2009, 02-03 Study Session MinutesFebruary 3, 2009
Attendance:
Councilmembers
Rich Munson, Mayor
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember
MINUTES
STUDY SESSION MEETING
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
Spokane Valley City Hall
Spokane Valley, Washington
Staff
6:00 p.m.
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Mike Connelly,
Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Lori Barlow, Associate Planner
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager
Chris Bainbridge City Clerk
Mayor Munson opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
1. Sprague - Applewav Revitalization Plan — Scott Kuhta
Senior Planner Kuhta explained that tonight's goals are to discuss pre- located streets, access management
and parking as it relates to access, signage, and split zoning, and then to discuss future meeting schedules
to try to determine how long it will take to complete review of the plan. In summary, Mr. Kuhta explained
that the last meeting there was Council consensus to add provisions for "shared parking" proposed by
staff; and that staff would compare differences in landscaping regulations between the SARP and SVMC
and a suggestion that the SARP regulations would refer to the Code; there was a great deal of discussion
about electronic signs and sandwich boards and that the sandwich boards would be allowed initially only
in the core street of the City Center once that is constructed, and since all businesses should be treated
equally, Mr. Kuhta said that staff recommends any type of business can use the sandwich boards. Mr.
Kuhta said that staff will re -write the section on wall- mounted signs to clear up confusing language; and
said also at the last meeting Council concurred to also allow wall mounted signs above the first floor; and
that the maximum height in the Residential Boulevard Zone for monument signs would be changed from
four to seven feet. After brief discussion of the last meeting's summary, there was Council consensus that
at the last meeting, Council had also agreed they wanted the sandwich boards placed closer to buildings
instead of curbside. The question of whether to allow sandwich boards for businesses other than
restaurants was also discussed, or whether to allow them in the core at all, with Councilmembers
Dempsey and Schimmels agreeing that sandwich boards should be allowed, Councilmember Taylor
agreeing that sandwich boards should be allowed if kept up against the building; and that the majority of
Council, i.e. Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Wilhite and Gothmann
agreeing that no sandwich boards should be allowed in the core area at all.
Pre - Located Streets:
Mr. Kuhta went over the current draft regarding new street requirements as shown on the prelocated
street map: that the acreage of land to be developed must exceed the maximum block size; that the
District Zone Orientation standards require the construction of a new street in order to provide a public
street frontage for a new building that would have otherwise been the interior of a property. He then
explained the New Street Requirement staff proposal for when new streets would be required: when
development exceeds the maximum block size (3 to 4 acres, depending on the zone), and that the
Council Meeting Minutes: 02 -03 -09 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council: 02 -24 -09
Development Engineer would determine when a new street would be necessary due to development
impacts. Mr. Kuhta said staff also recommends some changes to the pre - located street map to show
north/south streets and east/west streets south of Appleway (to allow for access to properties if light rail
is constructed); and said the north/south streets would be spaced every 660 feet, but may be adjusted due
to existing buildings, alignment with existing roads, or other consideration.
Discussion ensued regarding the 660 feet spacing of the north /south streets; that 660 feet is one - eighth of
a mile; that streets should be no closer than that figure and mention that this is where a new street could
be, but would not need to be built unless the acreage was met. Mayor Munson asked how we could more
pro - actively assist developers in cases where every 660 feet wouldn't work; and Mr. Kuhta said staff
would work with individual developers when necessary and discuss whether streets would be absolutely
necessary; adding that these regulations are an attempt to move the suburban sprawling community to a
more urban connectivity with street block structure, and said in the end, it would be better for business
and development to have more street frontage access; and that we are trying to transition away from the
super- massive blocks, but could create the regulations to be more or less flexible or strict depending upon
council's direction.
Future Acquisition Areas:
Mr. Kuhta explained that as development occurs, future acquisition areas are designated where new roads
are shown on the pre - located street map; and that it does not require dedication or construction of a road;
but allows new roads to be constructed in the future. Attorney Connelly added that the location of the
future acquisition area could be adjusted if a plan is in place, but that this allows for some pre - planning
for roads and circulation, and can be viewed as an expanded set -back; and if the impact of development
would justify dedication and construction of a roadway, then that would happen, but this proposal would
preserve the grid in some fashion; and that language could be added to allow for flexibility.
Councilmember Gothmann said he would like to further explore the minimum spacing of north/south
streets every 660 feet, and to keep more in line with a city block, he suggested every 1320 feet. Mr.
Kuhta replied that the minimums are somewhat subjective and don't match with a city block, and said that
we don't have anything that does match a city block in the corridor. Attorney Connelly added that
language could be included to have streets specifically located in such a manner as to put property owners
on notice; and Mr. Kuhta said that this can be discussed more in terms of access management.
