Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-03 PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES APRIL 3, 2001 MINUTES The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert McMillon at 6:35 p.m. for consideration of scheduled items in the Council Chambers in Building "B" of the Municipal Building. Chairman Robert McMillon stated there were seven members of the Planning and Zoning Commission present. MEMBERS AND STAFF PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT Chairman Robert McMillon Vice Chairman Richard McNeese John Deithloff Mike Grove Bill Tarin Ron Hughes Gene Sloan Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development Eric Wilhite, Planning and Development Manager Ron Young, Assistant Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Kurt Kasson, Building Official Bill Ridgway, Director of Economic Development Cristy Reynolds, Administrative Secretary Holly Hays, Development Secretary VISITORS: Lou Baum, Main Street Coordinator Bryan Klein, Hoover/Klein Group, Inc., Euless, Texas Tony Kasra Ned Burleson THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION: The Pledge of Allegiance was given by Commissioner Grove and Invocation was given by Commissioner Tarin. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chairman McNeese made the motion to approve the minutes of March 6, 2001, as presented. Commissioner Grove seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman McMillon, Commissioners Deithloff, Hughes, Sloan and Tarin Nays: None The motion carried. Vice Chairman McNeese made the motion to approve the minutes of March 20, 2001, as presented. Commissioner Grove seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman McMilton, Commissioners Deithloff, Hughes, Sloan and Tarin Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 2 April 3, 2001 Nays: None The motion carried. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 1 CASE #00-16-SP— CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION FOR A SITE PLAN Consider a recommendation regarding a request for a Site Plan for Retail Complex proposed to be located at Plaza Grande Addition, Tract C, on 3200 BIk. W. Euless Blvd. Mr. Eric Wilhite, Planning and Development Manager gave a brief overview of this site plan request. He stated the applicant is requesting a 5,500 square foot retail center. He stated this is a small tract located by the printing service. He stated access to the site is off Highway 10. He stated the DRC had reviewed the project and staff recommends approval. Chairman McMillon asked for an applicant or representative to come forward. Mr. Tony Kasra stated he was the owner. He stated he was going to make some small retail lease spaces. He stated there would be seven spaces there. He stated one space would be occupied by a restaurant he currently owned in Bedford. There was no discussion among the commissioners. Commissioner Hughes made the motion to approve Case #00-16-SP, as presented. Commissioner Tarin seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman McMillon, Vice Chairman McNeese, Commissioners Deithloff, Grove, and Sloan Nays: None The motion carried. ITEM 2 CASE #01-01-PP—CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLAT Consider a request for a Preliminary Plat changing A.J. Huitt Survey, Abstract 709, Tract 2 into Stone Meadow Addition, Block A, Lots 1 thru 7, Block B, Lots 1 thru 15, Block C, Lots 1 thru 11, Block D, Lots 1 thru 9. This property is located along FAA Boulevard. Mr. Eric Wilhite, Planning and Development Manager, gave a brief overview of this preliminary plat request. He stated the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council had previously approved a Planned Development for R-1 Single Family Detached Dwellings on this project. He stated staff recommends approval. Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 3 April 3,2001 There was no discussion among the commissioners. Commissioner Deithloff made the motion to approve case #01-01-PP, as presented. Commissioner Grove seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman McMillon, Vice Chairman McNeese, Commissioners Hughes, Tarin and Sloan Nays: None The motion carried. ITEM 3 CASE#01-05-SP—CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION FOR A SITE PLAN Consider a recommendation regarding a request for a Site Plan for Parks Maintenance Facility proposed to be located at Texas Star Addition, Lot 1, Block B, on 1997 S. Pipeline Rd. West Mr. Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development, gave a brief overview of this site plan request. He stated the general location was within the Parks at Texas Star Complex, with Highway 10 located to the north. He stated the City of Euless proposes to build a parks maintenance facility of approximately 12,000 square feet located on a 1.5 acre building site. He stated staff recommends approval There was no discussion among the commissioners. Vice Chairman McNeese made the motion to approve case#01-05-SP dated March 19, 2001, as presented. Commissioner Deithloff seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman McMillon, Commissioners Grove, Hughes, Sloan and Tarin Nays: None The motion carried. ITEM 4 CASE #01-03-CC — HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE TO CREATE MAIN STREET OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT AND SIGN PROVISIONS TO BE CONTAINED THEREIN AND CONSIDER FIRST AND FINAL READING OF ORDINANCE II CREATING MAIN STREET OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT AND SIGN PROVISIONS TO BE CONTAINED THEREIN Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 4 April 3, 2001 Chairman McMillon stated that rules governing a public hearing had been stated