Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/2011 SIGN MINUTES CITY OF THE COLONY SIGN BOARD OF APPEALS November 16, 2011 After determining that a quorum was present, the Sign Board of Appeals of the City of The Colony, Texas convened into Regular Session which was held on Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located in City Hall, 6800 Main Street, The Colony, Texas, at which time the following items were addressed: Board Members Present: Donna McCright, Chairperson; Gerald Odum; Lloyd Martin; Duane Sanders; Lloyd Martin; and Constance Yahwak. Board Members Absent: None Present from Staff. J. Michael Joyce, Development Services Director; Brooks Wilson, AICP, Senior Planner; Felicia Koppang, Development Services Coordinator; Jimmy Schnurr, City Attorney; and David Terre, City Councilman. 1.0 CALL REGULAR SESSION TO ORDER Chairperson McCright called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. 2.0 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 2.1 Consider approval of the minutes of the regular session of the October 19, 2011 meeting of the Sign Board of Appeals. Board Member Yahwak noted on page 3, 5t" paragraph, add "Sign" before Board of Appeals. It was moved by Board Member Sanders to approve Item 2.1 with the amendment previously stated, seconded by Board Member Yahwak. Motion carried (5-0). 3.0 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 3.1 Consider electing a chairman and vice-chairman. Chairperson McCright nominated to have the same board members appointed for the Sign Board of Appeals as was previously appointed for the Board of Adjustment. It was moved by Chairperson McCright to appoint Board Member Constance Yahwak as Chairman and Board Member Lloyd Martin as Vice-Chairman, seconded by Board Member Sanders. Motion carried (5-0). 3.2 SBA11-0002 -Sign Ordinance Amendment - Flags and Flagpoles. Conduct a public meeting, discuss, and consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding an ordinance amending Article XI, Signs, of Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances by adding a new subsection 6-2620), entitled "Flags and Flagpoles," establishing regulations for flags and flagpoles and by amending Section 6-263, entitled "Definitions," by adding a new definition for "Flagpole." Sign Board of Appeals November 16, 2011 Page 2 of 11 Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report. Board Member Sanders asked if a section needs to be placed in the ordinance to address the placement of flags on trees. Mrs. Wilson responded that if an item is not specifically mentioned in the ordinance, it is prohibited. Chairperson McCright stated that she recalled a previous discussion to allow a flag to hang from a wall or tree. Board Member Sanders stated that he was not aware of previously discussing allowing it. Mrs. Wilson followed up in stating that she recalls a discussion where it was acceptable for flags to hang from the structure of a home, however, it was her understanding that flags hanging from trees was restricted. Board Member Sanders continued in stating that no signage is permitted on fences at all. Mrs. Wilson confirmed. Mr. Joyce stated the only signs that are allowed on fences are less than one (1) square foot in area and advertise who built the fence. Mrs. Wilson stated that installation requirements for flagpoles by manufacturers have been placed within the packet as a reference, however, will not be included in the ordinance. Board Member Sanders restated his original question about including a notation in the ordinance to restrict the hanging of flags from trees. Mr. Schnurr suggested to the Board to include the word `only' in the location portion of the ordinance to be more restrictive. Chairperson McCright asked Board Member Sanders why he feels flags should be restricted from being placed on trees. Board Member Sanders stated that the flags on trees that he has seen have been displayed disrespectfully with the flag wrapped around branches. Chairperson McCright believes restricting flags from being placed on a tree is too restrictive. Board Member Sanders stated that he disagreed. Board Member Yahwak agreed that a flag should not be hung from a tree. Chairperson McCright asked if a flag would be allowed to hang from an apartment balcony. Sign Board of Appeals November 16, 2011 Page 3 of 11 Mrs. Wilson responded that the apartment balcony would fall under a structure and would be allowed. Chairperson McCright restated that she doesn't feel regulations on flags should be so restrictive. Board Member Yahwak stated that there's an appropriate way to hang a flag. Board Members had a discussion concerning the respect of a flag. Mrs. Wilson suggested malting a motion to include the word `only' for the location to be more restrictive and for the Board to vote. Chairperson McCright asked if the flag area of 5' X 7' is a typical size of a flag. Mrs. Wilson responded the size restriction is large for a standard flag. Chairperson McCright referred to flags flown on a military base being much larger in size. Mrs. Wilson responded that an applicant can request a variance for a larger flag. Mr. Joyce continued in stating that the limit on size is due to the noise from the flag. He used the example of a car dealerships with larger flags sometimes receive noise complaints from adjacent neighbors. Mr. Joyce continued in stating that the intent of the ordinance is to allow citizens to be patriotic, but refrain from flags being a nuisance. Chairperson McCright asked what the reason is in charging a fee for commercial properties. Mrs. Wilson responded the fee is to compensate for staff time to go to property for inspections. Mr. Joyce continued in stating that staff goes to the property to make sure it meets the manufacturer's requirements. He continued in stating that staff wants to be fee neutral but staff time for