2009, 01-12 Special Study Session MinutesAttendance:
Councilmembers
January 12, 2 009
Rich Munson, Mayor
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember
Mayor Munson opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
MINUTES
SPECIAL 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
Kathy McClung, Community Develop. Dir.
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner
Lori Barlow, Associate Planner
Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk
1. Sprague - Appleway Revitalization Plan — Scott Kuhta
Senior Planner Kuhta said previously Council decided to change amusement parks to a conditional use for
Commercial Gateway District Zones; they changed the minimum frontage requirement from 40% to 30%
along Sprague in the Gateway Commercial Avenue zone; and during the discussion of Mixed Use
Avenue, Corner Store Retail was removed as a permitted use and Convenience Store was added as a
permitted use. Drive - throughs still need to be addressed and discussed for Neighborhood Centers, and
Council has accepted staff recommendations regarding Outside Storage and Display except that staff
needs to provide a better definition of the list of items that can be displayed outside.
Mr. Kuhta started with the outstanding zoning issues, beginning with the Drive- through regulations. He
provided language to regulate and establish guidelines for drive - throughs throughout the corridor
allowing drive- through businesses in Neighborhood Centers, Mixed Use Avenue, Gateway Commercial
Center and Gateway Commercial Avenue district areas. He said they are intended for auto
accommodating development and are limited in areas where the desired character is pedestrian- oriented.
He said previously Council had talked about including Residential Boulevards., but the only commercial
use in that zone is Corner Stores so he left it off the list because he said he didn't think a decision was
made about including Residential Boulevard in the Corner Store retail areas. He said Council can
continue that discussion if they wish. He continued by saying that drive- throughs are allowed on sites
adjacent to principal arterial streets, and access and stacking lanes serving drive - through businesses shall
not be located between a building and any adjacent street, public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza (SVMC
22.50.030). In Neighborhood Centers the stacking lanes will be physically separated from the parking lot,
sidewalk, and pedestrian areas by landscaping or architectural element. He said in Neighborhood Centers
the intent is to have more clearly defined driving lanes, pavement paint striping is not enough. Council
consensus to incorporate these regulations.
Outside Display and Storage: Mr. Kuhta said retail products normally displayed outside due to size,
weight or nature of product may be displayed. Councilmember Gothmann said they may want to look at
bedding plants and shrubs to see how they fit into this definition. He said it can be a safety issue if it
interferes with foot traffic to access the store and he asked if they want to include seasonal plants on the
list of items that can be stored outside. Mayor Munson asked if grocery stores can have a Christmas tree
lot. Mr. Kuhta said under the current zoning they need to bring them into the store. He said he doesn't
think we have been requiring temporary permits for Christmas tree lots. City Attorney Connelly said they
Council Meeting Minutes: 01-12-09 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council. 01 -27 -09
* •
may want to include plants in the list and may want to specify that landscape materials and Christmas
trees should be screened. Councilmember Gothmann suggested they add plants to this list and a sentence
about seasonal products and activities. Mr. Kuhta revised the sentence to read: "Examples may include
cars, boats, machinery, plant materials, seasonal products and storage sheds." Council consensus.
Banks vs. check cashing stores: Mr. Kuhta said unless they can identify a specific impact check cashing
stores have on an area, it would be difficult to limit them based on clientele in the specified zones. He said
staff recommends not restricting check cashing stores from the City Center. Mr. Connelly said that in
Washington State until we have a record that shows there is an impact from check cashing stores to that
zone that warrants them being treated specifically, then they can not be singled out from other financial
institutions.
Residential Boulevard District Zone: Mr. Kuhta resumed the discussion on the split zoning issue. He
explained this addresses property that may be divided by two different zones and how the regulations
would apply. He said all along the Appleway residential corridor, the bottom properties would have split
zones and he said the main issue is determining which rules apply if there is an existing use that is split by
that district zone. He referred Council to Letter CC51 recommending a policy be written that addresses
split parcels where a majority of a parcel that is a conforming use by the majority zone be allowed to use
the remainder as if it were the majority zone, provided that the Appleway frontage includes street tree
plantings consistent with the requirements of the residential boulevard zone. Mr. Kuhta said he thinks this
is a good compromise to allow expansion and he recommends considering it. Councilmember Wilhite
asked if a property owner could then do something different from the landscaping requirements of the
residential landscaping zone. Mr. Kuhta said he will need to look closer at the issue of residential
boulevard landscaping when zoning is split to see if we can provide more flexibility. Councilmember
Taylor said this option allows flexibility along the north side of Appleway to meet the goal of providing a
more aesthetic greenway on the residential boulevard. Mr. Kuhta said they can address the landscape and
screening requirements when they get to the Street and Open Space section and discuss the standards.