previously. Chairman McMillon opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Collins, Director of Planning and Development gave a brief overview of this request. He stated that the city has declared a strong public interest in the continued vitality of the Main Street Business District. He stated the major project elements of the redevelopment of the Main Street area will include the reconstruction of North Main Street between Harwood Road and Highway 10 and Euless Economic Development Corporation's Main Street Sign Enhancement Incentive Program. He stated this program is being developed in order to maintain a high character of community appearance and enhance the aesthetic appearance of North Main Street as a complement to the reconstruction project, therefore the City of Euless will consider an ordinance amending the sign ordinance of the City of Euless with a proposed North Main Overlay Zoning District. He stated the boundaries of such an overlay district would encompass all properties abutting North Main Street from the centerlines of South Pipeline Road to Glade Road. He stated the proposed sign ordinance contains the following provisions: 1. Limited to the registered name and/or type of business-gasoline prices permitted 2. Monument signs only — base materials include concrete, stone, brick or other acceptable masonry materials 3. Single-tenant Sign — 8 feet maximum height, sign face — maximum 50 square feet, with two announcement surfaces 4. Multi-tenant sign — 12 feet maximum height, sign face — maximum 150 square feet, two announcement surfaces 5. Illumination either internally lit or from ground mounted lights— no glare or light split beyond property 6. No moving parts, blinking lights and dimming lights or the like 7. Property address in 4 inch block letters must be contained within allowed square footage of sign 8. Landscaping of sign islands follows Article VII UDC 9. SUP may be authorized by City Council Similar architectural scale to existing building May be shared or designed to share in future Reasonable and good faith effort demonstrated Chairman McMillon closed the public hearing due to no proponents/opponents present. Chairman McMilton stated that if all questions could not be answered by staff at this time, that the board may consider tabling this item to another Planning and Zoning Commission agenda meeting. Commissioner Deithloff asked about the height and square footage of the signs. He asked if this data was taken from a previous ordinance. Mr. Mike Collins stated staff had anticipated the board would ask this question. He recommended this question be addressed to the City's consultant, Mr. Bryan Klein. Commissioner Deithloff stated his Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 5 April 3, 2001 concern about seeing an 8 foot tall if he is sitting in a car (on Main Street) with another car beside him and stated his eye level is down around 4 %z to five feet. Commissioner Deithloff stated he does not understand these heights and understands that the city wants to improve the ordinance and placement, type and size of signs. He stated the signs need to be able to be seen. Mr. Eric Wilhite, Planning and Development Manager, Mr. Ron Young and Commissioner McMillon discussed the dimensions of the overhead screen (in the Council Chambers) in relation to the proposed dimensions of the proposed sign ordinance. Commissioner Deithloff stated he was concerned about seeing the sign when he is on the outside lane of traffic looking across Main Street. Mr. Bryan Klein, Hoover/Klein Group, 1361 W. Euless Blvd., Euless, Texas, stated his office would soon be relocating to 416 Main Street. He stated regarding the 8 foot dimension, he stated there is some science and some judgment(on this dimension). He stated they looked at other monument signs in other areas including South lake, Colleyville, Grapevine and Arlington. He stated they looked at what the chain folks' are doing, the Burger Kings, Bocons and other people. He stated it seemed there was something about that same size being used by most of those companies. He stated it was in part due to the ordinances they were complying with in those areas, but also that the size of the signs were conforming to the manufactured signs and seemed to be a fairly standard size and height. He stated the signs could be 9 feet or 10 feet, but they were trying to limit the height and allow 50 square feet per sign. He stated the 50 square feet could be used horizontally or they could use up to 8 feet and have 64 square feet wide. He stated they wanted to give companies some flexibility that way. He stated monument signs tend to be closer to the ground. He stated they will not be as visible as the signs are right now on Main Street. He stated the idea behind Main Street is a very small period, small properties, smaller buildings than what is traditional in downtown areas. He stated the idea was to bring the scale of the signs down to the architectural scale of the buildings in the district area. Mr. Klein stated there was nothing preventing it from being 9 feet, but 8 feet appeared to be a good measure based on what they saw occurring in other cities and according to manufacturer's standards. Mr. Klein raised the point that although the height of the sign is 8 feet or an 8 foot ceiling, the wording states signs must be placed on a masonry base. He stated as the masonry base gets wider so to does the sign face, which increases the visibility. He stated they wanted to prevent the idea of massive signage coming down to the ground level. He stated that currently driving down Main Street you will notice a lot of signs at a much higher level. He stated if you strictly broaden the square footage