PC APPROVED Minutes 01-26-12.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission
APPROVED Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
January 26, 2012
L CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
IIL ROLL CALL
Commissioners Bates, Hall �a���ea at 6:oz�, Higgins, Neill, and Stoy were present. Commissioners
Carroll and Sands was absent.
Commissioner Higgins made a motion to excuse Commissioner Carroll, which was approved
unanimously.
Commissioner Stoy made a motion which was unanimously approved to excuse
Commissioners Hall and Sands.
Staff attending the meeting: John Hohman, community, Senior Planner, Lori Barlow: Assistant
Planner, Karen Kendall: Assistant Deputy Attorney, Kelly Konkright: Office Assistant, Cari
Hinshaw, Deanna Griffith, Secretary of the Commission
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the January 26, 2012 agenda as presented. This
motion was passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Neill made a motion to approve the minutes for January 12, as were presented.
This was unanimously approved.
VL PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VIL COMMISSION REPORTS
The Commissioners had nothing to report
VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Director Hohman expressed congratulations to Commissioners Bates and Stoy on their
appointments. Mr. Hohman shared the dates of the City Council retreat, which is February 7, at
CenterPlace. The Director stated that the topics the Department would be addressing would be
economic development and the Department work plan for 2012. February 21 is the date
scheduled for the joint meeting with the City Council. Subjects on the agenda so far for that
meeting are the Shoreline Master Program schedule, and the Commissions roles and
responsibilities
01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business: Findings for CTA-03-11, proposed amendments to title 22.70
.Landscaping and Fencing requirements.
Assistant Planner Karen Kendall presented to the Commissioners the findings staff had
prepared in response to the Commissioners decision regarding the proposed amendments to
Title 22.70 landscaping and fencing requirements. At the end of the presentation,
Chairman Bates asked the Commissioners if there were any questions regarding the
findings. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the Findings and
Recommendations for CTA-03-11. The motion was passed unanimously.
B. New Business:
Public Hearing for CTA-06-11, Proposed amendments to Title 22.110 Sign Code
Senior Planner Lori Barlow made a presentation to the Planning Commission regarding the
proposed amendments to the sign regulations in Title 22.110.
• Allow A-frame signs - A-frame signs are not allowed in the current code since they
are categorized as a portable sign. Jurisdictions typically regulate the size of the sign,
and number of the signs allowed, location for display, display hours, and spacing.
Size limits generally range from 6 — 9 sq. ft. per side, while location is rypically
linked to distance from business entrance combined with controls to maintain
adequate pedestrian areas. Spacing requirements prevent closely situated signs from
lining the public sidewalk This can occur when each tenant within a strip mall
displays a sign in front of their store front.
The proposed language allows each business the opportuniry to display an unlighted
a-frame sign on-site, up to nine (9) sq. ft. on each side, within 12' of the business
entrance, and during business hours only. As written, the regulation would keep the
signs close to the business and prevent signage from being displayed off-site.
Additionally, a-frame signs would be allowed to be used for open house/directional
signage with a limit of five (5) square feet.
• Change the requirement to allow more than one free standing sign per street frontage
The review indicated that Spokane County and Spokane increase the signage
allowance for large sites in commercial and/or industrial zones. Spokane Valley's
only additional sign allowance is provided to lots with more than one frontage. For
example, corner lots may have two free standing signs if both street frontages are
arterials. The additional sign on the second street frontage (corner lot) grants
appropriate sign visibiliry for its passing traffic on both streets. Allowing additional
freestanding signs on large lots insure that large single development sites are
generally afforded the same number of signs as multiple smaller sites. This provision
maintains sign equity between the larger and smaller sites.
The proposed language allows additional free standing signs at a ratio of 1 sign per
500 feet of lineal frontage.