the inspection needs to be compensated. Chairperson McCright asked why flags cannot be placed in right-of-way for instances like a Veteran's Day Parade. Mrs. Wilson asked for clarification if it would be the City placing the signs or residents. Chairperson McCright responded either. Mrs. Wilson responded that the City is allowed to use their own right-of-way, however, if it was an outside group, they would have to apply for a special event, as the City does not want it to inhibit traffic flow or visibility. Chairperson McCright stated she does not feel comfortable putting restrictions on an American flag. Sign Board of Appeals November 16, 2011 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Joyce stated that the Board could make a determination to allow flags in front yards, which hasn't been permissible in the past. He continued by stating that he would not recommend no restrictions but it's within the Board's purview to make that determination. Staff is not trying to be overly restrictive; however, the flags should not become a nuisance or a traffic hazard. Chairperson McCright asked if instances of flags becoming a nuisance or traffic hazard have occurred in the past. Mr. Joyce responded that there have been instances of flags on fences; however, no complaints have been made about flags in backyards. Chairperson McCright asked if there have been complaints about flags on fences. Mr. Joyce responded affirmatively. Board Member Sanders asked when considering flagpole positioning, how corner lots are assessed. Mr. Joyce responded that corner lots are approached at like there are two front yards on those properties. Board Member Sanders commented on placing a twenty (20) foot flagpole in the side yard of a corner lot, stating that it could be hazardous if it fell during a strong gust of wind if it falls into the street. Mr. Joyce responded that it could happen but the likelihood is minimal unless the flagpole is not installed correctly. He continued in stating that staff can provide manufacturer specification on the correct way to install a flagpole. Chairperson McCright asked if twenty (20) feet is a standard flagpole height. Mrs. Wilson responded yes, that most standard residential flagpoles range from sixteen (16) to twenty (20) feet. She continued that staff opted to use the taller height for regulation and extended it based on the size of the home on the property. Mr. Joyce followed up in stating that one of the reasons two different heights are being proposed for a single story versus a double story residence is that the Mayor asked what the regulations would be specific to his property, being a two-story home. Board Member Odum stated that restrictions have to be in place for flagpoles. He continued that flags cannot be allowed to be hung anywhere. Board Member Odum stated that he agreed that if the topic is not covered in the ordinance, it should not be allowed; therefore hanging flags on a fence should not be allowed. Mrs. Wilson agreed. She continued in recommending that if the Board wanted the ordinance to be more restrictive, add the word `only' to location restrictions. Sign Board of Appeals November 16, 2011 Page 5ofII Board Member Odum stated that he didn't think `only' needed to be added to the ordinance because a homeowner should be allowed to hang a flag in the front or back yard. He continued in asking staff to remove "purchased" from installation requirements. Mrs. Wilson responded that manufacturer specifications would only be available if the flagpole was purchased. Board Member Odum asked what someone would do if they went out and purchased any pole. Mrs. Wilson responded that a resident could go online and get a sample of manufacturer specifications. Mr. Joyce followed up in stating that the examples provided to the Board of manufacturer specifications show standard installations for flagpoles or other poles purchased. It was moved by Board Member Odum to approve Item 3.2 with the revision to remove `purchased' from Installation Requirements, seconded by Board Member Martin. Motion carried (5-0). 3.3 SBA11-0007 -Sign Ordinance Amendment - Garage Sale Signs. Conduct a public meeting, discuss, and consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding an ordinance amending Article XI, Signs, of Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances by revising subsection 6-261(d), entitled "Garage Sale Signs". Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report. Councilman Terre clarified to the Board that homeowner associations allow residents of the neighborhood to conduct garage sales on particular weekends and this amendment is to allow additional signage for these larger garage sale events. Mrs. Wilson stated that the direction given to staff by Assistant City Manager, Tim Miller, was to enter the section into the ordinance as a Subdivision Sign since not all neighborhoods have a homeowner association. Councilman Terre followed up in stating that what is initiating the amendment to the ordinance are the homeowner associations since they are the primary groups that will be conducting the larger scale garage sales, whereas subdivisions rarely conduct larger scale garage sales. Mr. Joyce continued in stating that homeowner associations discourage individual garage sales and try to have group garage sales several times a year. Board Member Odum stated that the ordinance shouldn't allow for unlimited signage. Chairperson McCright asked why Board Member Odum felt there shouldn't be unlimited signage. Sign Board of Appeals November 16, 2011 Page 6 of 11 Board Member Odum responded that the ordinance shouldn't allow for 100 signs within a ten (10) foot area, it doesn't take much signage to draw people to an area. He suggested for the Board to limit signage per square area. Board Member Martin suggested limited signage per access street. Board Member