Councilmember Gothmann asked if it is possible to add language referring to screening to make the
property compatible with the surrounding properties and screen loud sound as well because he said he
doesn't think landscaping is the only issue. Councilmember Taylor said he doesn't think we can screen
and put limitations on sound in the Sprague corridor. Council consensus to adopt the suggestion of
screening as submitted by Mr. Hume in his letter CC51.
Mayor Munson called for break at 6:53 p. m. The meeting reconvened at 7:07 p.m.
Senior Planner Kuhta said if Council decides to change the regulations as proposed and allow all the
property to be developed from Sprague to Appleway Boulevard., if there is an existing use there it doesn't
make sense to keep the 60' residential strip because we would then be treating those properties differently
from the properties adjacent to them that are undeveloped. He said if Council wants to allow Mixed Use
and Neighborhood Center to go all the way to Appleway Boulevard. there is no need to have the 60' strip.
He said Council needs to decide if they want the 60' strip. Mayor Munson said they need to know the
alternatives for land locked property before he thinks they can make a decision on the 60' strip. Mr. Kuhta
said the intent of the plan is to keep retail on Sprague Avenue where it can be more successful. If
Appleway is opened to retail, then the retail there expands in the corridor and becomes counter to what
the original intent of the plan is. City Attorney Connelly said Council does not need to eliminate the
residential 60' strip just because we are trying to accommodate a few businesses, because we could still
allow those businesses under a non - conforming right. Councilmember Taylor said as development comes
in, the lot lines are likely going to change. Mayor Munson said one of the major complaints he has
received is in having to take land from the property owner to bring a street in for frontage.
Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -12 -09 Page 2 of 5
Approved by Council: 01 -27 -09
* •
Councilmember Taylor asked what the advantages and disadvantages are to having the 60' strip. Mr.
Kuhta said the desire has been to develop both sides of the street with like development so as to have the
aesthetic and feel of a true boulevard and to keep the retail primarily on Sprague. Mayor Munson said he
wants the development to be consistent along the whole corridor. City Attorney Connelly said access is a
function of traffic engineering, not a function of zoning and it is restricted based on safety issues. He said
the bigger issue is to establish a residential component to the north side. Mr. Kuhta said they try to limit
the number of access points on the main arterials to give a better flow of traffic. Council consensus to
maintain the 60' strip.
Councilmember Wilhite excused herself at 7:43 p.m.
Mayor Munson asked and it was agreed that discussion on signage be delayed until Tuesday's meeting.
Senior Planner Kuhta referred to the chart of dimensional standards of residential boulevard. Mr. Kuhta
said on the chart, under Building Use, Corner Store Retail (CSR) is a permitted use. Section 2.2, page 7 of
38 says Corner Store Retail needs to be part of a building rather than a stand alone building. Individual
uses larger than 2,500 square feet could be permitted under a conditional use provided the use is unique
and it is not within a one -mile trade area, and it would need to go to the Hearing Examiner for
determination. Mr. Kuhta said it could be a cluster of stores not to exceed 5,000 square feet. CSR must be
located on the corner of a block and the entrance must face the street, square, or plaza space and drive ups
and drive through's are not permitted. He said corner lots could have retail uses on both sides of
Appleway. Civic uses, office uses, 'lodging (hotel),multi- family apartments, condos and townhouses are
permitted, but detached housing is not permitted on Appleway. He said they are requiring a minimum of
two -story and maximum of three -story buildings on residential boulevard., so no single stories. He said
they would not allow a two-story facade, stating that if the plan calls for two -story buildings it must be
two stories. He said there is no restriction as to what use is on which floor and anything fronting
Appleway must have two stories regardless of access.
Setbacks: Mr. Kuhta said on Appleway the setbacks are 20 30 feet while on others it is 15 — 25 feet.
