Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/15/2003 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES — JULY 15, 2003 Present: Mr. Al Thomason Mr. Steve Azar Mr. Don Witt Mr. Todd Ross Ms. Martha Hooker Ms. Janet Scheid Mr. Chris Lowe 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 WORK SESSION: Session opened at 4:00 p.m. by Mr. Witt. Approval of Agenda Mr. Ross moved to approve the agenda as amended. Motion passed 4 -0. Approval of Consent Agenda Mr. Azar moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4 -0. Discussion of Sign Ordinance Revisions Mr. Scheid requested PC express concerns regarding the current revisions. Ms. Scheid stated the only issue of concern staff has is regulation of the Tri- vision signs. Regarding page 1, Sec. 30- 93- 11(A), Mr. Witt inquired about the reason the last line was deleted. Mr. Mahoney stated these concerns are addressed by different means. He stated other provisions within the revisions assist in resolving this issue. He stated the deletion was a result of the negotiations with the sign industry. He stated overall the revision is positive for the county. Mr. Mahoney noted the concept developed of consolidating and relocating signs was developed during the negotiations. Ms. Scheid concurred with Mr. Mahoney. Mr. Ross noted the revision regarding replacement cost of a damaged sign was also an improvement made during negotiations. Mr. Mahoney noted the language does give better definition and a clearer way to test the standard. Mr. Dicks explained some language was removed because if any repairs need to be made the sign company will be required to acquire a building permit. He stated when signs are consolidated the company would be required to acquire a demolition permit and a building permit. Regarding Sec. 30- 93- 11(C), Mr. Witt expressed concern regarding replacement of billboards, which are badly damaged. Mr. Dicks stated the 50% rule matches VDOT's standard. He cited an example of a damaged billboard in Bedford County. Mr. Witt expressed concern most damaged signs would be able to meet the 50% rule. Mr. Mahoney noted this was a textual problem and proof problem. He stated even under the current ordinance the sign companies are required to provide factual information in order to be permitted to repair the damaged billboard. He suggested revising language to give staff a better platform for enforcement. He stated using VDOT's standards would be easier to support in court. Ms. Scheid stated the PC could lower the percentage. She noted the county has never been able to prevent the rebuilding of a damaged billboard under the current standards. She stated Vinton prevented the rebuilding of one damaged billboard by hiring an independent company to research the validity of submitted costs. Mr. Ross questioned the frequency badly damaged billboard replacement occurs. Mr. Dicks stated the current revisions reflect the sign industry's compromise. He again noted it is standard across the state. He noted enforcement of billboard regulations is currently difficult for staff. Mr. Witt asked if an explanation of 'good repair' is in the VA Code. Mr. Dicks stated good repair is not specifically setout in the VA Code. He stated the revisions will empower staff to establish 'good repair' so they may better enforce the ordinance. Mr. Witt asked about repair standards. Mr. Dicks stated repair standards are part of the Building Regulations as opposed to the VA Code. He suggested making the Roanoke County Code uniform with the statewide building code, which would empower staff when determining 'good repair.' He stated there is no definition for good repair in the Building Code. Mr. Mahoney stated under Chapter 7 the Building Commissioner could implement statutory schemes regarding repair. Mr. Witt expressed concern regarding potential litigation since a definition is not available. Mr. Dicks stated if the sign is not in good repair, the sign company risks VDOT permit revocation. He also noted a sign in disrepair reflects badly on the reputation of the sign company. Mr. Witt suggested creating a definition for'good repair.' Mr. Dicks stated the Code Official would make the determinations. Mr. Witt stated repairing 50% of a structure should not be construed by the sign company as being allowed to construct a new structure. Mr. Dicks noted the Federal Highway Administration uses the same language, which has been included in the revision. He stated this language is also incorporated into the VDOT standards, which would diminish potential issues and future litigation. Mr. Ross stated since it is infrequent damaged billboard replacement occurs, the PC needs to look at the issue with a broader perspective. He stated the revisions would assist the county in regulating billboards. Mr. Witt and Ms. Hooker asked if the language of other counties sign ordinances is the same as Roanoke County's. Mr. Mahoney stated other counties have followed the federal and state standards. Mr. Witt expressed concern the sign companies will manipulate their costs in order to avoid the 50% replacement limit. Mr. Witt stated a damaged sign should be replaced with the same type of building materials and in the same manner as the existing sign. Ms. Hooker stated it should be a like structure. Mr. Azar agreed. Mr. Dicks stated the state and federal regulations prohibit structurally reconstructed billboards except for the sign face in non - conforming areas. Regarding 30- 93 -14, Mr. Ross noted in (A) relocate has been deleted from this section of the ordinance in reference to non - conforming billboards only. Ms. Scheid noted a conforming sign could be relocated. Mr. Ross also noted the term off premises signs is used in (A) while in (A)2. the term off premises structures is used. He questioned if the cap is on the structure or the sign face. Ms. Scheid stated the cap is on the structure. Mr. Dicks stated the term off premises structures should be added to (A). Ms. Scheid suggested reorganizing the ordinance by separating the conforming regulations and the non - conforming regulations for clarification purposes. Regarding (A)(3), Mr. Witt stated it should be added that each sign face shall not exceed the height of the current sign structure in a particular location. Mr. Mahoney noted the restriction should include both the height and the area of the sign. Mr. Dicks stated in the case of consolidation the K sign faces should match in size. Ms. Scheid stated (A )4. should be reworded. Ms. Scheid requested clarification of the location regarding consolidating signs. Mr. Dicks stated the sign would be in the same location as one of the previous signs. He also noted most non - conforming locations are in overlay districts. He stated after the previous BOS Public Hearing, the County Administrator requested the sign industry offer a way to reduce the billboard structures. He noted the submitted revision meets his request. He stated Stafford County has reduced their billboards from 33 to 28 with the implementation of consolidation of signs. Mr. Mahoney stated from staffs perspective, it allows a better opportunity to reduce number of billboards. He noted with the construction of the new billboards, better poles will be used. Ms. Hooker noted based on the topography surrounding the billboard, some locations will be ineligible for consolidation. Mr. Dicks stated the sign industry will honor the compromise regarding Tri- vision signs. Regarding page 4, 5.c., Mr. Witt requested the following language be added to clarify the edge of the road, "a line perpendicular to the road to the center line of the board." The PC decided they would further discuss the revisions at the August 19 Worksession and forward it on September 2" for the BOS to hear on September 23 rd . Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Ms. Scheid gave a brief update of the CPA. She stated Mr. Mahoney will be giving a presentation on Planning Law during the 3 rd class. She commended Ms. Hooker on her presentation regarding the responsibilities and function of the Planning Commission. She gave a brief description of the class project, which will require research regarding Roanoke County Land Use designations. She stated she hopes this will encourage citizen involvement for the Community Plan revision process. She stated tentatively the Community Meeting will be held on September 15 in hopes the CPA attendees will become involved in the revision process. Mr. Witt inquired about the progress of 2232 Review. Ms. Scheid gave a brief update noting the BOS will receive the Resolution for a time extension at their next hearing. She stated staff should not have a problem completing the process within the extended time constraints. Ms. Scheid informed the PC about Mr. Christopher Hanes' untimely death. Staff and the PC welcomed Mr. Thomason back after his medical absence. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved: 5 cretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission