Loading...
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