Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/2011 P&Z MINUTES CITY OF THE COLONY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 2011 After determining that a quorum was present, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of The Colony, Texas convened into regular session which was held on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 at 6:30pm 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: Brian Wade, Chairman; David Terre, Vice-Chair; Karen Hames; Debbie Morrison; Eddie McCormick; Cesar Molina Jr., and Richard Bambury. Board Members Absent: None Staff Present: Mike Joyce, AICP, Director of Development Services; Brooks Wilson, Senior Planner; David Summers, Chief Building Official; Iris Browder, Community Image Manager; Joseph Perez, Neighborhood Enhancement Officer; James Schnurr, City Attorney; and Felicia Koppang, Development Services Coordinator. 1.0 CALL REGULAR SESSION TO ORDER Chairman Wade called the meeting to order at 6:31 PM. 1.1 Citizen Input No citizen input was received. 2.0 CONSENT AGENDA 2.1 Consider approval of the minutes of the January 11, 2011 Regular Session. It was moved by Vice Chairman Terre to approve Item 2.1 as stated, seconded by Commissioner Morrison. Motion carried (7-0). 3.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 (S110-0013, Sign Ordinance Revision) Conduct a public hearing, discuss, and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding an amendment to Article XI, Signs, of Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances. Mr. Joyce presented the staff report. Commissioner Hames asked about size limitations on political signs. Mr. Joyce stated that state law provides limitations on political signs and with advisement from the City Attorney, the City will not limit the size outside of the state law requirements. Commissioner Hames asked if it should be indicated and spelled out in the proposed sign ordinance. Mr. Joyce responded that the limitations are included within the proposed sign ordinance. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission January 25, 2011 Page 2 of 6 Mrs. Wilson stated the size requirements are located on page twelve (12) of the proposed sign ordinance. Chairman Wade opens the Public Hearing. Liz Rippenger of 5909 Stewart Boulevard, owner of Kids Count Too on Paige Road, voiced concerns about her current sign being "grandfathered" in and for the Commission to consider different materials as to what is considered acceptable by ordinance as a temporary sign. Bart Rippenger of 5909 Stewart Boulevard, owner of Kids Count Too on Paige Road, stated that the corrugated plastic sign is considered to be a banner sign and the metal sign, in his opinion, is more eye-appealing than the corrugated plastic sign. He continued in stating that the City uses the metal signs for advertising, however, business owners are not allowed to use the same type of signs to promote their businesses. Commissioner Hames asked if the yellow corrugated plastic sign is considered a temporary sign. Mrs. Rippenger and Mr. Joyce both responded yes. Coy Quine, representative of TSCA-223 Limited Partnership, the owner of the shopping center located at the northeast corner of FM 423 / SH 121, stated that the amendment of the ordinance is going to cause a real undue burden to the business owners that are being affected by the TXDOT Expansion Project. Due to the widening of FM 423, TXDOT will be absorbing two- thirds (2/3) of the existing monument sign for the expansion. He has been working with six (6) property owners and multiple business owners in the attempt to design a sign that will be suitable for all parties involved. If the amended ordinance goes into effect, replacement of the current monument sign will not be permitted, which will put the owners in default of the tenant leases because the owners can no longer provide the signage that is offered to the tenants of the building within their leases. His request is to allow the establishments that are being affected by the condemnation of FM 423 by Texas Department of Transportation to replace signage that will be demolished due to the expansion. Vice Chairman Terre asked what changes to the proposed sign ordinance are being requested by Mr. Quine, specific to his situation. Mr. Quine responded that the current ordinance allows for a monument sign to be a maximum of thirty feet (30') in height and the proposed ordinance only allows for a maximum height of sixteen feet (16'). At sixteen feet (16') the current signage could not be replaced. Vice Chairman Terre asked what the size of the current monument sign is. Mr. Joyce responded that the handout provided by Mr. Quine shows the height of the current monument sign at twenty-six feet (26') on the left hand side of the page. He continued in stating that some of the right-of-way and in turn, some of the landscaping and parking on the property is being taken due to the expansion of FM 423 (Main Street). Mr. Joyce stated that Mr. Quine has one of the more difficult scenarios within the City when it comes to the expansion of Main Street due to his obligations to provide signage along Main Street, at his expense, for tenant leases on all the adjoining properties. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission January 25, 2011 Page 3 of 6 Vice Chairman Terre asked what the minimum height for a monument sign would be that Mr. Quine would request to accommodate the amount of signage that he is required by lease to provide. Mr. Quine stated that a monument sign with a minimum of twenty feet (20') in height would allow for him to at least provide the same sized signage to the tenants that are currently being provided. Chairman Wade asked if a new tenant were to come in, having a monument sign height of twenty feet (20') would not allow for additional signage aside from the face of the building. Mr. Quine responded yes. Mr. Joyce stated that a pylon sign is located on the property at the frontage road of SH121. Mr. Quine continued in stating that although he is still responsible for signage, the pylon sign is not located on his property. Commissioner Molina asked if two monument signs could be built, where half of the tenants are on one and half of the tenants are on the other, or could it not be done due to visibility. Mr. Quine stated it would be a possibility but his understanding was that the ordinance is being designed to restrict the number of monument signs. He continued in stating that there is enough frontage on SH121 for there to be multiple signs on the property but staff was more intent on trying to maintain what the property currently has and not create more signage. Commissioner Molina stated that in reading the ordinance, it states that the maximum number of signs permitted is four (4) monument signs for a multi-tenant property, which implies that two (2) would be permitted. Mr. Joyce responded in stating that there are tenants within the shopping center, like Burger King, that will have their own signs that due to the expansion will have to be relocated as well. He continued in stating that in discussions with Mr. Quine, the idea of allowing a pylon sign seemed to be a safer condition than a monument sign, however, with the Gateway Overlay District Regulations he is not sure the City wants to allow pylon signs along FM423. Commissioner Molina restated that his suggestion was for Mr. Quine to place two (2) monument signs on the property to accommodate the number of tenants he needs to provide for. Chairman Wade stated that the restriction in the sign ordinance indicates that there must be a minimum distance of one-hundred fifty feet (150') between monument signs and with the Burger King and Sonic monument signs being located where they are, he is not sure an additional two (2) signs would be able to fit on the property. Mr. Quine followed up in stating that if one monument sign was placed on the north side of the property and another on the southern side of the entrance to the shopping center, the distance requirement could possibly be met between the southern sign and the Burger King sign, Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission January 25, 2011 Page 4 of 6 however, the northern sign and the Sonic sign would definitely not meet the one-hundred fifty foot (150') distance requirement. He continued in stating that aesthetically, the property owner would like to construct one monument sign. Commissioner Bambury asked the Mr. Quine why the property owner couldn't replicate the existing horizontal monument sign versus requesting to construct a vertical monument sign. Mr. Quine responded that the land that will be used for the placement of the sign is not large enough to allow for the setback required to reconstruct the current sign after the redesign of the site plan to provide adequate parking and landscaping. Mr. Rippenger approached again and stated that the thirty (30) day timeframe for a banner is too restrictive for businesses and suggested to allow for a forty-five (45) day timeframe Chairman Wade asked if staff was trying to eliminate the thirty (30) day timeframe. Mr. Joyce responded that staff is trying to eliminate it to a certain extent. Mr. Rippenger asked to allow the extended timeframe for nicer quality temporary signs. Chairman Wade asked if Mr. Rippenger was suggesting to allow nicer quality temporary signs to run consecutively, allowing for the sign to be in place for ninety (90) days in lieu of the thirty (30) day timeframe then requiring a thirty (30) day timeframe to pass before putting another temporary sign up. Mr. Rippenger responded in stating that his suggestion would be to allow forty-five (45) days in lieu of the thirty (30) day timeframe and then have a thirty (30) day timeframe to pass before putting another temporary sign up. Vice Chairman Terre asked how many enrollment periods the daycare has each year. Mrs. Rippenger stated there are three (3) enrollment periods throughout the year, one at the start of the year, the second for the summer session and the third at the beginning of fall. Mr. Rippenger continued in stating that the extended timeframe would help advertisements for smaller businesses that are set back from the main roads. Vice Chairman Terre asked for clarification as to if Mr. Rippenger thinks having two (2) forty- five (45) day timeframes over the course of a twelve (12) month period would be adequate. Mrs. Rippenger stated again that her daycare business has three (3) enrollment periods throughout the year. Mr. Joyce stated that staff would get with Community Image and bring back a recommendation or suggestion to the Commissioners at the next meeting. The Public Hearing is to remain open to continue at the next Planning and Zoning Committee meeting, scheduled for February 8, 2011. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission January 25, 2011 Page 5 of 6 3.2 (SI10-0001, Accessory Structure Ordinance Revision) Conduct a public hearing, discuss, and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding an amendment to Section lOB, Regulations and Design Guidelines for Accessory Structures, of Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances. Mr. Joyce presented the staff report. Commissioner Molina asked why a portable on demand storage container cannot be placed on a City street and is viewed differently than a moving truck that is allowed to be placed on a City street. Mr. Joyce responded that he believes it is because the portable on demand storage container would be allowed to remain on the City street for up to seven (7) days where a moving truck is typically at a property for one (1) day and then it's gone. Chairman Wade continued in stating that a truck could be moved much easier since it is a motorized vehicle and the portable on demand storage container must be placed on the property. Mr. Joyce stated that he understands Commissioner Molina's perspective since a portable on demand storage container is no wider than a typical vehicle. Commissioner Molina asked if when a portable on demand storage container is placed on a property for seven (7) days, the concern is that people can enter the container and not been seen. Mr. Joyce responded that the concern is when people are taking furniture out of it or pedestrians that are next to the container and next to travel lanes. Commissioner Molina asked if the portable on demand storage containers would not be secured. Commissioner McCormick responded that the people would be unloading the container, not stealing from it. Commissioner Morrison continued in stating that if the container is placed against the curb, it can also restrict any runoff of water from flowing into gutters. Chairman Wade followed up in stating that the roads are intended for licensed vehicles, not for containers that aren't licensed and are difficult to move in case of emergency. Mr. Joyce stated that he would further discuss the concerns about the placement of the portable on demand storage containers with the Police Chief and get back with the Commissioners at the next meeting. Commissioner Molina verified that the containers can be placed on a back entry driveway. Mr. Joyce responded yes. He continued in stating that it appears they have a contraption that assists them in wheeling the container onto a rear driveway, however, is not sure how it is wheeled when the container is full. He said that the containers seem to be fairly easy to move. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission January 25, 2011 Page 6of6 Commissioner McCormick stated that his concern is the timeframe of seven (7) continuous days when some people use the containers for instances where they may be carpeting their home and it could possibly take twelve (12) days to complete. He continued in stating that he thinks the timeframe should be extended. Mr. Joyce responded that he would take the timeframe into consideration. Commissioner Molina asked if a portable on demand storage container must be a minimum of ten feet (10') from the front property line and must maintain side and rear yard setbacks, will those restrictions allow the space for a container to be located on a rear driveway. Mr. Joyce responded that the intent is to keep the container from being placed directly on the property line, however staff will review the setback requirements. Commissioner Molina stated that he used his property survey as an example and if he ever wanted to use a portable on demand storage container, he would not be able to place a container on his property and comply with the ordinance Mr. Joyce responded in stating that he thinks the ordinance needs to require that a container may not overhang into the alley. Commissioner Morrison asked for staff to look at easement requirements since many properties have utility easements located within their property lines. Mr. Joyce responded that the Utility Companies are typically not as concerned about temporary structures as they would be with permanent structures. He continued in stating that his main concern would be that the concrete be strong enough to withhold the weight of a full capacity container without fracturing the line. Chairman Wade opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to speak in favor or opposition. Chairman Wade closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Morrison to approve Item 3.2 as amended by Commissioner Molina. Item 3.2 was seconded by Commissioner Bambury, and unanimously carried (7-0). There being no further questions or discussion, Chairman Wade adjourned the meeting at 7:37 ade, Chairman F'~lici oppa g Re, or ing Secretary