• Allow a wall sign for multi-family complexes. The current code does not allow
multi-family buildings, or apartments, to display wall signage. Multi-family
development is allowed monument or freestanding signs. The review indicated that
01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7
the other jurisdictions provide a small allowance for wall signs ranging from 10 —20
sq. ft.. The proposed language would allow each multi-family building a wall sign up
to 20 sq. ft. without modifying the other applicable signage requirements.
• A requirement for electronic signs would require them to automatically dim based
on the ambient light. Dimming requirements for electronic signs are accomplished
by requiring the sign to have automatic dimming capability. This device adjusts the
brighmess of the sign to the ambient light. The brightness of the sign is a common
concern and often a code requirement. Currently the City of Spokane requires
verification that the dimming device is installed, while Spokane County allows staff
to place additional conditions on the permit that protect adjacent property, that
include lighting and location issues. Liberty Lake does not allow electronic message
centers.
• Church signs in residential zones. Churches are routinely classified as institutional
uses, and therefore the current code would allow churches in residential zones to
have wall signs, and 10' high pole signs and monument signs if the site was
adjacent to an arterial. The issue is that churches and other institutional uses often
locate in residential zones, as well as commercial sites not adjacent to arterials since
they are not dependent on visibiliry to operate. Churches, schools, hospitals, and
government offices are examples of typical institutional uses. Each of these uses
may have a need for signage other than wall signage. Language is proposed that
identifies what uses are considered institutional uses in order to clarify that
churches are allowed signage consistent with the intent of the code. It is also
proposed to allow monument signs in any location, not limited to sites adjacent to
an arteriaL While the issue was originally thought to be specific to churches, the
change as proposed affects all businesses, subdivisions, institutional uses, etc., not
just churches, and allows monument signs on any site with street frontage. Small
scale monument signs are generally compatible with residential areas and well
suited for use along streets with lower speed limits. The current height limits in the
SVMC associated with monument signs typically result in monument signs being
used as identification signs, rather than electronic message centers utilized for
advertising. The signs are generally unobtrusive and compatible with residential
and mixed use commercial settings.
• Changing the requirements for Temporary signs. Generally all communities
regulate signs for special events — whether these signs are related to commercial
enterprises (grant opening, sales, etc.) or institutional (places of worship, schools,
non-profits) festivals, etc. The regulations generally include: the number of davs
the signs can be displayed; the number and tvpe of advertising devices (signs,
banners, balloons, etc.) that can be displayed; and their location on the property.
This was consistent with all jurisdictions reviewed except for Spokane Valley,
which did not stipulate number or size of temporary signs allowed. Currently the
city classifies temporary signs into the following three categories: banners;
pennants, flags, and streamers; and special event signage. All three categories
require a temporary sign permit with a fee, have varying display periods ranging
from 7 to 60 days, but do not stipulate the number or area of temporary signs
allowed to be displayed. The separate categories, with differing regulations, were
01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7
confusing to the business owners, and the fee associated with the temporary sign
permit was determined by the Council to be "cost prohibitive" to small business
owners. Discussions with the Council highlighted conflicting concerns regarding
temporary signs.
o The first being the cost associated with the temporary sign permit;
o second, if the permit was eliminated how display times could be enforced.
o Also, since temporary signage is not intended for long term display and is
subject to fading, fraying, ripping, or otherwise showing significant wear
and tear, a concern was noted that unmaintained signs would be indefinitely
displayed.
The regulations proposed allow a single temporary sign, up to 20 sq. ft. to be
displayed, so long as it is in good condition. Additional signage could be displayed
for a maximum of 30 days, twice per year, if a temporary sign permit is obtained.
This allows flexibility for business to display a single temporary sign at their
discretion indefinitely, while still providing additional allowance for special events.
