TEST - PC Streaming TEST

Development Center City Planning Commission 1120 Monroe Ave NW Meeting Full Grand Rapids, MI 49503 June 8, 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, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Wallace, Shannon, Al-Shatel STAFF PRESENT: Kristin Turkelson, Elizabeth Zeller, Assistant City Attorney Mike Hoeker and recording secretary Carol Gornowich B. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of Minutes from May 25, 2023 RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon, Salim Al-Shatel C. Planning Director's Report  Ms. Turkelson briefly reviewed the one agenda item; billboard amendments. She related that she met with the billboard company this week and feels they are generally supportive. There are a couple of changes they have asked the Planning Commission to consider. Where electronic billboards along the highway are not within 300’ of a residential use or district that it be Director review. The second request was that rather than looking at a radius of 300’ that their light engineers map where the light goes. If the residential is 100’ behind the billboard, presumably there would be no light impact. In such a case they are asking for Director review also. Ms. Joseph expressed her understanding, with respect to the relocation program, that the square footage has to be relocated within the same zone district. She asked if it has to remain within the same neighborhood. Ms. Turkelson replied no; it is based on district. They did consider that however. Ms. Joseph asked if neighborhoods of focus are a consideration for encouraging the removal of billboards. It seems like the majority of billboards are in neighborhoods of focus. She would be interested in encouraging the removal of that impact and also not encouraging Generated 6/12/2023 12:30 PM City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 2 June 8, 2023 square footage from outside the area being added and creating an over-concentration in neighborhoods of focus. Ms. Turkelson related that they hadn’t considered that and it may warrant further consideration. It may not make market sense for them to concentrate in any one neighborhood. She suggested discussion with Ms. Schulz and the billboard company. If it is a possibility or concern, perhaps they could include a cap.  Ms. Bersche and Mr. Jonker related they will not be present at the 6/22/23 meeting.  Ms. Turkelson related that the first half of the 7/13/23 meeting will be a joint meeting with the City Commission. Ms. Zeller added that officer elections will take place at that meeting as well. 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 - Billboard Exchange Program Applicant: Progressive AE (Suzanne Schulz) 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. Requirements: 5.15.03. Nonconforming and Abandoned Signs; Billboard Exchange Program 5.15.17. Sign Definitions Case Number: PC-TXT-2023-0042 Staff Assigned: Kristin Turkelson Type of Case: Text Amendment Effective Date: City Commission approval Ms. Turkelson recalled that the Planning Commission received a presentation on the proposed amendments at the last meeting. Ms. Schulz also recalled that there was a prior review of the history of the Billboard Exchange Program and text. In today’s presentation she will provide information based on the questions raised at the previous meeting. Ms. Schulz recalled that the City has had issues with billboards being in the way of development for some time, which is what led to the Billboard Exchange Program in 2009. There were 326 sign faces at that time on nearly 200 structures. The overall goal of the Program was to reduce City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 3 June 8, 2023 billboard numbers. They also wanted to recognize the value of the billboards to the industry. The Program allowed for upgrades to billboard assets in other locations and allow for development to occur. As a result of the Billboard Exchange Program, 25 billboard structures have been removed/45 billboard faces have been taken down. Initially, the Program was a big success and they were able to get some assets moved. Over the past 8 years or so there hasn’t been much activity. Ms. Schulz recalled that one question from the previous meeting was where the billboards are currently located. She displayed a map of billboard locations. A graph of the billboard locations by zone district was also displayed. Ms. Schulz noted that there are two components to the proposed amendments, one of which is based on the existing Billboard Exchange Program. The second is a repositioning exchange program that allows for some adjustments in the Mixed-Use Commercial Zone Districts. When a billboard is turned in or exchanged, the billboard company receives a point value that is based on the sign size. A poster is the smaller billboard and a bulletin is larger. The billboard company receives certain credits currently; 1 for a poster and 2 for a bulletin if turned in. The repositioning exchange is new and the square footage exchange would be equal for equal. In some cases there are distinctions between the zone districts where that would be allowed. Ms. Schulz provided further detail on the Digital Upgrades portion of the text. The upgrade zone is along I 196, I 96, and US 131. The proposed language would allow up to ten digital billboards requiring them to be located in specific directions and on specific roads. On 96 or 196 they could have two digital signs facing east and two facing west. On 131 they could have no more than three signs facing north and three signs facing south. In order to do that they would need to turn in