Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/17/2003 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES -JUNE 17, 2003 Present: Mr. Don Witt Mr. Al Thomason Mr. Todd Ross Ms. Martha Hooker Ms. Janet Scheid, Secretary Mr. David Holladay Mr. John Murphy Mr. Tim Beard Ms. Susan Carter, Recording Secretary Guests: Mr. Paul Mahoney, Roanoke County Attorney Mr. John G. "Chip" Dicks, Attorney Mr. Garland Kitts, Lamar Advertising Mr. Bill Lodzinski, Lamar Advertising Mr. Ricky St. Clair, Lamar Advertising Mr. Bob Lee, President, WDBJ 7 Mr. Roger Holnback Absent: Mr. Steve Azar WORK SESSION: Session opened at 4:00 p.m. by Mr. Witt. Approval of Agenda Mr. Ross moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4 -0. Approval of Consent _Agenda Mr. Thomason moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4 -0. Discussion of Sign Ordinance Revisions Ms. Scheid summarized the June 10, 2003 BOS Worksession. She stated Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Holladay, Mr. Dicks and she met this morning to discuss and review the proposed revisions. She stated the meeting was beneficial. Mr. Witt stated two main concerns were noted at the June 10 Worksession: 1) 2 for 1 Cap & Replace stipulation, and 2) Tri- vision signage. Ms. Scheid stated that the BOS had recommended referring the Sign Ordinance Revisions back to the PC for more discussion. Mr. Witt stated he would like a clarification of Lamar's proposed revisions. Mr. Mahoney gave an overview of the meeting. He stated they discussed how the regulations would be administered. He thanked Mr. Dicks, noting many compromises were discussed. He stated many of the concepts will need to be put on paper and reviewed. He stated the sign industry would like to compromise on the structurally reconstructed section of the revisions. Mr. Witt stated he would like to discuss and understand the issues. Mr. Thomason noted Lamar was the only sign company present. He asked the percentage of signs owned by Lamar and other companies. Ms. Scheid stated Lamar owns over 50% of the billboards in the area with the remainder of the billboards being owned by several individual companies. She noted that Mr. Bob Lee was present representing Charles Franklin Advertising. Mr. Holladay noted other sign companies participated earlier in the revision process. Mr. Witt noted there are no questions regarding page 8 revisions. Mr. Chip Dicks, Attorney, stated he represents both Lamar Advertising and State Outdoor Advertising Association. He stated the revision on page 9 regarding regulation of maintenance of outdoor signs, tracks VA State Statute. He stated VDOT uses of 50% of replacement cost. He stated this would allow the County to have VDOT revoke the Sign Permit if the sign is not maintained properly. Mr. Witt requested a copy of the statute. Mr. Dicks said the industry proposes combining two non - conforming sign structures into one double -sided sign. He stated this would reduce ground rent paid by the sign company. He stated 30 days to remove an existing billboard as stated on page 17 might be difficult to enforce. He agreed to no expansion of C -1 districts. Mr. Witt expressed concern regarding the language 'consolidate, relocate or reconstruct.' Mr. Dicks explained two signs would be consolidated to form one sign with two faces. He stated the sign would be relocated to a location of an existing sign, which would be reconstructed with two faces. He stated the sign company would be required to purchase a building permit for each consolidation. Ms. Hooker asked if the sign company would be permitted to enlarge the consolidated sign. Mr. Dicks stated the sign face would be the same as currently on the billboard or smaller. Mr. Thomason requested an explanation of the reduction of square footage . Ms. Scheid stated the sign would have two faces on one structure, which would diminish the number of total structures. Mr. Dicks reiterated this would reduce the number of sign structures. Ms. Scheid stated by allowing the sign companies to double face non - conforming signs, they would be allowed to do something they are currently not allow to do. Mr. Ross asked if 'relocated' means they would be allowed to take two signs down and put one double -faced sign in a new location. Ms. Scheid stated they would only be allowed to use already existing non - conforming sites. Mr. Mahoney stated there would be a limited number of signs eligible to consolidate. Mr. Dicks stated the discussion did not include the 2 for 1 proposal because it was not in the spirit of compromise. He sited examples of other counties in which the consolidation of signs proposal has been successful. Ms. Scheid noted the sign companies would be able to have the same market coverage in low traffic areas with fewer structures. Mr. Dicks noted the focus group made a lot of progress in the meeting this morning. He suggested striking the timing on the Tri- vision since it is VA State Law. Ms. Scheid stated the State Law requires a 4 second minimum twirl time. Mr. Bob Lee, President, WDBJ -7 stated they have joined with Charles Franklin Advertising, South Bend Indiana, to build Tri - vision structures in the area. He stated they plan to sell space to businesses that advertise on WDBJ -7. He noted that no one wants to advertise in areas with minimal traffic. He stated they want their Tri - vision signs to be well structured and maintained. He stated his company found only 3 sites in Roanoke City and 2 sites in Roanoke County available to place billboards. He stated Roanoke City allows Tri - vision signs while Roanoke County does not. He gave a brief history of the Tri - vision sign, which they erected, in the County. He stated if the BOS denies the sign, Charles Advertising would remove it and place a single faced sign in its place. Mr. Witt asked if the revenue from the signs is 3 to 1 or less. Mr. Lee stated he believes it is approximately 4 