Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/2011 SIGNMINUTES CITY OF THE COLONY SIGN BOARD OF APPEALS October 19, 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, October 19, 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; and Constance Yahwak. Board Members Absent: None Present from Staff. Brooks Wilson, AICP, Senior Planner; Jimmy Schnurr, City Attorney; Avriel Blackwell, Acting Recording Secretary, Gordon Scruggs, Director of Engineering, Brant Shallenburger, Construction Communications Facilitator/Legal Counsel. 1.0 CALL REGULAR SESSION TO ORDER Chairperson McCright called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Chairperson McCright asked if anyone in the audience had any comments. 2.0 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 2.1 Consider approval of the minutes of the regular session of the April 20, 2011 meeting of the Sign Board of Appeals. It was moved by Board Member Sanders to approve the minutes as stated, seconded by Board Member Martin and carried (5-0). 3.0 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION 3.5 SBA11-0006 — Variance to Prohibited Signs — The Colony Playhouse. Conduct a public meeting, discuss, and consider approval of a variance to Chapter 6, Article XI, subsection 6-258(b), Prohibited Signs, of the Code of Ordinances to allow the use of Organization Event Signs by The Colony Playhouse for advertisement of their play, "The Best Christmas Pageant Ever," which will occur outside city limits. At the request of Chairperson McCright, item 3.5 was considered out of order. Mr. Shallenburger, representing the City Manager's office, presented this item. Chairperson McCright asked Mr. Schallenberger if there weren't school auditoriums available for use by The Colony Playhouse. Mr. Shallenburger answered that school auditoriums are not always available during the holidays due to the many school activities occurring then. Sign Board of Appeals October 19, 2011 Page 2 of 7 Chairperson McCright asked where the Organization Event Signs will be located. Mr. Shallenburger said that the exact location of the signs is still being determined by staff, but that they would be located on sites that would have the most visibility. No signs are planned to be located on Main Street at this time, however, due to the planned construction. Board Member Martin asked if the Organization Event Signs would do away with the small, nuisance signs. Mr. Shallenburger answered that most of the not-for-profit groups will utilize the Organization Event Signs, but that certain small signs, such as garage sale and lost pet signs, would still be allowed. Chairperson McCright asked if by approving this variance, the City would be opening the door or setting a precedent for other groups to advertise events happening outside the city limits. City Attorney Jimmy Schnurr answered in the negative: that each request would stand on its own. Board Member Sanders asked where The Colony Playhouse typically performs. Mr. Shallenburger introduced Mr. Martin Mussey, President of The Colony Playhouse, 5520 Rock Canyon Road, The Colony, Texas, stated that the group performs in churches, schools and sometimes in the Lakeway Arts Center. Mr. Mussey said that originally the group was partnered with Lakeway Baptist Church. Board Member Sanders asked how long the signs may be placed on the Organization Event- Signs and how much advance notice the not-for-profit groups will need to utilize the space. Mr. Shallenburger answered that any group may advertise for a maximum of three (3) weeks for each event. Staff will install the placards on Mondays of each week so that individual citizens do not have to enter the medians of highways to put up signs. Board Member Sanders commented that if the play, "Best Little Christmas Pageant Ever" is to be presented at the Medical Center in Lewisville that The Colony would not recoup any sales tax money from the event. Board Member Sanders asked when the play will be presented. Mr. Mussey stated that the organization is planning far in advance to utilize the City signs and that the play will run for two weekends, from December 9th to December 18th. Sign Board of Appeals October 19, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Mr. Shallenburger added that the City of The Colony has provided grant money to The Colony Playhouse and that the City, in the past, has helped the Playhouse find local venues for its productions. In this case, no suitable venue is available. Chairperson McCright asked what the Organization Event Signs will look like. City Council Liaison David Terre has been involved with the discussions about purchasing the signs — the signs will be about eight feet in height and about 4 feet in width, with the logo on the top. Mr. Mussey added that the signs will have multiple slats on each sign for use by not-for- profit organizations. In lieu of a photograph or engineering drawing, Mr. Shallenburger sketched a quick rendition and Joan Sveinsson from the Library showed the Sign Board of Appeals two examples of placards so that the Board could gauge the size of the signs. City Council Liaison David Terre added that only groups based within the City of The Colony are eligible to use the signs. Chairperson McCright brought the discussion back to the variance at hand. It was moved by Board Member Martin to approve Item 3.5 as stated, seconded by Board Member Yahwak and carried (5-0). 3.1 SBAII-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." Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report. Board Member Sanders asked if these flags were the same as the ones that are attached to buildings as advertising. Mrs. Wilson asked if he meant banners or pennants. Board Member Sanders answered in the negative: these would be flags that are attached to the building. Would a business be allowed to hang multiple signs off its fagade? Mrs. Wilson answered that the maximum number of signs is four and only one of those may be a corporate flag. Board Member Sanders asked if the regulations consider solid color signs. Sign Board of Appeals October 19, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Mrs. Wilson said no; that should be addressed. Board Member Odum asked whether the depth into the ground that the flagpoles are placed should be added to the regulations. Mrs. Wilson answered that perhaps Engineering or Building Inspections may have the answer to this question. The flag manufacturer may also have standards for proper installation. Board Member Yahwak asked whether minimum flag area should be added to the regulations to avoid flags that are out -of -proportion with the height