two sign faces to achieve a digital sign. In a number of cases it would be necessary for them to replace the existing sign structure. The sign structure replacement would be three credits and the digital board would be two credits. There are some existing structures that can support a digital billboard. Outfront Media has calculated that they would require a minimum of 22 credits if all ten potential digital billboard locations were to be used, assuming there is a voluntary partnership with the City to be able to advertise on those signs. If that were not in place the minimum number of credits needed would be 32. Ms. Schulz explained the voluntary partnership with the City. The billboard company would receive a credit if they allow, and the City Commission approved an agreement, for emergency messaging, safety initiatives, outreach opportunities or other benefits the City might find worthwhile. Ms. Schulz recalled that the Planning Commission was interested in what State law and MDOT require for digital billboards. They are only permitted in business areas. She provided the example of the area near the Butterworth landfill. That is not zoned commercial and none of those billboards would be eligible to become digital. The State also has a minimum spacing requirement of 1,750 ft. between digital boards where they face in the same direction. They can’t move or flash, similar to the regulations for electronic message centers. They have to be static and cannot have animation. They are allowed to change every 8 seconds. In the proposed Zoning Ordinance language, the change is required to be instantaneous. The State also sets the maximum City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 4 June 8, 2023 brightness level and defines how that is measured. If there is any failure of the sign it has to default to a static display. Mr. Van Strien asked if the State requirement of one change per 8 seconds matches the proposed Ordinance language. Ms. Schulz replied affirmatively. Mr. Van Strien asked if they anticipate there will be any push back from existing electronic message center sign holders about the ability for the copy to change more often. Ms. Schulz agreed that there is some potential for that. However, she feels there is an argument to be made that this is a different scale, location, and fewer of them. Traffic is also moving faster and the timing is based on how fast you are going by. Ms. Joseph asked if there were minimum spacing requirements when existing billboards were installed. In review of the map, it appears that there are a number of billboards that don’t meet the State’s requirement for spacing of digital boards. Ms. Schulz explained that there are existing billboards that are non-conforming because of the separation distance. The current requirement is 3,000 ft. Basically, there are no additional opportunities to locate a billboard in the city because all of the possible billboard locations that could meet the current spacing requirements have been utilized. Ms. Schulz recalled that another question the Commission had was whether there are adequate review standards. Before a billboard upgrade is done the company will go to the State to ensure they can get it permitted. They have also included in the Ordinance language that a study shall be prepared to demonstrate the digital billboard’s viewshed for consideration by the Planning Director or Planning Commission, depending on proximity to residential uses. The proposed Ordinance language aligns with State law and what other communities in the region have done. Ms. Schulz feels their experience with electronic message centers provides the perspective on considering scope and scale. There was also a question related to the digital billboard impact on residential uses. Ms. Schulz explained that they reviewed all potential digital billboard locations and proximity to residential. That information was shared with staff. Per the State requirements, the .3 light level cannot extend beyond 250 ft. Outfront has related that they haven’t had any complaints about digital boards from residential uses. Ms. Schulz displayed a diagram of the light projecting out, as well as down. Ms. Schulz recalled that there was a question of whether there should be design standards. She recalled the example of a sign in the City of Walker on I 196. Ms. Schulz clarified that that sign structure was installed by a private party and is not owned by Outfront. There are no other examples of that kind of finish on billboards that exist in the region. Most of the signs that would have digital are located where the road is higher than the board base. That was the biggest consideration with respect to design standards and where it would apply and whether it makes sense from a regulatory standpoint. That is up to the Planning Commission to decide. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 5 June 8, 2023 Ms. Joseph recalled from the previous meeting that they had asked for a comparison of the light- shed of a typical billboard and a digital billboard. Do digital boards have less impact or more? Ms. Schulz explained that the big difference is the direction of the light. The current lights shine up and at the billboard face. With a digital billboard the lights shine out. With them shining out, the question is how much of an impact is it. There is more light but is it disturbing given how much light is emitted. Ms. Schulz moved on to the Repositioning Exchange portion of the proposed amendments. She explained that the purpose is to facilitate new development/redevelopment of properties, which is specifically mentioned in the Ordinance to provide the logic. Billboards are considered trade fixtures under Michigan Case Law, the Tax Act, and billboard industry lease language. In considering that, it provided the opportunity to consider repositioning billboard signs in a different way than being bound by the actual physical location. TBA is where the majority of these billboards are located. A sign removed from a TBA district could be relocated within a TBA, Downtown, TCC, MCN-C, or TOD. A Downtown sign could be relocated Downtown or TCC and the same with the TCC zone district. Ms. Schulz stated that in nearly all cases the largest sign size in the TBA zone district is a poster and the sign size would be capped at poster size for the TBA district. They could do a smaller sign if they wanted. In the Downtown there is unlimited size. There is a super-size option in the amendment for the Downtown area. In the other cases it would be the bulletin size that would be allowed. Ms. Shulz displayed an example of a sign in the Creston District. If that sign were to come down, it could be relocated onto a blank wall. Under the Ordinance, new sign structures are not allowed. It would allow for wall signs but not new post structures. It is a cap and trade methodology. They can turn in a sign, get their sq. ft., and take that square footage someplace else within the previously mentioned Zone Districts, without penalty. The Planning Director will have the authority to offer double points to incentivize removal of a billboard that is impeding a development project. Ms. Schulz commented further on the super-size advertising sign. She displayed an example. The billboard company would utilize square footage from signs removed and apply it as a larger sign size in another location within the CC Zone District only. It is a larger sign but the mitigation for the larger sign would be to allow the applicant to contribute to a public art fund. Ms. Schulz related that the City of Detroit has experienced success with that to provide a benefit to the district as well as consolidation of signs and allowing something different in the Downtown. Ms. Schulz pointed out that definitions have also been added to clarify the difference between the super, poster, bulletin and digital signs. Ms. Schulz believes the only question they were left with was how the Planning Commission would like the digital billboard review process to go. It was initially proposed that all digital billboards would be considered under Special Land Use. The updated version dictates that it would be Special Land Use within 300 ft. of residential and Administrative approval outside of that. The billboard industry also asked if it could be approved Administratively unless within the “red circle” area, which would then be Special Land Use review. In all cases the Planning Director reserves the right to bring it to the Planning Commission for review, even if permitted by right. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 6 June 8, 2023 Ms. Joseph commented on the relocation program and being able to move square footage within the same zone district but not necessarily the same part of the city. She asked if there was consideration given to implications, positive or negative, on neighborhoods of focus where the majority of the billboards are currently. She would be interested in preventing over-concentration of billboards in neighborhoods of focus or encouraging more square footage be removed from those areas that have a large concentration of them now. Ms. Schulz explained that they did debate whether it was necessary to have separate zones for square footage allocation in different areas. Based on the discussions they had, Ms. Schulz took some comfort in noting that the boards that are there now are there for a reason; they are hitting a certain population where their demand is. During the Billboard Exchange Program, they removed a lot of the billboards that didn’t make them money and weren’t desirable from their standpoint. The remaining billboards are serving a purpose in that geography and it would be unlikely for it all to cluster in one neighborhood. The signs are more valuable if spaced apart and distributed more evenly. Ms. Turkelson asked if there was any logic in having more separation distances; “it could be repositioned but in no case shall it be closer than…” Ms. Schulz agreed that could be included. However, a good number of the existing signs are non-conforming with respect to distance. It couldn’t be the billboard separation distance in the Ordinance today. Within a set distance, a fixed number, would likely be easiest. Ms. Turkelson related that there was Planning Commission conversation during the business meeting as to whether that was an item for consideration. Ms. Turkelson explained that that was a specific consideration but that they had discussed setting a cap on a Ward or geographic location and determined that may be more boxed in than they would want. The current approach relies on the market driven decision that they assume Outfront would have. It may be a good question to pose to them, as well to understand whether there would be any market driven logic to have an over-concentration in one area. Ms. Schulz understands there is no desire to have two or three within one block. The separation would be hundreds of feet, not thousands of feet, and the way they are facing is also a consideration. Mr. Rozeboom asked for clarification of the Special Land Use vs. Director review for digital billboards. Ms. Schulz stated that there were three options discussed for the digital billboard approval process. The super-size signs are Special Land Uses. The first option for digital billboards is that they are all Special Land Use. Another option could be Director review if not within 300 ft. of residential. The option requested by the industry is that it would be Director review if there is no residential within the light-shed area, which is 250 ft. at the greatest distance. Ms. Schulz provided an example of a billboard facing the highway with a house located 200 ft. away on the block behind it. They won’t experience anything from the sign. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 7 June 8, 2023 Mr. Van Strien asked if future land uses are taken into consideration. There may not be residential there now but there may be some mixed-use development anticipated in the future. Is that a consideration of the Director or Planning Commission? Ms. Schulz replied that they did discuss that. If the use is there before the other use it has basically been approached as “it is what it is”. Certainly, what comes into play is how it would affect anticipated development, which is where the Director review is important. The Director has that perspective to be able to say it has to go before the Planning Commission in that case. Ms. Turkelson concurred. She struggles somewhat to suggest that one land use application is dependent upon the future. At the same time, they do look at future growth and development and what is anticipated. Especially in the core area, staff has the ability to say they know there are other things planned and, to her, that would be a logical request to bring to the Planning Commission. However, that is also dependent on who the Planning Director is at the time. She does feel that staff has some institutional knowledge and consistency with their approach that most would agree that if they know there is a future planned character that could be impacted, or a specific project, they would be inclined to say it needs a broader conversation than just internal staff review. Ms. Joseph asked for further discussion on the Standards of Review. When considering future land use, if such a request was brought to the Planning Commission, how do they review that against the Standards proposed. Ms. Turkelson stated that the Commission would be utilizing the same Standards. It would be a discussion and opportunity for public input vs. just Planning Director review. Mr. Rozeboom asked if landscaping comes up for each specific site and if they want to be sure pedestrian friendliness was occurring where billboards are located. What is the mechanism for the Planning Commission? Ms. Turkelson stated that they don’t currently have any requirements. There is a requirement for a 200 or 300 sq. ft. landscape island around the base of the structure when it comes to pole and ground signs. She suggested it is something that could be added. Ms. Schulz recalled it was required when billboards were installed on eastbound 196 toward the East Beltline. She doesn’t recall if it was required by Ordinance, staff, or whether it was voluntarily done. Ms. Joseph noted that would only apply to the upgraded digital boards. Mr. Jonker suggested that light emitting from a digital sign isn’t the only consideration as to whether it is an appropriate location for the sign near residences. He wouldn’t want to live directly behind a billboard. It would be a 675 sq. ft. structure up in the air. He isn’t just concerned about where the light goes. It is a structure in the air. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 8 June 8, 2023 Ms. Schulz explained that no new/additional structures will be permitted. The only new structures that would be permitted would be replacement of an existing structure that is already there. In some cases, they have been in their current location for decades. Mr. Van Strien opened the public hearing and invited comments. Andy Jansen, Outfront Media, expressed appreciation for all of the work that has gone into this proposal. Mr. Jansen related that his company has been in continuous operation and located within the City of Grand Rapids for 138 years. They have been part of the city landscape since 1885. The city has obviously changed since then but they have been able to maintain a presence and continue to grow and change right along with the city. Mr. Jansen feels the proposed amendments are the next evolution of that. It is thoughtful and appropriate regulation that addressed the goals of the City while also addressing the needs of the industry. Mr. Jansen feels the rules create flexibility for the City and the industry that haven’t previously existed. It allows them to be more nimble and more closely align their collective goals. Mr. Jansen stated that he loves all of the new development and happenings within the city. The proposed language will create an environment where they can be partners instead of adversaries. They can support development instead of being an impediment to it. Mr. Jansen stated that for his entire career he has tried to create partnerships. It is much more enjoyable coming into these meetings when there can be collaborative discussions and solutions. He believes the proposed regulations will help foster the collaborative environment and create opportunities and solutions all will benefit from. Mr. Jansen offered his support and appreciation. Mr. Van Strien closed the public hearing. Ms. Turkelson asked the representatives from the industry to speak to their perspective about concentration in a specific area/their market approach. Denise Bartholomew, Outfront Media Real Estate Department, related that she has been in her position for approximately 12 years and was part of the old exchange