Redevelopment Commission

TOWN OF GILBERT REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Minutes of September 18, 2019, 6:30 p.m. Municipal Center Building, Council Chambers 50 E. Civic Center Drive, Gilbert, Arizona 85296 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Tyler Hudgins, Chair Ryan Hamilton, Vice Chair Boe Bigelow, Commissioner Tyler Jones, Commissioner Peter Sciacca, Commissioner COUNCIL PRESENT: Scott Anderson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT: Daniel C. Henderson, CEcD Economic Development Director Amanda Elliott, Heritage District Liaison Chris Payne, Town Attorney Eva Cutro, Planning Division Manager Sydney Bethel, Planner II CALL TO ORDER: Chair Hudgins called the regular meeting of the Redevelopment Commission to order at 6:32 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. There were no communications from Citizens. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1. Minutes – Consider Approval of the Minutes for the Meeting of August 21, 2019. MOTION: Commissioner Bigelow moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 21, 2019, seconded by Commissioner Sciacca. The motion passed 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING Items will be heard at one Public Hearing at which time anyone wishing to comment on a Public Hearing Item may do so. Comments will be heard from those in support of or in opposition to an item. Once the hearing is closed, there will be no further public comment unless requested by a member of the Commission. After the Public Hearing, the Commission may act on all items not requiring additional staff, public, or Commission comment with a single vote. Chair Hudgins opened the Public Hearing and invited staff to make a presentation on Item 2, Z19-04.  Gilbert Redevelopment Commission September 18, 2019 Page 2 of 6 2. Z19-04 LDC TEXT AMENDMENT – HERITAGE SIGN PLANS: Request to amend the Town of Gilbert Land Development Code, Chapter I Zoning Regulations, Division 4 General Regulations, Article 4.4 Sign Regulations, the Glossary of General Terms, and the Appendix 1 Graphics, to allow for a new type of rooftop sign in certain locations within the Heritage Village Center Zoning District. Planner Sydney Bethel reviewed the request to amend the Land Development Code (LDC) related to the addition of a new type of rooftop sign in certain locations within the Heritage Village Center (HVC) Zoning District. On April 3, 2019 the Planning Commission initiated the LDC Text Amendment and on April 17, the Redevelopment Commission provided comments and recommended postponement of the Text Amendment until the Heritage District Design Guidelines update was implemented. The Planning Commission continued the item in May as well as in September in order to bring the new Text Amendment with additions to the Redevelopment Commission prior to approval by the Planning Commission. The LDC does not currently permit rooftop signage, and most other cities staff has researched do not permit new rooftop signs, although the ones that are existing are either historic signs or copies of historic signs. Certain cities do permit rooftop signage and elements from their codes have been incorporated into this proposed Text Amendment. Staff believes the Heritage District is the most appropriate location for rooftop signs due to the signage already existing with projecting neon signs that are popular in that District. Staff feels that rooftop signs will add to the unique sense of place that is fostered within the Heritage District area. Ms. Bethel outlined the details of the proposed Text Amendment. Location and Number of Signs: The proposed Text Amendment would only allow rooftop signs within the Heritage District, specifically within the HVC Zoning District along Gilbert Road. There are three specific bounded areas on Gilbert Road where these signs would be allowed, splitting the District into north, central and south sections. Area 1 (north) is bounded by Juniper Avenue to the north and the canal to the south. Area 2 (central) is bounded by the canal to the north and the railroad tracks to the south. Area 3 (south) is bounded by the railroad tracks to the north and Elliot Road to the south. The rooftop signs will only be allowed on buildings three-stories and taller fronting Gilbert Road. There will only be one sign permitted per bounded area for a total of three (3) rooftop signs within the identified areas of the Heritage District. Previously, this was a separation requirement and this is a modification from the last presentation. Content of Signs: Ms. Bethel advised that the content of signs cannot be restricted. A rooftop sign would be considered a non-commercial sign and would not promote a particular business, service, or product. Sign Specifications: The area of a rooftop sign must not exceed 200 square feet, must not extend more than 15 feet above the roof line, and must be located two feet back from the edge of the roof. The copy must be mounted as stylized individual letters and graphics. The lighting will be required to be exposed neon, decorative bulbs, or tubing. This is similar to what is currently required for projecting signs. The lighting must comply with Arizona Revised Statutes, the Town of Gilbert Municipal Code, and the existing Design Guidelines relating to lighting. Next Steps: This item will be brought forth to the Planning Commission on October 2, 2019 with a formal recommendation from the Redevelopment Commission. The item is scheduled for a public hearing and decision by Town Council on October 17, 2019, with the recommendations from both Commissions. Staff is asking that the Redevelopment Commission recommend approval to the Planning Commission for Z19-04, LDC Text Amendment-Heritage Sign Plans. QUESTIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION: Vice Chair Hamilton understood that the non-commercial aspect of the signs means that it cannot support a business. He asked if the sign could state a product such as Coca-Cola or political messages such as abortion is murder.  