Confining unlimited temporary signage to a defined 30 day period balances the
business owners need for occasional extra signage and keeps the visual clutter of
signage in check to protect the area's aesthetics.+
Ms. Barlow stated that at the study session the Commissioners had questions regarding the
amount of revenue that temporary signs generated. Ms Barlow stated that staff had
responded in an email earlier that temporary signs could not be broken out however that in
2011 signs total generated less than $9,000. The other question the Commissioners had
raised was standard sizes for signs. Ms Barlow stated she reviewed two kinds of signs. A-
frame signs and banners. She said that generally A-frame signs are two feet (2) by three
feet (3) plus the handle on top, which when opened would stand shorter than the three foot
limitation. Banner fabric generally can be made in any size requested however the most
requested size of a banner seemed to be three feet (3) by six feet(6) and four (4) feet by ten
(10) feet. Chairman Bates asked if the Commissioners had any other questions for staff.
There were none.
Chairman Bates opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Commissioner Stoy read the rules
for a public hearing.
Steve Wineinger, 10021 E Knox, ProSign: Mr. Wineinger stated he was in favor of the
proposed amendments except he felt the he would like to propose some verbiage changes
to the amendment for free standing signs. Mr. Wineinger stated he would like the
Commissioner to propose replacing the word arterial with the word street, in relation to the
allowance for freestanding signs. Mr. Wineinger stated he did not feel it was equable to
have freestanding signs restricted to arterials. Mr. Wineinger also proposed to add a
spacing requirement of 250 ft or more apart for more than one sign freestanding on large
lots. Mr. Wineinger also stated he felt there should be an allowance for extra signage for
more than one business on one lot. He stated that he felt they should be allowed so each
sign can be same size and height, but they have to be 250 feet apart.
Mr. Wineinger stated the other item he would like to address is any sign higher than six (6)
feet in height must have engineered drawings. He stated that in the City of Spokane only
01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7
requires required engineering when the sign is over 30 ft in height or 100 square feet in
size. Mr. Wineinger stated he feels the City of Spokane Valley should also adopt this
requirement. Mr. Wineinger stated he felts the dimming requirement for electronic signs
are very important.
David Hazard, 13218 E lOtb: Mr. Hazard stated he was the owner of Copy Cat Printers.
Mr Hazard stated he felt the reason he sees empty buildings on Sprague, is due to
restrictions placed on small businesses. Mr Hazard stated he felt that after incorporation
the adopted new sign code caused lost customers because it did not allowed off premise
signs. Mr Hazard stated he was not in favor of more restrictions. Mr. Hazard stated that
signs allow businesses to communicate with the public. Mr. Hazard stated that the
Commissioners need to realize small business is important to our small ciry.
Shannon Wortman. 2304 N Dollar Rd: Ms. Wortman stated she worked for Ferguson:
She shared she was attending the public hearing in order to get a directional signage to their
business. Ms. Wortman stated it is difficult for people to find their business, which is off
Trent and they need a sign to point people to their business. She stated that billboards are
expensive. Ms Wortman stated she had had a sign on the corner of Dollar and Trent,
however do to current regulations off premise signs are not allowed and they were required
to take it down. She stated that after they were required to take it down, the traffic flow in
their show room dropped of drastically.
Commissioner Higgins made a statement regarding his concern about the fact that there is
not enough people here to comment on this subject, and inquired of the public participants
what they thought should be done to increase participation?
Steve Wineinger — returned to the podium. He stated that he understood a mailing had
gong e out to list of competitors. He stated that some people feellike people feel what they
say will fall deaf ears. Mr Wineinger said he felt direct mail would be best.
Commissioners had a conversation with Mr. Wineinger about sign companies.
Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Wineinger what his opinion was of current sign code. Mr.
Wineinger stated that on a 10 scale, he felt it was about an 8.5.
Ms Barlow respond to Commissioners Higgins comment about how the City distributed
notices regarding the public hearing, City staff published a notice in newspaper, the
department emailed to its contact list of approx. 800 contacts, did a direct mailletter to the
sign companies who had obtained business licenses, and anyone who had done business, in
the City. Ms. Barlow stated staff did the best effort to get information to out to people.