program, has seen the development and evolution of the industry during that time, and they want to be a partner and help work with the continued evolution of the city. Her understanding of the question is concentration of signage. Ms. Bartholomew related that when they originally looked at the map prepared by Ms. Schulz it really does lend to the fact that they have been in the city for 138 years. Many of the signs are older than anyone in the room. They were developed and placed long before regulations are what they are today. Therefore, to the best of their knowledge, every single sign is non-conforming to some degree. They are fine with that and are not proposing to add more signage. With respect to concentration, when looking at arteries such as Division where there was a historical high concentration of signs, that is not good for them. They don’t want advertisers competing for attention in a concentrated space. It is much better for them to have a diverse broad coverage to reach various audiences across the city vs. concentrating signage into one given area. The State also has a cap and replace program and they’ve taken down billboards in the over-concentrated area. Ms. Bartholomew provided some history on how certain areas became over-saturated. There never used to be spacing regulations at the State level and often not at the municipal levels either. The industry learned over time that that isn’t a good thing for them. It takes away the attention and effectiveness of the messaging. To bring something like that back would be a disadvantage to their business and to their clients. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 9 June 8, 2023 Ms. Turkelson asked about floating a billboard and timing; if the billboard company is willing to remove a sign to make development feasible but they don’t have a new location secured yet. She wondered if a grace period should be provided; the amount of time they have to secure a location for that square footage. Ms. Schulz explained that the way it is written now they can bank them. They may not take down two or three signs simultaneously but by banking the square footage it would allow them to achieve a super-size sign. The thought was they could bank them and reallocate them when they have a lease in hand in an appropriate location. Ms. Zeller clarified then that staff would be banking both credits and sign area. Ms. Schulz agreed. If they remove a sign from a TBA District and put the square footage into the bank it could be used in any one of the zone districts. Ms. Zeller clarified her understanding. They could use the credits to upgrade to a digital billboard, which would wipe out the related credits and associated area. Alternatively, they could relocate the square footage perhaps only using part of the area on something and also use credits for something else. Her understanding is they can withdraw credits or square footage. Ms. Schulz agreed. Ms. Joseph noted however that it will have to be tracked so they aren’t double-dipping. Ms. Turkelson felt that their next step will be to figure out administratively how that spread sheet is revised to do that tracking. Ms. Bartholomew wished to address the concept of timing from the industry perspective. The way it works now they are able to put credits into the bank. From the business side there are additional considerations they need to look at and never want to make a rushed decision. They haven’t been able to replace their signage in a long time and this gives them some flexibility to keep coverage for their advertisers that want to reach those audiences. Their goal is to be able to keep their product on the shelf and enable the businesses and non-profits to reach the various areas of the city. They haven’t had the ability previously to maintain that coverage; it was all about taking them down and anything that was taken down was gone for good and given credit for upgrades. As far as timing goes, this is a mechanism to speed up and get rid of impediments to redevelopment that didn’t exist prior. Ms. Turkelson clarified that she wasn’t necessarily suggesting a time line was needed. She wanted to ensure that they didn’t inadvertently have a clock ticking when credits go into the bank. Ms. Joseph pointed out that they have a decision to make regarding the review process for digital billboards. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 10 June 8, 2023 Ms. Turkelson related that as it is currently written any digital billboard within 300 ft. of a residential zone district would require Planning Commission approval. If outside that 300 ft. it could be Director review. What is being suggested today is that rather than focus on a specific dimension that it be tied to the area of influence. Is the Commission comfortable with it as written or do they feel that tying it to the area of impact is a better measurement to use. Ms. Bersche related that she understands that the area of impact is an engineering model. Is that something that comes internally from the billboard company or is it outsourced. Ms. Turkelson replied that it would be a lighting engineer employed by Outfront or a consultant. Not unlike development projects that submit sealed surveys, a Certified Lighting Engineer would have to seal their plans. Historically, they’ve not had issues with such documents being doctored. Ms. Bersche indicated that with that information she is comfortable with Director review from that perspective vs. the 300 ft. radius. Mr. Jonker asked if a super-size sign would always be static. Ms. Turkelson agreed. Mr. Yonker expressed his understanding. A wall mounted sign is the