Loading...
Agenda 02/09/2012 S�'TYol�ane p Valle � Y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 9, 2012 6:00 p.m. L CALL TO ORDER IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IIL ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Oct. 13, 2011, Nov. 10, 2011, Jan. 26, 2012 VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda VIL COMMISSION REPORTS VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CTA-06-11,PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 22.11 O SIGN REGULATIONS B. NEW BUSINESS: 1. STUDY SESSION :2012 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XL ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF BILL BATES -CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR JOHN G.CARROLL SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP RusTiN HALL RoD HIGGINs STEVEN NEILL MARCIA SANDS DEANNA GRIFFITH,SECRETARY JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. October 13, 2011 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll 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, Carroll, Hall Neill, Sands, and Stoy were present. Commissioner Mann was absent. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to excuse Commissioner Mann which was approved unanimously. Staff attending the meeting: Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Mike Basinger, Senior Planner; Deanna Griffith, Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Sands made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business. B. New Business: i. Study Session for CTA-04-11,A Proposed text amendment to Title 19.60, 19120 and Appendix A, Definitions. Sr. Planner Mike Basinger made a presentation to the Commission regarding a privately initiated amendment to allow indoor recycling facilities in Corridor Mixed Use, Communiry Commercial and Regional Commercial districts. Below is the proposed language to be added to each section. 10-13-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 Indoor recycling facility; provided that: a. All materials, including non-recyclable materials, must be contained indoors. b. All activities must meet the noise requirements of SVMC 7.05.040(L). c. When adjacent to an existing residential use or residential zone screening in SVMC 22.70.030(B) shall be required. d. Access to site is limited to an existing arterial or state highway. This amendment would also add a line to the Use Matrix SVMC 19.120 to allow the use in these districts and amend Appendix A, Definitions to add a definition for indoor recycling facilities. Chapter 19.120 PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES NNAICS Schedule of Corridor Community Regional Light Heavy Permitted Uses Mixed Commercial Commercial Industrial Industrial Appendix 19-A Use 6292 Recycling Facility S S S P P Appendix A DEFINITIONS Recycling Facility: A facility that accepts recyclable materials and may perform some processing activities. The principle function is to separate and store materials that are ready for shipment to end-use markets, such as paper mills, aluminum smelters or plastic manufacturing plants. Processing activities may include baling, compacting,fZattening, grinding, crushing, mechanical sorting, or cleaning. Mr. Basinger stated that indoor recycling facilities are already allowed in the two industrial zones, this amendment would allow them into the commercial zones. Mr. Basinger shared that all materials, all operations, and all processing would be contained indoors. Mr. Basinger explained access to the facility would be more geared to collecting items and shipping them to end-users of post-consumer recycled products. He also stated access to the facilities would be limited to arterial street or state highway. Commissioners had a discussion about why this type of facility would not be allowed Mixed Use Zones. The discussion talked about the fact Mixed Use zones are more pedestrian friendly with high density residential, therefore less appropriate than the more commercial zones. It was also mentioned that the faciliry will require large pick-up and delivery trucks and it would not be appropriate for them to be driving them into neighborhoods. Commissioners wondered if the existing recycling facility would still be allowed, staff stated it would be considered a legal non-conforming use. Commissioners were concerned about how to address hazardous materials. The City only currently has two recycling facilities now, the Waste Management facility on Sullivan and the small place over near the Post Office. Commissioners and staff continued to discuss possible issues with trash collection, hazardous material concerns, curbside recycling, making sure all operations as well as materials are contained indoors, issues experienced in other cities, 10-13-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 concerns over truck traffic on Sprague. Mr. Basinger stated he would work with applicant to discuss adding language which would address hazardous materials and ensure all equipment was contained indoors. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 6:37 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Secretary John G. Carroll, Chairperson 10-13-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. November 10, 2011 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll 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 Carroll, Hall, Neill, and Stoy were present. Commissioners Bates, Mann and Sands were absent. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to excuse Commissioners Bates, Mann and Sands from the November 10, 2011 meeting. This motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Staff attending the meeting: John Hohman, Community Development Director; Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician, Dean Grafos, Councilmember, Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney; Deanna Griffith, Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Mann made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioners Carroll and Stoy reported they attended the Ciry's Developer's Forum on October 27. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta reported staff was working on an advanced agenda for the Commission. He also reported staff had received seven privately imitated Comprehensive Plan amendments, would be reviewing the Garden Office zone and land use along Trent Ave. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business. B. New Business: ll-10-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 i. Public Hearing: CTA-03-11 Proposed amendment to Title 22.70, Landscaping and Fencing Standards: Assistant Planner Karen Kendall made a presentation to the Commission regarding proposed text amendments to the landscaping and fencing portions of Title 22. • Section 22.70.020(B)—Allow fences to be placed on the property line in a flanking yard (corner lot) outside of the front yard setback. • Section 22.70.020(C)—Modify language to provide more clarity to the clearview triangle definition and update references to tables and diagrams to ensure this section is administered correctly. • Section 22.70.020(F)—Define which zones allow barbed, concertina or razor wire. • Section 22.70.040(E)(9) and Table 22.70-4 —Consolidate all landscape point calculation requirements into Table 22.70-4. • Section 22.70.040(J)(4)—Remove landscape requirement for new signs in developed areas. • Section 22.70.040(L)(1)(e)—Add additional flexibility to landscaping requirements for industrial zoned properties. • Section 22.70.040(N) — Provide a landscape point threshold for requiring a landscape architect to prepare a landscape plan and clarifying who will certify the installed landscaping at time of completion. The Commissioners had some clarifying questions for Ms. Kendall regarding some of the clearview diagrams, clearview in residential areas, barbed wire and where it is currently allowed, fence height in relation to allowing the wire on top, amending the landscaping point table, and the exemption for existing sites in industrial areas. Ms. Kendall informed the Commissioners staff had received several written comments: ❖ From Gavin and Associates stating they felt the barbed wire section should add language which stated "and not adjacent to a residential zone" after `in the absence of a residential zone", and that contractors cannot design, install and approve their own work This would be to protect a client from poor workmanship. ❖ From Commissioner Neill suggesting a change in language regarding the staking of trees and add recommended list of trees. ❖ From staff inember Gloria Mantz, to reference the City's Street Standards when calculating clearview triangles for new development. The Chair opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. then invited people to speak to the changes proposed in CTA-03-1 l. Tom Pratt, 20114 E Belmont Rd, Mica, WA: Mr. Pratt stated he was a landscape architect who did work in the City. Mr. Pratt stated he had a question about the clearview triangle change and whether or not it was referring to curbed roads or non-curbed roads. Mr. Pratt suggested the amendment include non-curbed roads. Mr. Pratt stated he understood the Ciry wanted to establish standards so that development was well thought out, done consistently and with well thought out design. Mr. Pratt stated he felt that the streamlining of the point system might be too much of a simplification, if the point system were over simplified the City might not get the development it wants. ll-10-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 Mr. Pratt said that the Ciry of Spokane does require staking. He felt it was more important how to handle how the tree is installed, how the root ball is handled. Staking is not the only the issue in whether a tree survives or not, there could be other issues, install, nursery, maintenance, how staking is done, stapled, who maintains it. Mr. Pratt did say he did feel that staking was important. Commissioner Hall asked about stabilization being more important than just staking the tree for its own sake. Commissioner Neill asked how Mr. Pratt would recommend inserting this suggestion into the SVMC. Mr. Neill stated he liked the idea of stabilization more than staking. Mr. Pratt suggested a planting detail, making a below surface stabilization. Mr. Pratt stated also that it could be a risk that telling someone how to plant could be a small liability, some require an arborist on site while planting, but it could help keep a better hold on maintccining the landscaping. Mr. Pratt made a comment also on the requirement for a landscape architect and he feels that the City would be better served by having this requirement, with someone who can think beyond just the point system and to the reasons why things are required and necessary. He felt that the reason Sprague was looking so down trodden was the fact that there was less and less landscaping being required, should require more, should be required around signs. Architects make sure the whole picture is taken into account from the sign, to the rights-of-way to the parking lots and the rest of the site to keep the Ciry looking better. Clyde Haase, 12202 E Thorpe Rd: Mr. Haase stated he was a landscape architect would did work in the City. Mr. Haase stated he was concerned about the eight foot high fence, and thought it should be allowed. Mr. Haase stated he felt that the City should have a minimum standard of guidelines. Mr. Haase said that staking method vary however what is more important is the enforcement of making sure the trees are unstaked after 12 months. Mr. Haase stated that landscaping around signs should be common sense. If you cannot get water out to the site don't put plants in a place where they will die. He said the City should allow staff a little latitude in making some decisions when common sense should take over the decision. Mr. Haase did share that he had been involved in assisting the City create the point