Ms. Barlow said she would like to specifically address a couple of comments made which
were made. Ms Barlow said it seemed there was a misunderstanding regarding the
temporary signs. The time limit for displaying a temporary sign and the requirement that a
sign could only be 12 feet from the business entrance is only based on A-fame signs. Ms.
Barlow stated the City had many businesses which were not on an arterial. She stated the
free standing signs regulations only apply to arterial frontage. Other signs are allowed on
other streets when the business is not allowed a pole sign. Ms Barlow warned the
Commissioners care should be given when allowing off premise signage. She stated she
recognized the need for some businesses to need off premise signage, however when
allowing off-premise signage the most popular corners can become congested, and then it
01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7
becomes an issue as to how to control the clutter in order to maintain an attractive
community.
Ms. Barlow explained each amendment proposed and how each amendment would affect
the sign code.
A-frame signs — Currently A-frame signs are not allowed. The proposed amendment
would allow business one A-frame sign which could not be taller than three (3) feet, the
copy area cannot be larger than nine (9) sf,
Commissioner Higgins stated he was not trying to be critical of staff's efforts to try and
contact people. Commissioner Neill asked why monument and wall signs were allowed on
streets but pole signs were restricted to arterials. Sr. Planner Barlow related the scale of the
sign relates to the zoning district, it is in order to keep it in scale with the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Director Hohman stated the City Council had requested staff to some specific items to look
some specific items in the code. Mr. Hohman stated off-premise signs could to be an issue
for staff to review at a later time. He told the Commissioners about a program staff have
been working on the regarding the `blue signs' on Appleway. He also shared that he
thought a program of wayfaring signs would work as well for the off-premise signs,
however it would take more work than the time for these amendments would allow and
pertain to the whole City. Mr. Hohman said these sign code amendments will be part of
fixing the vitality of the corridor. Mr. Hohman explained to the Commission the options
which were available to them regarding these amendments and the process moving them
forward.
Commissioners took a break at 7:28 p.m.
Commissioners reconvened at 7:33 p.m.
Bates asking about allowances
Commissioner Bates aslced Mr. Wineinger for suggestions regarding couple issues, how to
accommodate off premise signs and get the businesses what they need.
Steve Wineinger: Mr. Wineinger stated he felt that directional signage could be a possible
solution. He said allow a sign that is only six to eight sf, in copy area and not taller than six
ft in height. He also stated that a business could also be allowed an off-premise sign, if
they were allowed to put a sign on an existing pole sign, on another property, as long as
did not exceed the square footage allowance of the sign at that location. He also restated
that if the word arterial was replaced with street then she (Ms Wortman) would be allowed
a pole sign at her location.
David Hazard: Mr. Hazard returned to the podium and stated what an awful problem it
would be if every building had a sign stating that they were open for business.
There was discussion regarding directional signs between the Commissioners and staff
regarding zoning, directional signs, options found in other jurisdictions as options for
alternatives for the off premise signs.
Mr Hohman asked the Commissioners what more information did they want staff to
provide to them regarding the current amendments. It was requested to have more
01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7
information regarding off-premise signs and the wayfaring signs. Mr. Hohman stated the
Commissioners it would require staff to do some research to provide that information. Mr.
Hohman reminded the Commission City Council had made the request for the specific six
amendments and to do the extra research could possibly delay the current amendments.
Mr. Hohman stated that staff could return later with the information regarding the off-
premise signs and wayfaring signs for a more in-depth discussion. Commissioners asked if
the amendments could be passed with the information before them currently, could the
current amendments be modified slightly and then moved forward. Staff responded yes to
both questions.
Commissioner Higgins made a motion to continue the public hearing to February 9, 2012.
This motion was passed unanimously.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Commissioner Stoy thanked the citizens for attending the meeting. Commissioner Hall
thanked staff for a thorough presentation and proper notifications. Never disappointed in
presenting, notification,
XL ADJOURNMENT ,
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. �
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
�
Deanna Griffith, Secretary Bill Bates, Chairperson
�
01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7