted in a different zone. So this change is to simply identify which establishments this type of behavior will be allowed in. The goal is to clarify the definition, if the change in behavior would be a consequence of the change of the definition, then that would be something we could not control. Commissioner Sands asked about video media to be separate from other types of inedia. Would it be possible to define the media in another way? Mr. Driskell stated he thought that the amendment had been written in a way that is constitutional now and he would rather not rewrite it. However he stated he thought they could go back and look at it a little more closely, but he would have concerns about doing that. Commissioner Carroll asked if the proposed definition had not been tested in the court already, would the City be at risk if we changed it now? Mr. Driskell stated the prior definition had been tested for other challenges but did not believe it had been tested under these grounds so he has no great confidence that it would be upheld for that reason. Currently the City feels it can tighten up the regulation and if it needed to be enforced this regulation could be upheld. This is why staff is currently recommending this change. Commissioner Carroll said that `viewing' had been removed and then added back in to the definition, would it be better to say, not allowed for viewing on site? Mr. Driskell stated he could also look at that option, but would rather not. 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 12 Commissioner Sharpe asked if this had been an issue or was staff just trying to clean up some items? Mr. Driskell stated it had been in issue. There have been complaints received by the City. Mr. Driskell stated he did not feel that the complaints received by the City were relevant to the Commission's consideration of this amendment. Mr. Driskell stated his opinion was that staff reviewed the issue, made the determination that the definition needed to be refined and are presenting that to the Commissioners for a recommendation. Commissioner Carroll stated he was concerned that we were still allowing viewing when we were trying to stop that. Mr. Driskell stated he did not feel that the City was trying to stop viewing, because there could be a constitutional issue with that. What the City is trying to do is stop the viewing for a charge, which is defined as adult entertainment elsewhere in the municipal code. Staff is attempting to harmonize the two code provisions. Commissioner Sands stated the same type of viewing could endanger staff or the community in those establishments if it is not regulated under the adult entertainment regulations. Mr. Driskell stated he would take a look at this issue and report back to the Commission. Mr. Driskell asked for clarification that the adult retail definition could be further amended to prohibit any viewing of adult video on adult retail zoned places? Commissioner Sands stated that the two places were not regulated the same. In adult entertainment establishments there are rules that regulate where viewing is allowed in certain places, certain circumstances, and protect the staff and community. In an adult retail there are not. Mr. Driskell stated he would look at this. B. New Business: Public Hearing — Comprehensive Plan Amendment, ECPA-01-10 Removing the City Center designation from the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Chair Carroll opened the public hearing at 6:27 p.m. Prior to the presentation, Ms. Kendall stated that written comments had been received from the following individuals: Dan and Marilyn Vollmer, Meg Kreiner, Chester Nelson, Bruce Robinson, Jeff Brooks, Sabrina and Thomas Gonder, Tim Hatton, Jim and Joan Nolan, and Richard Behm. Ms. Kendall then summarized the comments regarding the Subarea Plan, the City Center District zone and car lots in the City Center zone. Assistant Planner Karen Kendall made a presentation to the Planning Commission regarding ECPA-01-10. Ms. Kendall began her presentation with the reasons the City Council has stated in declaring an economic emergency for this Comprehensive Plan amendment. An emergency can be declared by a jurisdiction to process an amendment outside of the regular once a year time frame in which the City normally processes Comprehensive Plan amendments, but it does not allow any of the other normal time frames, like noticing hearings or to be waived. This is the first time the City has declared an emergency to process a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 1. In the last 12 months, since the adoption of the Subarea Plan, the City's revenue forecast has continued to deteriorate. Specifically, sales taxes are projected to decrease by $400,000 from 2010 to 2011, and property taxes by $100,000 from 2010 to 2011. Funds available from the real estate excise tax have decreased from a high of approximately $2.2 million in 2007 and 2008 to approximately $900,000 for 2010 and 2011. 2. Funds for significant private development are not as available and significant failures of large commercial investments within the City have occurred. 