Sanders stated that the intersection of Main Street (FM 423) and North Colony Boulevard has approximately thirty (30) signs each weekend. He continued by asking what the timeframe is for garage sale signs. Mrs. Wilson responded that garage sale signs are limited to being displayed from 8 am on Fridays to 8 am on Mondays. Board Member Sanders stated that he starts seeing garage sale signs go up on Thursday evenings and the number of signs that are up on the weekends just clutters up the streets of the city. He followed up by stating that if the ordinance allows for unlimited signage, there will be twenty-five (25) signs along North Colony Boulevard for one garage sale. Board Member Sanders continued by stating that churches, garage sales in the Big Lots shopping center and arts & craft shows will all want unlimited signage, but the city is crowded enough with signs, whereas other cities do not have as many. Chairperson McCright disagrees with Board Member Sanders and states that she sees signage throughout adjacent cities in main thoroughfares. Board Member Sanders stated that he believes that three signs per garage sale are all that is needed. Chairperson McCright disagrees, stating that people holding garage sales want to advertise what they are doing and want to draw as many people to the property as possible. She continued by suggesting the ordinance remain with the allowance of six (6) signs per garage sale. Board Member Sanders stated that the allowance of six (6) signs is per individual garage sale, not group garage sale. Mr. Joyce followed up in stating that the topic on the agenda is for Subdivision Garage Sales. Board Member Sanders continued by stating that city staff ends up being who picks up garage sale signs when they are left out. Mrs. Wilson suggested either recommending denial of the amendment or indicates a specific number of signs to be allowed by ordinance. Board Member Sanders asked Councilman Terre how often the homeowner association garage sales occurred in his neighborhood. Councilman Terre responded that the homeowner association garage sales occurred twice a year. Sign Board of Appeals November 16, 2011 Page 7 of 11 Board Member Sanders asked Councilman Terre how many signs were placed around the neighborhood during the Subdivision Garage Sale. Councilman Terre responded that the homeowner association signs were posted at entrances to the subdivision; however, individual signs were posted per house. He continued that six (6) signs would be sufficient for the subdivision as long as each individual property was allowed to place additional signage throughout the city. Mrs. Wilson continued in stating that each individual household would have to come in to City Hall to apply for a no-cost permit to have the stickers that are required to be affixed to the garage sale signs. Councilman Terre stated that there may be a misconception that if a homeowner association applied for signs that the individual households would not be allowed to. Board Member Sanders stated that the requirements are confusing when a subdivision has different regulations than others. Mrs. Wilson responded by stating that Board Member Sanders made a valid point by stating that other organizations are going to raise question as to why they are not allowed the same right as a subdivision. Board Member Martin stated that the signs for a homeowner association should be limited to the same as an individual garage sale, with six (6) signs. Councilman Terre responded that he believes the limit of signs is realistic. Mr. Joyce recommended to the Board that they limit the signs to six (6) or one (1) per entry to the subdivision which would limit the number of signs to the number of access points into the subdivision, then each individual household could post a sign in the front yard indicating the garage sale. Board Member Martin disagrees and continues by stating that he believes that the homeowner associations should pay the fees to advertise on the city owned wayfarer signs. Mrs. Wilson responded by stating that the wayfarer signs would not be available to subdivision garage sales, which are only open to non-profit organizations or groups that have agreements with the city. She followed up in stating that it wouldn't be cost effective for homeowner organizations to purchase the placards that are required for the city-owned signs. Mrs. Wilson continued by telling the Board that the placard type signs are intended for events that have a longer duration. Mr. Joyce explained the categories for the wayfarer signs. He stated that the directional signs are the type that shows how to get to certain locations, the city event signs for events sponsored by the city, and then there are the non-profit signs for organizations such as the Girl Scouts or the Colony Playhouse. He continued by stating that the neighborhoods like to show that they are having the garage sales, which is why he suggested limiting the signs to the entrances. Mr. Joyce Sign Board of Appeals November 16, 2011 Page 8of11 stated that he believes the Assistant City Manager was envisioning placement of signs at the entrances, not numerous placed throughout the city. Board Member Sanders said that when the wayfarer signs were first introduced, Tim Miller, Assistant City Manager had stated that the clutter on the corners was going to be eliminated due to the placement of the signs. Mr. Joyce stated that garage sale signs were never intended to be a part of the wayfarer signs. He continued by stating that the restriction of garage sale signs is always going to be an issue; however, the only reason the regulations are included within the ordinance is because there is a limit of two (2) garage sales permitted per property per calendar year, but there was no way to enforce the regulation without the requirement of a permit. Councilman Terre stated that groups of