Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/2014 SIGN MINUTES CITY OF THE COLONY SIGN BOARD OF APPEALS Wednesday, April 16, 2014 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, April 16, 2014 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: Charles Tredo, Chairman; Donna McCright; Gerald Odum; Constance Yahwak and Alternate Shawn Rockenbaugh and Alternate Casey Truskunas (not voting). Board Member Absent: Stephen Edwards, Sr. Present from Staff. Mike Joyce, AICP, Planning Director; Brooks Wilson, AICP, Senior Planner; Ed Voss, City Attorney. 1.0 CALL REGULAR SESSION TO ORDER Chairperson Tredo called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 2.0 ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION 2.1 Consider approval of the minutes of the regular session of the November 20, 2013 Sign Board of Appeals meeting. Board Member Yahwak moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Board Member Odum. The motion carried (5-0). 3.0 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 3.1 SI14-0004, Sign Ordinance Revision - Pylon Signs, Mannequin Signs and Political Signs Conduct a public hearing, 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 Section 6-258, "Prohibited Signs;" by revising Section 6-262(8) "Pylon Signs;" by revising Section 6-262(h) "Political Signs;" and by amending subsection 6-263, entitled "Definitions," by adding a new definition for "Mannequin Signs" and "Mechanical Signs" and by revising the definition of "Portable Signs." Ms. Wilson presented the staff report. Board Member McCright asked why the City must comply with State regulations. Mr. Ed Voss, City Attorney, explained that the Texas State Constitution compels cities to comply and that cities may choose to enact laws that are more restrictive than the state proscribes, but that cities may not be less restrictive. He added that political signs are regulated by strict election rules and that State law takes precedent over local laws. Board Member Odum asked if the prohibition on mannequin signs would apply to human sign spinners. Sign Board of Appeals Minutes April 16, 2014 Page 2 of 3 Ms. Wilson responded no; that human signs were not addressed in this sign ordinance revision. Board Member McCright asked if the upper portion of the pylon supports were to be painted, what would prevent a business from using bright colors, which may reflect architectural features of the building. Ms. Wilson responded that the Gateway Overlay District requires earth tones to be used and that every sign application is reviewed for color and material choices before approval. Board Member McCright stated that while the sign ordinance regulations attempt to beautify the City, the financial burden falls on the businesses. She raised the issue that by continuing to restrict businesses' right to advertise in the manner they choose, that the City is in effect driving businesses away. Planning Director Mike Joyce stated that the Sign Ordinance is in place to allow businesses ample opportunity to advertise while attempting to provide an improved visual environment in which the citizens of The Colony can live. He added that at the previous night's City Council meeting, the developer for The Cascades amended their Planned Development regulations to prohibit pylon and inflatable signs in their development and to further restrict feather and banner signs. This was a voluntary restriction designed to enhance the aesthetics of their development. Board Member Odum asked if a human sign could be considered a "moving" sign since the message that is carried by the person is in motion. Ms. Wilson answered yes, but that "human signs" had a more specific definition so that they are separated from a typical moving sign in the Sign Ordinance. Board Member Odum asked if the City could be held liable for any accidents occurring due to distracting signs located in the right-of-way. Mr. Voss answered that the City cannot be held liable for a sign that is incorrectly placed in City right-of-way simply because it is on City property. Alternate Member Rockenbaugh asked if a human sign is considered an "off premises sign." Ms. Wilson stated that although the person holding a sign may technically be off their business's property, an "off premise sign" is defined as a permanent sign that is located off a business's property. Chairman Tredo stated that making recommendations to the City Council on these issues was difficult and that the Board Members are not certain that their decisions will be a help to the Council and the City. He asked how the Board should come to a recommendation. Ms. Wilson responded that the Board should trust that their staff has conducted adequate research into the issues and is bringing ideas to the Board for consideration that they feel would be of benefit to the City while allowing existing and future businesses reasonable opportunities for advertising. While staff is not free of any subjective opinions, they do attempt to weigh the rights of businesses against the beautification of the City, even though the changes for the better occur in incremental steps. Sign Board of Appeals Minutes April 16, 2014 Page 3 of 3 Board Member McCright stated that prohibiting portable signs is only a small step to prohibiting human signs and putting those sign spinners out of work, an end result she is against. She stated that staff could interpret the Sign Ordinance this way. Mr. Voss responded that since the City Council is on record having talked about human signs and has defined them differently than portable signs, that this is unlikely to happen. The evidence in the public record guides the staff from making such an interpretation. Alternate Board Member Truskunas asked why it was necessary to have so many regulations. Ms. Wilson responded that signage is an integral part of the City and that The Colony is neither the least restrictive nor the most restrictive on sign regulations in the area. Board Member McCright mentioned a restaurant located on South Colony Boulevard that was prohibited from advertising on the side of a truck and subsequently went out of business. She asserted that the truck could be seen from Main Street and helped potential customers find the restaurant. By removing this source of advertising, the City reduced their chance of success. Board Member Yahwak disagreed with Ms. McCright's assessment. Ms. Yahwak stated that restaurants go in and out of business on a regular basis - almost 60% of restaurants fail and it is rarely due to lack of signage. A resolution for a restaurant located within a shopping center is the use of an allowed multi-tenant sign, which would be located in the approximately same location as the illegal truck sign. Chairman Tredo opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to speak. Chairman Tredo closed the Public Hearing. Alternate Member Rockenbaugh moved to recommend approval of the revisions to the Sign Ordinance related to pylon signs, as described in the Staff Report; seconded Board Member Yahwak. The motion carried (5-0). Board Member Yahwak moved to recommend approval of the revisions to the Sign Ordinance related to political signs, as described in the Staff Report; seconded Board Member McCright. The motion carried (5-0). Board Member Odum moved to recommend approval of the revisions to the Sign Ordinance related to prohibited signs and definitions, as described in the Staff Report; seconded Board Member Rockenbaugh. The motion carried (4-0-1, with Board Member McCright abstaining). Being no further discussion, Chairperson Tredo adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Charles Tredo, Chairperson o ~ rooks Wilson, Recording Secretary Pro Tem