PC APPROVED Minutes 06-13-13 Spokane Valley Planning Commission
APPROVED Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
June 13, 2013
L CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
III. ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS Present Absent CITY STAFF
Bill Bates-Chair x John Hohman, Corn Development Director
Joe Stoy—Vice Chair x r- Marty Palaniuk,Planner
Steven Neill x 1— Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Kevin Anderson x �°
Mike Phillips x 1-
Robert McCaslin x
Christina Carlsen x -- Cari Hinshaw, Secretary
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Stoy moved to approve the agenda as presented, a second was made and the
motion passed unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Neill moved to approve the May 23, 2013 minutes as presented, a second was
made and the motion passed unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Community Development Director John Hohman went over the advance agenda. He stated that
the creation of the development regulations have pushed their abilities to the limits because of
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 6
all the different rewrites. There were seven different versions from the consultant before they
decided to go a different direction in-house, and then five different versions after that. He
stated that they are at a point where they have done the best job they can do with this particular
material and that it was very complex. There will be various experts at Tuesday night's Joint
Planning Commission/City Council meeting to help walk through all of it.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Unfinished Business: CTA-2013-0004, Sign Code Amendments.
A pending/postponed motion is on the table from the May 23, 2013 Planning
Commission Meeting:
Motion: Commissioner Stoy moved to approve and forward to the City Council CTA-2013-
0004 as presented, a second was made.
Community Development Director John Hohman provided a short recap of the changes,
which are as follows:
1. 22.110.030 Permit required, paragraph C, item 3. (The location of all existing signs for
the subject applicant including size and height). Subject Applicant was added.
2. 22.110.030 Permit required,paragraph D. In the last draft,there was an item 2. (2.
Special inspection agency agreements,signed by the owner and special inspection
agency are required for sign construction with concrete over 2500 psi,on site
welding, or high strength bolting.) Item 2 was removed. Mr. Hohman stated that at
the public hearing Mr. Wineinger stated that it was his experience that special
inspection agreements were not typically required. Mr. Hohman stated he discussed it
with the City's Building Official Doug Powell. Mr. Powell talked to the jurisdictions of
Cheney, Spokane, Spokane County, and Liberty Lake to get a feel for what they are
doing. Mr. Hohman explained that what staff came up with was that special inspection
agreements are only required in three different areas.
• If a sign company comes forward with something completely out of the
ordinary that is typically not seen, like a large sign with a strange cantilever
structure or something else that would cause some questions.
• Extremely large pole signs that are not typical as well that have some
additional bracing or other issues that might make staff believe special
inspections are required.
• Replacement of existing billboards -those inspections are required.
Beyond the three items, it is not typical to have a special inspection agreement done.
Therefore, Item 2 was removed and,the following was added to Item 1: (Where
special conditions exist for any type of sign, the Building Official is authorized to
require additional construction documents to be prepared by a Washington State
licensed engineer and/or special inspections if deemed necessary.)Mr. Hohman
stated that this would provide the flexibility in case the City was to encounter one of the
three out of the ordinary situations,then the City could require special inspections.
3. 22.110.050 Temporary Signs,paragraph E, item 3. (Signs may only be displayed
During business hours. If business hours continue) was removed and replaced with;
(If the sign is displaced past daylight hours, precautions should be taken to place the
sign in a lighted area.)
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6
4. 22.110.090 Sign location and front setbacks,paragraph F, was changed to; (All new
freestanding signs shall comply with SVMC 22.70.030 (J).)Mr. Hohman stated that
be located and landscaped area was removed as well as the second sentence.
Commissioner Carlsen read the attached statement to the Planning Commission regarding
CTA-2013-0004. Commissioner Stoy responded that most of the businesses that
Commissioner Carlsen highlighted are destination locations and they do not need exposure
the way temporary signs would highlight an unknown brand new business; everyone knows
where Fred Meyer is (Sullivan). He said he thinks the worst-case scenario was put out there
and that there are several business that have been there for large amount of time, and
everybody knows that they are there. He stated that there is a possibility that there could be
two hundred signs out there but that would probably never happen and you cannot tie
somebody's hands because he has a little lot with a hundred foot of frontage, to one sign.
Commissioner Carlsen stated that the purpose of a temporary sign is not to advertise your
business; the purpose is to advertise a special, or a daily deal. The temporary sign is not
meant to be the sign to draw people into your business. She continued that any strip mall
with any number of tenants could have the same problem and said she does not think a
temporary sign is going to change the nature of the business. Commissioner Bates stated
that temporary signs in some instances are the lifeblood of a small business and through his
experience; he knows you can get traffic in a store if temporary signs are done properly.
There are so many empty retail and businesses that we as a City have a big job to get
business in there. He stated that he is for doing anything within reason to help a business
survive and prosper. Commissioner Anderson stated that the worst-case scenario is always
possible with any rule or zone and that if it did happen then there is always the option to
say it can't continue because of any clutter. The City still has the ability to talk to the
business and let them know they are making a mess out of the area or with the code or we
can go out and stiffen it up.
Commissioner Neill moved to amend the original motion to approve and recommend CTA-
2013-0004 to City Council to read, "as presented by staff with the four amendments
recommended by Planning Commission and shown in the draft of the proposed text
amendments provided to the Commission tonight. "A second was made, 6 in favor, 1
against(Commissioner Carlsen).
Commissioner Carlsen stated she meant to vote yes to amending the motion. Commissioner
Bates stated that they needed to revote on the last motion. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb
stated that someone needs to make a motion to re vote and make the record clear that
Commissioner Carlsen wishes to vote affirmatively on that motion to amend the original
motion.
Commissioner Stoy moved to rescind the amended motion CTA-2013-0004. A second was
made and the motion passed unanimously.
Re-vote:
Commissioner Neill moved to amend the motion to approve and recommend CTA-2013-
0004 to City Council to read, "as presented by staff with the four amendments
recommended by Planning Commission and shown in the draft of the proposed text
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6
amendments provided to the Commission tonight. "A second was made and the motion
passed unanimously.
Note: The amendments are:
1. 22.110.030 C (4): to read: The location of all existing signs on the site for the subject
applicant including size and height.
2. 22.110.030 D (2): was proposed: Special inspection agency agreements, signed by the
owner and special inspection agency are required for sign construction with concrete
over 2500 psi, on site welding, or high strength bolting. Then replaced with (1):
Where special conditions exist for any type of sign, the Building Official is
authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a
Washington State licensed engineer and/or special inspections if deemed necessary.
3. 22.110.050 E (3) was proposed: Signs may only be displayed during business hours.
If business hours continue. Then replaced with: If the sign is displaced past daylight
hours,precautions should be taken to place the sign in a lighted area.
4. 22.110.090 F: to read:All new freestanding signs shall comply with SVMC 22.70.030
(J). be located and landscaped area was removed also the second sentence.
The pending motion:
Commissioner Stoy moved to approve and forward to the City Council CTA-2013-0004 as
amended, a second was made. Vote on the motion as amended: six in favor and one
opposed. The amended motion passed.
B. New Business:
Study Session: CTA-2013-0005, Outdoor Lighting Standards
Planner Marty Palaniuk provided an overview of the materials for the Outdoor Lighting
Standards and went over the proposed changes as attached in the draft materials for
Chapter 22.60 Outdoor lighting standards:
Mr. Palaniuk stated that the outdoor lighting standard does not apply to one or two-family
dwellings and public street lighting. He covered the background of 1 wattage and lumens,
which is the measure of the brightness of a light and stated that over the last several years
technology has changed. The old incandescent bulb at 40 watts would only put out 550
lumens and now there are compact florescent light bulbs that require much less wattage but
actually create the same amount of lumens. This is important to the text amendment that is
being proposed. He stated a new Washington State Energy code would be enacted in July.
All of the new development will have to comply with the Washington State Energy Code.
See attached Chapter 22.60 for proposed changes.
Commissioner Neill asked if there was going to be a stipulation that shows at what point an
audit is triggered to have somebody come in and inspect. Mr. Palaniuk stated that during
the pre-application phase of development, the scope, scale and surrounding uses are looked
at or if there are any anticipated impacts from light trespass. Therefore, if the Building
Department felt that was going to happen, then they would require it at the lighting plan.
Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated there is potential legal concern when there is no
criteria and you have unfettered discretion or there are no guiding principles for when that
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6
lighting plan is required, there are potential legal pitfalls with that. The three potential
criteria that Mr. Palaniuk listed could work well and still allow discretion from the building
department as to when the lighting plan is required without locking them into having a
lighting plan. Commissioner Stoy asked if it was going to affect existing developments.
Mr. Palaniuk stated it would only effect developments after the amendments occur. It will
not go back to prior developments. Commissioner McCaslin asked if you need a permit to
change a light bulb for commercial projects. Community Development John Hohman
stated that the City does not handle electrical components; it is the Department of Labor
and Industries that handle electrical permits. What the City would do in the case of an
addition or just installing new lighting, is look towards compliance with the energy code to
make sure that those units that were specified comply with our code. He stated, that what
this new amendment is looking at doing is handing most of it off to the review of the
energy code, maybe requiring a lighting plan in the larger developments or the ones
adjacent to residential, where the City would be more concerned about the location of the
lights and whether they are shielded or not. This is a big scaling back of our regulations.
