Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 02-09-12.pdfSure Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVEDMinutes Council Chambers –City Hall,11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 9, 2012 I.CALL TO ORDER ChairmanBates called the meeting to order at 6:00p.m. II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III.ROLL CALL Commissioners Bates, Carroll,Hall, Higgins,Neill, Sands, and Stoy were present. Staff attending the meeting:John Hohman, Community Development Director;Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager; Mike Basinger, Senior Planner; Lori Barlow, Senior Planner; Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner; Cary Driskell, City Attorney; Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney; Ben Wick, Councilmember; CariHinshaw, Office Assistant,Deanna Griffith, Secretary IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motionto approve thecurrent agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V.APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Carroll made a motion to approve the October 13,2011,the November 10, 2011 and the January 26, 2012 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VI.PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII.COMMISSION REPORTS .Commissioners Stoy and Higgins both reported that they attended the City Council retreat on February 7, 2012 which was held at CenterPlace. VIII.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director Hohman reported the agenda for the joint meeting with the City Council scheduled for February21, 2011, has been set. The topics will be the City’s update to the Shoreline Master Program(SMP), roles and responsibilities ofthe Planning Commission and the Open Public Meetings Act. Mr Hohman shared that the City has retained special council to assist staff and Council in completing the SMPprogram, this special council will be here on Feb. 21 as well to talk to the Council/Commissionabout moving forward. Other topics for discussion that night will be a discussion regarding the Open Public Meetings Act, the Public Records Act and the Planning Commission’s roles and responsibilities 02-09-12Planning Commission MinutesPage 1of 7 IX.COMMISSION BUSINESS A.UnfinishedBusiness:continued public hearing CTA-06-11, proposed amendmentsto Title 221.10 Sign Regulations. Sr. Planner Lori Barlow gave a short presentation regarding updates on the sign codeand answerquestions regarding the issues the Commissioners had brought up atthe last meeting. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners of the issues which were being proposed for amendment: Allow A-frame signs Modify the requirements for temporary signs Increase the number of freestanding signs allowed for businesses on large lotsfronting arterials Clarify that churches are institutional uses and allow monument signs for all institutional and commercial uses along any street frontage Allow multi-family complexes to display wall signs; and Require electronic signs to be equipped with an automatic dimming capability At the public hearing Ms. Barlow stated that the following items were brought up as requests to either modify the proposed amendments or proposed additional changes to the sign regulations as follows: Allow off-premise signs Allow free standing signs on all streets not just arterials Allowadditional free standing signs for multi-business complexes Require a 250’ minimumspacing for free-standing signs Only require stamped engineered drawingsfor signs over 30’ tall or 100 sf Ms. Barlow stated she had check with the City’s Acting Building Official stated the requirement for drawings for signs over sevenfeet appears to have been anadministrative determinationby a previous Building Official (Tom Sholtens), however he was still looking for a actual buildingcode reference. Mr. Powell stated (in his email) he will be discussing this issuewith the regional Building Officials to see if they are aware of the requirement. Ms. Barlow stated she has also received a request for multi-business complexes to be able to have one sign for 250ft of frontage and onefor every additional 200 ft of frontageor fraction thereof. Ms. Barlow explained staff have proposed a new clause for off-premise directional signs related to the requestpertaining to testimony received at the previous meeting. Staff is proposing that the City allow the limited placement of off-premises directional signs by co- locating on an existing conforming monument sign, freestanding sign, or building sign. 02-09-12Planning Commission MinutesPage 2of 7 These off-premise signs would only be allowed for uses located in commercial, office or mixed usezones, text would be limited to business name, logo and directional information. Ms Barlow stated that the request for additional signagefor multi-business complexes was looked at however she explained the current additional allowances for multi-businessand stated that at this time staff felt no change was needed. Ms Barlow then addressed the request to change the requirement for freestanding signs from being on an arterial to being on a street. Ms. Barlow discussed the link to free standing signs to from arterials to streets. She stated that in the memo provided, it explained the considerations were size and height to get the message across, what types of signs werecompatiblewith the surrounding uses. Ms. Barlow stated cities use zoning for to make transitions in uses. She pointed out if the wordarterialis removed and changedto street, then pole signswould beabutting to residential districts. It is staff’ssuggestion to leave the arterial frontage,this will help protect the residential uses. However,Ms. Barlow said that the code could be modified to say oneper street front in commercial and industrial zoned but one per arterial frontage in office and mixed usezones. Based on the previous meeting’s input and Commission questions staff currently recommendsthefollowing changesto Chapter. 