Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/2011 P&Z MINUTES CITY OF THE COLONY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 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, September 13, 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; Debbie Morrison; Karen Haines; Richard Bambury, Cesar Molina, Jr. and Shannon Hebb. Board Member Absent: Eddie McCormick Staff Present: Brooks Wilson, AICP, Senior Planner; Gordon Scruggs, Director of Engineering; 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. 1.2 Citizen Input No citizen input was received. 2.0 CONSENT AGENDA 2.1 Consider approval of the minutes of the August 23, 2011 Regular Session. It was moved by Commissioner Hames to approve Item 2.1, seconded by Commissioner Hebb. Motion carried (4-0-1). Commissioner Morrison abstained. 3.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 5111-0018 - Tattoo Parlor Use Amendment (Continuation of Public Hearing opened on August 23, 2011) Conduct a public hearing, discuss and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to Section 10-100, Schedule of Uses by District, and Section 10-300, Definitions and Explanations Applicable to the Use Schedule, of Appendix A, Zoning Ordinance, to add tattoo parlors and/or body art studios to the allowed uses within the City of The Colony. Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report. Commissioner Haines asked how Permanent Cosmetics is different from Tattooing as a Secondary Use, aside from one being licensed and one not. Mrs. Wilson responded that the clientele is considered to be different between someone getting their lips or eyes tattooed for the appearance of wearing makeup and someone making a statement with an artistic tattoo. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 2 of 14 Commissioner Hames asked why Permanent Cosmetics is not included under Tattooing as a Secondary Use and stated that by looking at the descriptions, the facilities are the same. She continued in stating that if she were going to get permanent cosmetics, she would want to use someone licensed with the state as a safety precaution and is concerned for citizens who may not think to ask. Mrs. Wilson stated that the restriction for Permanent Cosmetics could be to require a Specific Use Permit regardless of the zone to verify state licenses. She continued by stating that the recommendation has changed since the previous meeting and can be changed to further adapt to the Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Bambury asked Mrs. Wilson to discuss the City of Addison's tattoo use. Mrs. Wilson responded that the City of Addison treats a tattoo parlor the same as a beauty parlor or barber shop and the placement of a tattoo parlor would correspond with the zoning districts that allow those uses. Commissioner Bambury asked if every neighboring city categorizes tattoo parlors with beauty parlors and barber shops. Mrs. Wilson responded that the City of Addison is the only neighboring city that includes tattoo parlors with beauty parlors and barber shops. Commissioner Bambury stated that with the City of The Colony being listed as one of the top 100 cities to live in, with the low crime rate being included with the criteria, he asked why we are ignoring the Police Chief's input pertaining to tattoo parlors. Mr. Joyce responded that he doesn't think we have ignored the Police Chief s input, but unfortunately, the Police Chief was unable to attend the meeting. He continued in stating that what the staff has attempted to do is categorize the different types of uses based on the activities that will occur in the establishment. Mr. Joyce stated the intent of staff s recommendation was to allow for the more expensive services be allowed with a Specific Use Permit within zoning districts that allow for more of a retail setting whereas the more inexpensive services be allowed within zoning districts that would allow for uses such as sexually-oriented businesses or pawn shops. He stated that staff s intent is to be fair in allowing the use, but monitor through the use of a Specific Use Permit and that if complaints are made, staff can re-assess. Commissioner Molina stated that he didn't ignore the Police Chief s comments; however, it appeared to be his opinion, not providing statistics and facts, and there are other factors to consider. Commissioner Bambury stated that looking through the restrictions, a way to get around the more stringent restrictions is to have a tattoo shop as a secondary use. Mrs. Wilson responded that the tattoo shop would have to be a secondary use to a beauty parlor or barber shops which are generally located within a Shopping Center, Neighborhood Services or General Retail zoning district. She continued in stating that a sign would not be allowed to advertise the tattooing service on the exterior of the building; therefore, in order for the service to Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 3 of 14 be recognized within the establishment, the clientele would have to be aware that it existed by other means. Commissioner Bambury stated that having a tattoo parlor as a secondary use should have the same buffer as the other tattoo uses: with 1,000 feet buffer from schools or other like establishments. Commissioner Hebb asked what branding is defined as. Mrs. Wilson responded that branding is the act of taking a hot iron and placing it on the skin surface, burning the skin and leaving a permanent scar. Commissioner Hebb asked for staff to provide the definition of branding within the ordinance. Commissioner Morrison asked if tattoo shops are