3. The economic development anticipated by the Council when the Ordinance adopting the Subarea Plan was passed in June of 2009 has not occurred. 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 4. The restrictions on development within the City Center zone, as well as the design requirements, contemplate significant public investment involving both the purchase of property and construction of a City Hall as well as adj acent infrastructure improvements. The projected 2011 budget does not contemplate the purchase of any property within the City Center zone and funds available for the construction of City Hall are projected to be reduced by $2.2 million to fund other capital proj ects. 5. Because there is little likelihood that any significant investment will occur by the City, the City Center zone, as currently configured and restricted, creates significant immediate economic hardships for the property owners within that zone. Based upon these facts an emergency exists and an immediate change to the Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the RCW 36.70A.130 (2)(b) set forth above may be appropriate. The Comprehensive Plan amendment proposal is to change the area currently designated as City Center district zone in the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan from City Center to Mixed Use Ave District Zone. Ms. Kendall also reviewed the development standards between the two different zones. Ms. Kendall stated, based on the information provided by the declaration of the emergency by the City Council, the staff recommends approval of this amendment. Commissioner Eggleston asked why staff was recommending approval of this proposal. Ms. Kendall responded that this is a directive from the City Council to proceed with this amendment. Also, based on the current economic condition, and lack of community support to move forward at this time with a City Center, by changing this area to Mixed Use Avenue would provide more flexibility in the development standards. Commissioner Eggleston followed up with another inquiry, wondering if there had been the same amount of time and effort and out pour from the public in recent times to cause this "lack of public support" compared to the hundreds of hours and days, weeks and months of creating the Subarea Plan? Mr. Eggleston stated that from what he could derive it was infinitesimal in comparison. He said the creation of the Subarea Plan is far better put together and thought out than the current public pressure to dismantle it. Mr. Eggleston asked to have someone help him to understand this difference. Mr. Carroll asked if any additional surveys had been done. Ms. Kendall stated that she was not aware of any other surveys. Planning Manager Scott Kuhta stated he would like to address Mr. Eggleston's question, regarding the amount of work that has gone into the creation of the Subarea Plan. Mr. Kuhta stated that since the adoption of the Subarea Plan, a majority of the City Council was newly elected, and they have gone down the path to review the Subarea Plan in great detail. Staff has spent a great deal of time going through each zone, district by district. There was testimony at the City Center zone about the impacts of the uses in that area, of how the current economy is affecting the area. In the long term staff would recommend that the City needs a City Center in this community. However, staff must balance that with the short term concerns that were heard consistently through the process along with the direction of the current City Council. Staff believes at this point and time that the best thing for this community is to have some more flexible zoning in this corridor. Mr. Kuhta stated that hopefully over time staff will be able to revisit the idea of a City Center. Mr. Kuhta said that specifically based on the question of how much time has gone into this amendment, not nearly the time and effort that went into the original analysis for the 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 original recommendation. Mr. Eggleston asked in summary the hours that went into creating the Subarea Plan is far greater that the thought and hours that were put into making this emergency recommendation? Mr. Kuhta responded that would be a fair statement from staff's perspective. Mr. Carroll asked for the expected time of development of the City Center, 10 years or more. Mr. Kuhta responded that would be a good long term proj ection. Mr. Eggleston asked if the Mixed Use goes into effect and then City Center concept is thrown out the window, and buildings are constructed, what is the average lifetime of a building that is constructed in the City Center area? How long do commercial buildings last? Mr. Kuhta stated it depends on the economics and demand. Mr. Eggleston stated that what Mr. Kuhta said was that the life time of a building standing is decades, 15-50 years. Mr. Kuhta said he believed it depended purely on the demand for that land for a different use. Mr. Woodard asked that if this is amendment is approved, is there anything that would preclude the City from designating a City Center in the future?, somewhere other than at Sprague and University? Ms. Kendall