TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 May 25, 2023 City Commission Chambers I. 12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. - Lunch - Conference Room 901, City Hall, 300 Monroe Ave NW II. Business - 12:30 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 12:30 PM by Board Member Kyle Van Strien PRESENT: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Al-Shatel STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Laura Wahamaki, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from May 11, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Salim Al-Shatel C. Planning Director's Report  Ms. Turkelson provided an update on the Master Plan process relating that Round 2 community engagement has begun. The next step is to work with neighborhood organizations and community connectors. Training sessions will be conducted and they will be doing walking tours. There will be an opportunity for them to ask for a planner to be present. Round 3 will begin in late November or early December.  Agenda items were reviewed. III. Public Hearings beginning 1:00 p.m. or soon thereafter in City Commission Chambers, City Hall A. Conflict of Interest None expressed. B. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments - Height in TN-TCC, TN-CC & Grand River Overlay Districts Applicant: Cornerstone Investment Group, Inc. (Jay Johnson) Requesting: Approval of amendments intended to allow additional building height by right in the TN-TCC (Traditional Neighborhood- Generated 6/5/2023 8:28 AM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 May 25, 2023 Transitional City Center) and TN-CC (Traditional Neighborhood-City Center) Zone Districts. To encourage public access to and along the Grand River, height bonuses in those districts will be offered only for properties located within the Grand River Overlay District. Requirements: 5.6.08. Building Element Requirements 5.8.02. Downtown Height Overlay District 5.8.03. Grand River Overlay District 5.12.10. Zoning Ordinance Text and Map Amendments 5.16.02. Definitions Case Number: PC-TXT-2023-0026 Staff Assigned: Kristin Turkelson Type of Case: Text Amendment Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Turkelson introduced the proposed Zoning Ordinance Text amendment that would affect the Downtown Height Overlay as well as the Transitional City Center and the Grand River Overlay. Ms. Turkelson related that she and DGRI have had several conversations about this subject over the past few years. When these Sections were updated in 2015 it was based on the feedback at the time and trying to achieve the goals that were set forth in the GR Forward Plan. However, what they’ve seen have been different market conditions, different housing demands, and other changing factors that have made them consider whether or not the current height limits and the bonus structure that was imbedded within the Height Overlay for Downtown and the Grand River Overlay was actually working the way it was intended to work. There was a collective agreement that it was necessary to reconsider this. There is a critical need for housing and a desire for increased investment in the Downtown knowing that the infrastructure is in place to support it. It is a fairly complicated process, especially when it comes to the Grand River Overlay because they want to maintain the ability to incentivize access to and along the river. One of the key goals of the City is to activate the riverfront, which was supported through the 2002 Master Plan, Green Grand Rapids, and other studies. The only way to achieve that access is by incentivizing it. With that element it was actually a far more complicated amendment than Ms. Turkelson had the ability to undertake. Through conversations with the development community there was a development group that had a desire to build taller. Ms. Turkelson expressed that she was generally supportive of that but it isn’t currently permitted. Fortunately, the Planning Department has built some successful relationships with the development community and community at large. The development group offered to assist and partner with the City to provide the capacity for the Planning Commission and City Commission to consider this. The offer resulted in a partnership with Progressive AE and Ms. Schulz was hired to assist Ms. Turkelson in creating an amendment for consideration. They also met with a couple of local architects that are generally supportive of the proposed amendments as well as DGRI. DGRI and the Chamber of Commerce have both provided letters of support. Suzanne Schulz, Progressive AE, recognized that from the development community’s perspective one of the reasons for the proposed amendments is to facilitate development and address the housing shortage. Other considerations are the cost of development. Labor, materials, land, and lending have all affected the ability of projects to come to fruition. Another aspect Ms. Schulz found interesting was the debate of going up or going out, meaning that developers were City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 May 25, 2023 contemplating acquiring additional property in order to achieve the number of units necessary to make the proforma work due to the cap on height. As Ms. Turkelson mentioned, the current bonus program has not been used. There has been some use of the program but a lot of the step-backs, etc. were complicated and a challenge to work through. Ms. Schulz provided background on the Zone Districts under consideration. The City Center Zone District has three sub-Zone Districts in the Overlay for height. DH1 is the center of the city and there is no cap on height in that zone district. DH2-a is North Monroe and south of Fulton and DH2-b is the near west side. There are also parts of DH2-a on the near west side. The Transitional City Center is the donut around downtown. Originally, the transition meant two things. One was the transition from industrial use to mixed-use. 40% of the land that was zoned industrial in 1969 was changed to mixed-use in 2007. It was also transitional from Downtown to the neighborhoods. The Grand River Overlay is along the river and height pieces come into play. Currently, the height requirements in those zone districts are the determining factor for