of the pole. Mrs. Wilson answered that the proposed regulation states that flag area shall be proportional to the height of the flagpole, but that she could add that the determination of proportionality could be placed with the Chief Building Official. Board Member Sanders asked questions regarding the safety of flagpoles and whether or not the Building Inspections Department should review the permit to avoid damage to neighbors' property or a traffic concern if landing in a street. Board Member Sanders added that residential flagpoles could be a safety hazard and that by requiring a permit, the City would have some control over the installation. Board Member Sanders feels that flagpole permits should be required for residential uses as well as commercial uses. Chairperson McCright disagreed and said that the cost of a permit may be prohibitive. Board Member Yahwak added that she did not want to hinder people's right to display their patriotism through flying the flag by charging the person to place a flagpole. Board Member Odum said that a permit would not hinder anyone's right to display a flag, but would provide a measure of safety. Mrs. Wilson answered that a permit could be required without a fee. Mrs. Wilson asked if the Board would like her to conduct additional research into the issue and bring the findings to the Board at another meeting. It was moved by Board Member Sanders to table Item 3.1, seconded by Board Member Martin and carried (5-0). Sign Board of Appeals October 19, 2011 Page 5 of 7 3.2 SBAII-0003 — Sign Ordinance Amendment — Abandoned 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 replacing subsection 6-255(a), entitled "Removal/Impoundment of Prohibited, Noncompliant and Abandoned Signs;" establishing regulations for the removal and/or impoundment of prohibited, noncompliant and/or abandoned signs; and by amending Section 6-263, entitled "Definitions," by adding a new definition for "Abandoned Sign." Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report. Board Member Sanders asked if signs that are out-of-date, but are now existing in the City, would be "grandfathered" and allowed to stay, such as "Cut It Up" hair salon that has moved from its former location at South Colony Boulevard to near Memorial Drive. Mrs. Wilson answered in the negative: these are the type of signs that this proposed ordinance change is targeting. Gordon Scruggs, Director of Engineering, clarified that although TxDOT purchased the building as part of the right-of-way acquisition for Main Street, the building's owners opted to not demolish the building. It is difficult to develop due to the extreme lack of land area for parking. Chairperson McCright asked if it would be helpful to add to the ordinance that the "owner" of the building or the management of the building is responsible for the white facia, not the tenant. Both Mrs. Wilson and Mr. Schnurr answered that it is the property owner's responsibility to maintain the building, and therefore the signage, not the tenant. It was moved by Board Member Martin to approve Item 3.2 as stated, seconded by Board Member Yahwak and carried (5-0). 3.3 SBAII-0004 — Sign Ordinance Amendment — Lightpost Banners. 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 replacing subsection 6-262(b), entitled "Lightpost Banners;" and establishing regulations for banners to be placed on lightposts. Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report. It was moved by Board Member Odum to approve Item 3.3 as stated, seconded by Board Member Sanders and carried (5-0). Sign Board of Appeals October 19, 2011 Page 6 of 7 3.4 SBAII-0005 — Sign Ordinance Amendment — Banner and Feather 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(a), "Specific Sign Criteria — Temporary Signs, Banner Advertising a Commercial Use;" by revising subsection 6-2580), "Prohibited Signs;" by establishing regulations for feather signs by adding subsection 6-2610), "Specific Sign Criteria — Temporary Signs, Feather Signs:" and by amending subsection 6-263, entitled "Definitions," by adding a new definition for "Feather Sign" and by revising the definition of "Wind Devices." Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report. Board Member Sanders asked how often, per year, that businesses could use the feather signs. Mrs. Wilson answered four permits per year, for a duration of 30 days each. Chairperson McCright asked can the feather signs be made to look like flags and if so, would the flag permit apply? Mrs. Wilson answered that yes, the feathers can appear to be signs, but would not fall under the flag and flagpole section of the ordinance. Board Member Sanders asked about the possibility of regulating the sign twirlers. He stated that they could be a traffic hazard. City Attorney Jimmy Schnurr stated that human signs are allowed by the United States Constitution as a form of free speech and cannot be regulated. However, if the sign touches the ground, it can be considered like any other sign and regulated. Also, if the person twirling the sign is causing a traffic hazard, then the Police should be called to intervene. Board Member Martin asked if the feather signs would have to be placed back from the right-of-way 50 feet. Mrs. Wilson said no, that banners for commercial uses would likely be placed on buildings. The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to remove them from the street locations and replace them with feather signs. Board Member Martin asked how far back from the sidewalk the feather signs could be located. Mrs. Wilson cited the proposed ordinance, stating that if a sidewalk exists, the feather signs shall be set back a minimum of 2 feet off the sidewalk. Where there is no sidewalk, the feather sign shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the back of curb. These Sign Board of Appeals October 19, 2011 Page 7 of 7 regulations will be easier to interpret for the business owner and the Community Image staff. Chairperson McCright stated her concerns that the expense of feather signs would be prohibitive. Mrs. Wilson answered that the cost of attaching banners to a stucco or concrete building is currently approximately $500 and even though the initial cost of feather signs may be greater than an individual banner, they are reusable. Hearing no further discussion, Chairperson McCright asked for a motion. It was moved by Board Member Sanders to approve Item 3.4 as stated, seconded by Board Member Odum and carried (5-0). There being no further discussion, Chairperson McCright adjourned the meeting at 7:51 pm. ~1' — Ao6:� Donna McCri ht, Chai person Aerie ackwell, Acting Recording Secretary