responded that there was nothing that she was aware o£ A City Center will remain within the City's Comprehensive Plan, to allow the possibility in the future. Mr. Woodard asked to clarify that it did not need to be at Sprague and University, could it be moved to another part of the City? Ms Kendall stated that could be done. Commissioner Sands stated there was a great deal of public input when developing the City Center, is there any talk of putting this idea to a vote? Director McClung stated that would need to be a City Council decision. Commissioner Hall asked staff if they felt they had a truly statistical valid survey on this issue? He also asked if that would be the next most appropriate step. Mr. Hall stated that he would like to know for accuracy what the community wants. Mr. Eggleston stated that in an earlier question the answer was that there has been no survey since the 2004 Clearwater survey. Chair Carroll read the rules for public testimony. Richard Behm, 9405 E Sprague Ave.: Mr. Behm stated he owns commercial property at the address given, which is in the Mixed Use zone. Mr. Behm stated he wishes his property was in the City Center zone, he believes it would add value to his real estate if he were there. Mr. Behm stated he did not believe this was an emergency, by any stretch of the imagination, not for the reasons given. At the City Center meeting and he attended each of the Subarea Plan zoning meetings all year long, there were very few criticisms of the zoning problems within the City Center zone. There was no demand at that time for change to Mixed Use. In fact the City Center zone had less comments about the requirements than the other zones. Mr. Behm stated he felt that was very interesting. Mr. Behm stated the Clearwater report was done in 2004 and it is very specific and very well done. Mr. Behm stated that off the top of his head between pages 20 and 30 there are 6 or 7 pages that report the desires of the citizens for an identity for the City of Spokane Valley and a City Center and over whelmingly they chose the University City area. It wasn't specific to University City but University and Sprague. It very well documents the desires of the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley and what they wanted for the future of our City. If indeed the City Council does not want to reply on that, then he stated he thought 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 they should ask Clearwater to update that report to find out what the desires of our citizens are right now. Not to throw it away and say that's not any good. Mr. Behm stated it was very well done and many of the citizens count on that report in their own planning. Mr. Behm stated that only one property owner asked for a zone change in the City Center, on the west side of the City Center zone to build an auto lot. Mr. Behm also stated that during the discussion at the City Council meeting, one council member stated `why don't we just eliminate the whole City Center zone'. Mr. Behm stated that this suggestion was voted on, by the Council, and sent to the Planning Commission with no discussion for public input. Mr. Behm stated he did not feel that was the way the City should operate. Mr. Behm stated he was really, really upset about this. Mr. Behm stated he worked many years and very hard, and that he was involved in practically everything, in creating this City, and that this is not the way to run things. Mr. Behm stated that if `we' want to see what the citizens want, then the Clearwater report should be updated if `we' do not want to rely on it. Karla Kaley, 10516 E Main Ave.: Ms. Kaley stated she and her husband, Richard, own a property management company in Spokane Valley and have owned property in the Spokane Valley for more than eight years. Ms. Kaley stated she and her husband moved to this area deliberately and on purpose with the promise and potential that they saw in this area. She stated they have lived in four western states. Ms. Kaley said she has seen firsthand what can happen when Cities have short sighted, narrow minded planning in our local communities. She said she has watched this city struggle with the shoes that were created, approximately seven years ago. The city serves the needs and colors the futures of 86,000 people and growing. The city is approximately 42% of Spokane. We think we are small, we think we are insignificant, and yet we are 42% the size of Spokane, already, after 7 years. Spokane is the second largest city in Washington, it is 3 rd largest city in the entire Pacific Northwest from a municipality stand point. In 2013, when the Federal Government combines the likely combination of Spokane and the Coeur d'Alene areas for planning, statistics and budget purposes we will create a scenario that could result in the 4 largest metropolitan area in the United States. What does this mean? This means we will meet the criteria for attracting Fortune 500 companies to this area. And we need to do this right and we have the opportunity to do it now. We talk about the economy, we talk about the things and how they are, this emergency that we have and waiting to