Commissioner Anderson used a scenario that if you develop a mall parking lot, does the
City currently have a limitation on how much energy that they could use to light the mall
parking lot? Mr. Palaniuk said yes they do have to meet the provisions in the Washington
State Energy Code. That is what they are primarily trying to deal with is how much energy
you consume with your lighting. This concerns the luminosity and how bright the site gets
and the impacts of that brightness on the surrounding uses or adjacent properties.
Commissioner Bates talked about the zoning and new developments changes for going
from residential to the multi-family. He asked if we are getting into developer agreements
again, if we do not have criteria for lighting. Mr. Palaniuk responded that it needs to be
discussed whether they want to change the City to a responsible official like the building
official or the Community Development Director and whether or not they want to include
some criteria if they want to include that lighting plan. Such as the scope and scale of the
project,the surrounding uses if there is residential than we should require a lighting plan, or
if there is a sports arena or light industrial project, then the Planning Commission can add
them in there. Commissioner Bates stated that we are still in the Study Session and that it
might be a discussion to have after the public hearing. Mr. Palaniuk responded that he
could bring back another draft. Commissioner Stoy asked if a multi-family would be
considered a commercial development. Mr. Palaniuk responded yes it would be subject to
this regulation. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated that if it is the Commissions' desire
to have criteria in the regulation then he could get that for them and staff could come back
with the changes before the public hearing. Commissioner Bates asked how everyone felt
about the criteria. Commissioner Anderson stated there are two things: we need criteria,
and then you have a designation of an individual. He asked if the Planning Commission is
qualified to designate that individual. Mr. Palaniuk stated that the City's Building Official
is the one who oversees the City's development pre-app meetings. He said he might be the
likely choice. Commissioner Stoy agreed with Mr. Palaniuk as far as the Building Official
having the authority, but thinks they should also define the scope and scale similar to the
landscaping requirements. Commissioner Bates agreed and asked Mr. Palaniuk to come
back with some criteria for requiring a lighting plan. Commissioner McCaslin asked if
there have been any complaints regarding current outdoor lighting standards. Mr. Hohman
and Mr. Palaniuk said they had no complaints from the public. Commissioner Anderson
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6
commented on the public right away in the General requirements. He said we do not want
horizontal lights or bright lights affecting drivers on a roadway but said he would not be
against light luminating the sidewalk of a road or an alley from commercial property. He
asked if it is a stiff rule or an open rule. Mr. Hohman responded that they are talking about
unshielded light and what they are trying to avoid is something like a spot light that would
blind you as a motorist or anything that would cause traffic safety concerns as opposed to
unshielded light that may illuminate part of the right-of-way. Commissioner Carlsen stated
that at the beginning Mr. Palaniuk said he is going to remove the reference to the
Washington State Energy Code. Mr. Palaniuk stated they are coming out with a new energy
code July 1st. Commissioner Bates asked if there was a criteria for the brightness of lights
on billboards. Mr. Palaniuk stated that is under the sign code and it does reference it needs
to be down loaded and that the bulbs cannot show. Flashing signs are prohibited. Mr.
Hohman stated that he would look to amend the notice to include some of the language
changes that Mr. Palaniuk talked about in his presentation. Therefore, at the public hearing,
there will be some criteria and the designated individual will be in the language. He said if
we could not amend the notice to the public, then they will bring some options forward for
the Planning Commission deliberations.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
1
Bill Bates, Chairperson
Cari Hinshaw,PC Secretary
Date signed 647
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6
I believe that the current code is sufficient for businesses to advertise their
specials. According to the intent of temporary signage, they are meant to be
"posted in conjunction with the alteration, construction, sale, or lease of real
property." In essence TEMPORARY signs for a TEMPORARY purpose. Our current
code offers free of cost options for business to provide notice for temporary
events. Currently businesses are allowed an A-frame sign and either a banner,
reader board, or two flags with copy. This is in addition to the permanent signs
also on the premises. Furthermore, businesses are allowed to get a permit for
additional signage to include "event" style advertising for up to 4 months of each
year.
As this new code has not even been enforced for a full year, I don't think it is
prudent to change the code again so quickly. I think that it would be wise to let
the code remain for a longer length of time, to ascertain if there are needs for
more signs.
