Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-7-21 PC Minutes * M I N U T E S * JOINT PUBLIC WORKSHOP PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL City Council Chambers April 7, 2021 A Joint Public Workshop of the Planning Commission and City Council was held on April 7, 2021 and called to order at 3:14 p.m. with the following members present: Commission Members present: Chairman Sina Nejad Commissioner Lynda Kay Makin Commissioner Taher Quraishi Commissioner Eddie Senigaur Commissioner Roy Steinhagen Alternate Commissioner Erika Harris Commission Members absent: Commissioner Johnny Beatty Commissioner Shawn Javed Commissioner Bill Little Commissioner Tom Noyola Alternate Commissioner Marty Craig Alternate Commissioner Lauren Williams Mason Councilmembers present: Mayor Becky Ames Mayor Pro-Tem Randy Feldschau Councilmember W.L. Pate Councilmember Taylor Neild Councilmember Mike Getz Also present: Chris Boone, Director of Planning and Community Development Adina Josey, Senior Planner Tyrone Cooper, City Attorney Sharae Reed, First Assistant City Attorney Catherine Allen, Recording Secretary 1 Planning Commission April 7, 2021 JOINT PUBLIC WORKSHOP 1) Review and discuss changes to the sign ordinance, specifically amendments to the Zoning Ordinance concerning signage, Sections 28.01.004, 28.03.018, 28.03.020, 28.03.021, 28.04.003, 28.04.005, 28.04.006, and 28.04.008(22). PZ2021-17 Mr. Boone thanked the Commission and Councilmembers for attending the workshop and presented an introduction. He stated that the purpose of this workshop was to discuss amending the City ordinances concerning signs as a result of court cases such as Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, as previously discussed in the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Boone stated that the approach in the proposed changes to the ordinances was an attempt to maintain the status quo as much as possible. He stated that the current ordinances have been in place for decades and appear to be working well in preventing complaints and problems with signs, but that the staff felt that change was necessary to react to the Supreme Court decision. He added that the goal of the meeting today was to decide if and how to move forward to make adjustments. Next, Mr. Boone presented the reasons for having a sign ordinance, which are similar to the reasons for having zoning and landscaping ordinances. These regulations help to maintain an orderly community and make a difference in the appearance of the City. He stated that the goal is to allow a reasonable amount of signs and that the staff wants citizens and businesses to be successful with signs that make sense for the community. He then showed slides of examples of signs in other cities as examples of what can occur if there is no regulation or control of signs. Slides of a matrix highlighting the current sign ordinance features and pictures of signs in Beaumont were shown. Mr. Boone then discussed overlay districts within the City that have more restrictive sign regulations than the City as a whole and showed pictures of further examples. Mr. Boone stated that the main topic of this workshop would be about temporary signs, such as real estate, construction, campaign, decorative signs, flags and banners. He reiterated that the discussion of these signs was necessary due to the decision of the Reed court case. Mr. Boone showed a slide highlighting a portion of the Reed case decision, which stated that the government cannot regulate signs based on the content of their messages. He stated that current ordinance of Beaumont is similar to many other cities in that the regulations are defined by the message of the sign. He added that Reed found no compelling government interest for the City to regulate the message of a sign and that this decision has left many cities struggling to remedy this decision with the ordinances they have in place. He added that the City of Beaumont’s ordinances have not yet been challenged, but could be open to challenge based on this court decision. 2 Planning Commission April 7, 2021 He then showed a slide of the current ordinance and highlighted exemptions. He stated that temporary signs do not need permits because of these exemptions, but that these exemptions are based on the content of the sign, thus causing a potential issue in light of the Reed decision. Finally, he concluded that due to the current ordinances being subject to challenge, the staff recommends making amendments. He stated that possible options are to take no action and risk challenge, amend with recommended changes or amend with various changes to the staff recommendations. A slide was shown of features of the current ordinances with details for real estate, construction, campaign, temporary decorative signs, flags and banners. Mr. Boone stated that most of the time these signs are not a problem and do not draw complaints, but preventing any future problems has become more complicated with the Reed decision. He stated again that cities now cannot regulate the content of signs, but can regulate the number, size, duration and placement of signs. Slides showing pictures of signs in Beaumont were shown. Mr. Boone added that the City is not currently enforcing most sign ordinances due to the problematic situation the court case has caused. Councilmember Neild asked who would pose a challenge to the ordinances if they are not being enforced. Mr. Cooper