Loading...
Minutes - 08/26/2010 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. August 26 2010 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance IIL ROLL CALL Commissioners Carroll, Eggleston, Hall, Mann, Sands, Sharpe and Woodard were present. Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; Lori Barlow, Associate Planner; Dean Grafos, Councilmember; Cari Hinshaw, Office Assistant; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Woodard made a motion which was seconded and unanimously approved to accept the August 26, 2010 agenda as presented. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was there were no minutes to approve. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS VIII.Commissioner Woodard reported he had attended the City Council meetings. IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director McClung introduced Cari Hinshaw, Office Assistant, to the Commissioners and explained she was training as back up for Ms. Griffith. Director McClung reported that the community meeting for the City Center district zone was August 19, and there was only one district left for staff to review. She also reported that Nov. l is the deadline for Comprehensive Plan amendment submittals. X. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. New Business: Public Hearing CTA-06-10 Amendments to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Associate Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation to discuss each of the proposed amendments to the Subarea Plan, explaining the proposed changes to each of the following sections: • Chapter 2.0.1 (Applicability). Add language that exempts accessory structures from meeting frontage coverage requirements, height requirements, or 08-26-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7 maximum setbacks, but requires the accessory structure to meet architectural standards on existing developed sites. • Chapter 2.1.5 Gateway Commercial Avenue Zone. Modify the table to allow restricted office uses, that includes accounting, insurance, legal services, etc. (Table section 2.2.2. Building Use); eliminate the maximum front street setback along Sprague Avenue. (Table section 2.2.7 Front Street Setback); and eliminate the minimum percentage coverage requirement (Table section 2.2.12 Frontage Coverage). • Chapter 2.1.6 Gateway Commercial Center Zone. Modify the table to allow restricted office uses, that includes accounting, insurance, legal services, etc. (Table section 2.2.2. Building Use). • Section 2.22(f) Gateway Commercial Center Retail (Building Use). Add language that exempts vehicle sales uses from front street setback and frontage coverage requirements, and clarify that gas stations are exempt from those same requirements. • Section 2.6.1(2)(7) Standards (Signage Regulations). Modify the language to increase the area allowed for Wall Signs from 15% up to 25% of the wall area. • Section 2.62(3) Standards (Wall Signs). Modify the language to allow wall signs to be placed above the lst floor. • Section 2.62(6) Standards (Freestanding Signs). Modify the language to allow freestanding signs on sites other than those along Sprague Avenue, and allow dual frontage lots to have a maximum of one free-standing sign per street frontage. After Ms. Barlow's presentation, Chairman Carroll read the Commission's Rules for a Public Hearing. Commissioner Carroll opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Commissioner Sands called the first speaker to the podium. Bob Ellis, Empire Cycle, 7807 E Sprague Ave. — We are a resident of Auto Row, even though we are not a part of Auto Row, we are a resident there, and I don't think there has been a discussion of these merchants located along the north side of Sprague Ave. I suspect that Auto Row has dominated, which is fine, they have their things they need to discuss. Perhaps this is our opportunity. We have heard a lot of different ideas and stuff going on such as parking pulling in on Sprague Ave. not really suitable for our type of environment but I hope that was just an idea floated that was gone. If I heard some of this correctly one of the things they said in the amendment is that if we stopped selling vehicles, that we can no longer have customer parking in the front. Mr. Ellis stated he thought he saw it on the first slide. Commissioner Carroll asked Ms. Barlow to address Mr. Ellis' question. Ms. Barlow stated she was speaking in regard to new development under the regulations. An existing use would be able to continue to use their property as it currently is being used. Mr. Ellis stated that if we are not longer selling vehicles then we would have to change our method of parking? Ms Barlow responded that only if Mr. Ellis built a new vehicle sales lot under these regulations. Ms. Barlow stated again, that if you were an existing use, you would be allowed to continue to use the property as it is currently being used. 08-26-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7 Mr. Ellis — but if we stopped selling vehicles and became a furniture store? Ms. Barlow responded stating if Mr. Ellis stopped selling vehicles and became a furniture store, which is an allowed use in this zone, he would be allowed to use the lot as it is right now, with parking in front of the building. Mr. Ellis — a general question, you are trying to limit what is happening as far as auto related uses in Auto Row, but it seems like you have pretty much opened the