system which allows there to be variety of plantings on a site without having to tell the applicant what to put there. Commissioner Stoy had a question regarding the fencing and changing height requirements. Staff explained that this amendment was not changing the height requirements,just if they are allowed along a flanking street. Commissioner Hall stated he hoped for a better understanding of the right-of-way at the next meeting. Commissioner Neill made a motion to continue the public hearing for CTA-03-11 to December 8, 201 L This motion was passed unanimous. C. Study Session: CTA-05-ll Proposed amendments to Title 20 regarding records of survey requirements for boundary line amendments. Planning Technician Martin Palaniuk made a presentation to the Commission outlining the proposed amendments to Title 20 and the requirements for a record of survey for boundary line adjustment (BLA). ll-10-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 • The number of properties involved. The number of parcels will determine the number of legal descriptions and the number of lines being moved. This can make it more difficult to evaluate. It also increases the opportuniry for an error to occur. • Legal descriptions. Any drawing or survey should accurately depict the written legal description. Legal descriptions are typically taken from the land-holders deed. Any time a boundary line adjustment is undertaken a new legal description is created for all the affected properties. In most cases in Spokane Valley the legal description is written using the lot and block number of a land subdivision or aliquot parts of a land subdivision. In some cases the property is described using a metes and bounds description which describes the property through a series of heading and distance calculations. While both types of description can be used to describe a property the aliquot parts description is much easier to read, understand and amend. • Appurtenances attached to the property. If the property is subject to an easement or multiple easements then issues may arise as to the proper placement and size of the easement. Easements are typically recorded with the county in a written form and added to the title as an appurtenance. Ensuring appurtenances are depicted during a boundary line adjustment is important to inform and protect property owners. • Boundary disputes between property owners. Boundary line disputes sometimes occur within the City's jurisdiction. In some cases, lots were created through a segregation process prior to formal subdivision regulations. When this occurs, setbacks, legal descriptions, and the actual versus perceived boundary lines may add to the misunderstanding and dispute. On o�her occasions a long standing fence that was originally misplaced may be mistaken for an actual property line. • Existing buildings. The proposed boundary lines are examined to determine if all the required setbacks are being maintained as part of any boundary adjustment review. It is difficult or impossible to determine whether the setbacks are maintained if the buildings are not accurately depicted in the site plan. It is not as critical in cases where the proposed boundary line will clearly maintain a setback A reviewer can gain reasonable assurance the setback is being maintained if the nearest building is depicted as 10 feet from the boundary and the required setback is five (5) feet. It becomes more difficult if the building is depicted as six (6) feet from the proposed boundary and the setback is five (5) feet. Commissioners asked for the reason for this amendment and if this had been a problem for customers. Staff discussed situations when a record of survey might not be necessary and when it would and how giving the Director some parameters to be able assist the when it would be a simple process to take care of the BLA without the requirement. There were no other questions from the commissioners. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m. ll-10-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Secretary John G. Carroll, Chairperson ll-10-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT 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 typically 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 Spolcane 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 that 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 feels 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 empry 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 off 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 gone out to a list of competitors. He stated that some people feel like 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 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 Ciry. 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 asked Mr. Wineinger for suggestions regarding a couple of 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 information regarding off-premise signs and the wayfaring signs. Mr. Hohman stated to 01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 the Commissioners it would require staff to do some research to provide that information. Mr. Hohman reminded the Commission that 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 Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT 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 typically 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 Spolcane 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 that 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 feels 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 empry 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 off 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 gone out to a list of competitors. He stated that some people feel like 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 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 Ciry. 