managed by the State Health Department. Mrs. Wilson responded yes. Commissioner Morrison continued in stating that the reason she asked is because she is aware that tattoo artists have their State license displayed on the wall and have numerous requirements that they must meet, from sterilization and maintenance of the equipment to the mentoring they have to do with a licensed tattoo artist. She continued in stating that most tattoos are done free- hand or "custom" to the client's preference and asked for an explanation of the different definitions. Mrs. Wilson responded that tattoos that are considered "stock" are traced onto the body. Commissioner Morrison stated that the shop in which she went to get her tattoo done had heavy restrictions on it such as hours of operation and the age of clients. She continued in stating that she didn't see the point in breaking out the services into multiple uses with different restrictions when a teenager can get the service if they really want to by other means. Mr. Schnurr responded in stating that it would be virtually impossible for the City to enforce the difference between a tattoo parlor and a custom tattoo studio. Commissioner Morrison stated that she doesn't see the point in prohibiting the use from shopping centers because the establishments exist elsewhere and the influence should not be the existence of an establishment but rather how the parent raises the child. Mr. Schnurr recommends combining Custom Tattoo Studio and Tattoo Parlor into one use. Chairman Wade asked if a Body Art Studio should be a separate use. Mr. Schnurr responded affirmatively. Chairman Wade asked why Body Art Studios wouldn't be allowed within a Shopping Center or General Retail use when there are establishments within malls that do piercings. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 4 of 14 Mrs. Wilson responded that establishments within malls that provide piercing typically are restricted to earlobes only, whereas Body Art Studios can pierce other areas of the body. Commissioner Morrison stated that there is a Body Art Studio in Lewisville and asked if staff had contacted the establishment to see what type of restrictions they have. Mrs. Wilson responded no. Commissioner Hebb asked if a spacer in the ear would be considered as Body Art. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Molina asked for clarification that the Tattoo Parlor use and the Custom Tattoo Studio use are proposed to be combined as well as a Specific Use Permit will be required for Shopping Center and General Retail zoning districts. Chairman Wade responded affirmatively. Chairman Wade asked if the hours of operation would be addressed during the Specific Use Permit submittal. Mr. Joyce responded affirmatively. Commissioner Bambury re-stated that he would like to have a buffer requirement for all of the uses, including Permanent Cosmetics and Tattooing as a Secondary Use. Commissioner Molina asked if a mall were to be built, then no more than one tattoo parlor would be able to be within the mall. Mr. Joyce confirmed, then stated for a second tattoo establishment to be in the mall, it would have to be a large mall. Chairman Wade stated that there would have to be more than 1,000 feet between the two tattoo establishments. Mrs. Wilson continued by stating that since a Specific Use Permit would be required, staff would probably choose not to have more than one tattoo establishment within the same mall. She explained that 1,000 feet is almost a quarter of a mile, which is a substantial distance. Chairman Wade asked for confirmation that if a Permanent Cosmetics salon wanted to go in across the street from a beauty salon that had tattooing as a secondary use, it would not be allowed. Mrs. Wilson responded that the business that existed first would be allowed, however, the second business would not be permitted. Commissioner Morrison asked if a Specific Use Permit requires a 1,000 foot buffer or if the buffer can be removed. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 5 of 14 Mrs. Wilson responded that the buffer can be removed. Commissioner Morrison stated that with the location of where the shopping centers are within the City of The Colony, a 1,000 foot buffer requirement will limit competition. Mrs. Wilson responded that the reason staff didn't place the restriction on the Permanent Cosmetic Use or the Tattooing as a Secondary Use was to not hinder competition but also not allow for the City to be overrun by tattoo parlors. Commissioner Morrison stated that she doesn't foresee an explosion of tattoo parlors and believes that there should not be an attempt to limit competition in a small City, therefore suggested that the Commission consider removing the buffer restriction. Mrs. Wilson responded that the buffer could be eliminated or reduced at the Commission's discretion. Chairman Wade stated that Frisco appears to be the only surrounding city that requires a 1,000 foot buffer. Commissioner Morrison stated she would still like to see the 1,000 foot buffer be taken away. She continued in stating that she believes that tattoo parlor owners are as particular about where their shops are placed as the City is to where they are allowed in the City. Mr. Joyce reminded the Commission that the Permanent Cosmetic Use is considered to be a secondary use and must be subordinate to a beauty salon or spa. He continued in stating that the use being secondary in nature to a primary use is the reason staff did not propose a buffer. Commissioner Molina asked for clarification from Commissioner Morrison that she is requesting for the buffer to be limited to 1,000 feet from schools only. Commissioner Morrison confirmed. Chairman Wade asked with the requested change to the buffer, if two secondary use tattoo parlors could be located next door to one another. Commissioner Molina stated that in viewing the map, there are only three or four places that a tattoo parlor would be allowed, whereas removing the distance buffer between the same uses would allow for more. Commissioner Bambury asked how long Main Street is within city limits. Commissioner Morrison responded 2.2 miles from North Colony Boulevard to SH121. Chairman Wade responded approximately 2.5 miles total. Commissioner Bambury stated that the distance gives an opportunity for about 10 tattoo parlors with the 1,000 buffer intact, which seems to provide plenty of opportunity for competition. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 6of14 Commissioner Morrison responded that when the number of shopping centers along Main Street is considered, there is not as much availability for a location. Chairman Wade asked what the spacing requirement is for liquor stores. Mrs. Wilson responded 1,000 feet from schools and churches. Chairman Wade asked if you can have two liquor stores next door to each other. Mrs. Wilson and Mr. Joyce confirmed. Commissioner Molina asked if the 1,000 foot buffer is kept, there are approximately four locations that tattoo parlors would be allowed, not including along SH 121. Mrs. Wilson used the map within the staff presentation to indicate the areas that the tattoo uses would be permitted based on specific zoning districts. She explained that by allowing tattoo uses within General Retail and Shopping Center zoning districts, it would allow availability on all four corners of the main intersections throughout the City. Mrs. Wilson continued by publicly thanking Ryon Gross, GIS Administrator, for putting together the map used within the presentation to allow a visual interpretation of the locations that would be allowed to be used based on zoning district. Chairman Wade re-opened the Public Hearing. Andy Garcia, resident of 5200 Pruitt Drive in The Colony, stated that the licensing requirement for Permanent Cosmetics is required by the State, whereas the licensing requirement for tattooing is required for the building, not per artist. Each tattoo artist is required to take classes for sterilization but does not have to be licensed with the State. He continued in stating that a custom tattoo is created specifically for the customer; however, a regular tattoo would be if someone brought a picture to the tattoo parlor and asked to have it reproduced on their body. Sherry Ailing, business owner of a tanning salon at 6805 Main Street in The Colony, thanked and complimented staff for the presentation and said that a State license is required for a tattoo shop. She continued in stating that tattoo parlors in Lewisville close at 11:00 pm and asked for the Commission to consider allowing tattoo parlors to remain open until midnight to get the additional revenue. Jason Euler, resident of 1604 Delaford Road in Carrollton stated the difference between a custom tattoo studio and a tattoo shop is that custom tattoo studios make appointments and take deposits. Chairman Wade closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Schnurr suggested for the Commission to make a recommendation and staff would return at the next meeting with an ordinance for the Commission to review and make any changes with the information in ordinance format. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 7 of 14 It was moved by Commissioner Molina to combine the Custom Tattoo Studio Use and the Tattoo Parlor Use into one land use, seconded by Commissioner Morrison. Motion carried (5-1), Commissioner Haines opposed. It was moved by Commissioner Morrison to eliminate the 1,000 foot buffer from other tattoo or piercing businesses for the Body Art Studio Use and the Tattoo Parlor Use, seconded by Commissioner Molina. Motion failed (3-3). Commissioners Haines, Bambury and Hebb opposed. It was moved by Commissioner Bambury to add a 1,000 foot buffer from schools and other tattoo or piercing businesses to tattooing as a secondary use, seconded by Commissioner Hebb. Motion carried (5-1), Commissioner Molina opposed. It was moved by Commissioner Morrison to add a Specific Use Permit restriction in the Shopping Center and General Retail zoning districts for the Body Art Studio Use, seconded by Commissioner Haines. Motion carried (5-1), Commissioner Molina opposed. It was moved by Commissioner Morrison to add a 1,000 foot buffer from schools and other tattoo or piercing businesses to tattooing as a secondary use and a Specific Use Permit restriction in the NS, SC, GR, LC, I and PD zoning districts for the Permanent Cosmetics Use, seconded by Commissioner Bambury. Motion carried (4-2), Chairman Wade and Commissioner Molina opposed. It was moved by Chairman Wade to add a definition for branding within the ordinance, seconded by Commissioner Hebb. Motion carried (6-0). It was moved by Chairman Wade that the buffer be determine from door to door of each lease/owned space, seconded by Commissioner Molina. Motion carried (6-0). 3.2 5111-0019 - Sign Ordinance Amendment 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 by adding Section 6-262(i) Organization Event Signs and Section 6-2620) Flags and Flagpoles; and by adding Section 6-255(a)(3) Removal/Impoundment of a Prohibited Sign; and by adding to Section 6-263 definitions for Organization Event Signs, Placards, Flagpoles and Abandoned Signs. Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report which described the reasons for the signs, the proposed location of the signs, and the process by which organizations may apply for space for advertising. Mr. Joyce followed up in stating that additional signage may be placed after the completion of the construction to widen Main Street. He continued in stating that other way-farer signs will be placed throughout town for direction to City properties and City events. Mrs. Wilson continued in stating that all of the signs will be unified in appearance. Mr. Joyce stated that the placard size is rather large and will be placed each Monday. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 8of14 Commissioner Molina asked how the organizations will apply for the placards, do they order their own and how many do the organizations get. Mrs. Wilson responded that a new application was created; the organization will indicate which type of group they are as required within the ordinance, an application would be submitted as a part of a Special Event Packet or an Organization Sign Permit and pay the applicable fees of $25 for a Special Event Packet or $15 for an Organization Sign Permit. Once the permit has been approved for space on the Event Signs, the organization will have the placards manufactured and turn them in to the City for staff to place. Commissioner Molina asked for clarification that staff will advise the organization as to how many placards will be allowed. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively. She continued in stating that if organizations cannot afford to order all ten (10) placards, they will be allowed to place a lesser number of placards if the space is available. Commissioner Harries asked if the City is producing the placards. Mrs. Wilson responded no, the City is placing the permanent signs and the organization will have the placards produced on their own after approval and return them to the City for placement on the permanent signs Mr. Joyce followed up by stating that the City has three (3) different vendors' information that will create the placards. He continued by stating that most organizations already use sign companies to create their signs and then place them in a real estate frame for display. Mrs. Wilson said the expense of the placards is a bargain when the outcome is virtually free advertisement. Mr. Joyce said that a code officer will go out every Monday and change out signs. He continued in saying that all of the organizations are going to want the top slot, however, it will be first come, first serve. Commissioner Haines asked if the signs are magnetic and reusable. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively. She continued that after the placards are taken down, they will be returned to the organization so they can be reused the following year. Ms. Koppang continued by stating that the placards are similar to the magnetic signs that are used for advertisement on vehicles. Commissioner Molina asked if the City foresees theft of the placards being an issue. Mr. Joyce responded that there are brackets on the signs to hold the placards in place that should make theft a little more difficult, however, these signs are used in other cities and there may be theft issues. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 9 of 14 Ms. Koppang stated that one of the reason the locations for the signs were chosen is due to the lighting and visibility of the locations and that should help restrict the amount of vandalism and theft. Mrs. Wilson continued in stating that there is a disclaimer at the bottom of the application that states that the City is not responsible for vandalism or theft. Commissioner Hames asked if event signs are still allowed to be placed on residential lots. Mr. Joyce responded no. Commissioner Hames asked how event signs are different than putting political signs on a residential lot and it needs to be considered in case a church that is having an event decides to have all of their congregation post signs on their properties throughout town. Mrs. Wilson responded that she is not as concerned with what an individual places on their own property as she is with sign placement on public rights-of-way on main streets and on street corners. Chairman Wade followed up in stating that many homeowners associations will not allow for signage to be placed on residential lots. Commissioner Hames responded that people that do not live within homeowners associations cannot control what the neighbors are doing and can see potential problems. Commissioner Morrison asked if there is going to be signage directing people to Stewarts Creek Park and Hidden Cove Park. She continued in stating that if the City benefits from profits at the parks, there should be signage to direct people how to get there. Mrs. Wilson responded that those signs would be included in the way-farer signs, however, she will find out the answer to her question prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Hebb asked if it has already been determined that the permanent signs are going to be placed. Mrs. Wilson responded that the signs have already been purchased. Commissioner Hebb asked if putting up the larger signs is going to eliminate the smaller signs. Mrs. Wilson responded that the larger signs should eliminate most of the smaller signs, with the exception of individual garage sales and lost pet signs, which should significantly reduce, but not eliminate the smaller signs. Commissioner Hebb asked if a homeowners association wanted to hold a group garage sale, they would have to apply with the City to place placards on the signs. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 10 of 14 Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively, as long as the garage sale is held on commercial property. She continued in stating that if the garage sale is held on a residential lot, they would not be allowed to advertise using the placards. Commissioner Hebb stated that Stewarts Peninsula does not allow for individual garage sales, instead they do quarterly group garage sales. He continued in asking if there is a way the placards are secured on the sign. Mrs. Wilson responded that the signs have brackets to hold the placards in place; however, it is feasible that the placards could be damaged or taken. She continued in stating that it would be time-consuming to have to screw the placards in place and that alone would not eliminate the possibility of vandalism or theft. Mr. Joyce stated that there is no differentiation between a group or individual garage sale in the existing sign ordinance, therefore group garage sales could put out staked signs throughout the City as a neighborhood association, from Friday to Monday, by ordinance. Commissioner Hebb asked if any of the sign companies that can create the placards are located within the City. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Hebb asked if City staff will be advising the organizations of different sign companies to contact in order to have the placards created. Mr. Joyce responded affirmatively. Mrs. Wilson continued in stating that a list has been created that indicates the sign companies, with the companies from The Colony listed at the top. Commissioner Bambury asked if a permit is required for a garage sale. Mr. Joyce responded yes; however, there is no fee for the garage sale permit. He continued in stating that the reason the City requires a permit is because the ordinance specifies that a property is restricted to no more than two (2) garage sales per year, but the City had no way of monitoring it without the permit system. Commissioner Hebb asked if flag poles will be addressed separately. Chairman Wade responded affirmatively. He continued by asking if the Ku Klux Klan fit within non-profit organizations. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively. She continued in stating that if the City wants to allow not-for-profit groups to utilize the signs, all not-for-profit groups would have to be included, even the groups that would not be endorsed by the City. Chairman Wade asked if restricting the types of organizational groups from three (3) to two (2) would single any organizations out. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 11 of 14 Mrs. Wilson responded that removing the not-for-profit groups without ties to the City would impact groups like the Boy Scouts or churches. She continued in stating that it is definitely something that needs to be considered when the Commission makes their recommendation. Mr. Schnurr followed up in stating that if the Ku Klux Klan wanted a march, they could advertise on the City signs and it gives the appearance that the City is endorsing the event. Chairman Wade asked if that would occur in any city. Mr. Joyce responded affirmatively. Mrs. Wilson followed up in stating that the City could not discriminate. Chairman Wade opened the Public Hearing. Richard Kuether, resident of 4109 Driscoll Drive, The Colony, Texas asked about the placement of signs throughout the City with no signs to be located on Paige Road or Morningstar Drive. He continued in stating that the whole point of advertising is to make the public aware of what is going on in the City. He said that the sign located on North Colony Boulevard and Keys Drive is only going to get the traffic for the people that live out on the peninsula, but if that sign would be relocated onto North Colony Boulevard near Main Street, more people would see the sign. Mr. Kuether stated that the signs located at a stop sign are less likely to attract viewers who are paying more attention to the traffic movement whereas travelers at a traffic signal have more time to read the signs. He continued in suggesting placement of event signs at City Hall and the Office Creek Pump Station; however, he does not think that the signs need to be placed in residential areas due to clutter. Commissioner Haines stated that Mr. Kuether makes a good point that there are no signs on the east side of the City, but there are plenty of people that access the City on Morningstar Drive or South Colony Boulevard and they would not see any signs. Mrs. Wilson responded that there are other signs that are planned for these locations and in figuring out locations, staff attempted to intersperse them for maximum coverage. Chairman Wade stated that he would assume that a part of the reason for the restrictive location of signs is due to cost. He continued that there are no signs proposed for Wynnwood Peninsula or Austin Ranch, but would assume that this is possibly just one phase in a multiple phase plan. Mr. Joyce responded that he thinks staff is looking at the proposed locations that are visible and depending on how the initial signs perform; additional signs could be proposed in the future. Chairman Wade stated that he knows a lot of traffic utilizes Plano Parkway to access the Dallas North Tollway. Mr. Joyce responded that City signs will be placed along Plano Parkway. Mrs. Wilson continued in stating that it may be that when the signs are placed, some City signs may be changed to event signs. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 12 of 14 Mr. Joyce followed up in stating that Brant Shallenburger, who is overseeing the project, sends his apologies for not attending the meeting; however, he had other obligations. Chairman Wade closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Hebb stated that there are very strict requirements for flying a United States flag, including the requirement for the flag to be illuminated if it is flown at night, requiring the installation of permanent illumination. He asked if City staff could provide information to the public for what the regulations are to fly a flag correctly. Chairman Wade asked if law requires that a flag flown at night must be illuminated. Mr. Schnurr responded that the zoning regulation is only for the height and location of the flagpole. Commissioner Hebb asked if the City is going to require permanent illumination for a permanent flagpole. Commissioner Molina asked why the City would require someone to pay additional permitting costs for pole illumination if the resident chooses not to fly a flag at night. Commissioner Harries asked who would enforce if the flag was flying at night. Mr. Joyce responded that the flagpole may be used to fly other flags other than an American flag. Commissioner Molina stated that Building Inspections could make sure the illumination is installed, but does not feel it is necessary. Commissioner Harries asked if twenty-five (25) foot flag poles are something that is desired. Mrs. Wilson responded that the flagpole shown in the PowerPoint presentation is a twenty-five (25) foot flagpole. Mr. Joyce continued that most homes can be up to thirty-five (35) feet in height. Mrs. Wilson followed up in stating that residents can choose to put a flagpole up that is shorter, however, twenty-five (25) feet was determined by staff to be a reasonable height. Commissioner Haines responded by stating that she would prefer to see flagpoles mounted to the house versus a flagpole. Mr. Joyce stated that the City has received numerous front yard flagpole requests. He continued in stating that staff is cautious about the size of flagpoles so that the flag would be high enough to display the flag properly; however, not so large that the noise from a large flag which could be a nuisance to neighbors. Commissioner Haines stated that she would not be happy if her neighbor put up a twenty-five (25) foot flagpole. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 13 of 14 Commissioner Bambury stated that twenty-five (25) foot flagpoles already exist in the City. Commissioner Haines responded that she is aware they already exist; however, she can foresee more flags in front yards and is concerned of the appearance of twenty-five (25) foot flagpoles in multiple front yards. Commissioner Hebb asked if the requests are commercial or residential. Mr. Joyce responded residential. Commissioner Hebb asked if there have been requests for poles on roofs. Mrs. Wilson responded that poles on roofs would not be allowed. Mr. Joyce followed up in stating that they are allowed on the front of the house, but have received requests for flags on flagpoles which have caused staff to bring the request forward. Chairman Wade opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward. Chairman Wade closed the Public Hearing. Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report for Removal/Impoundment of a Prohibited Sign. Mr. Joyce followed up in stating that the purpose of bringing this ordinance addition to the Commission is to specify the requirement to replace abandoned signs with white fascia to make enforcement by Community Image easier. Mr. Schnurr stated that a sign structure that is abandoned cannot be required to be removed or would be considered a taking by the City and the City could be held responsible to pay for the sign; whereas requiring the replacement of the sign face with white fascia is acceptable. He continued by recommending taking the removal portion of the ordinance out. Mrs. Wilson responded by stating that the intent of staff writing the ordinance was to require removal of a wall sign; however, a structural sign, such as a monument or pylon sign would be required to replace only the advertisement space with the white fascia. Mr. Schnurr stated that the distinction needs to be made in the ordinance because at the worst, the sign structure would be a non-conforming sign. Commissioner Hebb asked if the ordinance needs to be revised from what has been presented to the Commission. Mr. Schnurr responded that the change can be made prior to presentation to City Council. Chairman Wade closes the Public Hearing. It was moved by Chairman Wade to approve the Organization Event Sign section as proposed by staff, seconded by Commissioner Morrison. Motion carried (6-0). Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission September 13, 2011 Page 14 of 14 It was moved by Commissioner Bambury to approve the Flags/Flagpoles section as proposed by staff, seconded by Commissioner Molina. Motion carried (5-1), Hames opposed. It was moved by Commissioner Molina to approve the Abandoned Signs section as stated and discussed, seconded by Commissioner Bambury. Motion carried (6-0). Mrs. Wilson offered to include flag flying etiquette on the bottom of the application as part of internal policy. It was moved by Commissioner Molina to approve the Definitions section as proposed by staff with the addition of a definition for branding, seconded by Commissioner Morrison. Motion carried (6-0). There being no further questions or discussion, Chairman Wade adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Bri de, Chairman r ATW F icia oppan co ing Secretary