Response

to 03 April 2013 Black Site Plan Submittal

SNC Land Use Committee 24 April 2013
We very much appreciate that the project d esigners h ave addressed some of our suggestions related to making the site pedestrian friendly and also addressed concerns regarding the Community Plaza. We are grateful to the d evelopers and to the Target Senior Development Manager, John Dietrich, for meeting with our Land Use Committee representative to d iscuss those changes as well as the revised p lans concepts and intentions regarding s ite d esign issues and opportunities. Please note that we also appreciate the economic impact that Target will bring to our community and the opportunities it will provide for our n eighborhood and the city as a whole. From that perspective, we view the following comments as suggestions for improvement of a project welcomed b y many in our neighborhood and the community at large. Below p lease find responses and concerns regarding both the DRB staff report and the revised s ite p lan. A. Response to City Planning Staff Report We support and concur with the DRB Staff Report and Conclusions dated 17 April 2013. Staff did an excellent job d escribing relevant comprehensive p lan a nd regulatory requirements. We request that the DRB in addition h ighlight the CC1 requirements found on pages 26-30 in the Initial Guidelines and Design Standards for C enters and Corridors and recommend that d emonstration of compliance with those items b e required in the final site plan. B. Site Plan Questions and Concerns Despite good progress, there are still some items of concern related to the current site d esign. 1. Plaza and Site Build Out Mr. Black stated in the meeting with the n eighborhood representative on 10 April 2013 that it was h is intention and d esire to build Pads B, C, and the Community Plaza along Regal Street a t the same time as Target. We request that the DRB recommend that the City obtain substantive assurance that Pad B/C and the Community Plaza will b e completed at the same time as the Target store. Completing the Plaza is particularly important b ecause of the DRBs earlier recommendation that d esign character of the District Center b e based on the Plaza. 2. Plaza Development We request that the DRB recommend that the City obtain satisfactory evidence of the Owners contractual and financial commitment to participate in the development of the community plaza as required b y the Developers Agreements. 3. Pedestrian Emphasis Echoing the staff report, there remain a p edestrian circulation issues. One of these is that there is not a d irect path from the S W corner of the site on Regal Street to the Target entry. Experience suggests that the circuitous access provided in the current p lan will not be used and pedestrians s eeking a d irect route to the Target entry will attempt to navigate through parked and moving cars, in contradiction of S MC 17c.122.060 and DA Section 5.1 requirements. To rectify this s ituation, we request that the DRB recommend a p edestrian path a long the southern boundary that runs from Regal to the Target faade. 4. Stop Light at Palouse / Regal Intersection We applaud Targets statement in the 10 April 2013 meeting that they want and will fund a s top light a t the corner of Palouse Highway and Regal S treet. This will greatly enhance the safety of parents and children crossing Regal to and from the soccer center. It also creates an

opportunity to continue the F erris/Adams Trail to the west. We request a recommendation that fully supports the stop light and associated intersection improvements. 5. Ferris/Adams Trail and Gateway The stop light at Palouse and Regal is a good first step in connecting the eastern and western sides of the Center as is the excellent pedestrian/swale d esign a long Palouse Highway. We request that the DRB s eek additional d etails on the a lignment of the Ferris/Adams trail through the other projects p er the ISP. Questions to resolve include: How will the trail cross the KXLY site to link with 46th a venue to the west, considering the revised alignment of the trail a long Palouse Highway? How/where do users cross Palouse Highway to a ccess the site and existing trail to the north along the Ray Street alignment towards F erris High School?

Clarifying the eastern connection is an opportunity to harmonize with staff suggestions to establish a gateway element on the east s ide of the Center. We request that the DRB suggest that this gateway element b e on the far eastern end of the site. 6. Future Urban District A topic discussed at the DRB Collaborative Workshop was whether this s ite p lan supports the establishment of a future urban d istrict p er s ection 5.6 of the Developers Agreement The question is, Can this site evolve to m eet the criteria for a District C enter found in the Spokane Comprehensive Plan and the definition of CC1 Pedestrian Emphasis/Auto Accommodating zone in the Spokane Municipal Code? Neighborhood research into Targets site requirements uncovered a document that contains specific instructions for d eveloping a Target s tore. It includes prototypical building and site p lans and outlines Targets expectations and requirements for developers. It outlines restrictions on site d evelopment, restrictions on building h eights and specifies parking d ensity requirements (Target Developer Guide version 2.13, pages 3.31 and 3.35, s ee footnotei below). These requirements, taken in toto, may impede the sites evolution into an urban district. This is because n o building (multi-story or otherwise) can b e taller than the Target, and b ecause Target's parking d ensity requirements do not a llow in-fill d evelopment in the parking lots. We emphatically request that the Design Review Board suggest, and the Planning Director act, to reconcile these issues with the requirements of the Developers Agreements and the vision of the Spokane Comprehensive Plan. It is important to resolve this issue as it will recur on the other properties in the District Center if an owner entered s imilar agreements. i Targets Developer Guide, version 2.13 states the following:
a) Tenant parapet heights in the shopping center must be equal in height with, o r lower than the parapet height of the Target building.; b) Adjacent tenant and outlot buildings, subject to Targets approval, must be reasonably compatible to Targets building in colors, materials, height, signs, and architectural theme, and must n ot be higher than the Target building height, unless approved by the Target Real Estate Manager (Page 3.31) . The following Target minimum requirements must apply to each tract within the entire shopping center development: 1) Retail = 4.0 spaces / 1,000 SF of building area. 2) Restaurant less than 5,000 SF = 10.0 spaces / 1,000 S F o f building a rea. 3) Restaurant of 5,000 SF b ut less than 7 ,000 SF = 15.0 spaces / 1,000 SF of building area. 4) Restaurant of 7,000 SF or more = 20.0 spaces / 1,000 SF of b uilding area. 5) Uses with d rive-up window service must provide s tacking for 5 cars per window o r lane. Notify the Target Development Manager if local requirements e xceed the p arking ratios listed above (Page 3.35).

2 | P a g e