do a City Center. The time is right now. There is simply no reason why the City of Spokane Valley cannot be cooperative even competitive with the City of Spokane and Liberty Lake and our neighboring communities and attract these businesses. But you need a plan. And the plan includes the Subarea Plan and that provides a City Center and without a City Center you are not a City. Without a City Center and not being a City you cannot attract businesses and it is that simple. By supporting the emergency zone change before you, you are essentially killing the Subarea Plan and eliminating our chance for a City Center. You have asked the question twice and I've been in both meetings. The answer to your question, does this prevent us from having a City Center in the future is yes. And it is not because it is a zoning problem, or a state regulation or a planning commission issue or even a public issue. It is a practical issue. If you don't provide the space and the planning and the mechanism for doing it, you will have back in-fill, infiltration and the hodge podge that we have right now, with the composite planning that we grew out of the County in the first place to become a City. If you want to continue with the look that we have right now, just do what you are proposing to do to do today or been asked to do by the City Council and support the declining, unappealing properties we have lining our City corridor. The 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 Subarea Plan was three years in the planning, a million bucks. It is one year in the implementation phase. I don't know the last time anybody read this, but I read this a couple of weeks ago. There is some really good stuff in here. You got your million bucks worth. Everything you need to build a cake is right here. You got the ingredients, you got the planning you got the chemistry, you got the science, you got the technology, maybe you don't like the flavor, maybe you don't like the color of the frosting, ok let's fix that. But you got your money's worth. This is your road map, this is your plan for the City of Spokane Valley's future. Its purpose is sound. Its purpose is to address retail uses and issues that bring in money for our economy. It addresses the appearance and the concerns that investors have for image and ascetics along the corridor and it addresses new development and what it is going to look like. So here is what I would like to propose for you. You have more options than what you have been given by staf£ I would like to support part of those. Don't be fooled by the idea that this is an emergency. Ok, don't be fooled. Don't be afraid of the economy. Here's why. Ms. Kaely stated 9 different cases of businesses expanding or growing in and around the area, Trader Joe's, Red Lion Vandervert, The City of Cheney, Spokane Tribe of Indians, Rockwood South Hill expansion, Greenstone projects. They are not here because our City does not have its act together. Not because we have the Subarea Plan, not because of architectural standards that are too onerous, not because we don't like our setbacks or because of signage. We just don't have our act together as a City and we are not doing anything for economic development. I would like to help change that. Here is what I would like to propose. Keep the City Center plan in place but do your modifications. There are lots of parts I don't like either, and I would like to help if I could. But the flaws in this plan are not fatal. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and it is not worth throwing a million dollars down the drain. I propose you make this modification using something I have not heard yet or seen yet. A community stakeholder process. I have participated in them before in other states. You get a community group together, you invite them. You have strategic, surgical goals. The purpose of surgical is deliberate finite and focused. You give them two to four months to get their act together and come back viable recommendations and suggestions for changes and you have those stakeholders composed of the public and interested experts. Like experts in architecture might be one group, signs and setbacks could be another group., parking and open spaces another group, economic development another group and the most important that I don't hear anything about. In all of these City Council meetings nobody's doing much that I see. So in closing given the development stage that our city is in, seven years but we are still an infant really, you have a more important j ob than the City Council does. The most important j ob we have right now as we are growing and developing our City is to deal with the local land use issues and as the Planning Commission it is your job to assist in determining the highest and best use of that land, to assure that adj acent land uses are compatible. That is part of what the Subarea Plan does, in conjunction with the overall Plan. You can't do this without a reasonable plan and you can't do it without a City Center and you can't wait 10 years for a City Center. I respectfully and courteously request that you do not approve the proposal you have