rest of the districts up for automotive related purposes. In our case we have a significant amount of office rental space, but it is not a place that insurance company or finance company would want to use. I feel it is unfairly limiting the usage in our area. There are a number of other people along there that are not auto-related that could obviously impact our rental value income on that. We have only been there a short time, Dec. of 07, but when we bought that property the intent was to rent out a significant amount of office space, now I am being told that is going to go away. I guess I want to register my feelings and complaint on that. You allow automotive in other parts of the Valley, why are you limiting us to only automotive in that area? If we remodel the exterior of the building would it have to conform to Section 2.5.2. as far as architectural finishes and appearance? Commissioner Carroll again asked Ms. Barlow to answer Mr. Ellis' question. Ms. Barlow stated that it would depend on the type of improvements and if those improvements exceeded the thresholds explained in the document. If the improvements or additions were to exceed the thresholds, then those improvements would have to meet the standards of the plan. Mr. Ellis — in our business we handle multiple brands of power sports products, and part of our franchise agreements are that they don't share signs or monuments, under what I see here, we are only allowed one monument sign for our Sprague entrance. That puts us in violation of our franchise agreements. I guess I would ask that you look at that and reconsider, we are not all single line dealers like the Auto Row people are. It does have an impact and does put me in violation of my particular franchises. Commissioner Woodard asked Mr. Ellis if the code in effect before the Subarea Plan would these same issues still have been issues for him, Mr. Ellis answered no, that it would not have been an issue, that he could have his signs before. Commissioner Sands asked Ms. Barlow to confirm the sign regulations from Title 22.110, which was confirmed to allow two signs per parcel. Commissioner Woodard asked about allowing office uses in Mr. Ellis' building and what would be allowed there. Dwight Hume, 9101 N Mt. View Lane — Mr. Chairman, what staff has recommended tonight for changes I would support, which the exception of office use ought to be as broad as any other uses allowed in the zone. As Mr. Ellis just spoke the market conditions may not lend themselves to businesses associated with the auto industry and the land use of an office in Gateway Commercial is no different, no matter what the tenant is, in terms of land use impact, so it shouldn't be limited to the type of tenant that fits the theme of Auto Row. This is about land use and land use impacts, not theoretical ideologies. Second, question I have is what are the uses that weren't mentioned by staff that they aren't recommending approval of? I am clueless of what they are. What uses? Commissioner Carroll responded by stating he could tell Mr. Hume what staff did recommend but there were many others that were not on the list. 08-26-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 Mr. Hume asked so, the Planning Commission would be acting on those things that the staff has recommended for approval and not have a hearing on the other items? (Mr. Carroll — that is true) No public hearing on the other items (Mr. Carroll — they were not brought forward) Commissioner Eggleston asked to clarify his recollection that some of the other uses were discussed as part of the Subarea Plan was designed and when the different segments were discussed, identified and designed for use. Chair Carroll stated that what was on the hearing for tonight was what the staff brought forward. When the Commission goes into its discussion, they can consider other options, but at this point and time the Commission is only considering the items that staff brought forward. Mr. Hume asked so then the public doesn't have any feedback on the other items? Commissioner Carroll answered yes, sir, they had full feedback and they have opportunity now to make their presentations. Mr. Hume stated but we don't know what they are. Commissioner Carroll again reminded Mr. Hume that he could tell the Commission now what he would like to see in the Plan. He also stated Mr. Hume just had told the Commission what he was supporting and not supporting. Mr. Hume stated that no, on the items that were brought before the Commission as a recommendation by the staff, there are other items that staff apparently isn't supporting and those aren't out on the table for discussion in the public forum. Mr. Hume stated that is what he was concerned about. He stated that just by the election of staff to not include these items it never becomes a public dialog about those items and they get lost at the discretion of the staff ahead of the public hearing. That is my (Mr. Hume's) obj ection to the process. Ms. Barlow stated that as a reminder the process for the evening for the code amendments regarding the Subarea Plan, that any comments received during the community meetings were presented back to Council and Council then directed staff which items to bring forward to the Planning Commission for review, as it will be for each of the other district zones. Some of the items can be processed now as code text amendments and some of the items that were brought up as concerns