Redevelopment Commission

TOWN OF GILBERT REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2018, 6:30 P.M. MUNICIPAL CENTER BUILDING I, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 50 E. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT, ARIZONA 85296 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Tyler Hudgins, Chair Ryan Hamilton, Vice Chair Peter Sciacca, Commissioner Tyler Jones, Commissioner Boe Bigelow, Commissioner COUNCIL PRESENT: Scott Anderson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT: Daniel C. Henderson, CEcD Economic Development Director Jennifer Graves, Deputy Director, Economic Development Amanda Elliott, Redevelopment Administrator Amy Temes, Interim Principal Planner SPEAKERS: Doralise Machado-Liddell CALL TO ORDER The Redevelopment Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Hudgins at 6:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Amanda Elliott called the roll and declared that a quorum was present. COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS Chair Hudgins opened the floor to the public for any comments or communications on items not on the agenda. The Commission’s response is limited to responding to criticism, asking staff to review a matter commented upon, or asking that a matter be put on a future agenda. Doralise Machado-Liddell, a resident in the Heritage District, spoke on Administrative Item 3 regarding signage. Her concern is how the proposal will affect residents in the Heritage District as well as other areas of Gilbert. Section 4.409.A.3.f. regarding static messages is proposed to be removed, which would advance sign pollution and sign overload. The signs will have competing messages and become a blinding sight. The proposal strikes a portion of Section 4.409.B.23, which states that a marquee sign shall not be visible from adjacent residential properties. She feels this language should not be deleted as it protects the rights of the residents. There are more residents in the Town of Gilbert than businesses. Residents support the businesses and the Town, therefore, the Town should in turn support the residents and their property rights. People move to Gilbert for the quality of life, the community involvement, and the small-town feel. When we put signs in the Heritage District, we are actually changing the look and feel of the District. She asked that the Town be cognizant of the effects and unintended consequences that signs will create. Removing that language will allow signs where the residents live,  Gilbert Redevelopment Commission September 19, 2018 Page 2 of 6 resulting in negative consequences for residents. Some residents like herself may live across from the Community Center, the Heritage Center, or the Boys and Girls Club. There are various buildings that are planned in the future. Her concern is that once this is approved, everyone will want signs. At the end of Section 4.409.B.23, it states “Recommended guidelines...are set forth in the Heritage District Redevelopment Plan”. The proposal strikes out Redevelopment Plan and adds Design Guidelines. She felt it should not be referred to as a design guideline. Ms. Machado-Liddell has researched the Heritage District, looked at the Design Guidelines, Redevelopment Plan, as well as the processes for permitting, and plans for buildings in her neighborhood, specifically the District Lofts. She was told over and over again that the Design Guidelines are just guidelines and are not a regulatory form and they don’t need to be followed. If that term is put into the zoning code amendment, it will create the same effect that people will not have to follow a guideline. Because of that, it is not a legally binding document and it is also not in the Redevelopment Plan. The residents did not have a chance to provide input on these changes. She stated there are no design guidelines relating to signs specifically. In her neighborhood, new builds do not even go by the Design Guidelines because they don’t exist. The Design Guidelines are not an ordinance, they are unclear, and there is no guarantee that anyone will follow them. Ms. Machado-Liddell believes that all residential property owners should have rights in the Town just as a business would. No one should have more or less rights. There needs to be a balance. She did not think that a sign is a property right, but an advertisement for a business. As a non-regulatory document, it does not ensure any compliance and she felt it will not serve the community well. She hoped that the Redevelopment Commission will consider how this sign proposal will affect the residents. Striking out all of the residential parts of the code related to signs will not do the residents of Gilbert any service. Chair Hudgins advised that Commissioner Bigelow is on his way to the meeting and that certain agenda items will be taken out of order. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1. Oaths of Office – Ryan Hamilton and Boe Bigelow. Councilmember Anderson administered the Oaths of Office to Ryan Hamilton and Boe Bigelow as reappointed members of the Redevelopment Commission. Chair Hudgins stated Commissioner Hamilton brings an immense amount of experience and Commissioner Bigelow provides a fresh perspective to the Commission. It is great to have them both back on the Redevelopment Commission. 2. Minutes – Consider Approval of the Minutes for the Meeting of July 18, 2018. MOTION: Commissioner Sciacca moved to approve the meeting minutes of July 18, 2018, seconded by Commissioner Jones. The motion passed 4-0, with Commissioner Bigelow absent. 3. Z18-24 Discussion of LDC Text Amendment: Electronic Changing Message Displays and Marquee Signs. This item does not require a motion. Redevelopment Commission comments will be incorporated into the future Planning Commission and Town Council staff reports.  