Loading...
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