September 25, 2008 in Voices

Council discusses how far revitalization plan should go

Members debate corridor’s eastern boundary

• Print
• Email
• Share

City Councilman Bill Gothmann called for a “linear” approach to Tuesday’s discussion of the Sprague-Appleway Revitalization Plan.

But the discussion had a decidedly circular feel even though the Spokane Valley officials dealt with items in the order in which they appeared in the document.

It seemed at first that a consensus was developing to remove the eastern end of the corridor from the plan. In the end, though, it turned out that some council members had been playing devil’s advocate.

Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, presiding in Mayor Rich Munson’s absence, opened the discussion by identifying the eastern end of the corridor as “the elephant in the room.”

Property owners have complained they would be burdened with restrictions decades before Appleway Boulevard is extended east and their area is redeveloped.

Councilman Steve Taylor called for a discussion of the “pros and cons” of adopting the full plan or “chopping it off at, say, Pines or Evergreen” and expanding it east only when Appleway is extended.

Denenny and Taylor agreed that a proposed “city center” district at the former University City Shopping Center can’t thrive unless certain desirable businesses are forced to locate there by banning them elsewhere in the corridor.

Still, Denenny asked, “How far do you want to go out geographically” with the restrictions?

Councilwoman Diana Wilhite was absent Tuesday, but objected two weeks ago to zoning businesses out of one area to force them into another.

“If you’re looking at trimming it back, I would say that we should consider implementing the new zoning at least with the stages of the road improvements,” said senior planner Scott Kuhta, the revitalization plan manager.

Evergreen Road would be a better cutoff point than University Road, Kuhta said.

Denenny saw Pines or Evergreen as possible dividing points.

The deputy mayor also raised questions about a controversial proposal to require nonconforming buildings to comply with the new code if renovations cost 20 percent of a property’s assessed or appraised value.

Some property owners might decide not to renovate, Denenny said.

“We have a time warp here with that eastern property, probably from Evergreen east; for sure from Sullivan east,” Councilman Gary Schimmels said.

He suggested nonbinding guidelines instead of new zoning in that area.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that this (plan) needs to happen,” Councilwoman Rose Dempsey said. “But I’m concerned with the timeline and with making people conform now rather than easing into it.”

Taylor questioned how much burden the new zoning code really would create. He said he favored going ahead with the full plan.

Denenny said the council may want to “tweak” the 20 percent threshold and allow more uses.

Schimmels saw “down-zoning” as the top issue.

“To me, you just can’t go out that far geographically or that far in time and not compensate something somewhere along the line,” he said.

City Attorney Mike Connelly cautioned the council not to speak of down-zoning, and Taylor said he was “dismayed” by the word.

“It’s a negative buzz word to throw the plan in a negative light,” Taylor said.

The value of various uses can change and is open to debate, Taylor and Connelly said.

The new zoning code would allow more uses than the current code, Denenny said.

A name change might help, Gothmann suggested. The “residential boulevard” zone along Appleway Boulevard might be called “office-residential.”

In other business, the council unanimously approved an experimental “flex time” system for nonunion city employees – about one-third of the 85-member work force.

In exchange for longer work days, employees would get more days off. The plan also would allow city regulators to work the same hours as the contractors they regulate.

City Hall would remain open as usual.

Reach John Craig by e-mail at johnc@spokesman.com

No comments on this story so far. Add yours!