Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/22/2011 P&Z MINUTES CITY OF THE COLONY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 22, 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, November 22, 2011 at 7:30PM 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; Eddie McCormick, Vice Chairman; Karen Hames; Richard Bambury and Shannon Hebb. Board Members Absent: Debbie Morrison and Cesar Molina, Jr. Staff Present: Mike Joyce, AICP, Development Services Director; Brooks Wilson, AICP, Senior Planner; Felicia Koppang, Development Services Coordinator; Gordon Scruggs, Director of Engineering; Jimmy Schnurr, City Attorney and Jeff Connelly, City Councilman. 1.0 CALL REGULAR SESSION TO ORDER Chairman Wade called the meeting to order at 7:33 PM. 1.2 Citizen Input No citizen input was received. 2.0 CONSENT AGENDA 2.1 Consider approval of the minutes of the November 8, 2011 Regular Session. 2.2 Consider approval of the minutes of the November 15, 2011 Joint Session with the City Council. It was moved by Vice Chairman McCormick to approve Item 2.1 and Item 2.2, seconded by Commissioner Hebb. Motion carried (5-0). 3.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 SUBJECT (SUPII-0005, Tattoo as a Secondary Use -All Seasons Tan) Conduct a public hearing, discuss and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the approval of a Specific Use Permit (SUP) to allow tattooing as a secondary use in All Seasons Tan, located at 6805 Main Street, Suite 455, within a Shopping Center zoning district, located on the northwest corner of Main Street (FM 423) and North Colony Boulevard. Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report. Vice Chairman McCormick asked if the library at City Hall falls within the restriction criterion of tattoo parlors not allowed within 1,000 feet. Mrs. Wilson responded no, the restriction only applies to schools, not public buildings. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 2011 Page 2 of 11 Commissioner Bambury asked if the notifications that staff sent out in regard to the specific use permit resulted with any responses. Mrs. Wilson responded that one notification was returned, otherwise, no one has contacted her for or against the specific use permit. Sherry Ayling, business owner of All Seasons Tan located at 6805 Main Street, Suite 4455, introduced herself. Chairman Wade asked how the business plans to advertise. Ms. Ayling responded that the business will use word-of-mouth for advertising. Chairman Wade asked for staff to present to City Council a map indicating the specific square footage of the tattooing area within All Seasons Tan and the 1,000 foot separation required by ordinance from a school or other tattoo parlor, by use of hatch-marking. Mrs. Wilson responded by stating that the 1,000 foot separation is contained entirely within the shopping center located at 6805 Main Street. Chairman Wade asked if there was a way for another tattoo parlor to be located on the other side of the shopping center adjacent to lee Box or Subway. Mrs. Wilson responded no. Chairman Wade asked if the tanning salon tripled in size, would the tattoo parlor within the tanning salon be allowed to triple in size. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively and continued by stating the tattoo parlor could expand, only if it remained secondary to the primary use. Mr. Schnurr reiterated Chairman Wade's comment to measure the specific location where the tattoo parlor is proposed to be located and show the 1,000 separation from the tattoo parlor in order for future locations to be able to determine where they can propose to be located. Mr. Schnurr continued by recommending to the Commission to limit the specific use permit to a specific location and size. He stated that since specific use permits are not allowed by right, the Commission can place any restrictions or conditions on the business, including but not limited to hours of operation. Chairman Wade followed up in stating that the 1,000 foot separation from the specific location would be an asset to have for if City Hall were to move and a tattoo parlor proposed to be located at 6800 Main Street. Mrs. Wilson responded that a map would be easy to assemble. Mr. Joyce continued by confirming with the Commission that the map will be completed prior to the specific use permit being presented to City Council. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 2011 Page 3 of 11 Commissioner Hebb asked if the 1,000 foot separation was measured from the door of the business, not including the space within the suite. Mr. Schnurr stated that the 1,000 foot separation will be measured from the leased space of the tattoo parlor; therefore, the separation would be measured from the walls of the space, not specifically to the door. Commissioner Bambury asked how staff determines that a use is secondary to a primary use. Mrs. Wilson responded that the square footage of the secondary use must be less than the square footage of the primary use. Chairman Wade opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to speak. Chairman Wade closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Bambury to approve Item 3.1 with the stipulation that less than 50% of the square footage of the suite can be utilized for the tattoo parlor, seconded by Vice Chairman McCormick. Motion carried (5-0). 