only potential new sign placement. Ms. Turkelson replied that this strategy doesn’t increase the number of signs. They are effectively saying that they accept that the number of billboards present today is the number they will have moving forward but the way in which either the square footage or credits can be disbursed is why there would be billboards in different locations than there are today. Ms. Schulz agreed, with respect to the square footage. For the digital signs they would only be on the highways and there is a cap of ten. For the repositioning piece there would be new signs but there would be no increase in the number of them; it is cap and trade. There would be no new support structures; they could only be repositioned to a wall and they would be static signs. Mr. Yonker indicated that he would be comfortable with the modification to allow for Director review where there is no residential within the area of impact. Ms. Joseph agreed. She appreciates that a super-size sign will always be a Special Land Use. She also appreciates the discussion about the market driven aspects that shouldn’t result in over- concentration in any one neighborhood. Ms. Turkelson expressed her understanding of the desired modifications to the Ordinance being considered:  Update the Ordinance to require Planning Commission approval when residential uses are within the area of impact, which is greater than .3 ft. candles. All other digital billboards could be approved through Director review.  That a landscape island be required for each digital billboard. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 11 June 8, 2023 Ms. Joseph also appreciated the conversation regarding the credits and square footage tracking to ensure there is a system in place so that all of it is tied together so they don’t benefit from credits and square footage for the same signage it replaces. Mr. Jansen commented on the proposed modification to require a landscape island. He explained that they don’t necessarily have rights to add landscaping to a property where they have a billboard. Additionally, there may not be appropriate area such as in the middle of a parking lot. Mr. Jonker felt that it is likely that of the ten permitted digital billboards, many of those may be inappropriate and not make sense to require landscaping. Mr. Williams asked if they have an easement on the land. Mr. Hoeker replied that they only have the rights the property owner gives them. As Mr. Jansen said, there is no way for them to guarantee what they will have rights to. Ms. Bartholomew agreed. Many of the billboards are concentrated in more of an industrial area. They may be located just outside of a throughway where trucks are traveling and they may be fine as is with just the pole. If they have landscaping requirements it may consume parking spaces and a land owner may not want that. When all of those locations went in on 196 those were new locations and the landscaping was agreed to with the property owner as a new sign. They are now talking about existing locations and the property use is already established. She doesn’t know that it would be a practical requirement for the land owner or the industry, especially since the majority of the time they aren’t pedestrian oriented locations where the columns are located. They also have locations where they are on railroad property. Ms. Turkelson pointed out that unlike pole and ground signs there is a layer of complexity here because of property rights, leases, etc. With a pole or ground sign there is a different relationship between the property owner and the individual looking to have the business/sign. Ms. Schulz asked what percent of their signs are through leases vs. fee simple. Ms. Bartholomew replied a large majority but she didn’t have the exact count. She estimated that approximately 90% are leases. Mr. Rozeboom suggested changing 4.f., which describes the things that are supposed to be considered by the Planning Director and Planning Commission, to include pedestrian experience. It covers area, height, placement, and proximity of repositioned signs. He acknowledges that most of the time they are going to be on walls. If they were to add the pedestrian experience to the list of things to be considered he would be comfortable with that. Mr. Van Strien asked further about the super-size signs and the contribution to the Grand Rapids Mural Fund. Who is responsible for the fund? Ms. Turkelson replied that it would have to be a newly created fund. She would assume it would be the Arts Advisory Committee but that is something they would work with the Executive Office on. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 12 June 8, 2023 Mr. Van Strien explained that his concerns is that while they might get some funding to put up new murals, in the last presentation they saw it showed the super-sized sign over an existing mural downtown. If the Advisory Committee doesn’t have some say in the location of the super- size signs they might just get displaced and get paid to put one somewhere that is less visible and may actually detract from the art vibrancy in the city. Ms. Joseph felt that was something they could consider during Special Land Use review. Ms. Turkelson stated that the way it is written currently would be working with the DDA or Corridor Improvement Authority to consider the utilization or disbursement of those funds. They would want them disbursed around the city and not just downtown. Ms. Joseph clarified that it is a voluntary contribution and not related to cashing in square feet. She asked what the incentive would be to contribute to the fund. Ms. Schulz