answered that a challenge would typically come from someone who the ordinance was being enforced against. Councilmember Getz stated that if the ordinance is not being enforced than no one would challenge it. Mr. Cooper agreed that it was not likely to be challenged for this reason, but that without change the ordinance lacks teeth and is presumptively invalid. Mr. Boone replied that if we do have an issue arise where we would need to enforce the ordinance, we would be subject to challenge. He added that we have not had many problems, but posited that this was due to having a good ordinance in place. Councilmember Getz brought up an issue with campaign signs being regulated and cited Section 259.003 of the Texas state election code, which states that political signs cannot be regulated by municipalities. Mr. Cooper stated that the state law is just as subject to challenge as the current ordinance and that it is also presumptively invalid. He added that the current ordinance could be left as is, but it would be irresponsible in his opinion. Councilmember Getz stated that there is a conflict with the ordinance and the election code and that the state law would override the city ordinance. Mr. Boone stated that this was a problem. Mr. Cooper agreed that it is a problem and that the election code is causing the City to violate the Reed decision and that attempting to comply with the Reed decision is the reason for the meeting today. Councilmember Getz stated that someone could challenge the state law and they all took oaths to uphold the laws of Texas. Mr. Boone stated that the City cannot prohibit any sign with a campaign message without seeing its content and campaign signs would be further discussed later in the meeting. Councilmember Neild asked about complaints and problems with signs other than during campaign season. Mr. Boone replied that there have been some issues particularly in residential areas, but that the City has been able to stay ahead of complaints through enforcement. Brief discussion followed concerning signs in the right-of-way. Mr. Boone and Mr. Cooper explained 3 Planning Commission April 7, 2021 that signs in the right-of-way are not affected by either the Reed decision or the state election code because the content of the sign is not a factor. Chairman Nejad asked if the number of signs is affected by the Reed decision. Mr. Boone and Mr. Cooper explained that the number, size, height and placement can still be regulated. Commissioner Senigaur asked why the ordinance needs to be changed and Mr. Boone replied that the current ordinance needs amending in order to comply with this court decision or it will be subject to challenge. Mr. Boone added that many other cities and organizations are working on this issue to amend their ordinances to comply with the court decision. Councilmember Neild asked if it was possible to get an attorney general decision on the matter. Mr. Cooper stated that he did not think the attorney general would provide an opinion. Alternate Commissioner Harris inquired about the cost and effort that would be required for an attorney general decision and questioned its usefulness. Councilmember Neild stated that it would show an effort to resolve the issue. Mr. Boone asked if a city could challenge the state statute and Mr. Cooper replied that they would have to have standing to challenge it. Mr. Cooper stated that the issue would be how successful that challenge would be and that the attempt of staff in this proposal was to try to beef up the current ordinance to correct the problem. Councilmember Getz stated that the proposal will still be in conflict with the state election code, which also could open the City to challenge. Alternate Commissioner Harris asked for further information about the overlay districts and Mr. Boone explained the sign regulations in overlay districts. Discussion followed about the current ordinance for campaign signs. Councilmember Getz stated that the sixty (60) day duration does not currently specify when the sixty (60) days begins. Discussion followed about the intent of the current ordinance and that this problem could be addressed with these amendments. Commissioner Makin stated that campaign signs seem to have only recently become a problem. Chairman Nejad asked about temporary decorative signs such as those that say “Happy Birthday” and about each letter of the display being counted as an individual sign. Mr. Boone stated that the proposal is not to count each letter as a single sign and that it will be discussed later in the presentation. Chairman Nejad stated that he did not know why we would want to subject the citizens to this kind of regulation and Mr. Boone reiterated that it would be up to the Commission and Council how much regulation they wanted. Commissioner Senigaur stated that it sounded like a dictatorship. Mr. Boone continued the presentation in which he went through each category of temporary sign and showcased the current ordinance and proposed amendments. As the content portions of the ordinance would be removed, these proposed amendments would not specify the message or content of the sign, but rather allow additional signs in different situations. Additional signs would be allowed with specific regulations when a property is under construction, for sale or lease, holding a garage sale and during election season. 