Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/20/2002 - MinutesROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES — AUGUST 20, 2002 Present: Mr. Al Thomason Mr. Kyle Robinson Ms. Martha Hooker Mr. Don Witt Mr. Todd Ross Ms. Janet Scheid Mr. Chris Lowe Mr. Tim Beard Mr. John Murphy Ms. Tammi Wood Mr. Bill Richardson Susan Carter, Recording Secretary Guests: Neil Kinsey, Kinsey Crane & Sign Garland Kitts, Lamar Outdoor Bill Lodinski, Lamar Outdoor Absent: Mr. David Holladay WORK SESSION: Session opened at 4 :05 p.m. by Mr. Todd Ross. Approval of Agenda Mr. Witt moved to approve the agenda. Motion passed 5 -0. Review and Discussion of the Rough Draft of the Sign Ordinance Changes Ms. Scheid led the discussion regarding the sign ordinance ch ., g g g Regarding Sec. 30 -93 -3 (A)(4), Ms. Scheid stated that directional signs would be decreasing in size but now could have a logo on them. Mr. Witt questioned the size of the logo. Mr. Kinsey stated he feels the size is excessively small. Mr. Witt proposed that advertising matter be limited to 30% of entire sign area. Mr. Ross stated busy streets do not need excessive signage. Mr. Murphy stated that this problem occurs when two or more businesses share the same entranceway. Ms. Hooker said directional signs with a logo are helpful to the public. Mr. Robinson stated for directional signs the size is adequate. Mr. Kinsey stated limiting the dimension will limit sign designs. Mr. Witt stated he will take more notice of current directional signs in the area. The Commission agreed that the proposed revisions as written were adequate. Mr. Kinsey challenged Sec. 30 -93 -4 (A)(4). Ms. Scheid stated this ordinance is already in effect and not part of the revision. Ms. Scheid stated Sec. 30 -93 -4 (A)(14) is designed to prohibit roof signs from rising above the peak of the roof into the skyscape. Regarding Sec. 30 -93 -8, Ms. Scheid stated temporary signs are difficult to track under the current ordinance. She explained under the new ordinance businesses would be allowed to have only one banner up at a time for the entire year. She stated businesses would be able to change the banner as often as desired as long as only one banner was displayed at a time. She stated all portable signs would be prohibited. Ms. Hooker asked if real estate signs would fall under this revision. Ms. Scheid stated they are covered under a separate section of the ordinance. Ms. Scheid stated enforcement of the sign ordinance will be much easier for Ms. Wood and Mr. Richardson as the each sign will be legal or illegal based the issuance of a valid permit. Mr. Witt was concerned about aesthetic impact of the banners if they fade after being allowed to remain up for several years. Ms. Scheid stated the ordinance would be self - controlling since a banner in poor condition would not reflect favorably on the business. Mr. Kinsey explained if the banner is made of good quality materials, it will last as long as other permanent signs. Mr. Ross agrees it is very difficult for staff to enforce the current sign ordinance. Mr. Robinson expressed concern over grand opening signs remaining up after the event. Ms. Scheid reiterated the importance of making sure all signs have permits. Mr. Witt questioned the definition of a temporary sign. He stated it is important to have a clear and precise definition of a temporary sign and a portable sign. Mr. Ross agreed. Regarding revision to Sec. 30- 93 -13, Mr. Kinsey stated he feels it is a bad idea to regulate the height of a sign in relation to the setback distance. He stated this expresses an anti- business attitude. He stated Salem and Vinton have a setback of 10 feet. Ms. Scheid stated this change will allow signs to be closer to the right of way since the further away it is the bigger the sign can be in height. Mr. Kinsey stated he believes this will increase the requests for variances. Ms. Scheid stated this revision is not taking anything away from the business but allowing them more flexibility with signage. Mr. Ross agreed with Ms. Scheid. Mr. Witt stated regarding revision of E (3), it will make the signage space tight. Mr. Robinson is concerned about sign wars. Mr. Ross requested staff explain E (3). Mr. Murphy stated signs have to be 15 feet apart if joint owners of property. Mr. Kinsey requested setback changes in C2 areas be reconsidered. Mr. Ross, Mr. Robinson, and Ms. Scheid clarified setback changes again. The Planning Commission and staff agreed to study the issue of signs in C -2 further. Ms. Scheid explained the revision to Sec. 30 -93 -14 is a cap and replace policy. She stated when a business completes a sign permit, they must also complete a demolition permit for the sign they are replacing; all non - conforming signs will be taken down first. Mr. Kitt expressed concern about the cap and replace policy stating they will never be able to replace a conforming sign since there are too many non - conforming signs in various locations. Mr. Robinson was concerned that if a sign was removed because it is determined to be in a right -of -way, it could not be replaced. Ms. Hooker stated it will improve the overall sign quality. Mr. Kitt is concerned it will diminish the amount of his business. Ms. Scheid clarified that the commission's goal, previously agreed upon, is