Min - Board of Adjustment - 2000 - 09/12 - RegularATTENDANCE:
Board Members Present
Melanie Jones (Chair)
Kenneth Harvey (Vice -Chair)
Gnffith Moore (Secretary)
Frank Brown
Ray Lewis
Board Members Absent:
None
City Staff Present
Manna Sukup, Director of Planning and Development
Sally L. Leeper, Project Coordinator
CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM:
With a quorum of the Board present, the Sign Control Board was called to order at 7:30 p.m by
Chairperson Jones at the City Council Chambers, One Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas.
CONSENT AGENDA. (Agenda Item 1-10)
1. Approve minutes of August 8, 2000 Regular Meeting.
2. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Sotherby Homes located at 2031 Midhurst.
3. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Second Century Investments located at the
northeast comer of US 75 and Bethany Drive.
4. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Centex Homes located at 1120 Brook
Ridge Avenue.
5. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Premium Outlet Center located at the
northwest comer of US 75 and Stacy Road.
6. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Premium Outlet Center located north of
Stacy Road facing US 75.
7 Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Gehan Homes located at 753 Big Bend
Drive.
8. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Lennar Homes located 100 N. Alder.
ALLEN SIGN CONTROL BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
ATTENDANCE:
Board Members Present
Melanie Jones (Chair)
Kenneth Harvey (Vice -Chair)
Gnffith Moore (Secretary)
Frank Brown
Ray Lewis
Board Members Absent:
None
City Staff Present
Manna Sukup, Director of Planning and Development
Sally L. Leeper, Project Coordinator
CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM:
With a quorum of the Board present, the Sign Control Board was called to order at 7:30 p.m by
Chairperson Jones at the City Council Chambers, One Allen Civic Plaza, Allen, Texas.
CONSENT AGENDA. (Agenda Item 1-10)
1. Approve minutes of August 8, 2000 Regular Meeting.
2. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Sotherby Homes located at 2031 Midhurst.
3. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Second Century Investments located at the
northeast comer of US 75 and Bethany Drive.
4. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Centex Homes located at 1120 Brook
Ridge Avenue.
5. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Premium Outlet Center located at the
northwest comer of US 75 and Stacy Road.
6. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Premium Outlet Center located north of
Stacy Road facing US 75.
7 Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Gehan Homes located at 753 Big Bend
Drive.
8. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for Lennar Homes located 100 N. Alder.
�+ SIGN CONTROL BOARD PAGE 2
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
9. Consider renewal of Class 4 off-site temporary sign for Goodman Homes located on E. Main
Street across from Lowrey Center.
10. Consider renewal of Class 4 on-site temporary sign for the Allen Economic Development
Corporation for Millennium II Corporate Center located north of Bethany Drive and west of US
75
Ms. Sally Leeper advised that the signs on the consent agenda are in good condition.
MOTION. Upon a motion by Board Member Harvey and a second by Board Member Moore, the
Board voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to approve the consent agenda. The motion carried.
REGULAR AGENDA.
11. Public Hearing — Consider a request by Mr. Charles Carter for a variance to the Sign Ordinance
to place a Freestanding Sign behind a 20 -foot visibility triangle at 102 W McDermott Drive.
Ms. Leeper presented the request to the Board Mr. Larry Becker, applicant, representing the owner, Mr.
Charles Carter, addresed the Board He provided an artist's rendering of the sign and the property. He is
proposing to place the sign behind a 20 -foot visibility triangle as described in Section 7 07 of the Allen
Land Development Code.
Chairman Jones opened the public hearing and no one wishing to speak for or against the request,
Chairman Jones closed the public hearing.
The Board reviewed the request, and determined that it appeared appropriate and would cause no visibility
problems.
MOTION: Upon a motion by Board Member Harvey and a second by Board Member Lewis,
the Board voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED, to recommend approval of the request.
The motion carred.
12. Discussion — Sign Ordinance Revisions
Ms. Marina Sukup reviewed the draft of the proposed Sign Ordinance, Article VII of the Land
Development Code, with the Board. The following issues were discussed with the consensus of the Board
noted below.
Prohibited Signs — The Board reviewed the comparison sheet showing the prohibited signs in the
surrounding cities.
Window Signs — The comparison sheet indicates that most neighboring cities limit the percent of signs
allowed on windows. The Board discussed whether it was appropriate to regulate window signs.
CONSENSUS: No change to ordinance Window signs would continue to be allowed. This was
�,", a 3 to 2 consensus. The two dissenting members favored a percentage regulation.