Access Management:
Mr. Kuhta explained that Sprague Avenue access management is regulated by an access hierarchy in the
parking section: first alleys, then side streets, then direct access from Sprague. For Appleway Boulevard
where the road is one -way, access management would be subject to the access hierarchy in the Parking
chapter; and access to properties along either side of the road would be temporary and could be revoked if
light rail is constructed; and he added that this Plan could always be revised one light rail is constructed.
Going back to the prelocated street map staff proposal, Councilmember Gothmann suggested using S
acres rather than the 3 to 4 (concerning the new street requirement that new streets would be required
when development exceeds maximum block size); and Council concurred; and agreed as well with the
second requirement, that a new street would be required when the development engineer determines a
new street is necessary due to development impacts.
Mayor Munson said he just received a voice mail from Commissioner Mielke, and Mayor Munson
therefore called for a recess at 6:55 p.m. Mayor Munson reconvened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. and said
the voice mail was not major, and Mayor Munson said that he wanted to take a moment to apologize if his
previous comments concerning the Board of County Commissioners were overly harsh, as that wasn't his
intent, and that Spokane Valley and Spokane County are working to re- establish a healthy relationship.
Council Meeting Minutes: 02 -03 -09 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council: 02 -24 -09
Mr. Kuhta continued his discussion and slides on access management, discussing the hierarchy of new
development. There was Council consensus to identify pre- located streets as future acquisition areas; and
there was no objection to have recommended language concerning access management, that would
prohibit parcel boundary line adjustments or other land use actions that would eliminate direct access to a
parcel from a side street in order to gain access from Sprague or Appleway. Council and staff also
acknowledged that the Plan is always open to change.
Landscaping:
Council's attention was directed to the handout of text currently in our SVMC; and to page 8 of 23 in the
notebook concerning landscaping for parking areas; and Mr. Kuhta compared the screening requirements
in parking as per the Code and the Plan; stating that the Code is more specific; and Mr. Mercier
mentioned that a great deal of work was invested in drafting the Code landscaping requirements, and for
ease in compliance, staff recommends we rely on those standards; and Council concurred to use the Code
regulations, knowing that those can be modified as needed in the future.
SIGNAGE: Electronic signs and billboards
Via his PowerPoint, Mr. Kuhta explained the definition of an electronic sign; i.e. "A sign that can be
changed by electrical, electronic or computerized process; inclusive of video boards;" as compared with
the definition of an animated (or moving) sign, except the animated sign definition would not include the
scrolling of a static message, scene or color onto or off a sign board in one direction per message. Mr.
Kuhta mentioned that the definition of an animated sign is not included in our Municipal Code; and Mr.
Connelly suggested perhaps including a "type of electronic sign" in the definition of animated signs. Mr.
Kuhta explained that the Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center zones would
permit electronic /animated signs, and his slides depicted several examples of electronic signs. Mr. Kuhta
said that staff will draft the sign regulations for the entire corridor; and where to or not to allow the
moving electronic signs; and Mr. Connelly said the regulations will treat all the animated electronic signs
in one category. Concerning regulating light intensity, copy change timing, and compatible with adjacent
uses, Mr. Kuhta said he spoke with staff from Pro -Signs particularly about light intensity; and as a result
of that conversation, Mr. Kuhta said he would recommend not trying to regulate light intensity with this
Plan as it might be more fitting to include such regulations on a city -wide basis. Ms. Barlow mentioned
that in her research, while some lights might have dimming devises, some do not and even running at full
capacity, the idea of "brightest" is very subjective as just what is or could be too bright. Mayor Munson
said his concern with brightness would be with driving safety, or bothering residences, and Mr. Kuhta
said the regulations can be approached from that viewpoint. Mr. Kuhta also mentioned that copy timing
changes would be very difficult to regulate.
There was Council Consensus to include the following recommendations:
*No animated signs in City Center Zone (see exceptions. i.e. Marquis signs)
*Animated signs permitted along Sprague only, in all zones except City Center
*Time /temperature, scrolling or static electronic signs (alpha- numeric) allowed everywhere else
*Light intensity should be addressed city -wide
Billboards:
Senior Planner Kuhta mentioned that because of the size, the Plan regulations in essence do not allow
billboards, but that decision is at Council's discretion. Discussion included the current Code regulations
concerning maintenance of billboards, and cap and replace; that current animated billboards would be
grandfathered in, but if a billboard is not currently animated, and the owner wanted to animate it, it would
have to meet existing code requirements; that billboards are changing with technology and will (or
already) include electronics and/or lamination; and that the Plan regulations could have a separate section
addressing billboards if that is Council's desire.