before you today but instead explore more options. Especially more options that take a much more active role in economic development. Phillip Rudy, 5647 N Fruithill, 720 N Argonne Rd: In my opinion stability is a huge factor. You talk about economic downturn. Now is the time to make investments. You can buy land cheap, maybe. But not too many things have been said about changing hands 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 on East Sprague. But not too many things have been said about that but I think that is because people are waiting to see what is really going to happen. They are hoping for stability in their government and in the decision that is going to be made. In my opinion in the last few years the City Council has spent a lot of time to put City Hall or City Center in one spot. In my opinion and I say this positively and complimentary, they should have had the big boys, and I am talking Magnusson, Pring and Douglass duke it out as to whether they wanted to have City Hall. I think you would have had a better proj ect rather than have City Council say we want City Hall at this one spot. What they did was eliminate their ability to negotiate a decent price. You need stability in government and government decisions. If you do throw everything out I think that the most important thing that has come out of the Subarea Plan, and it is this one thing and I have been talking about it, I think the most important thing of the Subarea Plan for economic reasons, for development reasons, for safety of neighborhood reasons, and for environmental reasons is that the roads be two-way all the way on Sprague Ave and on Appleway. Dwight Hume, 9101 Mt View Lane: Listening to the questions asked by the Planning Commission I am reminded that you are looking for the public that was in support of the Subarea Plan. Indeed there were a lot of people in support of the Subarea Plan, but there were a lot of people, who we all know in land use, if they are neutral or not in favor of it, you don't see them here. And they spoke and they spoke when they voted the council in that is here. They all campaigned against the Subarea Plan. They got voted in, they got voted in by that public that you don't see and don't count noses. This Council said they wanted to get rid of the Subarea Plan. They have ordered the staff to review and consider that and for whatever reasons to have an emergency ordinance declared and you know the story that is going on here with the City Center elimination. I don't think it is a matter of revisiting the Subarea Plan and whether there are enough statistics to put on the scale to equal the weight of what was done. That is a moot point. This legislative body said we want to get rid of it and this is a recommending body not another council. You are here to assist, to facilitate through hearings, conduct public meetings, this is a public meeting, there is not standing room only here to try and protect City Center. So read what is currently going on, not what you remember. The new council is saying something entirely different than what the previous Council did. Yea, I am against the Subarea Plan, it is impractical to put it in just a portion of the City. All of this economic growth that has been in the paper in the last two months, none of it is inside the Subarea Plan. That is not why it is happening. That is not a reason to preserve the Subarea Plan. Because everything I have heard about it, it is going to be difficult to attract people to something that is more expensive to build in especially in the recession we have. Robert Olson, representing H&H Molds at 119 S Adams: I have had several clients in the last week talk to me about Spokane Valley and I did not have an answer for them. I told them I was going to meetings. I think they would like to invest. I think the passion of this lady is phenomenal, but the Subarea Plan isn't the answer. It's direction from staff, or from City Council or Planning Commission of what you are going to do with Spokane Valley. There are developers, there are outside businesses that would love to do business in Spokane Valley but they don't know what it is going to look like for their business in the future and how to grow. I know I have talked to past City Council members, have mentioned, well this doesn't affect your property. But you look at the Subarea Plan or you look at a plan and it does affect. Don't tell me one thing and do another. The last year, I have been looking at all the studies, all the history, the past notes of the seven years of the 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 lady was saying, was revisiting, there are a lot of mixed messages, mixed signals, they are opted out of it, or making some deals on the side or saying some things. And that has been the biggest frustration in Spokane Valley. And I thought you should hear it first hand from developers saying to me, Bob, I would like to put a big box store in the Valley, but I am not going to, because what side of the street are they going to impose certain regulations, and what is it going to look like for taxes' and I have had to deal with issues with tax. I