4 Planning Commission April 7, 2021 Construction signs were the first type of temporary signs presented. Slides of examples, features of the current ordinance and proposed changes were shown. The current ordinance allows one sign per street, forty (40) square foot maximum, no height limit and signs allowed during the time of construction. The proposed changes for residential zones included allowing one sign per street, eight (8) square foot maximum, six (6) foot height maximum and signs allowed until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The proposal for commercial zones included no number limit, forty (40) square foot maximum, fifteen (15) foot height limit, and also allowed signs until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Another option presented by staff was to have no restrictions on temporary signs during construction. Discussion followed concerning the options for amendments and the justifications for the necessity of construction signs. After further discussion, a consensus was reached to have no restrictions on temporary signs during construction. Real estate signs were then discussed. Slides of examples, features of the current ordinance and proposed changes were shown. The current ordinance allows one sign per street, eight (8) to sixty-four (64) square foot maximum, no height limit and signs allowed while a property is for sale or lease. The proposed amendments for residential zones included one sign per street, eight (8) square foot maximum, six (6) foot height maximum, and signs allowed while a property is for sale or lease. The proposed amendments for commercial zones included no number limit, fifty (50) square foot maximum, fifteen (15) foot height maximum and signs allowed while a property is for sale or lease. Another option presented was to have no restrictions on temporary signs while a property is for sale or lease. Mr. Boone did point out that some properties, especially commercial properties, do tend to stay on the market for long periods of time. Clarification was provided from Mr. Boone and Mrs. Josey that it would be one sign per street frontage per lot rather than one sign allowed for the whole street. Councilmember Neild stated that a sign must be read to determine that it is a real estate sign. Mr. Boone replied that this proposed amendment cannot specify that it has to be a real estate sign because content cannot be regulated, but that it allows an additional sign while a home is for sale or lease. He added that a reasonable person would probably use this exemption to put up a real estate sign, but that they would not be required to. Mrs. Josey also clarified that this would be a sign in addition to what is already allowed. Councilmember Neild asked what if someone says that their house is always for sale. Mr. Boone replied that this could be a defense to the ordinance. Commissioner Makin asked about corner lot homes and if they could only have one sign. Mr. Boone replied that it a corner lot could have a sign facing each street. Councilmember Getz asked about if someone put up a sign that was racially offensive or otherwise inflammatory. Mr. Cooper replied that if you have to read it to see that it is offensive that it cannot be regulated and is considered free speech under the Reed decision. Alternate Commissioner Harris suggested that a home owners or neighborhood association may be able to address the sign. Councilmember Neild stated that home owner associations have been challenged in court as well. Councilmember Getz stated that home owner associations cannot regulate campaign signs under state law. Councilmember Pate asked if we had ever had such a situation with an offensive sign. Alternate Commissioner Harris mentioned the Kathy Page billboards in Vidor, TX. Mayor Ames stated that they have received complaints about suggestive billboards in Beaumont, but that the City is unable to regulate them. Mr. Boone 5 Planning Commission April 7, 2021 suggested that if the sign were clearly pornographic or especially egregious that there should be some remedy available outside of the sign ordinances. No changes were suggested by the Commissioners or Councilmembers to the staff’s proposal for real estate signs. Chairman Nejad asked that Mr. Boone be allowed to continue the prepared presentation. The next type of temporary sign presented was temporary decorative signs. Slides of examples, features of the current ordinance and proposed changes for residential and commercial areas were presented. The current ordinance does not allow for this type of sign. The staff proposal included a limit of one sign, limit of sixty (60) square feet, a five (5) foot height maximum, and a duration limit of seven (7) days. Another option presented was to have no restrictions on temporary decorative signs but to limit the number of days to seven (7) days. Discussion followed concerning these signs not usually being a problem as the companies charge by the day so they are usually not up for very long. Councilmember Neild stated if there is a time limit people would be able to take them down and then put them right back up. Mr. Boone suggested that a regulation for the number of times a year they could be displayed could be added. Discussion followed about this and concluded that regulation on number of times per year would be unfair and not necessary. Mayor Ames stated that it should be left as proposed and that it is not usually a problem. Mr. Cooper added that the vendors of these signs will come and pick them up because they