Council Meeting Minutes: 02 -03 -09 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council: 02 -24 -09
Councilmember Gothmann said he would like to see an amortization schedule to do away with billboards;
and he mentioned "paged" electronic signs like the one at Dishman/Mica that show pages but are not fully
animated; and suggested those would be appropriate where billboards are currently but might be a
different category. Councilmember Taylor said he has no problem limiting billboards in the City Center.
After further discussion on this issue, there was Council consensus that billboards not be allowed in the
City Center, to replace a billboard the owner can invoke the cap and replace policy but not within the City
Center zone; and the replacement would be regulated by the kinds of signs allowed; and those regulations
should be added to the portion of the Code explaining where billboards are not allowed. Mr. Kuhta
recommended creating a separate section defining and regulating billboards to make it consistent with
existing code and Council concurred. Mr. Kuhta asked where Council would want new billboards to be
laced in the corridor with the ca and replace .ro_ am and Council agreed that would be allowed
anywhere outside the city center zone. City Attorney Connelly said that the cap and replace amounts to
less and less billboards over time, eventually running out of places where they would be allowed.
Councilmember Taylor suggested leaving the policy as it is written in the UDC, only adding the City
Center zone where they are not allowed. Council concurred. Councilmember Gothmann said we need a
policy to discuss at a later date, of electronic billboards in the rest of the city and where it applies to the
entire city; and Mr. Connelly said that future discussion would begin with the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Wilhite questioned the 20% at the top of page 14 under signage, particularly #3, and Mr.
Connelly said that staff will resolve that. Councilmember Wilhite also mentioned that section vi must be
part of an overall sign program or plan, and she questioned who would regulate that; at which point it was
agreed to remove that section. Councilmember Wilhite questioned the guidelines of identification on page
29 and 33 and why the difference; and Mr. Kuhta said staff will also check for clarification and
consistency.
Split zoning: - Kathy McClung
Community Development Director McClung said this topic was broached as a result of a letter from
Dwight Hume, whose properties are bordered by both Sprague and Appleway, [added note for
clarification: Hume 's 8 -19 -08 letter suggested a policy be developed so that "a split parcel having a
conforming use by the majority zone shall be entitled to use the remainder as if it were the majority zone.
Provided that the Appleway frontage must include street tree plantings consistent with the landscape
improvement requirements of the Residential Boulevard zone. If such a policy were included, you would
still accomplish the aesthetic affect intended for the Appleway corridor while avoiding the burden of split
zones and non - conformity on the last 60 ft. of the parcel. ' ] . Ms. McClung said that Mr. Kuhta contacted
Mr. Hume to get clarification of his intent, which was only to address the actual business /building that is
split zoned. Mr. Kuhta mentioned there was previous council consensus to allow continuation of the
existing use on a parcel of land with split zoning as allowed by the majority zone. Discussion followed
regarding keeping the residential boulevard strip and requiring screening; that such might defeat the
purpose of having a residential boulevard zone; and speculation of how to regulate this if the zone were
expanded down to the residential boulevard.
Mr. Kuhta presented the following alternatives:
1. Allow use to expand anywhere on existing parcel if allowed by Mixed Use Avenue (MUA) or
Neighborhood Center (NC) zoning (concern about viability of residential boulevard district zone
on the north side of Appleway)
or
2. Allow use to expand under majority zone (MUA or NC) only if physical improvements,
including parking, are bisected by zone.
After discussion on the proposed alternatives, there was Council consensus as a compromise, to use #2
above but require landscape screening.
Council Meeting Minutes: 02 -03 -09 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council: 02 -24 -09
Future Scheduling:
Mr. Mercier mentioned that the next opportunity to discuss the SARP is scheduled for February 24, three
weeks from tonight; and that staff suggests moving the March 24 public hearing to April 14, and then
give the public an additional thirty days to review the final draft. Mayor Munson suggested there would
not be a need to hold extra meetings, but of course, reserved the right to make that scheduling adjustment
if necessary. Mr. Kuhta said the next discussions will include City Actions, which is the last major section
of the Plan.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mayor Munson said he sent e-mail invitations to legislators to come to our council meetings; and City
Manager Mercier mentioned a new feature on the Advance Agenda beginning with the March 3 study
session, of an opportunity to hear Council external committee reports on such topics as the STA or Health
Board; and said this will provide an opportunity for Councilmembers to consult to get a sense of
corporate wishes on particular significant matters.
There being no further business, Mayor Munson adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
ATTES
hristine Bainbridge, ity Clerk
Council Meeting Minutes: 02 -03 -09 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council: 02 -24 -09