are considered Comprehensive Plan amendments and must wait for the annual amendment process which has a deadline of Nov. 1, 2010 this year. Ms. Barlow explained that what is on the agenda for this evening's meeting are the pieces that could be processed as a code text amendment at this time and these are the items that Council directed staff to bring forward for Planning Commission review. Mr. Hume — Mr. Hume asked for clarification that the rest of the items that he is not being allowed to comment on at this time are considered Comprehensive Plan amendments. Ms Barlow confirmed that would be correct. Debbie Ellis, Empire Cycle Sports, 7807 E Sprague Ave — Ms Ellis stated she knows that the City is looking for a theme for the Gateway area, so the City is trying to restrict the businesses that are coming to be auto related. She stated that she liked the idea, however, the City is not restricting auto related to the other areas. The problem would be that there are only so many of those types of businesses, they are not going to come to us if they are allowed in all the other areas which are more vibrant and more growing. There is Firestone, car washes. Shuck's, insurance, they are going to go someplace else that is growing that does not have the one-way that does not have the high speed people 08-26-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7 trafficking by. Ms. Ellis also stated she had people who come to her business, as well as the Auto Row businesses, who have to wait long periods of time for repairs on their vehicles, they have no place to go to. They are without a vehicle, so they cannot drive anywhere, so they are looking for a restaurant, a store they can walk into and spend time in, that is a problem, we do not have that kind of business. It would be nice if we could. Ms. Ellis stated that she has had people who might want to open up exercise classes, or jewelry stores, etc. Anything that would be nice for people to walk through while they are waiting for their cars. Ms. Ellis stated that they are concerned it is only auto related because they are not going to come to her area, that she needed other `stuff besides auto related businesses for the people who are waiting. Commissioner Carroll seeing no one else who wished to speak, closed the public hearing at 6:53. Commission took a break at 6:54 p.m. and returned at 7:05 p.m. Commissioner Carroll stated that he would like to conduct business as follows, Commissioner Sands will make a motion, then the Commission will discuss each item, individually, and if two or more Commissioners are dissenting on that item, then it will be set aside, and then be returned to at the end of the discussions. Commissioner Sands made a motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Eggleston, to recommend approval of CTA-06-10 to the City Council as presented. Discussion began with each part of CTA-06-10 being discussed at a time. Commissioner Carroll began with 2.0.1 Accessory Structures — Commissioner Sands had question regarding the limits to the height requirements. Commissioner Hall made a suggestion that only the minimum limit needs to be set. Commissioner Woodard had a question regarding architectural standards, and would new buildings have to meet the standards? Ms Barlow explained that the Plan is written so that any wall that is visible from the right-of-way must meet the architectural standards. She explained that if only one wall would be visible, then only one wall would need to meet these standards, the other three would not have to. Any new accessory structure on any developed lot. Commissioner Eggleston made a motion to amend the original motion to add minimum height requirements to the accessory structure standards in section 2.0.1, second by Commissioner Woodard, vote is 6 to 1 in favor, motion to amend passes. Chapter 2.1.5 Gateway Commercial Avenue Zone. Modify the table to allow restricted office uses, eliminate the maximum front street setback along Sprague Avenue. and eliminate the minimum percentage coverage requirement — There was discussion regarding office uses in the Gateway area, allowing auto-related uses or expanding uses in the Gateway area. Commissioner Sands was concerned about minimum frontage coverage, worried about having narrow, deep buildings. The concern was that buildings like that were being torn down, and felt bad business. Commissioner Woodard stated that he did not see an issue with changing the regulation. Commissioner Carroll stated that there were two people dissenting on this issue so, Commissioner Sands made a motion, which was seconded to move this item to the end of the discussion. Vote was 6-1 motion, Commissioner Woodard dissenting. 2.1.6 Allow auto related office uses in the Gateway Commercial Centers — Commissioner Woodard stated he was opposed to the restriction of use auto use. He also stated he was opposed to telling people how they could use their property. Commissioner Carroll stated that to allow more than what was provided in the amendment would need a 08-26-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Planning Commission could not do that at this time. Commissioner Sharpe asked it this amendment was not opening up allowed uses at this time from what is currently being allowed and that was confirmed. With no other questions, the Commission moved forward. 