need them for other jobs. A consensus was reached to accept the proposed amendments. The next type of temporary sign presented was for yard sales or garage sales. Slides of examples, features of the current ordinance and proposed changes were presented. The current ordinance includes a limit of one sign, six (6) square foot maximum, five (5) foot height limit, and signs allowed during a garage sale twice a year. The staff proposal included a limit of one sign, six (6) square foot maximum, six (6) foot height maximum and signs allowed during the garage sale for any ten (10) days in a calendar year. Another option presented would be no limit for a period of time before and during the garage sale. Mr. Boone stated that garage sale signs are not usually an issue, unless a resident is leaving the sign up continuously and essentially running a business. Mr. Cooper mentioned that signs cannot be up for more than ten (10) consecutive days. Commissioner Senigaur inquired about the penalty for violations of the current ordinance. Mr. Boone replied that there is a usually a courtesy letter or call which typically elicits compliance, but if not there can also be a warning letter issued and finally charges brought in Municipal Court. No changes to the staff’s proposal were suggested by Commissioners or Councilmembers for this type of sign. Campaign signs were the next type of temporary sign discussed. Slides of examples, features of the current ordinance and proposed changes for residential and commercial areas were shown. The current ordinance includes no number limit, eight (8) square foot maximum, six (6) foot height limit, and duration of sixty (60) days maximum. The staff proposal for residential zones included no number limit, twenty (20) square foot maximum, eight (8) foot height maximum, and a duration of sixty (60) days prior to an election. The staff proposal for commercial zones included no number limit, eight (8) square foot maximum, six (6) foot height maximum, and 6 Planning Commission April 7, 2021 duration of sixty (60) days prior to an election. Another option presented was to have no limit on temporary signs during a defined campaign season. Discussion followed concerning the details of the current ordinance provisions. Commissioner Steinhagen asked if there is currently a rule about how close signs can be to the curb. Mr. Boone replied that there is not a setback rule, but that signs cannot be placed in the right-of-way. Discussion followed about 4x4 signs being common, but technically not allowed under the current ordinance. Further discussion followed on how much to regulate size and duration and what would be reasonable, typical and enforceable. Councilmember Pate stated that the price of large signs helps prevent their overuse. A consensus was reached that the size of campaign signs should be sixteen (16) square feet maximum in residential zones and forty (40) square feet maximum in commercial zones. No other changes to the staff proposal were suggested by Commissioners or Councilmembers. A brief discussion followed concerning election signs on City property. Mr. Cooper stated that signs can be regulated on City property regardless of the proposed ordinance changes. Discussion followed about the enforcement of the sign ordinances and how the City becomes aware of violations. Councilmember Getz suggested that as opposed to City regulations, that citizens could use nuisance laws to enforce restrictions. Alternate Commissioner Harris suggested that these types of regulations are what the City staff is employed to do and that informed and reasonable laws are needed. She argued that regulations are necessary for the beautification of the City and that something needs to be on the books. She added that she has not heard anything unreasonable in the staff presentation and supports the efforts of the meeting. Mayor Ames and Chairman Nejad highlighted the Planning Commission’s past actions concerning flashing signs and other beautification efforts. The next type of temporary sign discussed was flags. Slides of examples were shown. Mr. Boone stated that the current ordinance does not really address flags. The staff proposal for flags in residential zones included a limit of two (2) flags, twenty-four (24) square foot maximum, twenty-five (25) foot height maximum, and no time limit. The staff proposal for commercial zones included no limits on number, size, or height but proposed a restriction of the flag having to be ten (10) feet from the property line. Another option presented was to have no restrictions on flags. Councilmember Pate asked if many complaints have been made about flags. Mr. Boone replied that they have not. Commissioner Steinhagen stated that branded flags on businesses often come in kits from the company and that the whole kit must be displayed for payment. Mayor Ames stated that she did not find flags on businesses offensive. Councilmember Pate suggested that if there are not complaints about flags, they should not add regulations. After further discussion, a consensus was reached to not add regulation of flags. The Commissioners and Councilmembers all thanked Mr. Boone for his work and presentation. Chairman Nejad stated that the amendments would be on the agenda at the next Planning Commission meeting for a vote. OTHER BUSINESS None. 7 Planning Commission April 7, 2021 THERE BEING NO OTHER BUSINESS, THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:44 P.M. 8