just want to say just representing a lot of businesses out here in Spokane Valley or prospective businesses that your decisions matter and you really need to listen to the property owners and think about your decisions and how it affects. You are a beautiful city and I think you have a long way to go. And you have beautiful land, you got a river, you got more land river property than anybody else, and it is beautiful out here and it is flat and people like it, and you know the history of Spokane Valley, I just want to say that the decisions you are about to make are very crucial for the livelihood of the future. As she pointed out they want to invest but they want to know what the return on investment is going to be. Steven Neill, 10820 E. 18 the one thing I have noticed about the people speaking in favor of the Subarea Plan is that they have a vested interest in it. They stand to gain financially. I don't, I am just a normal Joe, who lives up on 18 who can't get to the freeway, unless I go down Sprague or unless I go down Argonne. Thought this is not talking about returning it to a two-way, too much, to do that, would delay my trip a tremendous amount. I have lived in the Spokane area for over 30 years. I know Sprague, I remember the way it was when it was two way. I know the traffic jams, I remember it all. People can't deceive me or confuse me on that. I remember it. This to me is an important step in saying enough of the Subarea Plan, enough of this whole thing. It was mentioned that people spent a lot of time and money on the Subarea Plan. Well, having lived here this long, I don't recall a large turnout of people asking for the Subarea Plan, or asking for a opportunity for a City Center or anything else. I haven't seen it. In my mind the decision, the poll if you will for where the people stand was decided this November, where three new City Council members were elected on totally against the Subarea Plan policies. That's your poll, that's your direction from the people. I think that it is wrong to be directed by a few, certain people, who stand to gain financially from this. If there is anything to be done, I think an actual poll would be good. Or just put it out to the people. Vote for it, get it over with, end the garbage and get it over with. That way you would know where the people are at. Susan Scott, 205 S Evergreen Rd. (business location): I would first like to speak to the Clearwater survey. A whopping 69% agreed that the Sprague/Appleway couplet was useful improvement to the overall roadway system in Spokane Valley, yet the Subarea Plan calls for return to two-way traffic on that portion between University and Argonne at considerable public expense. In my opinion that significant detail such as the massive rezoning and the public and private cost to implement such an undertaking been disclosed upfront and understood and disseminated to the public a considerable amount of time and money could have been saved. I believe there were flaws throughout the entire process that lead to the adoption of the Subarea Plan. The Planning Commission has an opportunity this evening to begin to address and correct some of those flaws. I sat in the cheap seats and observed every hour of the Planning Commission deliberations on the Subarea Plan. There was an overwhelming amount of information to review in a very limited amount of time. There was a sense of urgency that over rode any in-depth analysis of the actual impact of the plan. I found that the need for the plan was over stated by completely 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12 ignoring the existing centers and segments style of zoning introduced in our 2007 Comprehensive Plan zoning and instead the 2003 zoning inherited from the County was used as the base line. Critical questions were often asked and put off for later and never answered. Others were answered with casual antidotal information clearly lacking any real research or hard evidence. I found it interesting that in the final analysis of the plan there was never the option to do nothing. Proof of public support was based on cherry-picking questions from a 2004 survey and siting over 60 public participation meetings that were so lacking in substantive data and detail they were little more than dream sessions. Public opposition was ignored. 85% of citizen comment and testimony for the public hearings was in opposition but the City Council went on and adopted the plan by emergency ordinance with the disclaimer that we will work the bugs out later. Tonight is later. As the facts of the plan have come to light, with the prospects of a City Hall and City Center at that location unsupportable, tax payers, landowners and businessmen are beginning to see the inherent dangers to property rights and problems with the new form based code. We need a plan that tells the citizens what they can do, not what they must do. There is a very real emergency to begin addressing the real economic concerns of the corridor, starting with the City Center district. This is an opportunity, not only to mitigate some of the damage caused by the errors and omissions that lead to the adoption