In addition, temporary signage is not intended to keep a company in business,
and I do not believe that an additional temporary sign will make or break any of
our cities businesses. There are many ways to have effective advertising and
marketing, and businesses have opportunities to pursue them.
To address a concern brought up at our last meeting, I do not believe that
temporary signs help with the locating of businesses. And if businesses are using
temporary signs for these purposes, then they are not following the intent of
usage of temporary signs. In the context of finding businesses, I think that more
temporary signs will detract from the permanent signs and address markings.
Another note about signage, I agree that in theory one more sign per business
doesn't sound like that much of a change, but when I drive down some of our
main streets, I am overwhelmed by the sheer number of signs that are present.
There are real estate signs, there are political signs by the handful, there are
dancing tooth paste tubes and slices of pizza, Jiffy Lube and tire store employees
waving.
I have prepared a couple visual examples of the differences between the current
code and the proposed changes.
Plapn r &ni/nt.i.rf meta :
e 1 f1s ea-bew
Example A
Example B
In discussing this issue with citizens, comments that I heard related to the
difficulty of finding businesses, especially along Sprague Avenue. The concerns
were that there aren't adequate numbering signs along the street, and those on
the businesses are too small or too far from the street to be useful.
Additional concerns are that excess of flags and banners are distracting to drivers
along some busy streets, and some trees along streets obscure not only signs and
addresses, but buildings as well.
My suggestion would be to let the current code stand until next year, to give
enough time for the businesses to determine if they do need more signs.
I would also be open to amending the current code with language stating that
those with a certain length of frontage to be allowed to have an additional sign.
As to the length of frontage, I would need more research on determining an
appropriate length. An example would be if your business has less than 100 feet
of frontage, you get one banner, reader board, or two flags with copy, and if you
have more than 100 feet you would get the option of two of the items.
To quote the Community Development Department's Business Guide to Keeping
Spokane Valley Beautiful
"We understand that running a business is challenging, and that adequate signage
is critical to communicate with your customers. At the same time, we know
business owners recognize the need to keep signage, especially movable and
temporary signage, from overwhelming the image of our business areas.
Ultimately, the future of Spokane Valley relies on a balance between supporting
the businesses that serve our community, and protecting the quality of life that
will attract the residents and major employers who will patronize those
businesses."
Example A.1
Parcels 45154.2004 and 45154.2005
13 817 East Sprague
Spokane Valley, WA
There are 11 unique business in this location.
A-Frame
Banner Map
Reader Board Photos
Flag with copy
Example A.2
Parcels 45154.2004 and 45154.2005
13 817 East Sprague
Spokane Valley, WA
.644tApilt
If each of the 11 tenants utilized their current allotment of temporary signs,there
would be 34 signs.
1 Pole Mounted Sign
12 Wall Mounted Signs
11 A-Frame Signs
Some combination of 11 Banners,Reader Boards, or 2 Flags with copy.
t
Alik
A-Frame
Banner
Reader Board
Flag with copy
Example A.3
Parcels 45154.2004 and 45154.2005
13 817 East Sprague
Spokane Valley, WA
eh_ iht
If each of the 11 tenants utilized their proposed allotment of temporary signs,there
would be 46 signs.
1 Pole Mounted Sign
12 Wall Mounted Signs
11 A-Frame Signs
Some combination of 22 Banners,Reader Boards, or 1 Flag with copy.
&ship
NoxidC_r a P,
'SOCk.aila..
4 (�1 Fifty P mend,.
iM t Olk'.
w�v
A., . a% Ali AM-
q
Example B.1
Parcels 45133.1341, .1342, 1346, .1347, .1343,
.1434, .1444, . 1464, .1463,
15605 to 15901 East Sprague
and 10 to 212 North Sullivan
Spokane Valley, WA
There are 22 unique businesses in this area.
"U�t ryr�rl:lIIMU
A-Frame
Banner
Reader Board
Flag with copy
Example B.2
Parcels 45133.1341, .1342, 1346, .1347, .1343,
.1434, . 1444, .1464, .1463,
15605 to 15901 East Sprague
and 10 to 212 North Sullivan
Spokane Valley, WA
J
If each of the 22 tenants utilized their current allotment of temporary signs,there
would be 82+signs.
7 Pole Mounted Sign
1 Monument Sign
30+Wall Mounted Signs
22 A-Frame Signs
Some combination of 22 Banners,Reader Boards, or 2 Flags with copy.
There are also two Billboard signs located here.