building height and there is a change proposed there to provide some clarity. Ms. Schulz displayed a map of the different Zone Districts and sub-Zone Districts. She noted that most or all of the river walk is in place in DH1 and there is action being taken now to connect to Wealthy. There is really no river overlay that applies to the properties in DH1 because it is already built out and already exists. Ms. Schulz explained that the request is to increase the height in the DH2-a Zone District from 10 stories by right, with up to 16 stories with bonuses, to 20 stories. In DH2-b the request is to change it from 12 stories with bonuses to 10 stories by right. In the TCC, 5 stories is permitted with bonuses and the request is to allow 5 stories by right. Ms. Schulz explained that the reason for getting into some of the other zone districts is that the bonus tables are tied to those. With respect to the Grand River Overlay, because the current zoning is tied to the underlying zoning they still needed a bonus structure to be able to incentivize river access to and along the river. Because of Supreme Court decisions, the access cannot be required. If developers are using economic development incentives, the City Commission can require it. Currently in the Overlay the way to achieve the bonuses in DH2-a and 2-b is to include mixed-income housing, green elements, and public art and in the TCC it also includes transit and urban open space. One thing of note with the mixed-income housing is that two different housing bonuses were provided in the Zoning Ordinance. What they found was trying to require mixed-income in one structure is very complicated. Some of the incentives built into the Zoning in other locations were tailored for affordable housing providers and others were tailored for market rate providers because of that. That is one reason the mixed-income incentive hasn’t been utilized. Ms. Schulz addressed the Grand River Overlay Zone, which is the only portion being proposed to utilize bonuses. They would only be tied to public access to and along the river because much of the development along the river, with the Grand River Greenway funds that have come in to develop trails, really isn’t needed; it will be planned and developed by others. Ensuring that we City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 May 25, 2023 have access is the goal and capping the height, with the incentive of bonus heights for granting access, is the tool intended to achieve that. Ms. Schulz summarized that the incentive for public access along the river in the Grand River Overlay is height. There are also step-backs included in the language. Case study research was done looking for all aspects because they are aware of some concern about the big square boxes. If allowing the increased height, how do you think about more sensitive development that may transition better or have some variation. After looking at examples they found the San Marcos, TX example was very good. They take a percentage of the frontage and allow some different step-back configurations based on the percentage. The step-back could be along the front, middle, sides, or the back. It is common now to see parking being incorporated into buildings because the ideal depth for a parking ramp is 120’ and the ideal depth for residential is 90’. To ensure that they could incentivize access to the river from the public right-of-way, language was incorporated that the step-back had to be on all four sides of the building in the Overlay District. In the Overlay, the step-back would be eliminated by providing the public access. The step-back would still be required along the front of the building. The river side and street sides are considered fronts. There are no step-backs proposed in the other Zone Districts. Ms. Turkelson added that no boundary changes are proposed to the respective Districts. Mr. Rozeboom clarified that the intent is to develop a walkable entity. He asked if the 60% ground floor non-residential continues to be appropriate. They know retail is changing, as are other aspects, is that still the best way to go? Ms. Schulz recalled that there are only some streets in the Downtown where the retail requirement exists. The remainder of Downtown doesn’t have to provide retail on the ground floor. There is a transparency requirement but it doesn’t have to be retail for all of those streets. Ms. Turkelson added that the 60% transparency doesn’t apply to residential structures; only commercial. Mr. Rozeboom explained that he just wanted to make sure that they are doing enough that it is going to be an edge to the rest of the city. They are looking at increasing the possibility for density, which is good. They also don’t want to increase density without providing all of the things that people that live there might want to have access to. That speaks to the public access to the river as well as the non-residential uses. Ms. Schulz feels that where it likely comes into play the most is if they are building a parking ramp, they still have to have an active use on the ground floor. It is likely there will be some hybrids where you might have a stand-alone apartment building and next to it they are providing parking. One example is 601 Bond. They included retail below, then parking and residential above the parking. Most developments are now incorporating parking into their buildings. Ms. Turkelson added that what isn’t proposed to change are elements of the Ordinance that are working, such as not being allowed to put a parking structure on a primary street face without Planning Commission approval. The Planning Commission would likely be hard pressed to to arrive at a reason for that approval. There is a 75/25% mix where 75% of the linear frontage of City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 May 25, 2023 the building has to be an active use. Whether it is residential, office or commercial is dependent on the location in Downtown. 