of the Subarea Plan but to bring jobs and much needed investment to our City. Thank you. H Jim Magnusson, (Mr. Magnusson asked to have this letter read into the record, letter originally sent to Council) I am writing on behalf of the U-City Incorporated, owner of real property in Spokane Valley. I am writing with respect to the Council's consideration for zoning in the University City area. The new zoning adopted should be pre-City Center and pre-Sprague Subarea Plan zoning. The property needs to be a flexible commercial zoning to enable redevelopment to increase tax base and create more jobs. Broad commercial zoning is appropriate and compatible with existing commercial uses, traffic and arterials in the area. As such I would urge you to adopt flexible broad commercial and apply this to the area going forward. Chair Carroll closed the public hearing at 7:13. The Commission then took a break, and returned at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Eggleston made a motion to recommend denial of ECPA-01-10 to the City CounciL Motion was second by Commissioner Sands. Deliberations between the Commissioners included the following thoughts. Supporting the motion • Fail to plan, is planning to fail. • Need to have a stable plan for the future. • Plenty of time spent with public meetings and planning to adopt the plan. No time spent to dismantle. • The City needs a City Center. • City needs a heart, with no heart the City dies, economic challenges have nothing to do with decision. • Our City is young and needs guidance, leadership and planning. • The Subarea Plan is good for economic development. • People without vision want to go backwards. 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 • Commissioners do not feel this is an emergency. • Commissioners would like to have an updated, scientific survey of the community before eliminating the only plan the City has. • Does the Plan need changes, and can it be changed? It can but we need to have something to move forward with. • In favor of a City Center but not sure current location in the Subarea Plan is the correct one. • People don't want to locate businesses here because we keep changing our minds and they don't know what we are going to do next, it has nothing to do with the Subarea Plan. • Not allowing more than a year for a plan to implement and develop is short-sighted • Plan can be changed to allow for success instead of eliminating the City Center • Declaring an emergency is reckless • Felt the consultant listened to the community and was detailed in incorporating city vision • Only city's indecisiveness is causing economic problems. • Do not want to make a knee j erk reaction, economy is getting better. • Lack of vision is the reason the plan and City Center zone is not working. • Eliminating the City Center zone indicates we are no longer a City. • Plan is the basis for decisions, absence of a plan allows for no basis for guidance. • City Center needs to be closer to the river • City needs an identity • Would rather modify the proposal, instead of deny • Proposal driven by one property owner who can't do what he wants to do and had the money to make this change. • Change is inevitable. Spokane Valley does not want change. • Not enough input from the citizens Against the motion: • Commissioners felt the Plan is too big, not a vision of the community, • Felt center of the community is someplace else, not at University and Sprague. • Need a plan for less than 10 years not more than 20 years. Don't have 20 years to wait. • Only one permit issued along Sprague in the last year. • Plan is too big • Form based zoning is a fad, does not work for this area • Plan makes too many businesses non-conforming • Size of the City Center zone is too large currently Vote on the motion to recommend denial of emergency Comprehensive Plan amendment ECPA-01-10 to the City Council. In favor, 5, Against, 2— Commissioners Sharpe and Woodard dissenting. Acting City Attorney asked the Chairman if he would like staff to prepare findings and conclusions to send forward to the City Council. Chair Carroll then asked staff to prepare the findings for signatures, based on this motion. 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 12 C. Election of Officer for the year 2011: Commissioner Eggleston nominated John Carroll to serve as Planning Commission Chairman for the 2011 year. Seconded by Commissioner Joe Mann. Vote is 6 in favor, 1 against, with Commissioner Woodard being the dissenting vote. Motion passes, John Carroll Chairman of the Planning Commission for 2011 Commissioner Eggleston nominated Marcia Sands to serve as Planning Commission Vice- Chairman for the 2011 year. Seconded by Commissioner Joe Mann. Vote is unanimous. Motion passes Marcia Sands Vice-Chairperson of the Planning Commission for 2011 X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Carroll stated that he would like to thank Commissioners Sharpe and Eggleston for their years of service to the community and for serving on the Planning Commission. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson 12-09-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12