SIGN CONTROL BOARD PAGE 3
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
Definition of Gross Surface Area of Sign — The current ordinance states that a sign should be measured
on each side and those two number combined Actual practice has been to allow copy on both sides of the
sign and measure only a single side
CONSENSUSChange the definition to allow two-sided signs and measure only one side
Zoning Use or Use District — The problem has arisen when determining signage allowed in the Central
Business District, since there are so many uses allowed in that district. Should an office building be
allowed the size of an office district (30 + 15 for architectural enhancement) or a retail district (60 plus 30
for architectural enhancement). Discussion followed regarding the current work being done on the Central
Business District and the fact that there will be overlay districts that should clarify this issue.
CONSENSUS Continue to use Use Dismct as the criteria
Architectural Enhancement — Staff suggested replacing the measurements for size of sign plus additional
for architectural enhancements with the following cmena. Maximum size, maximum height, maximum
size of copy. The problem has been when applicants request a smaller sign, but want to use the remainder
of the copy allowance for architectural enhancement. It is not clear if this is allowed. The proposed
language would allow this.
CONSENSUS. Replace language with maximum size, maximum height, and maximum size of
copy.
Cutouts and sign area — Ms. Sukup reviewed the definition of sign area, and proposed using a
measurement that mcluddes measuring up to four rectangles with a 10% reduction of maximum area for
the second and subsequent rectangles. This allows for a better measurement of irregularly shaped signs
such as the Harvey Davidson sign.
CONSENSUS. Replace the language to allow the four -rectangle measurement.
Banners — The 16 s.f, nonpennmed banners, have become a problem of enforcement With no permit
having been issued, it is difficult to tract the time they have been in place. Staff suggested that grand
opening permits which would include balloons and banners be allowed on a one-time basis per business.
CONSENSUS. Grand opening permits should be allowed, one-time only per business, to include
banners and balloons, for five (5) days.
CONSENSUS All banners should be permitted at a fee of $30, with a maximum of two permits
at one time for 30 days, three (3) times per year, 90 days apart.
Signs Within the Right-of-way — Staff suggested prohibiting all signs within the public nght-of-way
(including weekend directional signs) Staff indicated that only official signs should be allowed within the
city's nght-of-way. Any existing permits should be allowed to continue until their expiration date.
CONSENSUS. Prohibit all signs, except official signs, in the City's right-of-way Prohibit
Li weekend directional signs entirely.
SIGN CONTROL BOARD PAGE 4
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
Off -premise signs — Staff suggested prohibiting all off -premise signs to allow for a level and fair
enforcement of the rules to all businesses. At this time, only homebuilders are allowed off -premise signs.
CONSENSUS: Prohibit all off -premise signs
Garage Sale Signs — Discussion was held whether to further regulate garage sale signs. It was determined
that eliminating signs from the right-of-way would force garage sale participants to seek property owner
pernussion to place the allowed signs.
CONSENSUS: No change to the ordinance Continue to allow one on-site and two off-site,
but they would be prohibited in the right-of-way
Political Signs — Staff reviewed the comparison sheet showing the regulations of neighboring cities.
CONSENSUS. Allow 10 a maximum of 10 signs that would be a maximum of 16 s.f. in size,
30 days prior to election and to be removed within two days after the event. Smaller signs (3 s.f.) would
allowed in groupings (100 s.f. on one lot) as per the City of Addison.
Align Signage with Requirements of Land Development Code for Specific Use Permits for Outdoor
Storage and Display — Ms. Sukup discussed the need for the Sign Board to review signage on properties
that are requesting Specific Use Permits prior to their being considered by the Planning & Zoning
Commission and the City Council.
CONSENSUS: Specific Use Permit approval should include a recommendation from the Sign
Board prior to consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Removal of Structure — Discussion was held regarding the need to require the removal of old pole sign
structures when the sign is removed
CONSENSUS. Review ordinance to include text requiring the removal of illegal structures
when nonconforming signs are removed.
GENERAL COMMENTS: The Board indicated that staff should further review the folloiwng sections.
Section 7.09.6 — Murals, requiring Sign Board approval.
Section 7.09.5 — General Regulations indicating one sign allowed per abutting street. This should be
reviewed with the idea that all dvsmcts do not allow this.
Section 7.09.11 — Regarding attached signs extending above the roof line, it appears some language from
the existing ordinance has been omitted.
I
SIGN CONTROL BOARD
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
PAGE 5
MOTION. Upon a motion by Board Member Brown and a second by Board Member Moore, the
Board voted 5 FOR and 0 OPPOSED to adjourn the September 12, 2000, meeting of the
Sign Control Board at 935 pin The motion carried.
These minutes approved this 10's day of October 2000.
Me ie Jones, Cha ftnan
%[h Moore, Secretary