2.2.2 — Exempt auto sales and gas stations from the front street setback, change the maximum setback in the Gateway Commercial Center. Commissioner Sands stated that the Auto Row dealers stated they were only asking for a 100 foot setback maximum and she had noted that no building is currently set back farther than 100 feet now. Commissioner Woodard asked if no one is setting them back more than 100 feet then there should not be a problem to completely eliminate the setback because they are not going to set the buildings back more than that based on that observation. Commissioner Eggleston stated that if the auto dealers only asked for 100 feet then we should honor that request. Ms Barlow stepped in to clarify the discussion of what the amendment is. 2.6.1 Wall signs — Commissioner Hall asked how the sign code currently affects the Subarea Plan and what the change would mean. Commissioner Woodard commented on how he did not like form-based zoning and sign regulations because you cannot see businesses with a monument sign or a wall sign that is high enough on the building to be seen from the street. Commissioner Sands commented that there has been too many signs to try and find a business. Commissioner Eggleston made a motion to amend the text to read "per wall" to section 2.6.1, second by Commissioner Woodard, vote was unanimous, motion passes. 2.6.2 — wall signs above the first floor. Discussion surrounded how high a wall sign could go, it could not go above the wall, Commissioner Eggleston would like to see a limit set for how high the signs could go on the building trying to maintain a pedestrian feel. Commissioner Sharpe was concerned about the businesses being able to advertise. Commissioner Woodard shared he was not going to get out and walk up and down Sprague and if he cannot see a sign, he will not stop at the business. He also stated he felt the regulation was hindering businesses. Commissioner Sands made a motion to move the discussion of this item to the end of the discussion. Commissioner Sharpe seconded, vote was 6-1 Commissioner Woodard dissenting. 2.6.2 — freestanding signs, dual frontage lots and more than one per Sprague frontage, no discussion. Returning to 2.1.5, maximum front street set back Commissioner Hall stated that if building get pushed back we are losing the pedestrian zones that were laid out in the plan. He stated that the trend across the country is to encourage people to get out and walk and the more we change the pedestrian feel of the Plan the more it becomes unraveled. Commissioner Sharpe stated that it was great in theory however the area was not walking area now. Commissioner Woodard stated that it was up to the business to make a decision about what they need. He also stated the City was doing a disservice to the community by planning for the future. Commissioner Eggleston stated he felt that the Subarea Plan was developed to help the City clean up Sprague Ave. Commissioner Sands made a motion to amend the maximum front street setback along Sprague Ave in the Gateway Commercial Avenue to 100 feet. Second by Commissioner Eggleston, vote is 6-1 with Commissioner Woodard dissenting. 08-26-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 2.6.2 — wall signs above l floor. There was more discussion regarding the wall signs being allowed above first floors and the reasoning for keeping them as is or allowing them to move. Commissioner Eggleston made a motion that no change be allowed to the wall sign regulations, not allowed above the first floor. Vote is 5-2 Commissioners Sharpe and Woodard dissenting. Commissioner Carroll asked Ms Griffith to read back the amended motion. Recommend approval to the City Council as follows: o Chapter 2.0.1 (Applicability). Add language that exempts accessory structures from meeting frontage coverage requirements, sets minimum height requirements, or maximum setbacks, but requires the accessory structure to meet architectural standards on existing developed sites. o Chapter 2.1.5 Gateway Commercial Avenue Zone. Modify the table to allow restricted office uses maximum 100 foot set back Sprague Avenue. and eliminate the minimum percentage coverage requirement (Table section 2.2.12 Frontage Coverage). o Chapter 2.1.6 Gateway Commercial Center Zone. Modify the table to allow restricted office uses, o Section 2.2.2(f) Gateway Commercial Center Retail (Building Use). Add language that exempts vehicle sales uses from front street setback and frontage coverage requirements, and clarify that gas stations are exempt from those same requirements. o Section 2.61(2)(7) Standards (Signage Regulations). Modify the language to increase the area allowed for Wall Signs to 25% of the wall area. Per wall o Section 2.62(3) Standards (Wall Signs). No change recommended. o Section 2.6.2(6) Standards (Freestanding Signs). Modify the language to allow freestanding signs on sites other than those along Sprague Avenue, and allow dual frontage lots to have a maximum of one free-standing sign per street frontage. Commissioner Carroll asked all the Commissioners if they agreed that the amended motion was correct. All agreed. Commissioner Carroll asked for the vote, which was unanimous in favor. Motion passes as amended. XL GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Eggleston asked that in the future large batches of amendments be broken down and into easier to handle pieces, Commissioner Carroll concurred. XIL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson 08-26-2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7