to 1. Ms. Scheid requested the Tri- vision sign's image twirl time. Mr. Lee stated he believes it is approximately 20 seconds. Ms. Scheid stated if Tri - vision is approved, other changeable message boards might need to be permitted. Mr. Lee stated the VA State Lottery is promoting the changeable message boards. Mr. Witt stated the next step would be to get staff recommendations. He noted some of the BOS 2 members are opposed to Tri- vision signs. Mr. Lee noted Carilion's changeable message board has been in place for approximately 20 years. Mr. Witt noted this board is at an intersection, which includes a stoplight. Ms. Scheid stated staff recommendations and comments from the sign industry will be combined into a document which will be presented to the Planning Commission for discussion at the July 15 Worksession. Mr. Mahoney stated the goal is to present a consensus document. Mr. Dicks stated he is looking forward to working with staff and the Planning Commission regarding the consensus document. Discussion of Back Creek Section 2232 Review Mr. Witt requested the PC being given an overview of the request. Mr. Murphy gave a brief history of the Back Creek 2232 Review. He stated Mr. David Vaughn has requested that public utilities be extended from Ran Lynn Road to the area to the rear of Back Creek Elementary School. He stated Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Ron Jackson have an option to buy the parcels in this location. He stated it would be 14,000 linear feet of water and sewer lines, 3 miles of public utilities. He stated the utilities would run on the southside of the road. Mr. Ross requested an explanation of the legends on the displayed site maps. Ms. Scheid explained the site maps. Mr. Mahoney stated the Carvins Cove parking lot and Read Mountain water system were both previous 456 Reviews. He gave a brief history of a previous 456 Review requested by Roanoke City for a reservoir in the Back Creek area. He stated the VA State Supreme Court denied the request. Ms. Scheid stated if the BOS disagrees with the PC's decision, then the BOS can appeal the decision. Mr. Holladay stated the petitioner or BOS would have 10 days to file the appeal. Mr. Witt stated it is important to communicate with the citizens regarding this issue. Mr. Thomason gave a brief history of past and current owners of the various parcels in the area. Mr. Mahoney stated the developer would be responsible for installing the new lines. Mr. Witt asked the reason a 456 Review was not required for the north and south water lines. Mr. Mahoney stated it was viewed as an urban service distribution line. Mr. Ross asked if this property would require a 456 Review if the County was developing the area. Mr. Mahoney stated it would be necessary. Mr. Ross recommended reopening discussion on impact fees. He stated more development would require infrastructure costs for the County, which it may not currently be prepared to undertake. Ms. Scheid stated it would be important to predict the approximate number of homes, which can be built in the area in order to determine the increase infrastructure needs. Mr. Ross stated an estimate from the Utility Department of the number of homes, which can be served by the extension, would also be helpful. Mr. Witt noted the Utility Department would benefit from the extension. Mr. Witt stated it is important to manage the development of the County. Mr. Holladay noted development of commercial enterprises would also need to be considered when reviewing the request. Mr. Ross noted the importance of thoroughly researching the request prior to presenting it in a public forum. Mr. Roger Holnback asked if the PC could refuse the request if it is not in -line with the Community Plan. Mr. Witt stated although the PC could refuse the request, they will research the request prior to making any determination. Mr. Mahoney stated research should include legitimate alternatives with hypothetical planning analysis, including number of people, widening the road, primary road allocation. He stated the BOS is not currently receptive to cash proffers. He noted if cash proffers were accepted they would have to be used to improve the infrastructure in that particular area. Mr. Thomason stated the Roanoke County School Board is going to do a study to determine whether or not to expand Bent Mountain School. He suggested acquiring the information from them. Mr. Witt asked about time restrictions to respond to the request. Ms. Scheid stated they have 60 days unless they request and are granted an extension by the BOS. She stated more time will likely be needed: for research and public input. Mr. Ross noted it is important to progress relatively quickly since the developer may have time sensitive options on the property. Mr. Witt expressed concern regarding future rezoning of this property if the 2232 Review is approved. Ms. Scheid stated a request to have the property rezoned could oc6ur. Mr. Ross asked if other developers could use the information from the review process to develop other parcels in the area. Mr. Mahoney stated they might use the findings for other development. Ms. Hooker stated it is important to consider both sides of this request. She stated they would need to consider the pros and cons regarding future development in this area during the review process. She stated they will need to consider potential development in this area in 10 years when reviewing the request. Ms. Scheid stated: she would have a Resolution requesting an extension to research the request by July 1, 2003 PCPH,. Comments of Plannina Commissioners and Planning Staff Ms. Scheid stated currently 22 people have registered to attend the CPA. Mr. Witt requested a list of invitees including those who have registered to attend. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:41 p.m. R Submitted, Approved'. Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission 0