of those signs down to the ground, all of the sudden they are stacked one in front of each other. He stated they were confronted with two limitations, the width of Main Street and small parcels with narrow frontages. He stated there is not a lot of frontage for each property, some have more than others. He stated this means that each property owner will have his/her own sign along the street. He stated because they are closer together, we need to be a little bit careful we don't allow them to get too large, because they will in fact be stacked in front of one another. He stated there are some limitations Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 6 April 3,2001 that we are dealing with whereas if this were 121 corridor where the size of the site would be much larger those limitations may not be issues. Commissioner Deithloff asked about the structural considerations of the sign and who would address this issue and who would approve this issue. Mr. Klein stated that the ordinance itself does not require sign to be rectangular, circular, or odd shape. He stated that responsibility could be left up to the owner. He stated the Popeye's sign located on Main Street is not a rectangular sign. He stated it would be a permitted shape with this overlay district. He stated we are trying to define the maximum size. He stated as far as the structure itself; this would be addressed when the person comes in for a permit He stated they would have to have a sufficient structure and an engineering seal on the drawings. Commissioner Deithloff asked if the engineer's seal would be addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Klein stated it woes not currently in the ordinance, but it could be added to require that of a person. Commissioner Deithloff stated he has built many signs and some have architecture seals, engineer's seals and some don't have any seals. He stated the structure of some of the signs are slabs laid right on the ground with a vertical sign put on top of the slab. He stated this is not very stable and can move back and forth. He stated some structural consideration should be given. Mr. Klein stated it is very important, especially since we are bringing it off the ground when wind loading is a factor and kids swinging back and forth. Commissioner Deithloff also mentioned vehicles backing into the sign. Commissioner Tarin asked about the existing pole signs on Main Street He asked if they would be given a time limit or an ultimatum to tear existing signs down and replace with monument signs. Mr. Klein stated that the way this is written presently there is not a time limit, however we would deal with the present signs in a different manner than the current sign ordinance. He stated if the ordinance were adopted the pole signs would become nonconforming because it would not conform under these standards of this zoning district. He stated it would be issued a permit and would be an allowed sign for it's useable life, but if it ceased to be used for a period of 90 days at that point it must come out and any future sign would have to comply. Vice Chairman McNeese asked how far off of Highway 183 existing signage will be effective. Mr. Klein stated 300 feet Vice Chairman McNeese asked how far visibility would be up North Main. Vice Chairman McNeese asked how many businesses are going to be effected beyond the 300 feet up to Harwood. Mr. Mike Collins stated there is a food establishment considering the old post office site, he stated Fuller Drive separates the existing Wendy's and represents the southern border of that He stated they will be allowed at the old post office location to place a 30 foot sign, which will fall within 300 feet. Chairman McMillon asked about the service station across the street from the post office and if they would be able to keep their sign. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated, yes, Chevron will be able to keep their sign. Vice Chairman McNeese stated Taco Bell will be able to keep their sign. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated that Burger King is also coming to town. Vice Chairman McNeese asked about the location of Taco Bell and if the access road was included in the 300 foot calculation. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated it reads 300 feet from the interstate right-of-way and the right-of-way is access road. He stated Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 7 April 3, 2001 Taco Bell does not make it but they have a variance,just as Burger King might request. He stated there have been site plans approved before the moratorium was put in place and this ordinance will be enacted. He stated City Council has the latitude to grant variances or exceptions in certain aspects. He stated McDonald's has an existing sign that might be beyond 300 feet. Vice Chairman McNeese asked about the signs being consistent with the existing structure of the building. Mr. Klein stated they needed to be consistent with the foundation. Vice Chairman McNeese asked if he was referring to color scheme. Mr. Klein stated the foundation material needs to be architecturally compatible. He stated it needs to be reasonably compatible. He stated if you have brown brick you could also have brown stone, but no pinks and purples. Vice Chairman McNeese stated we could end up with 8 or 12 foot signs and instead of having all the pollution up high the pollution would all be down lower and it would be an unpleasing sight. Mr. Eric VYlhite stated the ordinance will clarify that the plan has to be reviewed by the Building Official or the Director of Planning and Development as well as engineering for compatibility with all those guidelines. Mr. Klein stated although we are