The frontage coverage is required to be 70% on Appleway and other streets. Councilmember Dempsey
said she doesn't think a 70% building frontage is very pedestrian friendly. Mr. Kuhta said downtown
areas are typically developed at 70% and sometimes up to 100% building frontage and they are very
pedestrian friendly so he doesn't think we should equate pedestrian friendliness to the amount of building
on a lot. He said residential houses typically cover a large portion of the lot frontage, especially in newer
developments. Deputy Mayor Denenny said as we encourage infilling we do typically want to put a lot of
the building on frontage. Mr. Kuhta said this code does not establish maximum density and most likely
the developer is going to want to maximize the number of dwelling units and will build on more than 70%
of the frontage.
Build -to- Corner: Mr. Kuhta said build -to- corner is required on Appleway but not required on other
streets. Maximum Building Length is eighty (80) feet with the exception of senior living facilities because
of the desire to operate these facilities without repeating services in several buildings, such as laundry and
kitchen facilities.
City Center: Mr. Kuhta said there are two separate sets of regulations: the core street has buildings
completely lining the street with strictly retail on the ground floor and residential /office /mixed -use on the
second floor and above. He said as we get further away from the downtown core, we can have more
mixed -use along the frontage of the streets. He described the core as being Dartmouth to University and
Sprague to Appleway. He said one of the major issues is that the Master plan was originally based on the
plans that included the new library and the regulations were developed from that. With the new site plan,
Appleway Boulevard. is intended to be mostly a Residential Office district. He said currently we have a
minimum two -story requirement for stores in the core area and they have had testimony that there is a
Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -12 -09 Page 3 of 5
Approved by Council: 01- 27-09
• •
concern with the market for two -story buildings. Because of this, he said staff recommends changing that
regulation from two -story to one -story. He said they will look at this closer when they get to Regulations.
Mr. Kuhta explained that on page 5 of 14, section 2.1, the regulations were drafted around the specific
language of the previous site plan. He said we need to change the wording of the regulations so they are
more flexible with the uncertainty of the development proposal. He suggested they draft the plan using
the language of the original plan with general terms such as "core street" and "street A" rather than using
specific street names, and use diagrams to illustrate. He proposed that the regulations be adopted with
more generalized language. He pointed out that the City Center Retail would be limited to the core street
until it is completely developed with retail uses. Councilmember Taylor asked what the impact would be
from that restriction. City Attorney Connelly said this is a unique zoning development concept and the
opinions he has received so far is that we can use this restriction for specific legitimate purposes and write
the regulation in a way that doesn't unduly favor a specific property owner. By making the core street
generalized and not on a specific piece of property but still within the city center zone makes it legitimate
to promote city center development. He said if we don't do this there is not much incentive to fill in the
core area. Councilmember Taylor said we could offer tax incentives. City Manager Mercier said the plan
envisions the use of various incentives and options for development of the city center. Mr. Connelly said
the proper exercise of zoning is to identify the uses on particular pieces of property until such a time as
we need to expand.
Deputy Mayor Denenny asked if the things they change in this draft need to go back to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Connelly said we need to go through the entire plan, identify the changes we want to
make, and then all changes need to be publicized and allow time for public comment, then we will need to
have a public hearing before we can pass any proposed changes. He said we need to give the public an
open and closing date for comment. Mr. Kuhta asked if Council wants to keep the temporary restrictions
on the core retail to promote the city center. Mr. Connelly said it doesn't matter what type of business is
in the core; however, until the core is built out, others cannot build outside of it. Councilmember
Dempsey said she thinks the regulation is too restrictive on the business community and developers.
Deputy Mayor Denenny said he thinks this is the purpose for building a downtown core and controls such
as this are needed. Councilmember Gothmann said another approach might be to go about developing the
city center without the timing restriction. He said the city center will be so attractive to build in that
development will happen there anyway. Mr. Connelly said the restrictions only apply to the city center
area and development outside of the city center area can still proceed. Development within the city center
boundaries is limited by the restriction of full development of the core area first. The question is whether
council wants to restrict development along Sprague and Appleway in the city center until the core is built
out. Mayor Munson said if we make it too restrictive for those outside of the core, they may not be able to
compete with the businesses in the core. Councilmember Taylor said that until we have a core street
identified and an agreement put in place with the land owner, the clock shouldn't start ticking for these
restrictions, otherwise we could be waiting a long time before any retail development is allowed. He
proposed we wait until the city center is designed before putting this restriction on the core street. He said
we can implement everything without putting this restriction on the city center until the city center is
defined. Staff will develop language to address the questions of when the restrictions are to start and what
kinds of restrictions are imposed. Councilmember Taylor said he would like to see an incentive to build
on the core street and also have restriction to build on it so developers don't just build around it. Council
consensus for staff to delay the restrictions on the core street until the city center core street is defined but
implement everything else.