A-Frame
Banner
• 1.1101, Reader Board
Flag with copy
Fred Meyer
Fred Meyer
Jewelers
rif
A
Example B.3
Parcels 45133. 1341, .1342, 1346, . 1347, .1343,
.1434, . 1444, . 1464, . 1463,
15605 to 15901 East Sprague
and 10 to 212 North Sullivan
Spokane Valley, WA
e.
MOM
�'C
If each of the 22 tenants utilized their proposed allotment of temporary signs,there
would be 104+signs.
7 Pole Mounted Sign
1 Monument Sign
30+Wall Mounted Signs
22 A-Frame Signs
Some combination of 44 Banners,Reader Boards, or 1 Flag with copy.
There are also two Billboard signs located here.
Chapter 22.60
OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS
Sections:
22.60.010 Purpose.
22.60.020 Application.
22.60.030 General requirements.
22.60.040 Prohibited lights.
22.60.050 Exceptions.
22.60.060 Temporary lighting.
22.60.010 Purpose.
The regulation of outdoor lighting discourages excessive lighting of outdoor spaces, encourages energy
conservation and prohibits lighting creating a nuisance for adjacent property owners. (Ord. 07-015 §4,
2007).
22.60.020 Application.
The requirements of this chapter and the Washington Energy Code (Chapter 51 11 WAC) apply to
outdoor lighting requirements for all developments except one-and two-family dwellings and public street
lighting. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007).
22.60.030 General requirements.
The installation of new outdoor lighting or the extension, modification or expansion of existing outdoor
lighting is subject to the following requirements:
A. The lighting allowance for covered parking, open parking and outdoor areas shall not exceed 0.20
--- - -- - - - - - - -'-i - - •- - - -•-- • - -- - - -- - O•-' -
per square foot for covered residential parking when ceilings and walls are painted or stained with a••- - - - - . _•_- - -- - - - - - , - -- - - - --- - - i - - - - - •- 9. -
C. The maximum height of pole mounted outdoor lighting fixtures shall not exceed /12 feet in Regional
Commercial and industrial zoning districts and 35 feet in all other districts.
A. All outdoor lights shall include a light source and reflector that controls the light beam so that
unshielded ne light does not extends across any bounding property line between incompatible uses or
into the public right-of-way,above a height of three feet.
CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page I 1
.F II 1'.
I!
!
�i
-.�. `r:
••J.l i i I t t
Y.f.1r 71nFftty 111r. 7Tets,hbar•S Frnp.rty
IiLi'
I CI 1.IG14T
t 4frf X11
YT- l •*I t I
' 071 iii I X Md 114 i` OL LC
r l ant.c{+ 1 L1Ft
Yc..r Pr�ret.ty -- --rc+±taht•.,r•n Frog ty
E. Outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed so that the light source is shielded at any bounding property
line except where topographical characteristics make this impossible.
I1NAICCEPTABLE ACCEPTABLE
>
z-5._ 1luulin
�il411iti11i11
"�^r���'rinr!. - ,*y~ d47i11•=!Id1111gi:•IIIllIIIIIIiiA
411 II IIIR '
fi7.,.11111 1 r
G. All--Aapplications for building permits for commercial development will be evaluated by the city to
determine if a lighting plan is required. If required, the plan will include the following: shall--be
1. A site plan showing the location of all outdoor light fixtures
2. The type and method of shielding for each light fixture.
CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page I 2
I. Lighting designed to accent landscaping features or architectural elements, including the illumination of
pole-mounted flags of the United States, shall be concealed or positioned so that the light source is not
visible at adjacent property lines.
following the end of the event. (Ord. 07 015 §/1, 2007).
22.60.040 Prohibited lights.
The following lights are prohibited unless a temporary permit is obtained for specific events with specific
times of operation:
A. Laser source light, strobe lights and similar high intensity light sources, except those associated with
approved activities of the City of Spokane Valley. High intensity lights for which a temporary permit is
issued shall not project above the horizontal plane nor extend into the public right-of-way.
B. Searchlights. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007).
22.60.050 Exceptions.
A. Navigation and airport lighting required for the safe operation of boats and airplanes.
B. Emergency lighting required by police, fire, and rescue authorities.
C. Lighting for state and federal highways authorized by the Washington State Department of
Transportation.
D. Internal lighting of permitted signs.
E. Outdoor lighting for public monuments.
F. In-pool lighting for private swimming pools
G. Holiday decorations (Ord. 07-015§4, 2007).
22.60.060 Temporary lighting.
The building official may authorize temporary exceptions not to exceed 30 days for good cause shown.
(Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007).
CTA-2013-0005 Proposed Text Amendment Page 13