Gilbert Redevelopment Commission September 19, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Amy Temes, Interim Principal Planner, stated the Planning Commission initiated a text amendment regarding changing message displays and marquee signs at the request of Council. Through the Planning Commission and subsequent study session, staff has opened sign regulations, a glossary, and appendices with graphics. Primarily, the amendment would allow changeable messages on wall signs, marquee signs, and monument signs in all commercial districts, the Heritage Village Center zoning district (HVC), and the Gateway Village Center zoning district (GVC). Ms. Temes clarified that the HVC and GVC zoning districts are not to be confused with the boundary of a zoning district overlay, character area, or growth area out of the General Plan. Within the Gateway Village Center boundary area, there are multiple zoning districts (Single Family-6, Multi-Family/Medium, HVC, and Public Facility/Institutional). The proposed changes do not apply to everything within a redevelopment area, but to those specific zoning categories where commercial activity is occurring. This does not affect the residential areas. Currently, an electronic changing message display can change every eight seconds. With the amendment, a TV-type screen with ongoing full motion video would be allowed. The part of the code regarding scrolling signs will be removed. Marquee signs had to be changed manually, and the proposal would allow for electronic changeable messages. The amendment would also allow exposed neon tubing and bulbs. As the technology changes, the more specific we are in the code, the more we will need to make changes. The terms neon and LED will be referred to as tube lighting and bulb lighting. Exposed tube lighting is allowed in downtown and exposed bulb lighting is allowed as an accent feature on marquee signs in downtown. Exposed tube or bulb lighting shall be architecturally integrated and proportional to the design. A marquee is a projection over the main entry of a business, mostly associated with a performing arts or movie theater. Marquees are not to be confused with a canopy or awning over a window or door. The amendment will clarify that transformers and other electronic sign components are not to be visible. Commissioner Bigelow joined the meeting. Wall-mounted cabinet signs with electronic message displays are to be integrated into the architecture, flush mounted, or built into the fascia panel of a canopy. The intent is to have creativity, and not just a box set on a wall. In the HVC and GVC, only 50 percent of the allowable sign area of a wall-mounted cabinet sign can be an electronic changing message display. This will ensure that the signs remain proportional to the building and the architecture. Marquee signs with either manual or electronic messages shall be proportional and integrated into the architectural and design of the building. Marquee signs should be built into the fascia panel, not just placed on top of a canopy. Any specialty lighting is to be included in the master sign plan, comprehensive sign program, or Heritage sign plan. Freestanding changeable message signs in the HVC or GVC zoning districts will allow full motion TV-style messaging. Examples of various types of signs and lighting were reviewed. The proposed Text Amendment will go to the Planning Commission on October 3, 2018 for a recommendation to Town Council. The Town Council public hearing is scheduled for November 1, 2018 with full public noticing as well as an opportunity for public comment. Ms. Temes addressed the letter from the resident stating her concerns. This code change will not affect the residential zoning district. Regarding striking out the language that marquee signs not be  Gilbert Redevelopment Commission September 19, 2018 Page 4 of 6 visible to adjacent residential properties, within the HVC zoning district, loft living above commercial is allowed by right and signs may be visible. There are provisions in the code, such as 4.409.A.5 and B.3, which speak to lights and signs adjacent to residential uses per the General Plan. The SF-6 and Multi-family houses in the Heritage area are in the General Plan as residential, therefore, those sections would apply allowing an illuminated sign within 50 feet. Currently, residents at the District Lofts can see the Hale Theater marquee. The amendment will remove some of the contradictions within the code. As far as the concern regarding the Heritage Village Design Guidelines, Ms. Temes agreed with the resident that there is not a lot in the guidelines today as to signs. The last line referenced in the sign code section would allow for some description on architectural integration and proportionality. The Heritage District Design Guidelines are a subset of the land development code as a text amendment, and are adopted under the Town Council. It is not just a document that can be amended at any time. Design guidelines by definition tend to have subjectivity built in to provide a concept to work within. The development standards within the code are set in stone. The text amendment proposed today will amend a chapter of the code. Those are the standards that will have to be used in order to develop a sign on a building or a freestanding sign. The requirements for signage is being locked in, and the guidelines would allow some creativity, subjectivity, and room for discussion. It is not in the Master Plan for the Heritage Area, because the Master Plan is a generalized concept and does not outline specifics regarding signage. That is left to the Code and the Guidelines. Questions from the Commission: Commissioner Hamilton asked for clarification as to what will be allowed with neon tubing and light bulbs, as shown in the examples. Ms. Temes stated the HVC zoning currently has more latitude than other districts. The neon would have been allowed in HVC, although the exposed bulbs were only allowed on certain types of signs. Now those types of lighting would be open to the GVC as well as