Many oppose revitalization

Tuesday’s final public hearing on the Sprague-Appleway Revitalization Plan wasn’t the “sweat box” some critics had hoped to create for the Spokane Valley City Council.

Only about 85 people turned out, compared with nearly 110 at a July 29 hearing.

However, even though the Great Room at the CenterPlace community center was less than half full, residents and property owners again delivered a clear message.

They don’t like the plan.

They object to extensive rezoning they say would slash property values and declare hundreds of businesses “nonconforming.” And they hate the idea of two-way traffic on the Sprague-Appleway couplet.

City officials just don’t seem to be listening, several critics complained.

“The public’s given up. They’ve told you a hundred times they don’t want half of what you’re trying to get,” Richard Harmon told the council. “They don’t even bother to come to the meetings anymore.”

He called for a public vote on the plan.

“Are we in a war of attrition?” Grant Rodkey asked. “Will meetings keep being held until we give up?”

Rodkey thought the plan would create a “claustrophobic” feeling and block mountain views by requiring new buildings to be near the edge of Sprague Avenue.

Trying to lure pedestrians to “come down to Alton’s (tire shop) and walk around” seemed foolish to Jack Bean.

“The people have said no. We’ve said no over and over again,” he told the council. “What is it going to take to get you to listen?”

The only solution, he concluded, “is to vote you folks out.”

As in every hearing this year, critics greatly outnumbered supporters. The only unconditional support Tuesday night was from Dick Behm, who spoke for the Spokane Valley Business Association.

Behm said the public has had “unprecedented opportunity” to comment on the plan and “now is not the time for opposition.”

“It’s time to move forward,” Behm said.

He and city officials point to meetings in 2005 and 2006 in which there was support for elimination of the one-way couplet. Many business owners in that section of Sprague say the introduction of one-way traffic was devastating.

But several people claimed Tuesday that the Spokane Valley Business Association, whose members tend to be from the couplet area, stacked the deck at an initial “focus group” meeting.

Senior planner Scott Kuhta, manager of the Sprague-Appleway plan, said the meeting was limited to invited “stakeholders,” but subsequent meetings were open to the public.

Much of Tuesday’s opposition was from business and property owners who realized belatedly that the plan wasn’t just about the couplet area.

Why didn’t the city have to post large signs as they would have had to do if they wanted a zone change, several asked.

Used-car dealers, who were surprised to learn their industry would be allowed no new locations anywhere in the Sprague-Appleway plan area, also renewed their objections.

City officials recently recommended lifting the prohibition in the Auto Row area, from the Sprague interchange of Interstate 90 to Dishman-Mica Road. Previously, they had called for allowing only new-car dealers to open used-car lots.

Some critics said they didn’t understand how a desire to create a city center district at the defunct University City Shopping Center resulted in a plan to rezone land miles away from there. The plan area extends 3 1/2 miles east from the shopping center at Sprague and University, all the way to Conklin Road.

Susan Scott saw the plan as a way for the city to help some businesses at the expense of others.

“Didn’t we learn anything from the River Park Square fiasco?” Scott said.

Dentist Gene Hinkle predicted a “firestorm of opposition” that would subject Spokane Valley to the “endless litigation” Spokane has suffered.

University City is the wrong place for a city center, Art Britton said.

Dan Harter agreed. Lack of freeway access is part of what killed University City and the new city center would have the same problem, he said.

Extending the revitalization plan beyond that area seemed to Harter a “grandiose idea” that would steal his children’s inheritance.

But University City-area businesses “really seem to have a hold” on city officials, used-car dealer Rob Nordhagen said. “What about the rest of us all up and down the rest of the 6 1/2 miles?”

Bill Berry objected to the plan’s call for new streets on his property near Conklin Road – streets that would be useless unless Appleway Boulevard is extended. He noted the city doesn’t own the Appleway right of way.

John Kearns thought forcing property owners to give land and pay for building new streets sounded like “confiscation without compensation.”

Others objected that the plan would turn their businesses into nonconforming uses.

Kuhta said grandfathered businesses wouldn’t have to comply with the new code unless they were idle for a year or exterior renovations exceeded 20 percent of their value.

Owners would have to satisfy only the architectural standards of the new code if renovations were purely cosmetic, Kuhta said. Interior renovations would be exempt.

However, owners would have to meet the new zoning requirements and move their buildings if expansions triggered the 20 percent rule, Kuhta said.

Many business owners were unimpressed. Even if they didn’t have to comply with the new code, they said nonconforming status would hamper their businesses.

Aside from problems with bank financing and insurance, some feared tenants would shy away from the restrictions of nonconforming property.

Joe Delay said his 10-year lease for a state liquor store allows the state to cancel the agreement if his property becomes nonconforming.

Mike Delay urged the council to pursue its objectives with tax incentives instead of zoning restrictions.

Barbara Robbins said she feared the revitalization plan would drive up taxes on her home by devaluing business properties.

“I think we incorporated the city to help people, not to hurt them,” said Tony Lazanis.

The council voted unanimously to set 5 p.m. Aug. 29 as the deadline for written comments.

Tentatively, Mayor Rich Munson said, the council has scheduled discussions of the plan at its regular meetings next Tuesday and on Sept. 9, 23 and 30.

He said the council might take its first vote on the plan Oct. 14, and final action could occur Oct. 28.

More public testimony would be taken with each vote, Munson said.