SARP Discussion Schedule:
January 13, 2009: City Center Zone, Streets and Open Space, Parking Regulations.
Mayor Munson proposed adding a Special Meeting on January 26, 2009. No objections.
January 26, 2009: Architectural Standards, Signs, City Actions, Civic Buildings.
Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -12 -09 Page 4 of 5
Approved by Council: 01 -27 -09
February 3, 2009: Final Deliberations.
• •
Mr. Kuhta said staff requests three (3) weeks to prepare the draft SARP and prepare and mail the hearing
notices. Then he recommends having thirty (30) days for the public to review the changes and proposes a
Public Hearing date of March 24, 2009. Mayor Munson said he thinks the public hearing should be at
CenterPlace for maximum availability to the public. Council consensus.
There being no further business, Mayor Munson adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Meeting Minutes: 01 -12 -09 Page 5 of 5
Approved by Council: 01 -27 -09
8 -19 -08
7
Spokane Valley City Council
E. 11707 Sprague Avenue Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Members of the Council:
D J HUME
Land Use Planning Services
9101 N. MT. VIEW LANE Spokane, WA 99218
509 - 435 -3108 (V) 509- 467 -0229 (F)
Ref: Proposed Sub Area Plan Split Zone Policy
Notwithstanding my recommendation to phase the plan into existence,(see other
letter of 8 -19 -08 addressed to Council); there is also the issue of split zones
caused by the Residential Blvd. category consuming all frontages of the
Appleway Corridor.
I would recommend that a policy be written that addresses a split parcel where a
majority of the parcel is otherwise conforming by use under the proposed zone
but has the minimum 60 ft. encroachment of Residential Blvd. along its south
border causing inflexibility for expansion and non - conformity for that portion of
the site and use.
I would suggest that a policy be written that gives the land owner the ability to
use that 60 ft. strip as if it were zoned per the remainder of the site provided that
landscaping along the Appleway frontage be provided as a screen, presumably
street tree screening. My suggested policy language would be as follows:
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 Blvd. 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.
To conclude, it is my understanding that Scott Kuhta has discussed this with Mr.
Freedman and this concept was acceptable to Mr. Freedman and Scott has
assured me that this is the case. Nevertheless, I wish to bring this to your
CC -51
Cc -51
Page 2 Sub -area Plan Split Zone Parcel Policy
attention to make sure it is not lost and forgotten during deliberations and action
on this plan.
Respectfully Submitted,
DwiqAt
. 1 Nam
Dwight J Hume
Land Use Planning Services
CC: Scott Kuhta
Chuck Hogan H &H Mold
c
l
Planning Commision Recommended
Sprague /Appleway District Zones Map
41h
aa.v,l
AV
DI
O ruc:n�t a
rim • .raanWel
1111 :11111:::1:1:}I..117
2 •
i clunped b det:wnry �
Commerc lei CI.I
y F
tan ! } [- _ er■■. �: Q '. j
MID
nn
„r.
1 Aur.4
u j
Aar
1
017 r'1 r rural 11 rT _1 M111111111 ° i ce
k II EJL 1[ .7Cl t
aseas
I 1 1
a.•,r s e....
4
3 FE
i Iti'II? .e_ ed�l
Added to
Mired Use ANIMA
Y,A1 t e11N
arrlPr
R. .d from �u
City Center
A
t
Ada to
^�I Res delrel Blvd' 5
4 ass'
.;
f e.
IOIn `A 1 , E re
nl.
,.M
re
,OM
nM t
f wee
Ayr4
R emoved hom
GIN Cenler
j
fuse
k.4•.
n1
Doane
Iln Mn
District Zones
- City Center
1 Gateway Commercial Ave
B., wt
crw. P
rAr
ranee)
cr
Webn
1
annen.r
t u1 r Art
t air - Adde A W
s `Mlud Uae Ave_ I v'•I
. Added b .t vrr.w ! ' 16._1 1 ea.. w >.