all commercial zoning districts. There will be less impact on the HVC, as it already has more latitude for signage than other commercial zoning districts. Commissioner Hamilton had a question on the language related to signs not being visible from adjacent residential properties in terms of mixed use on Gilbert Road, although his question was addressed during the presentation. Ms. Temes advised that signs are held to the same photometric that a building light or parking light would be, which is .3 at the property line. Most of the signs are built with adjustments for brightness. There have been instances with freestanding electronic changeable message displays being too bright. That can be measured with a meter at the property line. The intent is not for a sign to project miles away, but to be kept within the photometric code. Commissioner Sciacca understood the importance for mixed-use with lofts above commercial and how the signs may help grow our downtown. He asked if staff has taken an inventory on signage from a parking garage or the back of commercial where the lighting goes into residential. With no buffer between residential and commercial, has legal reviewed that in terms of the language. Ms. Temes advised that the code currently states 50 feet from adjacent residential. Once it is past that 50-foot mark, there could be signage with full lighting. That has been in effect for years now and seems to be working well in most zoning districts with commercial adjacent to residential. The  Gilbert Redevelopment Commission September 19, 2018 Page 5 of 6 back of a commercial center is not allowed to have illuminated signs, unless it is greater than 200 feet away. Commissioner Jones liked the idea of incorporating proportionality into this type of restriction. He asked about content restrictions and hours for lighting. For new development, would the signage be approved on a project by project basis? Ms. Temes was not aware of any restrictions as far as hours for lighting of a sign. They can be lit 24/7 or placed on a timer to be lit from dusk to dawn. She will double check the code in terms of hours. As far as content restriction, staff is no longer allowed to read what a sign says, only the architectural style and size are reviewed. Commissioner Jones was concerned about messages of a sexual nature and did not want Gilbert to look like Times Square. Ms. Temes explained that there are provisions within the municipal code regarding lewd or sexual content with regard to signs. If a message on a building has nothing to do with the use of the building, but is a religious or political message, that is allowed. Based on the latest Supreme Court decision, we cannot read the content of a sign as long as it meets the provisions. If there is a conflict with the municipal code, our town attorney has advised that it can be restricted, as it would send a public message that the town would consider out of the norm. We have not experienced any issues with that. There have been some concerns with giant billboard-like signs that were internal to the mall that some people did not consider appropriate. As it was not visible from the public street, it was not in violation of the municipal code. This can be discussed further with legal if certain issues arise over time. Commissioner Bigelow felt the full motion signs can be of great help to businesses. He asked whether those signs will include any audio and was concerned about noise as in Las Vegas or Times Square. Ms. Temes was glad he brought up the concern of noise. She noted that some grocery store parking lots play music. That issue will need to be discussed further before the next staff report. Commissioner Sciacca asked if it would be determined at the staff level whether a sign was proportional to the building size. If a development wanted something bigger, how could that be accomplished? Ms. Temes advised that staff does make those judgement calls through their degrees and years of experience. When staff feels that something is out of proportion or improper, it will be brought to this Commission, the Planning Commission, or Design Review Board for discussion. Staff looks to the various commissions for guidance on those types of issues. Items are often brought to study sessions for input from those diverse panels. Chair Hudgins appreciated the town’s foresight and support of businesses. As a business owner in the downtown, he can testify to the power of being able to have signage. As a resident, he shares the concern, as seen in a lot of other cities where there is a lot of signage, that it can become very overwhelming and noisy. Gilbert Road already has quite a bit of signs and he fears that adding more and more noise will become overwhelming to people coming to downtown. He looks forward to seeing what comes of this amendment as we move forward.  Gilbert Redevelopment Commission September 19, 2018 Page 6 of 6 COMMUNICATIONS 4. Report from the CHAIR on current or future events. There was no report. 5. Report from COUNCIL LIAISON on current or future events. Councilmember Anderson congratulated the returning members of the Commission. He appreciated the Commission’s input tonight. He spoke of the confidence the Council has in this Commission and all of the duties the members perform for the town. 6. Report from COMMISSIONERS on current or future events. There were no reports. 7. Report from STAFF LIAISON on current or future events. Amanda Elliott thanked the Commissioners for their hard work on the Redevelopment Plan. It was adopted by Council in August. The input of the citizens and businesses was appreciated throughout that process. She looks forward to working with the Commission on the design guidelines and any related LDC amendments, as well as implementing this plan in the future. ADJOURN With no further business before the Commission, Chair Hudgins adjourned the meeting at 7:09 P.M. ___________________________________ Tyler Hudgins, Chair