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 asked Mr. Wineinger for suggestions regarding a couple of 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 information regarding off-premise signs and the wayfaring signs. Mr. Hohman stated to 01-26-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 the Commissioners it would require staff to do some research to provide that information. Mr. Hohman reminded the Commission that 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 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: February 9, 2012 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business � public hearing ❑ infoimation ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-06-ll AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Continued — Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: City initiated text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), Chapter 22110 Sign Regulations, to modify the regulations to allow A-frame signs, modify the requirements for temporary signs, increase the number of freestanding signs allowed for business on large lots fronting arterials, allow multi-family complexes to display wall signs, and require electronic signs to be equipped with an automatic dimming capability. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80150 and SVMC Chapter 2120 — State Environmental Policy Act PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: Planning Commission conducted a study session on January 12, 2012 and public hearing on January 26, 2012. The public hearing was continued on January 12 to the February 9, 2012 meeting. BACKGROUND: At the January 26`�'meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to provide language that allowed off-premise directional signage for uses located on non-arterial streets. Draft language has been prepared and is included in the attached memo. Staff also provided comments relating to certain issues noted at the public hearing. OPTIONS: Planning Commission may recommend approval as presented; recommend approval with modi�cations,recommend the proposal not be adopted, or forward no recommendation to City Council. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The public hearing should be re-opened. If no additional testimony is provided,the hearing should be closed and the Commission should deliberate the proposed language. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Staff Memo Draft amendment(s)to SVMC Comments from ProSign Inc. 1of1 ►'�`��kane �all�� 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhallC�spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner CC: Scott, Kuhta, AICP, Planning Manager and John Hohman, CD Director Date: February 2, 2012 Re: CTA -06-11 Amendments to the Sign Code On January 26, 2012 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the City initiated sign code text amendment. As a result of the testimony provided the Commission directed staff to provide language that allows off-premise directional signage for businesses located on sites without arterial frontage. Currently the code prohibits all off-premise signage. According to the testimony, certain commercially zoned sites are difficult for customers to find and require directional signage to guide their customers. The proposed language creates an exception for off-premise signage if the purpose is to provide direction. The following draft language provides relief for businesses without adequate visibility while ensuring that off-premise signage does not create unnecessary visual clutter along the city's main commercial corridors: Off-Premises Directional Si� It is the intent of this section to allow the limited placement of off-premises directional signs by co-locating on an existing conforming monument sign, freestanding sign, or building wall. The business requiring the directional sign must conform to the following criteria: 1. The business must be located on a private easement or local access street; 2. The business must prove an off-premises directional sign is necessary for directions to access the site; 3. The business and proposed sign must be located in a commercial, office or mixed zone area; 4. Text shall be limited to the business name, logo, a directional arrow or may include certain advancing language as "next right"; 5. The sign must be located on the nearest collector or arteriaL If a business has double frontage, staff will review this unique situation to determine if two directional signs are warranted; 6. Sign area is limited to six square feet; this shall not be construed to allow the on- premises sign to increase its sign area; and � 7. If the business using an off-premises directional sign leaves its location, the property owner where the sign is located is responsible for the sign removal within sixty days. CTA-06-11 PC Memo/February 9, 2012 Meeting Page 1 8. If the site has no existing signage or buildings, thn a freestanding sign meeting the requirements above may be allowed. Other comments received: Additional testimony received requested that 1) freestanding signs be allowed on sites with any street frontage, not just arterial frontage, 2) additional signs be allowed for multi- business complexes, and that signs must be spaced at least 250' apart on each street frontage. The following comments are provided regarding the requests. Freestanding signs are currently only allowed on sites with arterial street frontage. While there is a formula that may be utilized to determine height and area requirements necessary to convey messages as it relates to roadway speed, other primary concerns are compatibility with existing development and maintaining the character of development. While residential uses are often located in commercial zones adjacent to commercial uses, the general rational is that zoning acts as a buffer to separate the more intensive commercial uses from the lower intensity residential uses. In the City of Spokane Valley the Office Zones (Garden Office and Office ) act as a transitional zone between commercial and low density residential