Gilbert Redevelopment Commission September 18, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Town Attorney Chris Payne would need to conduct some research regarding political messages on signs. As a non-commercial sign, the intent is to not advertise their own business, although he would have to research on advertising of another business or product and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Jones asked for clarification on why the Commission or other appropriate department would not be able to approve what actually goes on such an iconic sign. Attorney Payne stated as a result of recent Supreme Court cases, especially one that Gilbert was involved in, we cannot regulate the content of the message. The Town can set guidelines such as requiring that it be non- commercial, but we cannot regulate what is stated. Ms. Bethel stated when a sign is submitted, it will come to the Redevelopment Commission for ultimate approval as part of a Heritage District sign package. It is written in the code that the Commission will be able to see the design and other elements of the sign for approval. Such a sign will not just be approved by staff. Commissioner Jones asked about the context of why this request was brought forth and the urgency of the matter. Ms. Bethel stated the idea for a rooftop sign was originally brought forward through a downtown business. Staff explored the option and brought it forth since there has been some interest in the downtown for such signs. Commissioner Bigelow asked if requests for such signs would be handled on a first come first serve basis, since only three will be allowed. Is there an expiration period for these signs, or once approved, will the sign be there forever? Will there be a permit that if not renewed will provide an opportunity for someone else to put up a sign. Ms. Bethel would need to verify the exact expiration date. Typically, with submittals there is a 3-year expiration date. Once a sign is approved, technically that area will be exempt from another sign coming in until the first one is dismantled. It would limit another business owner in the same district area from pursuing the signage once a sign is approved and erected. Commissioner Bigelow understood that the signs would come to the Redevelopment Commission to consider the design and to make sure it fits into the downtown. There are a lot of people in the neighborhood that are concerned about the impacts of such signs. If this proposal does go through, we want to make sure that a sign is something really great that will help the overall aesthetic of the Heritage District. Ms. Bethel explained that there will be a public process with opportunity for public comment. She asked if Commissioner Bigelow was requesting that all three signs come in at the same time. Commissioner Bigelow was concerned that someone will come in with a sign that everyone likes and then in three years when it expires it could be swapped out with whatever they want. The concern is to protect the Heritage District and the people that live there. Attorney Payne stated while the Commission can't regulate the content of a sign, they can regulate the design. Any sign or change to an existing sign would come before the Commission to look at the design. Commissioner Sciacca asked how the three bounded areas were determined. As we reach buildout, the skyline could change with higher developments. Is there the potential for additional bounded areas to be formed with the growth of the Town allowing more rooftop signs? Ms. Bethel stated for the current proposed Text Amendment, we are only looking at these specific areas. An amendment could possibly be brought forward in the future, although the intent is to keep it limited to three to avoid competition and cluttering and to address some concerns by residents and the Commission. Staff is not looking at pursuing that possibility, nor would we necessarily want that to happen. We understand that things develop and change, so it could be a possibility in the future.  Gilbert Redevelopment Commission September 18, 2019 Page 4 of 6 Chair Hudgins stated there has been some discussion as well as an article about potential additional redevelopment areas. If there are other redevelopment areas in the future, would these signs apply or will this be specific to the Heritage District? Ms. Bethel stated this is proposed specific to the Heritage District only in one specific zoning district, which is HVC. The projecting signs that are in the downtown are now also permitted in commercial districts and the Gateway Village Center District through an amendment that took place not too long ago. There is a possibility that it could expand in the future, although as proposed it only applies to the HVC in the Heritage District. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Hudgins received 8 cards in opposition and 1 card in favor of Z19-04 LDC Text Amendment – Heritage Sign Plans. Two of those opposed have requested to speak and three wished to turn their time over to another speaker. There was one request to speak in favor. Chair Hudgins will allow Doralise Machado-Liddell 10 minutes instead of the usual 3, as she will also be speaking on behalf of several others opposed to the Text Amendment. Doralise Machado-Liddell stated currently, the Heritage District is allowed a variety of different signs. She wanted to talk about the small town feel. She noted that Portland has 4.25 million people, Los Angeles 4 million, Phoenix 1.6 million, Seattle over 700,000, Gilbert over 250,000, Chandler 250,000, Tempe 185,000, and Inglewood 110,000. According to her research, Portland does not allow rooftop signs. Los Angeles only allows rooftop signs if they are framed by a higher building that does not break the skyline when viewed at a distance of 500 feet. Phoenix allows rooftop signs in certain areas such as Jackson Street. Seattle prohibits rooftop signs and stated exceptions shall not be granted for roof signs. Chandler also prohibits rooftop signs and states the intent is to eliminate aesthetic blight and reduce visual clutter. Tempe does not allow rooftop signs. Inglewood, California does not allow rooftop signs. Flagstaff only allows rooftop signs when there are no walls to accommodate a building sign. Doralise had asked staff which cities they researched that did allow rooftop signs. Through all of the surveys, research, and community outreach, Gilbert residents have stated they want the small town feel. A rooftop sign is not a small town feel. There is a reason why these signs are not allowed. It is because of skyline and visual clutter. The Heritage District Guidelines are not completed to date and that is why this matter was postponed. To date there has been no community outreach with the exception of one public meeting on January 31, 2019. At that time, Doralise was advised by staff that they could not show the text because they were waiting for illustrations. The inspiration for the design guidelines is coming from Bethesda, Watertown, and Boston. She asked if those cities allowed rooftop signs. The Lacey tract neighborhood was established in 1917, and Gilbert was founded in 1920. The Water Tower was erected in 1927. The residential property owners have enjoyed the skyline for over 100 years without skyline clutter and visual blight. Whether it is one sign, 3 signs, or 100 signs, it is still sign clutter and visual blight. A 200 square foot sign will need to be held up by something. The zoning regulations in Gilbert require all mechanical equipment to be screened. She has been told that the buildings will limit the view of the Water Tower. How will a rooftop sign enhance the visitor experience, the pedestrian experience? They won’t even be able to see the rooftop sign. She asked who we are trying to advertise to? The residents will be viewing that sign 24 hours a day. There was discussion on why we can't regulate content. In the Supreme Court case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the decision was that the Town did not apply the sign code in a consistent manner, which violated the first amendment. Gilbert is known throughout the US as the town that changed the zoning laws related to signage. She believed the current rooftop sign amendment is not being applied consistently. Residents in the Heritage District are not being allowed the same rights as other property owners in Gilbert. Why? According to the Town of Gilbert’s Annual Action Plan 2019, the two census tracts in the Heritage District contain the largest number of low to moderate income residents. Those  Gilbert Redevelopment Commission September 18, 2019 Page 5 of 6 residents need a voice too. In the 2008 and 2018 Redevelopment Plan, it clearly states the importance of the small town feel and does not state anything about rooftop signs. The rooftop signs also interfere with astronomical observations. She feels the Town will be introducing sign blight and visual blight in a designated slum and blighted area. All residents in the Heritage District should enjoy the same rights, a clutter-free skyline, as other residents in Gilbert. The business owner at 313 North Gilbert Road should not be able to take away property rights of residential property owners in the Heritage District. We need to work with each other, not against each other. She believed the Town is taking the rights away from residential property owners to benefit three businesses. She believed the sign code favors three business over others. What we do here in Gilbert has a tremendous effect. If you can't control content, a sign can say anything. When the business owner purchased the property, they knew what the laws were. The Gilbert Downtown has existed for 99 years without rooftop signs, and it can exist 99 more years without rooftop signs. Gilbert is known throughout the US for Reed v. Town of Gilbert and many towns had to rewrite their sign code as a result. We must not put Gilbert on the map by placing rooftop signs in the Heritage District. Gilbert was known as the hay capital of the world. Doralise did not want Gilbert to be known as the sign clutter capital of the world. She asked the Redevelopment Commission to not support this text amendment or to postpone the item until the Design Guidelines are completed and stakeholders have had a chance to respond. Chair Hudgins asked the Town Attorney if the proposed Text Amendment as it relates to rooftop signs would in any way infringe upon property rights of residential owners Attorney Payne did not believe so legally. He acknowledged that some property owner may not like the look, although he did not believe there was a legal right to have an unobstructed view unless there is some type of air easement in place. Sandra Reynolds, Gilbert resident, has attended all of the public and