22.110 to: Allow on premise A-frame signs for business o Allow A-frame signs for real estate purposes o Modify the requirements for temporary signs o Increase the number of freestanding signs allowed for businesses on large lots o fronting arterials Allow monument signs for all institutional and commercial uses along any street o frontage Allow multi-family complexes todisplay wall signs; and o Require electronic signs to be equipped with an automatic dimming capability o Steve Wineinger, ProSign10021EKnox :Mr. Wineinger stated he would like to address each of the following items: Off-premise signs –Mr. Wineinger stated he would like to propose making the signs 15 sf instead of 6 sf. Mr. Wineinger stated that if the sign must piggy back an existing sign, then it should be allowed to match what is already there.He also said ifthere is not an existing sign to piggy back onto,then the business must build amonument sign. He shared the issue with most monument signs in order to be able to be seen in all weather, must stand a with a height of two and one half to three feet off ground.He statedthat this would be a fourfoot by fourfoot square, no less. Aestheticallyamonument sign better,if there is no signexisting to attach the directional sign to. Mr. Wineinger said that the provision to remove the sign if the business left should not be included, because ifa new business were to relocate there they would need the sign. Mr. Wineinger said that he felt it would be to excessiveto have to do,the new sign would have bottom billing, and it would require dismantlingthe whole structure in order to remove the part that was added. He also felt it 02-09-12Planning Commission MinutesPage 3of 7 added enforcement issues. Mr. Wineinger said he thought that businesses with an interior lot or lots that fronted two streetswould require Mr. Wineinger said that he would like to address spacing of freestanding signs. Mr. Wineinger stated he would like to propose one freestanding sign for every 250 feet and one freestanding sign for each additional 200 feet or fraction thereafter. Mr. Wineinger stated several instances where he felt that additional freestanding signs would be more applicable to the properties based on this new footage standard he is suggesting, HiCo, Opportunity Plaza, OZ Fitness. Mr. Wineinger stated he was not proposing a spacing requirement between the signs, which he stated could have unintended consequences. Mr. Wineinger said he wanted to proposed that freestanding signs be allowed not just on arterials but also on streets. He used the Franz Bakerythrift store being on a street and not being able to get a freestanding sign in order to be seen.Mr. Wineinger also mentioned the issue of fronting on two streets. Mr. Wineinger said he felt business should be allowed to have a freestanding sign on a street in a residential area. He said ifthe business hasa restrictive zone across the street make it restrictive to only allow monumentin that case. Commissioners asked what is the science for the size of sign?Mr Wineinger stated that at 30-35mph a sign which has lettersthat would be readable need to be approximately would be seven incheshigh. Ifit was a reader board signs the letters need to be about eight inches tall, most enter signs are five to sixinches. ShannonWertman .2304 NDollar Rd: Ms. Wertman stated she would just like to thank the Commission for listening to and considering the needs of our business. th David Hazzard, 13218 E10 :Mr. Hazzard stated he felt that a veryrestrictive sign ordinance is what lead to so manyempty buildings. Thought process have to control signs, mess up the beauty of the city. Mr. Hazzard saidhe felt businesses should be allowed to haveall thesigns they wantas long as they arenot in the street, on the sidewalk, and do not pose a safety hazard. Mr. Hazzard said would it be so bad if therewere signs all over the place, he it would mean all the buildings would have businesses in them. Mr Hazzard stated he felt that we should get the business first, be successful first. Seeing no one else that wished to testify, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to recommend approval of CTA-06-11, amendments to Title 22.110 to the City Council. The following is discussion of the amendment. CommissionerStoy complemented staff on the excellent job in preparing and explaining the amendments. Commissioners noted that an A-frame was allowed to be nine square feet but adirectional sign was limited to six square feet. Commissioners felt maybe 12 square feet for a directional sign might be more appropriate. They discussed A-framesignsbeing within 12 feet of the businessentrance. Stating there would only be four or five businesses which would benefit with the sign at this location.Commissioners discussed allowing A- frame signs behind the sidewalk. A consideration would be the sidewalkis backed by swales,how would the signs be seen.Suggestion was that they could sit on the edge of the swale, behind the landscaping stripbut notin parking stall. 02-09-12Planning Commission MinutesPage 4of 7 Commissioner Neill stated he appreciated the proposed additional language for the off- premise signsbuthehad read the information from Mr. Wineinger and would like to take that into account as well. Commissioner Sands stated she had listened to the recordingof the previous meeting and had and issue with changing requirement for freestanding signs from arterials to streets. She stated she would not want signs backing up to where shelived.Commissioner said maybe they should be addressed on a case by case basis, like Franz Bakery. Commissioner Bates said the Commissioners must weigh among themselves what everyone has to say, but that the relaxation of sign codes is important. He felt that public inputto add more signs was good, however the problem with more signs iswhere does clutter stop? Mr Bates said he would like to relaxthe regulations however many temporary signs had been up for long timeand showed wear. A 30-60 day temporary permit would allow business tell us what they want.It is our responsibility to represent citizens as well as businesses.Mr. Bates said that businesses want to run their business the way they see fit,spend the money they want to. Within