to reduce the number of signs in the county. Mr. Witt stated the strategy is to get rid of non - conforming signs. Mr. Thomason stated that the Comprehensive Plan is in favor of getting rid of non- conforming signs as the need arose. Mr. Murphy stated that a lot of areas in the County would be legal spots for new billboards. He suggested having property owners sign contracts regarding signage compliance. Ms. Hooker stated many communities are disallowing billboards. Mr. Ross and Mr. Robinson spoke out against the two for one signage exchange. Mr. Thomason agreed with the proposed revisions. Mr. Witt also agreed with the proposed revisions and re- stated that he wants to reduce non- conforming signs. Mr. Ross believes it should go to public discussion. Mr. Robinson believes the businesses should be able to move signs if needed. Ms. Hooker agreed with the proposed 2 revisions in general. Staff recommended and commissioners agreed that a joint meeting between Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to discuss revisions should be arranged. Ms. Scheid explained the Clearbook Overlay to Mr. Kitts. Review of the Design Guidelines for Dixie Caverns Ynterchan a District Ms. Scheid reviewed concerns expressed by Ms. Hooker regarding the community's dissatisfaction with development of the Dixie Caverns area. Ms. Scheid reviewed guidelines adopted in December, 2000 by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Hooker stated the Planning Commission has a commitment to the public to follow through on the original plan. Ms. Scheid stated these guidelines are used in rezonings, all other issues are covered in the Community Plan. She stated the petition of Triple S Investments does fall within the guidelines. Mr. Witt agreed there is a serious public relations problem in the Catawba district, He stated that maybe West Salem should have a plan like the Clearbrook plan. Ms. Scheid stated that when the Dixie Caverns guidelines were created, citizens from the community were in the discussion three to four times but no one offered any input. Ms. Hooker agreed that those who did not participate should not complain. Mr. Ross stated guidelines should have been discussed at the community meeting of Triple S Investments. He stated it is necessary to enforce guidelines. Ms. Hooker and Ms. Scheid both questioned if the guidelines as written are enough. Ms. Hooker stated the community needs to feel it is part of the process. She stated that many citizens in the area do not want to see any changes in the area. Mr. Ross reiterated it is important to implement the guidelines. Ms. Hooker stated Roanoke County has a credibility problem in this district, Mr. Thomason stated one citizen within the Clearbrook area led the entire group through the guideline designing process. Mr. Murphy suggested taking citizen leaders from one area to another area to use as a model. Mr. Robinson agrees with Mr. Murphy's idea. Mr. Robinson stated it is important to ask who is hostile and why - get the emotional part out in the open before design discussions begin. Mr. Witt stated it is important to find a leader in the area. He stated that in a planning class he recently took Fort Worth, Phoenix, and Dallas were used as models for citizen driven planning communities with the government being a supporting system for the areas. Ms. Scheid stated that there are two issues to consider regarding the Clearbrook design guidelines; 1) it was the consensus of the Clearbrook citizen's group that growth was coming to the area and they wanted to be a part of that growth and manage it; and 2) nothing has been built under the guidelines to date so there is no good test of their effectiveness. Mr. Ross stated if the building does not conform then show the petitioner the guidelines. Mr. Thomason stated it is important to have reasonable flexibility when reviewing site plans. Ms. Hooker stated we need to reestablish our credibility in this area. Mr. Robinson suggested getting two or three people together and meeting with them about issues. Mr. Ross stated he believes the average person will stay within the guidelines already established. Mr. Robinson stated it is important for all county representatives to stay within the adopted guidelines in order to prevent further damaging the county's credibility. Mr. Witt stated it is important to include citizen's thoughts and ideas during the planning process. Review of the Design Guidelines for Colonial Avenue District 3 Mr. Scheid shared pictures of a James Dean Consultants car wash brought in by Ms. Cindy Webster for review. Mr. Witt stated he was unclear on importance of "shall" versus "should" when reviewing proffers. Mr. Beard explained "shall" and "applicable" both allow for enforcement of proffered conditions, Mr. Witt requested guidelines be attached to staff report next time this is an issue. Mr. Robinson and Mr. Witt discussed vacuum noise in comparison to traffic noise. Ms. Hooker reiterated hours have been restricted. Mr. Beard suggested staff be allowed time for a rebuttal during the public hearing when the staff report is argued. All agreed with this suggestion. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m. by Mr. Ross. Respectfully Submitted, Approved: Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission 4