The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986-10-28The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine, Texas, met in a Special Workshop Session at approximately 7:10 P.M., on Tuesday, October 28, 1986 in the Community Room #2051 307 W. Dallas Rd., with the following persons present, to wit: Richard Atkins Chairman Ron Cook Vice-Chairman Larry Atchley Member Catherine Martin Member Peggy Engholm. Member Gil Traverse Member Ervin Meyer Member constituting a quorum, with no absences, and the following City Staff, to wit: H.T. (Tommy) Hardy Joy Carroll Marcy Ratcliff Sue Martinez Adrienne Leonard F1K1-61WTNW &► Director of Community Develor-ment Administrative Assistant Planning Technician Secretary Attorney, City Attorney's Office The invocation was delivered by Catherine Martin. LVFMWIURW�� RELATIVE TO SATELLITE RECEIVERS Discussion of this item was relative to whether or not the Commission, on behalf of the Staff, would like to proceed further drafting an ordinance for Council consideration or drop the item completely. It was noted that there is still a lot of research to be done if it is desired to continue with consideration of this particular section. Following a brief discussion, Chairman Atkins asked for a straw poll on who would like to further consider a section on satellite receivers, which resulted as follows: Ayes: Atkins, Meyer, Traverse, Engholm. and Martin Nays: Atchley Abstain: Cook 0,191 61=0 1 (0) 111 W a MIA; RETT're Mr. Hardy commented that he was contacted this afternoon by Police Chief, Deggans, who had been contacted by the Corps of Engineers, concerning the possibility of prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages entirely from the Lake. He also noted that they would have a report within two weeks informing him of what the recommendation would be, and suggested tabling any action on this item until such information is received. Following a brief discussion, Catherine Martin made a motion to table this item to the regular November Planning and Zoning Con-mission meeting agenda and Larry Atchley seconded the motion, which prevailed as follows: Ayes: Atkins, Cook, Meyer, Traverse, Engholm., Martin and Atchley Nays: None Special P&Z Minut October 28, 1986 Page 2 1 I a 4 k, LM X4 M 6, X00, JOK4301io WIZ-4010120f. Discussion of this item was relative to the CcmTdssion suggesting what the best procedure would be in accepting payment of cash-in-lieu of open space. There was a suggestion made by Mr. Robert Strong, President of American Bank of Commerce, on the possibility of considering an irrevocable letter of credit as an acceptable alternative cash equivalent. At this point in the discussion, Mr. Hardy suggested tabling this item for further action to an-end this section to include language by the City Attorney's office, relative to accepting an irrevocable letter • credit. Following the discussion, a motion was made by Ervin Meyer to table this item for further action and Vice-Chairman Cook seconded the motion, which prevailed as follows: Ayes: Atkins, Cook, Meyer, Traverse, Engholm, Martin and Atchley Nays: None WENEEW 1" 6040100*100) k4ffo) =0 me COWN011KO) IMM-14KNUT IN 0 111 12Z 1401LUDWOUN likNeW••# 1.14 IN = V Mr-lus Ing Hog I I ®R S I M RO 111173 6.1 Discussion of this item commenced with Chairman Atkins introducing members of the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Grapevine Chamber of Commerce, and also concerned members of the business community, interested in certain problem areas of the City's Sign Standards. Mr. Millard Dilg, Chairman of the Legislative Affairs Committee, spoke about a few of his concerns with the ordinance. He mentioned that there is no provision in the ordinance for differentiation on sign classification on major thoroughfares, relating to setbacks and speed and visibility. Then, Mr. Dilg introduced Mike Middleton, owner of a sign company in the city. Mr. Middleton has had some 15 years experience in the sign industry, and has been researching sign ordinances in other cities. He spoke to the Commission regarding the appearance of the sign ordinance. He indicated the importance of the ordinance as a marketing tool to attract business into the city. Following Mr. Middleton's presentation, Chairman Atkins spoke relative to the reasons for initially preparing the Sign Ordinance. One of the major reasons, was that there were problems in the city with signs that were in dire need of repair. Another reason was that the city was faced with a great deal of development and there was a need to get some regulations of control on types of signs, sizes, and appearances within the different zoning districts throughout the city. There was also a desire to prohibit the use of portable type signs completely, because of the unsightly appearance created by the users of these signs not maintaining them properly. Some of the other items discussed concerning the Sign Ordinance were as follows: 1.) Engineering specifications relative to wind-load factors. It was noted by the Commission, that this type of information could be found in the City's Uniform Building Code Specifications. Mr. Middleton suggested a wind-load factor of 30 lbs., would be sufficient. 2.) There was mention of a requirement for square posts on pole signs. This particular requirement was adopted from the City of Addison's Sign Ordinance. It was discussed to be changed to read, 8" x 811 or 811 diameter - round. Special P&Z Minutes October 28, 1986 Page 3 3.) It was discussed that there was no specified amortization period for non-conforming signs, within the ordinance. The Commission noted that they did not want specifications for this within the ordinance because of problems it might create. 4.) There was discussion of only one specified color of sign posts and cabinets, in the current ordinance. The Cannission noted that it was not the intent to have the cabinets regulated to only one color, just the poles. 5.) It was discussed to set up the specifications for cabinet dimensions so that the ordinance would allow more flexibility for sign designs and company logos. 6.) There was mention of the lack of provisions for different types of sign materials, such as neon tubing. The Commission discussed amending this to allow neon tubing (non-flashing) on pole and monument signs. 7.) Marquee signs were discussed relative to a permanent advertising marquee with changeable letters. The Commission noted that the specifications for marquee signs were written in a particular way, to be able to do away completely with the portable signs. It was also noted that signs with changeable copy would be allowed for theatres and such. 8.) Then there was discussion of off premise permanent identification signs. The Commission noted that billboards were not desired in the city. It was discussed that any sign not on the premises, no matter what size or how much identification on the sign, was considered an off premise sign. It was noted that by allowing any type of off premise sign, this could create discriminatory situations. Following discussion of the above items, Commissioner Martin discussed Item E. of the Sign Standards - Exemptions - Number 1. (h), that deals with the period of time allowed for businesses to display flags, banners and balloons. She noted that the time period of two (2) weeks in any calendar year is too restrictive to businesses, and indicated that an amendment to two (2) weeks per quarter would be more appropriate. Following discussion of the problem areas within the Sign Ordinance, Chairman Atkins suggested having a few more workshop sessions and also whether to have a public hearing to re-open amendments to the Sign Ordinance with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Also discussed was forming a special committee to do the amendments. After discussing convenient dates for the above meetings, the Commission decided to schedule a workshop session for November 11, 1986, to consider recommendations from the Chamber of Commerce relative to amendments to Section 60. Then, a motion was rendered by Vice-Chairman Cook to schedule a public hearing for November 18, 1986, to address proposed amendments to Section 60 - Sign Standards of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 82-73, and Peggy Engholm seconded the motion, which prevailed as follows: Ayes: Atkins, Cook, Meyer, Traverse, Engholm, Martin and Atchley Nays: None Special P&Z Minutes October 28, 1•8• Page 4 FAUNNTEIRN NUN NN There being no further business to consider, a motion was made by Vice-Chairman Cook to adjourn the evening's meeting at approxirmtely 9:10 P.M. and Ervin Meyer seconded the motion, which prevailed • the following vote: Ayes: Atkins, Cook, Meyer, Traverse, Engholm, Martin and Atchley Nays: None