3.2 SUBJECT (SBA 11-0002, Sign Ordinance Amendment - Flags and Flagpoles) 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 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. Commissioner Hames asked why it is being proposed to remove professional installation requirements for residential flagpoles. Mrs. Wilson responded that many residents do projects themselves and that staff didn't want to restrict residents from assembling a flagpole as long as they follow manufacturer specifications. She continued by stating that the city attorney said that requiring a flagpole to be professionally installed would be unenforceable. Commissioner Haines asked if a flagpole is improperly installed, a child climbs on the flagpole, the flagpole falls and the child gets hurt, is the homeowner liable. Mrs. Wilson responded that the scenario would be a civil matter, similar to a child climbing up a tree and falling. Mr. Schnurr followed up in stating that his recommendation was to either allow anyone to place flagpoles or require for them to be professionally installed. He stated that for the City to recommend having residential flagpoles be professionally installed is unenforceable. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 2011 Page 4of11 Commissioner Hames asked if the Commission could require for all flagpoles to be professionally installed. Mr. Schurr responded affirmatively. Mrs. Wilson followed up in stating that requiring a flagpole to be professionally installed makes it difficult for residents who would want to put up their own flagpole. She continued by stating that a small flagpole of fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet in height is no more difficult in placing that a fence post, which homeowners are allowed to place on their own. Commissioner Bambury asked what is meant by the term "national" flag. Mrs. Wilson responded that a national flag could mean any flag from any nation. Commissioner Bambury continued by stating that in the past, a neighbor of his flew a South African flag that is no longer considered acceptable. He asked if the Commission could stipulate what kind of national flags would be acceptable. Mrs. Wilson responded no, any restriction of that sort could become a freedom of speech issue. Chairman Wade asked if the Commission could view the example of installation requirements as referenced in the staff report. Mrs. Wilson explained to the Commission the installation requirements for flagpoles. She stated the requirements were to be used as a reference, but will not be provided within the ordinance. Chairman Wade asked if installation requirements were placed within the ordinance and the installation failed, would the City be held liable. Mr. Schnurr responded that the Commission would not want place installation requirements within the ordinance because the City would be held liable, as well as each individual installation would have to be inspected. Commissioner Hebb asked if the manufacturer installation requirements are going to be provided within the ordinance. Mrs. Wilson responded no, because it is unenforceable unless a permit is required and inspections would be required, which would cause residential expense. Mr. Joyce stated that the requirements are in regard to residential flag installations only, whereas a commercial property would be required to pull a permit. Vice Chairman McCormick asked if the City should require permits for residential flag installations due to the digging of the holes for the placement. Mr. Joyce responded that staff recommends to applicants that will be digging within their yards to have the utility lines located prior to digging. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 2011 Page 5 of 11 Vice Chairman McCormick asked if at this point, it is only a recommendation not a requirement to have utility lines located prior to digging. Mr. Joyce responded affirmatively. Vice Chairman McCormick stated that his concern is if a homeowner went into their yard, dug a hole four (4) feet deep and hit something. He continued by stating that the City has stipulations on fences so why would the City not require anything for flagpole installations. Mrs. Wilson stated that if the Commission wants to recommend adding stipulations to the ordinance, they have the authority to do so. Vice Chairman McCormick stated that he would like to have the verbiage added that requires a permit and fees for flagpole installation. Commissioner Hames asked if the poles are professionally installed, would it require an inspection. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Haines asked if a permit were required, would the City require an inspection. Mrs. Wilson responded yes. Commissioner Hames continued by stating that if one is going to be required, so should the other. Mr. Joyce followed up in stating that if a permit is required, we would need to see what is being done. He continued in stating that the staff tries to stay cost neutral in regard to permit fees by only charging the residents what it costs the City to issue the permit and conduct the inspection. Commissioner Haines asked if there was such a demand for flagpoles that the requests would overburden staff. Mr. Joyce responded no. Chairman Wade stated that if a resident were digging in their yard, at worst, the resident would hit their utility lines, which in turn would only be a financial burden to the resident themselves. Mr. Joyce responded that there are companies that will mark utility lines on properties in order to avoid damage being done during digging; however, staff can only make the recommendation for residents to contact the companies. Commissioner Hebb asked if staff could make the recommendation through the ordinance that an individual contact a line location company prior to digging so that nothing significant is hit. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 2011 Page 6 of 11 Chairman Wade followed up by stating that businesses such as Dig Tess are not aware of all service lines that are located under residential lots, as they follow engineer plans, however, there are not engineer plans for certain service lines. Mr. Joyce confirmed. He continued in stating that he would rather allow residents to place flagpoles legally, without code violation. Mr. Joyce then asked the attorney if it would be acceptable to place a requirement within the ordinance for residents to contact a line locate company, such as Dig Tess, prior to digging in order to locate trunk lines, at a minimum. Ms. Koppang followed up in stating that there is advertisement brochures at the front counter of Development Services for Dig Tess; however, not many residents take the brochures prior to beginning a project requiring digging, such as a fence. Chairman Wade commented that line location companies will not generally be contacted unless the issue is enforceable from the City's standpoint. Mr. Schnurr responded that the fact that a recommendation was unenforceable is the reason he recommended making it a requirement or not at all. Chairman Wade opened the Public Hearing. Richard Kuether, resident of 4109 Driscoll Drive, The Colony, Texas, asked if ROTC setting up flagpoles for donations on residential properties would fall within the ordinance. Mrs. Wilson asked if the poles are temporary. Mr. Kuether responded yes, the poles are put up in the morning and taken down in the evening. Mr. Joyce responded that since the poles are temporary, this ordinance would not be applicable. Chairman Wade followed up in stating that the temporary poles might be placed approximately twelve (12) inches below ground whereas most service lines are closer to thirty-six (36) or forty- eight (48) inches below ground. Chairman Wade closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Hames to approve Item 3.2 with the condition that a flagpole shall be professionally installed with the requirement of a permit, seconded by Vice Chairman McCormick. Chairman Wade asked if the Commission determines the cost of the permit. Mr. Joyce responded no, however, the Commission is welcome to make a recommendation. Mr. Schnurr followed up in stating that the City cannot charge the residents more than it costs the City to do the administrative work and inspection for the flagpole, therefore, after those costs are evaluated, the fee will be assessed. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 2011 Page 7 of I 1 Chairman Wade asked what the cost of a commercial flagpole permit would be. Mrs. Wilson responded that the fee assessment has not occurred since the ordinance has not been approved; however, a fence permit is $50. Chairman Wade clarified what the motion was for, verified an inspection would be required and asked if the City would be outmanned if the ordinance is approved. Commissioner Hames repeated her motion. Mr. Joyce confirmed that an inspection would be required and advised the Commission that City staff would not be outmanned if the ordinance were to be approved. Motion carried (5-0). 7replacing BJECT (SBA11-0003, Sign Ordinance Amendment - Abandoned Signs) nduct a public hearing, discuss, and consider making a recommendation to the City Council arding an ordinance amending Article XI, Signs, of Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances by 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. Chairman Wade asked for the ordinance to specify `by the landowner' at the end of Section 6- 255(a)(i). Mr. Schnurr responded that the request will be changed within the ordinance. Chairman Wade opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to speak. Chairman Wade closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Chairman Wade to approve Item 3.3 with the amendment as previously stated, seconded by Commissioner Bambury. Motion carried (5-0). SUBJECT (SBA 11-0004, Sign Ordinance Amendment - Lightpost Banners) 3.4r 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 replacing subsection 6-262(b), entitled "Lightpost Banners;" and establishing regulations for banners to be placed on lightposts. Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report. Chairman Wade opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to speak. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 2011 Page 8ofII Chairman Wade closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Bambury to approve Item 3.4 as stated, seconded by Commissioner Hebb. Motion carried (5-0). 3.5 SUBJECT (SBAI l -0005, Sign Ordinance Amendment -Banner and Feather 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 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. Commissioner Harries asked Mrs. Wilson about a measurement regarding the sidewalk that was not included within the staff report. Mrs. Wilson responded that the "banner" portion of the ordinance should be measured from the property line and is proposed to be setback a minimum of fifty (50) feet from the property line, increased from the current twenty-five (25) feet, so as not to have store owners along Main Street attempting to place signage too close to the street. Commissioner Harries clarified that the verbiage for the proposed setback requirement and measurement criteria needs to be added to the ordinance. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Hebb asked if a shopping center would be permitted to have a minimum of five (5) feather signs per business. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively. Commissioner Hebb continued by verifying that at any given time, there could be approximately twenty (20) feather signs located along Main Street. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively. She continued by stating that the current ordinance would allow for multiple banner signs to be located within any shopping center. Chairman Wade asked for staff to specify `roadway' curb within the ordinance. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively. Chairman Wade opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to speak. Chairman Wade closed the Public Hearing. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 2011 Page 9 of 11 It was moved by Chairman Wade to approve Item 3.5 as amended by the Commission, seconded by Commissioner Hames. Motion carried (5-0). 3.6 SUBJECT (SBA11-0007, Sign Ordinance Amendment - Garage Sale 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 subsection 6-261(d), entitled "Garage Sale Signs." Mrs. Wilson presented the staff report. Commissioner Hames concurs with the Sign Board of Appeals after reading the minutes of their 11/16/11 meeting. Chairman Wade opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to speak. Chairman Wade closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Wade proposed to table the item to look into the topic more by asking residents questions. It was moved by Chairman Wade to table Item 3.6. There was no second. Vice Chairman McCormick stated that he agreed with Commissioner Hames' conclusion. He continued by saying that it is clear the Sign Board of Appeals did their research prior to coming to their conclusion and if the homeowner association board members all applied for signs, there would be more than sufficient advertisement. Commissioner Bambury and Commissioner Hebb concurred with Commissioner Hames' conclusion. Commissioner Hebb suggested for homeowner associations to hold larger scaled garage sales in centralized locations for better emphasis on signage that may be posted. Chairman Wade disagreed with the suggestion by Commissioner Hebb for homeowner associations to hold larger scaled garage sales in centralized locations. Mr. Joyce stated that as noted within the minutes for the Sign Board of Appeals, the community itself can get up to six (6) signs, and then each individual property could get their allotted six (6) signs, which is how staff will interpret the ordinance. He continued by stating that a garage sale would not be considered a special event unless it was held by a large group, using the Boy Scouts as an example, holding a sale off-site from where the group is typically held. At this point, a Special Event Permit would be required to be submitted. Mr. Joyce continued that the homeowner associations typically hold what would be considered as group garage sales twice a year and is done to draw people in by having multiple individual garage sales within the subdivision at one time. He stated that he, as well as Councilman Terre, believes that the intent of Mr. Miller's proposal is to allow signage at each access point to the subdivision, not necessarily to allow unlimited signage, and by allowing the homeowner association as well as each individual property to acquire garage sale sign permits, free of charge, he believes the intent has been met. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 2011 Page 10 of 11 It was moved by Commissioner Hebb to recommend denial of Item 3.6, seconded by Commissioner Hames. Motion carried (4-1) with opposition by Chairman Wade. 3.7 SUBJECT (SBA11-0008, Sign Ordinance Amendment -Enforcement Authority) 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 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. Commissioner Harries asked for a definition of public nuisance. Mrs. Wilson stated that a sign that causes public nuisance would be one that is not attached properly, making a lot of noise or causes a safety issue. Vice Chairman McCormick asked how real estate signs would fall within this portion of the ordinance and who would be notified if there was a violation. Mrs. Wilson stated the realtor of where the sign is located would be notified since they are having beneficial use of the sign, unless it was on the rare occasion a residential property, whereas at that point, the property owner would be the person having beneficial use of the sign. She continued by stating that ultimately, the decision would be up to the Building Official to make the determination as to who has the beneficial use of the sign in question and therefore would be notified of the violation. Commissioner Hebb asked if a sign that was engineered to create a noise as an attraction feature would be in violation of the ordinance. Mrs. Wilson stated that a sign that is engineered to create a noise as an attraction feature is prohibited by the ordinance. Commissioner Hebb asked if the ordinance places timeframe restrictions on signs that need to be repaired due to damage during a storm. Mrs. Wilson responded that violations have timeframes allotted to them to give the property or business owners an opportunity to fix the violation. In regard to signs, if the business owner were to contact city staff to advise that damage was done due to a storm, city staff would allow for a reasonable timeframe for damages to be fixed. Commissioner Hebb asked if there is a sign that is damaged and no longer functions as it was originally design to, would this portion of the ordinance pertain to that sign. Mrs. Wilson responded affirmatively; however, there are some exceptions and used the example of signage that is a part of city litigation. Commissioner Bambury asked if there is signage that is abandoned, would the tenant of the property receive the violation notice. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission November 22, 2011 Page 11 of 11 Mrs. Wilson stated that if a tenant leaves a property, the responsibility falls on the property owner, since they now have the beneficial use of the sign. Chairman Wade opened the Public Hearing. No one came forward to speak. Chairman Wade closed the Public Hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Bambury to approve Item 3.7 as stated, seconded by Commissioner Hebb. Motion carried (5-0). There being no further questions or discussion, Chairman Wade adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m. B ' e, Chairman Felicia Koppan , Keco in Secretary