moving the signs down a level we are allowing the signs to strictly be an introduction to the business name and their address. He stated other advertising will not be allowed, such as sale prices, or methods of payment. He stated we will end up with a portion of the sign area with more image and more color. Commissioner Grove asked about the idea of this overlay zoning district being a temporary ordinance or stepping stone to a more comprehensive ordinance. He was concerned about a company spending over$300,000 around a loosely written ordinance. He stated he would like to see the language tightened up and some of the concerns that have been brought up tonight incorporated into this ordinance. He stated if this overlay zoning district is abandoned later on, we may have a sign ordinance that we can keep and go on forever. He stated if someone has a real sign issue they may find a lot more issues to pick with this. He stated we we on the right track, but would like to see this ordinance tightened up a little. Mr. Collins and Mr. Klein asked Commissioner Grove to share some ideas with them. Commissioner Grove stated he would like to see the memo, which spells out the overlay district being from Pipeline Road to Glade Road officially incorporated into the ordinance language. He stated he would like to see comments such as UDC Sec 84233, dealing with wall signs and roof signs. He stated there are good"food for thought'contained in the text of these existing sections of the UDC. He stated if you review tonight's minutes and other items mentioned. Commissioner Grove suggested going for another round of comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Hughes asked about Section B specifically when a permit shall lapse if a nonconforming sign is discontinued or interrupted. Commissioner Hughes asked if this means a business is no longer functioning and sign is not applicable to the tenant Mr. Klein stated they intended for this ordinance to use the same language as the present codes. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated it would include if the business goes out of business. He stated if the sign is specific for a business that goes out of business and no longer exists and the sign stays there for 90 days it will Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 8 April 3, 2001 automatically become nonconforming. He stated the next person who comes in would not be able to redo the facing on the existing sign, but would have to remove the existing nonconforming sign and make it a monument sign. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated we need to clarify the ordinance to specifically state this. Mr. Ron Hughes asked if a tenant was using a sign owned by the property owner and the tenant is gone, but the property owner states that 213 of those tenants are still there. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated there could be a multi-tenant situation and this needs to be clarified. Commissioner Hughes recommended cutting 90 days down to 45 or 30 days. Commissioner Hughes asked about the lot across from Wendy's, on the east corner of Main and the frontage road. He asked about the possibility of the owner of the property desiring a large, tall 60 foot pole sign. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated he would be allowed to and through the site plan process or if it was a use, which required a SUP, we would guide them to put it on the back side of it off of Main, more on the service ride. Mr. Eric Wilhite referred to the Chevron sign. He mentioned the old post office project that Mr. Collins referred to and when we did the SUP we were able to have a monument sign in the front and avoid any of these kind of problems. Commissioner Hughes asked under Section C, Single Tenant Signs about the two announcement surfaces. He asked if that would prevent the use of those surfaces for meal deals or advertising. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated that the only variation would be allowed on filling stations for the price of gasoline, but not for any type of advertising. Commissioner Hughes asked under this same section with respect to illuminated signs, the paragraph needs to be amplified or additional technical descriptions added with respect to light illumination that would include lumens, so that very, very bright signs are addressed and don't have to interpret glare or light spill. He stated there is new technology to signs and referred to a sign at Valley View Mall in Dallas on LBJ, which is incredibly bright, and would not want to have this type of sign allowed. Commissioner Hughes referred to the reference to the following paragraph referencing moving parts, blinking lights and dimming lights he stated this paragraph needs to be enhanced to address new sign technologies. He stated it needs to address invisible bulbs, displays and computer generated animated projections. He stated it needs to exclude neon signs. Mr. Mike Collins asked if he was recommending that neon signs not be acceptable. Commissioner Hughes stated he recommends excluding the neon type signs of any color. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated that UDC Sec. 84-239 covers the prohibitive sign characteristics, stipulates motion and no sign shall have any moving, swinging or animated parts or images, whether such movement is caused by machinery, electronics, wind or otherwise. He asked if this covered the electronic devices and technology Commissioner Hughes was referring to. Commissioner Deithloff suggested taking the current sign ordinance and adapting some of the current verbage to this ordinance. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated that it was not the intent that this particular ordinance would circumvent any of the current sections in the UDC, but only make them more stringent. Commissioner Grove suggested there be something in the ordinance that says if its not covered here, go see the other sign ordinance. He stated he did not find any reference in there. Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 9 April 3,2001 Commissioner Hughes asked about the possibility of excluding audio enhanced speaking signs. Commissioner Hughes asked if this was currently covered in the UDC. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated that these properties are all pretty close to the property lines and the city has an ordinance, which prohibits certain decibel levels off of the property. He stated if he is 10 feet off the property and the decibel level is high enough to hear on the road or sidewalk then he will be prohibited by this section of the code. He stated this will also be considered when he comes in for a permit and different aspects, which may be denied and would be worthless for the owner to do because with such low decibel requirements would not be able to hear the sign anyway. Commissioner Hughes stated that staff would not have to go through this if they put a clause in the ordinance stating no audio signs. Mr. Klein stated a transparent district is being created and lining on top of pre-existing zoning districts. Those existing zoning districts have different characteristics, different land uses, different futures, different presents and different origins. He stated there are items in the sign ordinance terminology that can be enhanced. He stated this is not a free standing district, but an overlay district. He stated there are some things here that play back over the whole C-1, C-2, TX-10. He stated this is a transitionary attempt to get some standards in place for a district which may then be amplified in some respects either by land use or site improvements, streetscapes, each of which may have a bearing back on the signs. He stated this is an early version of what will ultimately be the history of Main Street. Commissioner Grove stated that he would like staff and consultants not to take these reactions as being overly critical. The board is very happy to tackle this issue. He stated he thinks it is unanimous among the board to try to get this right the first time and not be embarrassed down the road by specific language. Commissioner Sloan stated he was looking at this ordinance from the marketing part of it. He stated as an ordinary guy with a barbecue on Main Street for 30 years, he does not know what a UDC is. He suggested that definitions be added for terminology used. He stated there was a typo on the first page. It is referred to as light split and on another page it is referred to as light spill. He stated some terminology such as glare, light spill, directional signage, screening, discontinued, interrupted should have definitions set. He stated even though these are probably all defined in the UDC it should be a little more user friendly for the people out there (existing signs). He stated if you are building a new building you have to come in and deal. He referenced an extremely strict sign law in place in Addison, but mentioned they allow signs on the building that are small signs. He stated they cannot be neon, and must be lit with the light shining on them. He stated he does not understand why city code does not allow for signs on the building. Commissioner Grove stated that some concerns might be addressed by simply stating in the ordinance text"if it's not covered in here, it would fall under existing code." He stated the existing code covers wall signs and group signs. Mr. Mike Collins stated this ordinance only covers on premises pole signs. Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 10 April 3, 2001 Mr. Bryan Klein stated in an overlay zone the forms of the district standards are your base plus your overlay standards. He stated for example, if you have your base standard and you are sitting in a C-2 right now, you have the regulations of the C-2 and this overlay on top. He stated it is more restrictive and has more purpose. Chairman McMillon asked if you could still have a sign on your business. Mr. Klein stated that is correct. Commissioner Grove asked if this ordinance would restrict the size of sign. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated current code already restricts wall-mounted signs to a certain percentage. Mr. Kurt Kasson, Building Official stated they are restricted to 20%. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated it is typical in most of the research before of not allowing that and if someone comes in before we need to know which lease space they are in unless they actually have a sign above their lease space. He stated hopefully with this facade enhanced the rest of the ordinance that will come into play. He stated we need to upgrade some of those choices. Chairman McMillon asked if this is strictly an overlay in this area to cover pole signs that are existing and new signs would have to be monument type signs. He stated any sign that is existing on a building, restaurant, drycleaner or whatever can stay there. He stated we do have projection in the ordinance that says it can only be 20% of building side or surface or whatever. Commissioner Grove stated a lot of the confusion could be eliminated by adding an item 4 under purpose stating this is in addition to existing C-1, C-2 and TX 10. Chairman McMillon stated we have several options before us, we can certainly have more discussion if we want it, some of the options that I think that we have, because of some of the questions and concerns we have, we can