since the existing uses typically include a blend of office and multifamily. Bearing this in mind, the further away from the commercial zones into an office zone a person travels, the more it begins to take on a residential character. Compatible signage helps to maintain that character. However, in the areas zoned MUC, it is common to see a blend of single and two family residential uses next to commercial uses and adjacent to arterials. Recognizing the diversiry in the ciry's land uses staff recommends that commercial and industrial zoned properties be allowed a free standing sign per street frontage, and that Mixed Use and Office zoned properties be allowed free standing signs if adjacent to arterials. Currently the sign code allows an increase in sign area and sign height for multi-business complexes. For example, sites zoned Mixed Use or other Non-residential zones that contain a single business are allowed a sign from 100 —200 square feet in area and up to 30' in height. A multi-business complex may have up to 250 square feet of sign of area and up to 40' in height. The fact that an additional sign area allowance is already provided should be considered when contemplating allowing additional signs, as well as the configuration of existing lots. As discussed, at the study session it is common for lots with narrow frontage to have more than one business located on the site. Providing an additional sign allowance may lead to an increase in the visual clutter, while the increase in sign area currently within the code, recognizes the additional signage needs, but restricts the signage to a single structure. Staff recommends no changes to our current provisions for multi-business sites. Currently the sign code does not contain a spacing provision between freestanding signs. Since only a single sign is allowed per site, except in certain instances, on-site spacing has not been an issue. Requiring a strict spacing between sign structures adjacent to street frontage would eliminate many opportunities for freestanding sites, since a huge percentage CTA-06-11 PC Memo/February 9, 2012 Meeting Page 2 of the sites have a frontage width far less than 250'. However, this does not appear to be the intent of the comment. Rather, the intent was to require spacing between sites on a single site. Based on staff's recommendation noted above, staff does not recommend spacing requirements between sign structures. The last request was specific to the requirement that a stamped, engineered drawing be provided for freestanding and monument signs over 6' in height. This question was forwarded to the acting Building Official and his response will be provided at the meeting. CTA-06-11 PC Memo/February 9, 2012 Meeting Page 3 i � ; . � n � . � � � January 24, 2012 City of Spokane Yalley �������� CoNi�nurzity Developnient Departme�it � 1170�E. Spi°ague Ave., Suite 106 J A N 2 6 2012 Spoka�ze Valley, WA 99206 Re:Sig�i Co�le Recornme�idatio�is o°��T�EN�o� COtJtJIIJNITY D�V�L(3P�Etd'f To Whom It May Concern: � Below I have listed my recommended changes to the current sign code presently under review. FREESTANDING SIGNS 1) Allow at least 1 per street frontage. Use the word"street" instead of"arterial". 2) For multi-business complexes, allow additional signs. 3) Require that the signs must be spaced at least 250' apart on each street frontage. THE REQUIREMENT OF A STAMPED,ENGINEERED DRAWING FOR FREESTANDING AND � MONUMENT SIGNS This is presently required to permit any sign structure over 6' tall from grade. i These costs the businesses in Spokane Valley an average of$300.00 per sign permit for every pole sign ' that their counterparts in the City of Spokane don't have to pay. i ; The City of Spokane requires a stamped, engineered drawing if the sign is over 30' in height or exceeds , 100 square feet. �I I would suggest we adopt the same standard. If you have any questions,please don't hesitate to call me at 927-3925. I am happy to be of service to you and to the Caty of Spokane Valley! Respectfully, � PRO SIGN,INC. I � , Steve Wineinger � P��eside�tt WASHINGTON � IDAHO • MONTANA • OREGON 10021 E.KNOX SPOI�ANE,WASHINGTON 99206 PHONE(509)927-3925 FAX(509)927-4685 �I Spokane Valley Municipal Code 22.110.040 � r Table 22,110-1-Location,Height and Copy Area Requirements I� ; � - . .. � �1VIaximum .. . . �'I . �,.' , : . �i: o' , `. i o � . . . . .. � ^ �1 w w �:-: 'ei . � � a : �].s ��o �°o ,� - °i : . ; L�nd Use. -! �nuig.I�te°ict s.� :}`• �� �"•+-� �: a AdcLhqnalProvisibns ' i - �; w :� = d; �) a�a:�y �'; d . � ; � � �: � � � a�.. � . � � d� o o ti o'O • �' � . . � II, �',:: ��r, .U' t`� W t'�'W,ca�. � P�l; � � I� Attacfied Wall�igns . Institutional Residential Zones * * * n/a n/a n/a Y *25% of wall area , Single Business Residential Zones 1 n/a 60 n/a n/a n/a Y � All Mixed Use and Nonresidential Nonresidential * n/a * n/a n/a n/a y *25% of wall area per Zones building � Freestanding Signs . , Subdivision/Area Name/Multifamily All Zones 1* 10 32 n/a n/a n/a Y Compleu/Institutional !i Single Business Neighborhood 1 20 100 n/a n/a 5 Y *per arterial street � Multi-business Business(NC) I Complex Zones 1* 20 n/a 100 n/a 5 Y frontage i . ' Single Business Mixed Use and 1* 30 n/a 100 200 5 Y ��",�}t� ; Multi-business Nonresidential � � ; Complex Zones (except NC) 1* 40 250 n/a n/a 5 Y ���� Nonresidential All Nonresidential 1 50 250 n/a n/a 5 Y *�,djacent to I-90 only �'� Freeway* Zones . �� , . 1Vlonwnent Signs �, Subdivision/Area Name/Multifamily All Zones 1 10 32 n7a n/a n/a Y Complex/Tnstitutional . *Per arterial street ! Single Business Neighborhood 1^ 7 75 n/a n/a 5 Y frontage II Mulfi-business Business (NC) I �.T 7 �` J1 ??1? 3 v I Complex Gones �,, 5ingle Business All Mixed Use and 2� 7 90 n/a n/a 5 Y i Rilulti-business Nonresidential 2� � 150 nla n/a 5 y *Per street frontage �, Complex Zones I OEher SignS . . Directional All Zones n/a n/a n/a 5 n/a n/a N , Name Plates All Zones 1 n/a 4 5 n/a n/a N I . � � ; 22-41 (Revised 92/07) . i