replied that the way the Ordinance is written it is a mitigation measure. As the Commission goes through the Special Land Use review they are looking at the effect of the sign on the surrounding area. Ms. Bersche clarified that the Planning Commission can’t consider what the content of the signs are. Ms. Turkelson agreed. Ms. Schulz added that where there would be control is if it was on City property. The private property owner can say I don’t want alcohol advertised, or something along those lines. In this case, if it was allowed to go on a City parking ramp, the City could impose stipulations. Ms. Turkelson added that there is currently a policy for advertisement on City property. Ms. Bersche went back to the conversation about potential future land use on an adjoining property. When projects come before the Planning Commission they have to take a step back and not necessarily think ahead but address the application before them at the time. Is that going to be part of their consideration as a land use? Ms. Turkelson explained that within the Standards the Commission has the ability to consider the future planned character of the area. 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: A. The amendments are consistent with several of the goals of the 2002 Master Plan, including: o Vital Business Districts Goal #5: Improve the visual appeal and walkability of all business districts. City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 13 June 8, 2023 o A Strong Economy Goal #7: Encourage business investment while balancing economic growth with priorities for neighborhoods, the natural environment, and the quality of the built environment. o A City that Enriches Our Lives Goal #6: Emphasize urban design quality and placemaking. B. The Zoning Ordinance recognizes the need for safe, well-maintained, vibrant, and attractive residential and business neighborhoods while accommodating the need for signs to function for the purposes for which they are intended. The proposed amendments will allow for off-premises signage to be relocated and upgraded in a manner which meets the purpose and intent of Article 15 Signs. 2. The proposed amendments will enhance the functionality or character of the future development in the City because the amendments offer a means by which off-premises signage can be legally removed and relocated, eliminating the impediment to development created by long-term leases for off-premises signs and the repositioning exchange and allowance for upgrades to digital billboards in select locations provides an incentive to move off-premises signage that could otherwise be a roadblock to site development or redevelopment. 3. The proposed amendments will protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public because the proposed text amendments allow for the thoughtful repositioning of off-premises signage in select zone districts in the city; digital off-premises signs will comply with all federal and state regulations which target potential nuisance and safety impacts of digital signs; and additional regulations have been put in place to ensure the impact to neighboring properties is mitigated. 4. The proposed amendments are needed to correct an error or omission in the original text because the initial Billboard Exchange Program of 2008 was successful but has run its course. These text amendments build upon the success of the program by offering additional incentives for billboard removal and relocation. 5. The proposed amendments will address a community need in physical or economic conditions or development practices because, under current zoning, the owner of off- premises signage has little to no incentive to move a sign if it is impeding development because once it is removed, it cannot be erected elsewhere. The Relocation Exchange Program allows off-premises signage to be carefully relocated within a district, removing a roadblock to development. Additionally, the amendments will allow signs to be modernized, improving the visual appearance of signs and support structures to the benefit of all who view them. 6. The proposed amendments would not result in the creation of significant nonconformities in the city because most, if not all, of the off-premises signs presently located in the City of Grand Rapids are nonconforming due to spacing requirements or location in zone districts that no longer permit off-premises signage and the proposed amendments will allow for the reduction of nonconforming off-premises signage in the city of Grand Rapids. For signs to be upgraded to digital, other sign faces will have to be removed, reducing the overall number of nonconforming off-premises signs in the city. Ms. Turkelson recommended the following City Planning Commission Meeting Full Page 14 June 8, 2023 7. That the proposed Ordinance be modified to require Planning Commission approval only when residential uses fall within lighting levels greater than .3 foot candles cast by digital billboard signs. 8. That the pedestrian experience be included in the review requirements of 4.f. of the Ordinance. SUPPORTED by Ms. Bersche. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO CITY COMMISSION [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Laurel Joseph, Board Member SECONDER: Kristine Bersche, Board Member YEAS: Rozeboom, Van Strien, Bersche, Joseph, Williams, Jonker ABSENT: Adrienne Wallace, Susan Shannon, Salim Al-Shatel IV. Planning Commission Discussion Ms. Turkelson related that Mr. Al-Shatel has submitted a letter of resignation. June 22nd will be his last meeting. V. Public Comment None. VI. Adjournment The meeting was closed at 2:20 PM