reason, we must try and balance the two issues. Commissioner Hall stated he had an issue with the requirement that a business had to provide proof of the need forthe directional sign. His suggestion was assure no onewas located on an arterial. Commissioners asked if adding to anexistingsign, would staff allow the existing sign to grow.Yes,but not beyond the sign allowance. Discussion involved the difficulty of removing a sign after business close. It would be easy to remove the text only, and it was believed there is a provision in the code now which requires the business toturn the sign around. Commissioners did mention the location of business is a business choice, choosing not to pay higher rent on a site off an arterialis part of that choice.Businesses off an arterial are allowed signage,just like any other business,but the regulations do not allow another sign just because thebusinesschooses not to pay apremium rent. The Commissioners felt if there wasa sign available to co-located on, the additional sign should be proportional to the existing structure. Commissioners again discussed that an A-frame sign is not reasonable at located at only 12 feetfrom the business entrance, it should not block the sidewalk and should allow name and logo. Commission took a break at 7:32, they returnedat 7:41 The Commission agreed that they would like to amend the proposed amendment to the sign code. They agreed to discusseach subject and make a determinationif they would like to change each issue or leave it as staff has proposed. Wall signs for Multi-family complexes, leave as is, no change Free standing signs based on lot frontage, one per every 500 ft. of frontage and every fraction of, isthe staff recommendation. –Commissioners agreed to modify it to one freestanding sign for every 300feet of frontage and fraction thereof in a commercial and industrial zonesperstreetfrontage and one freestanding sign for each500feet and fraction thereof in Mixed Use and Officezones per arterial frontage. - Monument signs on street frontages –this is agreed as presented. 02-09-12Planning Commission MinutesPage 5of 7 Temporary signs, Can have one at any time wanted, as long as maintained. Mr Bates has anissue with temporarysigns for extra events and then must be removed at the end of the sale, he feels this needs to go away. Commissioner Neill agreed, stating it is on a business owners property they should get to put up whatever they want to. Commissioner Neillhanded out written proposed language for the temporary signs.There was discussion of the proposed language. Commissioner Higgins confirmed the sign regulations are only enforced by complaints. Discussion turned to changing the size of the square footage of the signs. At first commissioners wanted to increase the number of signs and increase the square footage. Talk about the change of the size of the signs to make them more viable, change requested is to 32 square feet. Commissioners talked about theneed to eliminate the permit for temp signs, however they also felt the control and enforcement would be more difficult without it.Should a special permit be allowed more than two extra times a year,special events, holidays, but they worked out that this would be adequate when combined with the free sign they can have all the time. Commissioner Stoy made amotionto extend the meeting to 9:30. Motion is seconded and vote is seven in favor, zero against. Motion passes. A-fame signs –Commissioner expressed a concern to not block a clearview triangle but it was already in the proposed language. Commissioners wanted to deletethe first sentence. Remove the language that says signs may be located no further than 12 feet from the entrance to the business. Real estate signs –fine to go as written Electronic signs –dimming capability. Must have one-required. This is a smart requirement. Newly proposed off-premise directional signage –After discussion Commissioners reviewed the language,Commissionerswould like the language added to the current proposed amendment with the following changes add a provision that if the business is on more than one arterial could have more than one directional sign. Removed the requirement to have to prove the need to have to have the sign. Increase the square footage to 15 square feet. Commissioner Higgins made a motion to amendment the language of the motion to reflect the following changes; 1.Change the freestanding sign requirement to allow onefreestanding sign for every 300feet and one for every fraction thereof in commercial and industrial zones per- streetfrontage and onesign for each 500feet and one for every fraction thereof in mixed use and office zones per arterial frontage. 2.Increase the temporary sign square footage to 32 sf, 3.Remove the requirement that A-fame signs be restricted it to within 12 feet of the business entrance. 4.Add theproposed language to allow off-premise signs as was presented by staff removingthe need to prove the necessity forthe signand change the size to 15 sf. 02-09-12Planning Commission MinutesPage 6of 7 Vote on the amendment was 7-0. The Chairman Bates called for the vote on the amended motion. Vote was 7-0. B.New Business: Study Session Study Session Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments: At this time Staff and Commissioners discussed either extending the meeting to have a study session before the already noticed public hearing or waiting until before the public hearing or having a special meeting in the next week. After discussion it was determined it was toolate in the evening to have a study session on this evening, there is too much to cover on the night of the public hearing, and that six of the seven Commissioners could meet on Thursday February16, 2012. A meeting for February 16, 2012 will be set for that time. X.GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XI.ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjournedat 9:26p.m. SUBMITTED:APPROVED: ___________________________________________________________ Deanna Griffith, SecretaryBill Bates, Chairperson 02-09-12Planning Commission MinutesPage 7of 7