homes should only have signage at the main entryways. Mr. Joyce continued in stating that neighborhoods could always post an advertisement in the newspaper advising readers that a garage sale will be held in the neighborhood. Chairperson McCright asked if a subdivision had three (3) entries on either side of a main thoroughfare, six (6) signs would be allowed. Mr. Joyce responded affirmatively. Councilman Terre followed up in stating that it would only be correct if the homeowner association extended across the thoroughfare. Mr. Joyce stated that staff can determine with the use of GIS maps how many signs can be placed in each subdivision, if the Board makes a motion to allow for one (1) sign per entrance to the subdivision, which he believes was the intent of the Assistant City Manager when he requested to have the ordinance amended. It was moved by Board Member Sanders to deny Item 3.3 in its entirety, seconded by Board Member Odum. Motion carried (5-0). 3.4 SBAII-0008 -Sign Ordinance Amendment - Enforcement Authority. Conduct a public meeting, discuss, and consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding an ordinance amending Article XI, Signs, of Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances by revising subsection 6-254(c), entitled "Enforcement Authority" and revising subsection 6-255(a)(1), entitled "Removal/Impoundment of an Abandoned or Prohibited Sign." Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report. Board Member Sanders stated that in the past ordinance, when a tenant vacated a business, it was their responsibility within ninety (90) days to remove the sign or a citation was issued. Sign Board of Appeals November 16, 2011 Page 9 of 11 ~ Mrs. Wilson stated that the regulation is still within the ordinance; however, the amendment is in regards to signs that are a nuisance, dilapidated or needed to be removed immediately. Board Member Sanders asked if inflatable signs were approved. Mr. Joyce responded affirmatively. Board Member Sanders asked about the Cut It Up monument sign, where the business relocated down the street months ago. Mrs. Wilson responded that the sign should be removed. Mr. Joyce continued in stating that the problem with that sign is that it is located within TXDOT right-of-way, so TXDOT is responsible for having the sign removed. Board Member McCright asked if the city can require TXDOT to remove the sign. Mr. Joyce responded that the city can require TXDOT to remove the sign, but for TXDOT to respond is another issue. Board Member Sanders asked if TXDOT is who relocated the carwash sign. Mr. Joyce responded no, the owner of the carwash is who relocated the sign. Board Member Sanders asked what happens when a business is closed and they haven't removed their sign. Mrs. Wilson asked if it is a multi-tenant sign. Board Member Sanders responded yes. Mrs. Wilson stated that the Board voted on the ordinance last month that requires a multi-tenant sign to be replaced with a white fascia within thirty (30) days. Board Member Sanders asked what if the sign is on the building. Mrs. Wilson responded that the sign would need to be removed. Mr. Joyce continued in stating that abandoned signs are enforced by the Community Image Department. Board Member Sanders states that the business has a sign on the door that says they cater, but no one is there. Mr. Joyce responded that if there is still an active certificate of occupancy at the location, it means the company is still in business. Sign Board of Appeals November 16, 2011 Page 10 of 11 Mrs. Wilson continued in stating that the amendments to this ordinance apply mainly to temporary signs. Board Member Sanders asked if the amendment to the ordinance applies to the billboards in Austin Ranch. Mr. Joyce responded that there is an agreement that was made in 1999 when Austin Ranch was established that allows the billboards in the area to advertise only for the businesses located within Austin Ranch. He followed up in stating that this has been researched in the past to verify. Chairperson McCright stated that the narrative does not mention temporary signs. Mrs. Wilson responded that it can also mean permanent signs that are dilapidated or a safety hazard. She continued in stating that the amendment gives the Community Image Department more authority to write a letter to advise the business owner that the sign needs to be improved. Chairperson McCright followed up stating that she did find the reference within the amendment to temporary signs. Board Member Martin asked if ten (10) days is too long of a timeframe before citations are issued. Chairperson McCright stated that the amendment states not to exceed ten (10) days. Mrs. Wilson responded by stating that the timeframe was previously referred to in the ordinance, so the amendment is a continuation; however, the amendment notes up to ten (10) days so that if the Building Official elects to, enforcement can be done quicker. Board Member Odum asked who the citation would be issued to. Mrs. Wilson responded that the citation would be issued to the person having the beneficial use of the sign. Mr. Joyce continued by stating it could be the owner of the business or the owner of the building. Mrs. Wilson followed up in stating that if the tenant has moved out, the citation would be issued to the owner of the building since they would then be responsible for the sign. Board Member Sanders asked what the status is of the frame that is left of the golf course on Main Street. Mr. Joyce responded that the property is still within litigation. It was moved by Board Member Sanders to approve Item 3.4 as written, seconded by Board Member Odum. Motion carried (5-0). Sign Board of Appeals November 16, 2011 Page 11 of 11 There being no further discussion, Chairperson McCright adjourned the meeting at 8:01 pm. Donna McCright, Champ rson Felici Koppa c ding Secretary