Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/21/2002 - Minutes0 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES — MAY 21, 2002 Present: Mr. Don Witt Mr. Al Thomason Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Kyle Robinson Ms. Janet Scheid, Secretary Mr. David Holladay Mr. Chris Lowe Ms. Tammi Wood, Recording Secretary Mr. Garland Kitts — Lamar Signs Mr. Ricky St. Clair — Lamar Signs Absent- Mr. Todd Ross Approval of Agenda Mr. Robinson moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4-0. Approval of Minutes No minutes were approved. Discussion of Sign Ordinance Revisions Mr. Holladay began the discussion of off-premises signs. He gave reference to the handout and stated that he wanted to present the options and get clear direction, from the Planning Commission on which option to proceed with. Mr. Holladay gave brief overviews of each option: Option #1 — No action; Option #2 — Tougher standard's and design guidelines; Option #3 — Cap and replace; Option #4 — No new billboards; Option #5 — No new billboards and amortize existing billboards. The Planning Commission: discussed the pros and cons of each option and discussed whether they recommend a passive or active role in managing billboards. Ms. Hooker and Mr. Witt both expressed their interest in preserving the beauty of the Roanoke Valley. Ms. Hooker expressed her opinion that she does not want to see new billboards, would like to see the number of existing boards reduced and favors design guidelines. Mr. Witt stated interest in the cap and replace option combined with design guidelines and has particular interest lin the gateway corridors into the County. Mr. Robinson also expressed interest in the cap and replace option. Mr. Witt stated that unless there was a funding mechanism, in place the DOS would probably not approve amortization. Mr. Holladay stated that Mr. John Bradshaw, Valley Beautiful, had suggested that there should be a requirement to replace screening that is cut down around billboards when the structure is adjusted. Mr. Thomason stated that he favors option #4 and sprucing up existing signs to make them more aesthetically pleasing in areas such as Rt. 220. Mr. Witt didn't think that an amortization schedule would be feasible. He also stated that the PC needs to be on good legal ground on the option chosen. Ms. Hooker questioned if in the cap and replace policy, does one new sign equal a new location or if one sign is taken down would the new one need to be at the same location. Ms. Scheid stated that it could be a new location if it meets the ordinance requirements. Areas that are considered "bad" areas are not sellable due to not enough traffic or not the right types of traffic, or traffic that passes the sign at the wrong time of the day. She then asked if the concerns were new signs, new locations, or the total # of signs. Ms. Hooker stated that she was not interested in more total signs, and the intrusiveness of new signs. Mr. Holladay stated that the 4 -5 sites available for billboards are located in commercial and industrial zoned areas. He also stated that when rezoning property, care should taken to make sure that the rezoning would not allow for additional billboards to be erected. Mr. Thomason stated that he would be comfortable with option #3. Ms. Hooker agreed, if the intention is reduction of signage — with a policy that for each new sign more than one sign is removed. It was confirmed that the cap and replace option is not necessarily banning new sites. Ms. Scheid stated that the cap and replace can work but that it is critical that the county be involved in which signs come down first. Mr. Thomason suggested that a smaller sign be exchanged for a larger sign. It was stated that the cap and replace option would be appropriate when combined with design guideline revisions. Mr. Witt suggested that the community could require muted colors. Mr. Kitts stated that the cap and replace is a logical win -win situation for both sides and that if it is necessary, Lamar signs would speak to the BOS to show their support. Mr. Holladay discussed the on- premise sign revisions. The primary option is to allow a sliding scale of sign height and distance from right -of -way. The closer to the road the sign is the lower height is would have to be. Ms. Hooker and Mr. Witt stated that this issue is worth pursuing and a good idea. Mr. Witt made reference to the recent C -2 rezoning petitions which the PC placed conditions on the rezoning requiring C -1 signage regulations. Mr. Holladay stated that there is a lot of visual competition of signs of the same size. He also stated that there was no incentive to stagger signs, make them more attractive and closer to the road and lower to the ground. Monument signs were discussed. Mr. Holladay stated that the style of sign is driven by the market of what the business owner wants. 2 Frontage requirements were then discussed. The current standards require 100-foot of frontage before a freestanding sign can be permitted. Mr. Holladay posed the question of 75-foot lots. Ms. Scheid asked what the original reasoning was for the 100 -foot lot requirement. Mr. Witt stated that it was to reduce the clutter on the street but still allowed for signage to be placed on the building, Mr. Holladay stated that 75-foot lots were created by circumstance or necessity only and should not be encouraged. Mr. Witt stated that whatever decision is made should reduce clutter and level the playing field to be fair to businesses. Mr. Holladay referred to the Colonial Avenue Corridor where several houses Ihave been converted into businesses and that it could be very attractive. Mr. Holladay suggested that there could be an allowance for a sliding sign scale with no specifications for monument signage only. Temporary signs were discussed briefly., Ms. Scheid stated that Scenic America would be sending a list of the local membership to her to get the perspective of the anti-billboard citizen groups involved. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Planning Staff Planning Department position vacancies were discussed. Ms. Scheid gave an update on the Colonial Avenue project. She stated that it would be re- investigated by VDOT. Mr. Witt asked if there has been any research done on future projects on the 6-year plan to prevent any upcoming controversies similar to Colonial Avenue. Ms. Scheid stated that the new Transportation Planner would be taking on this, task. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:30pm. Respectfully Submitted, Approved: Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission 3,