25% of the façade can then be for the parking deck, primarily for the access to the ramp that tends to go behind the active uses or to go up. Ms. Shannon asked about the area in yellow to the north, where 5 stories would be permitted, and whether that is anticipated to develop more into high rise or is the intent to step down as it goes further north. She explained that she was thinking about incentives for some of the factories that are there now being taken down and redeveloped. Ms. Turkelson feels most of that conversation is a better Master Plan conversation. She wouldn’t want to say absolutely not because the needs and vision of the community change over time. However, she feels that is a larger community conversation she isn’t willing to take on at this time. There may be pieces of the current TCC that may be ready, such as between Sixth St. and Leonard. It is within the TBA boundaries but it is Transitional City Center. There may be opportunities there to expand the City Center Zone District. Her desire is to take map or boundary changes separately because they are different conversations and it is important to involve stakeholders. Dr. Wallace suggested Ms. Turkelson explain why the proposed amendments aren’t part of the Master Plan discussion. Ms. Turkelson noted that they are about 1/3 of the way through a current Master Plan process. There could be a natural tendency to suggest these amendments be folded in. However, there is still a year left in the process and likely another year before implementation of the Plan. There are current challenges with construction costs and a critical need for housing and density. There are stated goals within the current plans that would suggest we are okay with building bigger Downtown. Ms. Turkelson feels they currently have Master Plan support for the proposed amendments. It was approached differently in 2015 and they learned from that. They realized it didn’t work the way it was anticipated and a lot has changed since then. Ms. Turkelson also feels this is low hanging fruit. They’ve had similar conversations over the last decade about what heights should be Downtown. She feels there is a natural way to look at this outside of the traditional Master Planning process, which is why she was comfortable moving this forward and supporting it without being involved in a larger process. That isn’t the case for other conversations that have taken place about changes to Zoning structure, one being expansion of the City Center. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed. Ms. Turkelson noted that there were letters of support submitted by DGRI and the Chamber. Johnny Brann had indicated a letter of support was coming from the Westside Corridor Improvement Authority but to date staff hasn’t received it. Ms. Joseph feels the proposed amendments make sense. She appreciates the nuance of the situation, mixing of districts and overlays. She also appreciates how it has been broken down. It is a reasonable, sensible, and necessary amendment. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 May 25, 2023 Ms. Shannon indicated she is in support as well. She appreciates the fact that this is a learning process where they are looking at what works and what needs to be updated. She feels comfortable that this is an improvement. Ms. Joseph added, with respect to the step back, she appreciates that it wouldn’t necessarily have the desired effect outside of the overlay area. She is pleased there is other ordinance language in place to ensure building materials and architecture are pedestrian friendly. Ms. Turkelson asked if Ms. Schulz mentioned the step backs for access. If the Planning Commission is inclined to approve, it is suggested that a condition be included to update the language to reflect that where access to the riverwalk is already provided that step backs would not be required. Ms. Schulz indicated that she didn’t cover that. She explained that the side step backs were intended to be the incentive to get access from the public right-of-way to the river edge. However, where access already exists that shouldn’t apply because the goal is to achieve the access. It will be necessary to do some language amendments; it currently says street and should say public right-of-way. Ms. Turkelson gave the example of a corner property at Sixth St. and Front. Access to the riverwalk is already provided from Sixth St. Therefore, it is likely unnecessary to require a second access to the river along that property. However, without a change to the language they would be required to provide side step backs. What is being suggested, if the Planning Commission is comfortable saying that where the access to the riverfront is already provided that the side step backs wouldn’t be required. The intent remains the same. Mr. Van Strien stated that if they were to replace the building and build it taller that doesn’t mean the existing access would remain. Ms. Turkelson agreed. However, it would have to retain the existing access in order for that to be eligible. Mr. Van Strien clarified that if they continue the access they don’t have to do the side step back and don’t have to provide another point of access. Ms. Turkelson agreed. She clarified that the easements are required before permits are issued. The step backs would continue to be required along the frontages; the river and the street. Ms. Joseph MOVED, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the purpose and intent of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance, because  The amendments support multiple goals of the 2002 Grand Rapids Master Plan, including: City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 May 25, 2023 o Promoting the expansion of the resident population in and adjacent to Downtown by encouraging the conversion of near-Downtown and riverfront industrial and commercial areas to mixed-use. o Capturing the benefits of improved riverfront visibility and access by encouraging mixed-use development in near-Downtown industrial areas east of US 131 and west of Monroe Avenue, and o Extending the riverwalk system from Riverside Park to Millenium Park; including a riverwalk connection on the east bank of the Grand River located west of Market Street in the area south of Downtown.  The amendments support goals of the GR Forward Downtown and River Action Plan to enhance neighborhood access to the river, to leverage development opportunities to hit “critical mass,” and to preserve and expand housing opportunities.  The amendments support the purpose and intent of the CC Zone District to provide an intense development pattern that encourages vitality through compact development and the creation of a pedestrian-friendly and transit- friendly environment.  The amendments support the purpose and intent of the TN-TCC Zone District to be a transitional commercial buffer surrounding downtown that allows for more density than would be found in neighborhood commercial districts. 2. The proposed amendments will enhance the functionality or character of the future development in the City because the proposed text amendments will allow for needed density in the city’s downtown while requiring thoughtful design that protects access to sunlight and views and encourages design that acknowledges the pedestrian experience of the city and the amendments in the Grand River Overlay will add stronger incentives to developers to allow public access to and along the Grand River. 3. The physical, geological, hydrological, and other environmental features of the property to be rezoned are compatible with the full range of uses in the proposed Zone District because the proposed amendments encourage compact development, which takes up less land and resources and public access to the river is also encouraged, which will enhance the ability for residents and visitors to experience the defining natural feature of downtown, the Grand River. 4. The proposed amendments will protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because access to the Grand River promotes health through access to nature and providing opportunities for exercise and recreation; the general welfare of the public will be improved by these amendments through prioritizing public access to and along the river; allowing for added density in select districts will encourage the vibrancy of the downtown through adding residents to frequent businesses and add foot traffic, and; more residents downtown could mean more use of public transit and fewer trips by the personal automobile, helping to mitigate carbon emissions and their deleterious impacts to human health. 5. The proposed amendments will address a community need in physical or economic conditions or development practices because these amendments will help to incentivize the provision of public access to the river and the height amendments will work to address the need for the 14,106 housing units Grand Rapids is projected to need over the next five years. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 May 25, 2023 6. The proposed amendments would not result in the creation of significant nonconformities in the city because the proposed additional height is already permitted with bonuses, and thus, significant nonconformities are not expected. 7. This recommendation includes a change to the proposed amendments to eliminate the requirement of side step backs where access to a riverwalk with public access already exists. SUPPORTED by Dr. Wallace. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Adrienne Wallace, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Wallace, Shannon, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Salim Al-Shatel IV. Planning Discussion Items 1. Discussion of Proposed Billboard Text Amendments Progressive AE is requesting approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Sections 5.15.03. Nonconforming and Abandoned Signs; Billboard Exchange Program and 5.15.17. Sign Definitions. The proposed amendments are intended to incentivize the removal of billboards on redevelopment sites by permitting digital billboards along expressways, and by allowing the repositioning of billboards in the TN-CC (City Center), TN-TCC (Transitional City Center) and TN-TBA (Traditional Business Area) Zone Districts, while resulting in no increase to the total number of billboards. An overview of the text amendment updating the Billboard Exchange Program will be provided on May 25, 2025, in anticipation of a public hearing and consideration by the Planning Commission on June 8, 2023 Ms. Turkelson explained that there is a recognized need to evaluate the current billboard exchange program within the Zoning Ordinance. Through various conversations with billboard companies and different applicant requests they began to understand that the existing billboard exchange program may have accomplished everything they could hope it would accomplish and that it has outlived its useful life in that they haven’t seen utilization of the exchange program in many years yet there are still billboards in the way of good redevelopment projects for the city. The Planning Commission has seen creative use of existing tools, such as the Planned Sign Program. The Planned Sign Program was used in the Harrison Park development on Alpine to allow for the relocation of an existing billboard to the side of the building. It likely wasn’t the most appropriate tool. What would be appropriate is to update the exchange program. The strategy that has been developed is a rather significant shift, which is why it is before the Planning Commission as a discussion item prior to being asked to vote on it. In short, the strategy is changing from trying to incentivize the removal of billboards, to acknowledge/accept that they have likely seen a reduction to the extent possible, to a relocation strategy. It would allow for a billboard to be relocated within the same Zone District. It may go from a pole mounted billboard to being mounted on the side of a building and allows for the negotiation between the billboard company and the property owner. It provides a bit more flexibility in how City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 May 25, 2023 billboards can exist in the city. There are also super-size billboards that can be permitted, which are not dissimilar to signs seen on the sides of buildings in major urban centers that are significantly larger than the billboard sizes currently seen in Grand Rapids. The last strategy shift would be to consider allowing electronic billboards to exist along the highway within the city. All of that would occur through a credit system. They receive credits for removal and have to utilize those credits to either relocate, super-size, or upgrade to electronic. Ms. Schulz clarified that she is not working for the billboard companies; she is working with them but not for them. She is representing a development interest. The proposed amendments are to help facilitate development. The Planning Commission recently considered a project by Indigo Development on Wealthy. There has been a billboard there with a lease that is finally coming due to be able to allow development. There are cases such as that all over the city. Ms. Schulz explained that there are currently about 200 billboard structures/nearly 300 billboard faces in the city. Part of the proposed program continues to reduce billboards and is also trying to balance with the industry. For the billboard company this is their revenue/what they do. It also provides advertising for local businesses and others. To acknowledge that they have economic value was the original premise for the original billboard exchange program; recognizing that there is value in those boards but the City doesn’t want to have to buy them to remove them or a developer to pay a lot of money to buy out a lease. With the billboard exchange program there was value in being able to upgrade the signs, which is why they voluntarily removed nearly 50 billboard structures when the billboard exchange program was first enacted. Ms. Schulz explained that the proposed amendments are an effort to address situations primarily in neighborhoods, where there have been conflicts with development, and facilitate more flexibility in how things are done. There are two ways proposed to do that. Ms. Schulz provided billboard statistics as of 2021. After the billboard exchange program was enacted in 2010 there was a huge spike in the number of structures and faces removed. Of the 200, 25 were removed. A structure may have one or two faces. Some of those removed were only one sided. It allowed for the reduction in billboard faces and for parcels to be developed. Ms. Schulz displayed a pie chart noting that the light blue is the TBA Zone Districts, which is where there are a lot of signs. Industrial is shown in light brown, which is where billboards are allowed. The smaller sections are the residential districts. There is approximately an equal share in the TCC and Downtown districts. Ms. Schulz also displayed statistics by artery noting where billboards are primarily located. They are certainly along US 131 and 196. 28th Street has quite a collection as well. Plainfield, Wealthy, Burton, Leonard, Division, Alpine and Eastern also host other billboard faces. When thinking about any of those streets and the development that has been occurring you can begin to understand the issue. In 2021, Ms. Turkelson made a recommendation to consider incentivizing additional billboard removal. In 2009, when initially considering digital billboards there were some impediments that drove the decision not to take it on at that time. It wasn’t clear whether digital billboards were good or bad along the highway and how much of a nuisance they might be. Therefore, a conservative approach was taken to wait. At that time they felt that the billboard exchange program gave some alternatives and they didn’t have to allow digital right away. There were also complicated ownership patterns that have since been resolved. There is basically one billboard company in the city, owning City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 May 25, 2023 approximately 90% of the stock. That provides an opportunity to look at how that operates differently. Previously there was another company in the market and it was going to become very complicated and potentially litigious. There was also a desire to see how the new technology worked and to protect the community. Ms. Schulz recalled that Ms. Turkelson mentioned two different approaches to the amendments. The upgrade eligibility zone, which currently exists, is along the highways. The second is the repositioning exchange to provide more flexibility in the mixed-use commercial zone districts. The repositioning exchange program is viewed as a cap and trade. No new billboards would be permitted anywhere. It is rather shifting things around. It is currently based on a point structure and that point structure will remain in place for the upgrade eligibility zone in the area along the freeway. In the reposition areas they would use the square footage of the sign so it is more flexible and it has some variation to it. Ms. Schulz explained that there has been research on the impact of digital billboards and they are located throughout the region. State law has also caught up and also regulates their operation and separation distances. Ms. Schulz referred to the table on page 120 of the agenda packet that explains how credits may be used. The only change being proposed to the upgrade area is the digital sign face and no more than 10 digital billboards would be possible along the highways and no more than 4 along 196 and 96; two facing east and two facing west. No more than 6 would be permitted on 131; 3 facing north and 3 facing south. To be able to install a digital billboard it would cost the sign company two credits for a new sign face. It would also cost them to replace the structure, which was already a requirement. If it is necessary to replace the structure to support a digital billboard it would cost them 3 credits. Naturally, it is anticipated that there would be a natural reduction of up to 22 billboard faces by allowing the 10 digital boards in the city. Ms. Joseph clarified that they couldn’t just install 10 new digital billboards; they would have to remove in order to install digital. Do they have to remove them along the highway or can they remove them anywhere in the city and use those credits. Ms. Schulz explained that, the way it is currently written, billboards in the IT Zone District and the MCN-C don’t count toward the program because the intent is to target Downtown and near downtown and the TBA. If they remove a billboard in one of those districts, those are the billboards they would receive credits for that could be used to upgrade to digital. However, there will be no additional billboards along the highways. The proposed amendments do not increase the number at all. They would basically be taking down a static sign face and installing digital. Mr. Jonker asked about timing. If there is a 3 year lease remaining and they want to use credits is that worth less credits or do they get a permanent replacement in exchange for what is a temporary sign. Ms. Schulz explained that the lease issues can get really complicated. Those are private agreements. Therefore, from a policy perspective the point is that one is going down and facilitating development. They didn’t want to get into the remaining duration of a lease. They kept it simple and they get so many credits per face. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 May 25, 2023 Mr. Jonker clarified that if there is a billboard and the lease is expiring in three months they receive the credits and essentially extend the billboard lease indefinitely whereas it might be gone completely in three months. Ms. Schulz explained that that is the repositioning portion. These upgrades are only for removal of billboards and receipt of credits that can be utilized to install digital. She added that there is one other provision related to digital billboards. Instead of two credits, they could use one credit if there is a voluntary public/private partnership approved by the City Commission that provides for emergency messaging, public safety initiatives, community outreach, and other benefits for public input. If the billboard company wanted to voluntarily engage in an agreement with the City to sponsor or allow City messaging on their boards at no cost then they would only need one credit to change the billboard face vs. two credits. Ms. Schulz explained the exchange program, which is applicable to mixed-use commercial zone districts. It follows the cap and trade methodology. It would not permit more signs; it is an effort to move the signs within those zone districts. The square footage is basically allowed to float within the zone district as development occurs. The logic in thinking about this is if you look at case law, and tax law, under tax law billboards are considered personal fixtures; trade fixtures. They aren’t considered property in that sense. Ms. Schulz provided the example of being a franchisee with a Qdoba restaurant leasing space at a strip mall and moving the restaurant somewhere else. The franchisee still has the restaurant wherever it is. They move the kitchen equipment, etc. Those are their trade fixtures and they can be moved. Billboards are specifically mentioned in tax law as trade fixtures. The idea of floating them is basically taking a business model and allowing them to move within that particular zone district. In this case, a sign that is removed for redevelopment could be repositioned in another location without penalty and it would occur on walls and not with new billboard structures. There are a number of cases, because of building code, where there is a blank face of a building right at the property line. That could be a temporary location for a billboard wall sign until the next development comes along next to it. If there is a project that the City feels very strongly about getting moving, the billboard company can receive double credits. That has been part of the existing Ordinance. It is the billboard company’s responsibility to get a lease from the property owner; the City wouldn’t be involved in any of that. Ms. Schulz provided examples, including the super-sized signs. In the example of the super-sized sign, if there were several billboards removed near the downtown area, they could combine the square footage and have a super-sized sign in a certain location. The super-sized signs are proposed as Special Land Use and the Planning Commission would review it before being permitted. Ms. Schulz explained further that in the TBA Zone District they could only move a sign within the TBA. Sign square footage can’t be taken from the TCC Zone District and relocated in a TBA District. Ms. Schulz also explained that 253 sq. ft. is the size of a poster. The small billboards are called a poster and the big billboards are called a bulletin. Most of the signs in the neighborhood business districts are posters and the amendment would dictate that you can’t have anything larger than a poster size sign but it could be a different shape than the typical poster, just not larger than 253 sq. ft. Ms. Schulz explained further that in the CC and TCC Districts the super-size signs would be allowed with Planning Commission Special Land Use approval. If they are a poster or bulletin City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 May 25, 2023 they could relocate a sign from CC, TCC, or TBA and put them in the CC or TCC Zone District. In the MC-NC, credits originated there could be used in the MC-NC. Credits originated in the TOD would be permitted to be used in all of the previously mentioned zone districts. If a sign is located in a historic district they would need Historic Preservation Commission approval. Ms. Schulz indicated that one question they considered was whether digital should be Planning Director approval or Special Land Use. She invited input from the Planning Commission on that topic. Ms. Turkelson clarified that the relocation of a billboard would be staff review. The super-size installation would be a Planning Commission review. That could be broken down to if it is up to a certain size it would be staff review and if over that then it would be Planning Commission review. The digital billboards could be Planning Commission review. Traditionally, they have taken a conservative approach and included the public process to help inform decisions. As staff better understands the Planning Commission’s pattern of decision making and input from the community there have been changes made. She provided the example of electronic message centers, which were all previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. Once a pattern of approval was established, for all of those like circumstances, it reverted to a Planning Department decision. Ms. Turkelson related that her preference with digital billboards is to keep it at a Planning Commission level. She wants to be sure they are cognizant of the historical impacts of the highway and the demographics of those that live along the highway. She feels it is important to consider that. Ms. Joseph asked how many upgrades could happen without any additional billboards being removed. Ms. Shulz replied that her understanding is that there are 4 credits total currently banked. Ms. Joseph agreed that the Planning Commission should see the digital billboard requests. Mr. Van Strien agreed adding that they would need some clear review standards. Should there be additional standards besides the typical Special Land Use Standards? Ms. Joseph feels it will be things like the residents in the area, the opportunity for a public hearing, the negative impacts on those neighborhoods, where the billboards are, etc. Ms. Shannon asked if there is any data as to the comparison between a typical billboard and a digital billboard. She also recalled that there are State regulations. Ms. Schulz agreed. If visible from the right-of-way there are State standards. Mr. Van Strien indicated that he would also be curious about design standards and material requirements. He noted the presence of a new digital board along I96 near the Walker exit with a stone base. It looks very nice and he doesn’t know if it was a requirement of the City or industrial park. He wondered if that would be something they might be able to incorporate. Mr. Van Strien asked if they receive any credits from removal in the IT and, if so, could they then just build new billboards in the Industrial Zone and remove them to receive credits. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 May 25, 2023 The response was negative; they cannot do that. Ms. Schulz added that the separation distance requirement could be changed which would then make it so they can’t build new billboards. The idea behind the amendment is to get billboards out of the way of development. Mr. Van Strien feels it is a bad faith argument to give them credits for removing something where it is already allowable. He understands their perspective is that the Industrial areas are less desirable as there is likely less traffic than a commercial, CC, or TCC district. However, there is also a reason it is allowable there, which is because there isn’t as much concern as in the CC or TCC. Of course they would want to remove them from the Industrial areas as they aren’t getting as much money for those boards but the impact on the community is less when located in those areas. It shouldn’t be a one for one there. Ms. Turkelson explained that the way it is currently written doesn’t allow for that. If the purpose of the amendments is to incentivize and support development within the mixed commercial zone districts then giving credit for the removal of billboards in the Industrial districts, where they are otherwise permitted, seems to undermine the purpose of the program itself. Mr. Jonker recalled the example in the Creston area asking if that would potentially be a staff approved relocation and would it be part of the development application or a separate application for the library to locate the billboard on their property. Ms. Turkelson replied that it would be a separate application for the billboard to be relocated from its current position to a future location. It would not be integrated with the actual development. Mr. Jonker asked what comes first. Ms. Turkelson replied that they could run concurrent, which wouldn’t be unusual, especially if they are looking to receive double credit because of their willingness to move to facilitate a redevelopment project. It could be tied to a specific development but it could also be other reasons for desiring to relocate. Mr. Jonker again brought up the subject of timing. If the billboard company has a two year lease remaining on that parcel and say they’d like to relocate to the library building that could be a 20 year lease that they get in exchange. In that scenario they would be keeping their billboard in place where thy would lose it otherwise. Ms. Turkelson agreed with that scenario. Mr. Jonker noted that if he is the billboard company he wants to relocate before they expire. Is there any concern about a permanent billboard on the side of a building? Another question, in the case of a blank wall on a lot line, do they then require an easement next door to maintain visibility or can a building be constructed a year later and block the billboard in perpetuity? Ms. Turkelson replied that is all possible. It is part of the private negotiations with the property owner where it is proposed to be relocated. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 May 25, 2023 Mr. Jonker suggested that it could be a challenge for a billboard company to find a new location that guarantees visibility. Mr. Van Strien would assume that the new person they are leasing from controls the adjacent property. Ms. Schulz suggested that the value a property owner gets from a billboard is some revenue but not substantial vs. a rent standpoint. There is a similar program they use in Detroit and she believes that the understanding is that the city is continually evolving and that things will shift and change over time. It could be on a different building in the future. She has not heard any concerns from the billboard company about not being able to find locations in the future. It is likely that there will progressively be larger buildings in the city so there is opportunity. Mr. Jonker added that they could be seeing potentially larger billboards then, with potentially reduced numbers. Ms. Schulz agreed. Ms. Shannon felt it would be good to know the conditions of the billboard company’s ability to locate. She has heard that the leases can be good for a property owner. Ms. Schulz suggested it likely depends on the location. She added that for the super-size billboards there is a requirement, because of the size of the sign and potential deleterious effects, that in addition to the Special Land Use consideration there is also a requirement to contribute to an art fund to help pay for murals. Ms. Turkelson acknowledged that this is complicated. What attracts her to consider a change is that this provides more tools. Challenges remain but at least there are more tools than there are today to try to facilitate development. Mr. Jonker agreed. With respect to the property owners, it is often very difficult to get out of the leases. Ms. Schulz felt the timing question comes into play with the Planning Director’s discretion on whether or not they get one point or double points. If you know you are looking at 10 more years and a project comes along that a billboard is impeding then maybe it is worth it to offer the double points. Mr. Van Strien pointed out that you don’t necessarily know how long a lease is because that is private. It isn’t an agreement with the City. Ms. Turkelson agreed. However, they would be motivated to provide the details to inform the decision as to whether or not double points are warranted. Ms. Schulz agreed. There is actually criteria in the code that to get the double points they have to provide an imminent development project. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 15 May 25, 2023 Ms. Turkelson added it is very fact specific. Mr. Jonker asked how staff feels about having the pressure of having to figure that out and whether a certain building is a good location for it when getting pressure from a developer saying that is all that is necessary to facilitate the development. Mr. Jonker would hate to see all that pressure on one individual. Ms. Turkelson replied that that pressure exists today and it hasn’t been terribly problematic because it is so case specific. They evaluate the information, work with the current property owner, and the billboard company understanding the lease, understand the pressures of the private development group to advance their project. All of that exists today. The only added level of complexity is where they relocate to. Much of that will be private negotiations between the billboard company and the property owner where it is relocated to. Mr. Jonker asked, in the example of the Creston area, if staff had to choose between the library and the taller building how do you make that choice; what is the staff evaluation in that case? Ms. Turkelson replied that they would accept either. The question would be which property owner is willing to allow for it. The billboard companies will have added criteria about visibility and a guarantee that it will be visible longer. A billboard company likely wouldn’t want to place their billboard on a building at the property line knowing the inherent property rights of the adjacent property. Mr. Jonker asked about projecting above the roof line. Are there sign standards that would come into play. Ms. Turkelson replied that there are. Ms. Schulz added that what is interesting is how much the technology of billboards has changed. The wall attachments they do are a clip system that isn’t a significant investment for them and they acknowledge that there isn’t really a point in doing pole signs anymore because of their ability to do wall signs. Ms. Shannon asked how many new requests have been submitted for new billboards. Ms. Turkelson couldn’t recall the last time they received a request for a billboard. Ms. Schulz added that is because there really isn’t anyplace for them to go; they are basically at capacity. They are either non-conforming and not allowed in the Zone District, except for Industrial, and with the separation distances they have filled the locations where you could have one. Ms. Joseph asked if there are specific placement standards regardless of whether it is determined to be staff review or Planning Commission review. Ms. Turkelson agreed that there are some placement standards. You can’t project a sign above a roof of a building. Ms. Schulz added that you can’t cover doors and windows. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 16 May 25, 2023 Ms. Turkelson summarized that she has heard a request for some follow-up information:  How many credits are currently banked  Understand the review standards for digital billboard and whether they are adequate  Should design standards be brought forth for consideration  Data on the impact of digital billboards on residents  State requirements  Is there a dramatic difference between digital and non-digital billboards in terms of the light they project Ms. Schulz noted that there is a lighting requirement in the proposed amendments, based on the State requirement. They have also added louvers to billboards so the brightness doesn’t catch your eye as much. They have done louvers in both directions to try to control the light spread. Mr. Jonker asked what the argument is against digital billboards vs. a static billboard. Ms. Schulz replied that it is aesthetics and personal preference. The concern about distraction has also been there, which is why when they first came out they were conservative. They wanted to see what the Federal Highway and safety studies show. The studies have been done by the industry, which is why they wanted to wait for Federal Highway. They haven’t really come out with anything other than light levels. Other than that, they haven’t declared it a distraction or driver hazard. The technology has advanced to the stage that it is less of a distraction and less of a hazard. It is more aesthetic at this point. There are provisions that the changes have to be instant and at certain light levels. Ms. Turkelson noted however that the Grand Rapids highways are closer to residential neighborhoods than the Walker example and she doesn’t feel they should lose sight of that. They can control brightness and timing but if you are living next to that billboard your windows are now lit up. That is something to be considered. Mr. Jonker explained that was what his question was; are they lit up more than a static billboard with flood lights on it? Ms. Schulz offered that the billboard industry has a lighting specialist that can provide comment on that. Ms. Joseph also asked that the map be included as to the current location of billboards. She would like to look at that further. Ms. Schulz recalled that when the billboard exchange program was first created all of the billboard companies shared the data about their signs. Each sign has an ID number and that is their licensing from the State. There is an inventory that can be provided. Ms. Turkelson related that the public hearing for the proposed amendments is scheduled for the first meeting in June. If there are additional questions or feedback, she invited Commissioners to communicate via email and they will work to provide the requested information. V. Public Comment City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 17 May 25, 2023 None. VI. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 2:33 PM