stakeholder meetings for the redevelopment of the Heritage District. At all of those meetings it was made very clear that the small town look and feel was wanted in the Heritage District. It seems like the development that is going in now is in exact opposition to that with huge buildings that are higher than existing buildings that will block the Water Tower views. Now we are talking about rooftop signs on top of that. The people who live in the Heritage District may not legally be losing their property, but they are losing property values. She can look out her window and see the beautiful Water Tower with all the lights. If we have neon signs, she will be looking out her window and see neon signs instead of the Water Tower. The focus will no longer be on what our iconic Heritage District theme is. It is being lost one step at a time. She felt that planners need to take steps to limit the development in the Heritage District in order to keep the small town look and feel as we see in the southern part of the district. She felt building heights needed to be reduced and designs need to be developed in alignment with the small town look and feel, and not the industrial marketplace that seems to be the progression. Rooftop signs are not seen in small towns, but in commercial and industrial centers in huge cities. She felt it was important that we get a grasp of what a small town should look like. She noted the Gilmore Girls on Netflix gives a good example of the ideal setting of the small town. We need to strive to keep that look and feel in our Heritage District. Chair Hudgins allowed the one speaker in favor of this item 10 minutes to speak to be fair. Brad Smith, lives in the Agritopia neighborhood and has been a Gilbert resident for 19 years. All of his children graduated from the Gilbert high schools and two work in the Heritage District and own homes in Gilbert. Gilbert is his family’s town. He is the owner of the 3-story building located at 313 North Gilbert Road and he is not a commercial developer. The building houses his software company, a local restaurant, a soon to open rooftop restaurant, and a co-working space serving women in the Gilbert community. His software company does business with other businesses throughout the US and Canada and is not a public facing company. He has no need to advertise his own business to this community. His objective in requesting a sign on top of his building, that at this time would say the word Gilbert, is to help promote the  Gilbert Redevelopment Commission September 18, 2019 Page 6 of 6 town he loves. The sign would be such that it represents the Town and its historic preservation through creative art and culture. He too loves the Water Tower and sees the sign as an addition to our growing community. When the Water Tower was presented to the town in 1925, it was approved by a vote of 38 to 5. Can you imagine today if there were 5 residents in opposition to the iconic Water Tower. In 2014, our town started adding lights to the Water Tower. Parties interested in lighting the Gilbert Water Tower a specific color to recognize a community impact initiative or to create community awareness have an opportunity to do so. Our Town will always be evolving in ways that celebrate who we are and he sees this as another addition to celebration. With no further public comment, Chair Hudgins moved to the Commission for further discussion. DISCUSSION BY COMMISSION: Commissioner Sciacca enjoyed hearing both sides of the argument. He personally felt there are a lot of downtown communities in Arizona that are very jealous of the signs and the sense of arrival that the Town of Gilbert exudes. He appreciated the fact that our goal is to keep it a small town feel. He noted that parking garages are not small town and there are several of them in Gilbert. As we evolve, as Brad mentioned, so too does the look and feel evolve. It is nice to have our cake and eat it too. In some ways, the Town of Gilbert has that. We have the small town feel and yet it is exciting to see the dynamics in Gilbert. He can see both sides. With regard to the 38 to 5 vote in 1925 to approve the erection of the Water Tower, there may have been even more people that were opposed, but ultimately they voted yes. Those people probably never imagined that the Water Tower would be lit up today. Times change and so does the fabric and look and feel. Vice Chair Hamilton was impressed with the carefully crafted compromise that staff has developed. Limiting it to three signs on Gilbert Road on certain buildings in certain areas he felt was indicative of consideration of the concerns and comments. He was inclined to support what he considers to be a carefully crafted amendment and a detailed analysis appears to have been done to take into account all concerns. He felt it was a positive step. With no further discussion from the Commission, Chair Hudgins entertained a motion. MOTION: Vice Chair Hamilton moved to recommend approval to the Planning Commission for Z19-04, LDC Text Amendment-Heritage Sign Plans as requested; seconded by Commissioner Bigelow. Motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Jones opposed. COMMUNICATIONS 3. Report from the CHAIR on current or future events. None. 4. Report from COUNCIL LIAISON on current or future events. None. 5. Report from COMMISSIONERS on current or future events. None. 6. Report from STAFF LIAISON on current or future events. None. ADJOURN With no further business before the Commission, Chair Hudgins adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m. ___________________________________ Tyler Hudgins, Chair