M IAN _Uae A_ve1L, � u.n- C d { ..nr.
W 3
V dded t • ` hhothood 1 _ 1.' _'•� Cr1..L I- 1
Commetr u Il7 l 3- i
i :� +ALT L
li 7
bb � j
II
Jas a -4 In .„ i t '
- f % . an 1 .. ea
R e.W.n1u181vQ eltloved honi t
� e t _Plan Attu i n^ B F n"
S wa 1 1 R
.r. _ 1 S • 1 t vr.
} E
• HP 1Tw
Gateway Commercial Centers
Mixed Use Avenue
Neighborhood Centers
.0
Ant
Residential Boulevard
Removed From Plan Area
Parcels
The City Center District is the heart of the community. it is an urban district that consists of a wide
range of building types and uses. The district is where pedestrian activity is most lively and where the
most pedestrian amenities are located It has a core of entertainment, shopping and dining supported
by a neighborhood of urban homes and workplaces.
Within the City Center District, entertainment and shopping oriented City Center Core Street
development is surrounded and supported by City Center Neighborhood Development.
Neighborhood Centers are higher density, larger scale mixed -use Districts with concentrations of
neighborhood -set ing convenience uses (including supermarkets) regularly distributed throughout the
corridor at major intersections.
Smaller setbacks and wider sidewalks complement these activity centers. Upper floor housing and
office over retail is encouraged. •ihe centers may also have larger scale mixed -use buildings that are
compatible with the adjacent neighborhood serving retail development
In the Mixed -Use Avenue, Sprague Avenue is characterized by larger, consistent landscaped setbacks
with parking lots located to the side or rear of buildings. The character of new office, lodging, and
"Medium Box" retail sales and services is compatible with housing in building form and site
development. This makes Sprague Avenue an appropriate location of larger scale housing. Retail must
be located on and oriented towards Sprague Avenue, trnnsitioning to the primarily residential
development behind.
Behind the Sprague Avenue Edge, existing and new Other Streets create a network of medimn -sized
blocks with varied landscaping that support the smaller setbacks and higher frontage coverage of
development that is less onented towards Sprague Avenue. This District is primarily' a mix of office,
lodging, and medium density housing accommodated within a wide range of building types including
stacked units and townhomes.
The Residential Boulevard is a distinctive residential corridor. Consistent, large. landscaped setbacks
and green space between buildings serve freestanding boulevard -scale housing, such as multiplexes,
long with sensitively designed and explicitly compatible office buildings. The Residential Boulevard
serves as a medium density residential edge of the single- family neighborhoods south of Appleway
Boulevard.
South of Appleway Boulevard, along Other Streets, small -scale attached single - family housing and
detached single - family homes finish the transition to the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Gateway Commercial Avenueis a "themed" specialty district that is dominated by auto sales and
services. A unique streetscape design and signage regulations combine with special street frontage
treatments including vehicle display space and corresponding identifiable building form regulations to
help support and strengthen this regional destination. '
The district is interspersed with auto - oriented development and appmpnate compatible uses such as
"medium box" commercial sales and services. Along the Appleway Boulevard Edge and Other Streets,
regulations focus on buffering requirements to ensure compatibility with adjacent development.
Gateway Commercial Centers, in addition to the typical Gateway Commercial Avenue fabric,
permit concentrations of auto themed restaurants, entertainment, and recreation to support the
Gateway Commercial District's role as a regional destination. More urban buildings with higher
frontage coverage and wider sidewalks distinguish the Centers from the rest of the Gateway
Commercial Avenue District and reinforce the Centers' more pedestrian - oriented character.
Map Produced' 09/150008
1
SARP Proposed
Deliberations Schedule
January 12
— Follow-up Items
— Residential Boulevard Zone
— City Center Zone
— Architectural Standards
— Signs
January 13
— Follow -up Items
— Streets and Open Space
— Parking
February 3 (final deliberations)
— Follow -up items
— Book III: City Actions
Public Hearing Timing and Considerations
• Staff time to produce City Council Draft SARP, prepare
and mail public hearing notices (3 weeks).
• Time allowance for public review (15 days minimum, 30
days preferred).
• Hearing location
— Council Chambers or CenterPlace?
• Proposed Hearing Date: March 24, 2009