ask that this item be tabled and come back with a redraft that we can look at again. He stated we can ask staff to do a redraft and send it forward to City Council based on minutes that we recover from this. He stated the board could also vote to deny it. He stated the board could vote to approve this item, as presented. Commissioner Deithloff stated he would like to see the revisions brought forth to the board at another time to be reviewed again. Mr. Mike Collins stated staff would not feel comfortable not bringing this item back before P&Z to review before taking to City Council. Chairman McMillon recommended that staff review the minutes and comments and try to do a redraft to bring back to P&Z at a time when there is a light agenda and a lot of time can be given to consideration of this item during presession. Chairman McMillon asked staff if they felt comfortable having a redraft by the next P&Z meeting on April 17, 2001. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated it should be a light agenda on April 17, 2001. Mr. Mike Collins stated staff feels comfortable enough to do a redraft by that date. Chairman McMillon stated this item needs to move forward since there is a moratorium and the clock is running. Mr. Mike Collins stated staff has 60 days. Chairman McMillon asked if this item is table if the board needs to set a date now or can this item be tabled indefinitely for further consideration at the discretion of the staff. Mr. Mike Collins stated since this is a zone change it would need to be set to a specific date. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated this item needs to be re-advertised. Commissioner Grove stated the public hearing has been opened and closed and this is merely a Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 11 April 3,2001 recommendation by the board. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated it will be better for staff to have a specific date to come back before the board. Commissioner Grove asked if staff would mind re-advertising. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated staff will re-post and un-table this item. The board discussed tabling this item. Chairman McMilton stated at the time this item is un-tabled the board has the option to re-open the public hearing. Mr. Ron Young, Assistant Director of Public Works stated it would not be a public hearing, since this item will not be re-advertised, however the board could allow someone to speak for or against this item. Mr. Mike Collins asked the board for additional clarification on the specific provisions of tightening up this ordinance. He stated philosophically there was some intent not to get in the business of designing a sign for business owners. He asked the board if that was what they were asking for and does the board want to tighten up the aesthetic or design features or the technical features of this ordinance. Commissioner Grove stated Commissioner Hughes brought up some excellent points about tightening up the aesthetic or type of sign. He stated currently there are some° easel words' in the ordinance that attorneys could interpret differently. Mr. Mike Collins stated this wording should give staff and the city some discretion in its approval. He stated there has to be a balance. Chairman McMillon stated we don't want one business owner to have to spend a lot of money on a sign and someone else comes along and doesn't have to. Commissioner Hughes stated he was not indicating putting in specific design specifics, since the exising code already specifies things like animation or moving images. He stated that if we reference the document in the current ordinance it is covered. He stated the terms glare, neon and illumination needs to be addressed. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated neon is not covered specifically, he stated if it causes glare or discomfort to adjacent properties or visibility from the street it would be prohibited. He stated some neon might be soft enough that it could work on a monument sign and staff might not know this until it was built, if it was too obtrusive. Commissioner Hughes stated a neon sign at that elevation could emit a glare. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated a neon sign at that elevation would have to have a shield or weatherproofing. He stated the UDC states what type of signs can be used for business identification. Commissioner Hughes mentioned the sign on LBJ (at Valley View Mall in Dallas)and asked if it would meet the excessive number of lumens that it would project on an adjacent surface. He stated it is intensely bright Mr. Eric Wilhite stated if it is intensely bright this would be a judgment call on the part of the city to say that it is visually impacting the motorists driving by and this would be prohibited by downgrading the lumens or change the sign. Commissioner Hughes stated if they knew this up front they would not invest the time and money in the sign. Mr. Eric Wilhite stated if they read the ordinance about excessive lumens and when they bring in the sign permit staff would ask about the lumenaires(sp?)on this sign. He stated staff could ask for something similar to a lighting plan on a site plan. Vice Chairman McNeese made the motion to table case#01-03-CC until April 17, 2001 meeting. Commissioner Grove seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Chairman McMillon, Commissioners Hughes, Sloan, Tarin, and Deithloff Planning and Zoning Minutes Page 12 April 3, 2001 Nays: None The motion carried. ITEM 5 REPORTS There were no reports. ITEM 6 DIRECTOR'S REPORT There were no reports. Adjournment: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Chairman e Date 41/rt i Ion 7/d/ 4 i i