Loading...
BZA 05-16-06 Meeting MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on, May 16, 2006. PRESENT Theresa Catlett, Chairman, Opequon District; Robert Perry, Vice Chairman, Stonewall District; Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District; Dwight Shenk, Gainesboro District; and Kevin Scott, Shawnee District. ABSENT: Lennie Mather, Red Bud District; and Robert W. Wells, Member -At- Large. STAFF PRESENT Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator; Kevin Henry, Planning Technician; and, Bev Dellinger, BZA Secretary. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Catlett at 3:25 p.m. On a motion by Mr. Rinker and seconded by Mr. Shenk, the minutes for the April 18, 2006 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. 0 Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran the cut -off date for the next meeting. Mr. Cheran replied that Friday, May 19, 2006, is the cut -off date. Mr. Cheran informed the Board members that Variance Request #07 -06 of Elizabeth Ann Cook has been postponed until the June 2006 meeting. Also, Mr. Cheran stated that Appeal Application 408 -06 of Arogas, Inc., has been postponed at the request of the applicant. The applicant may decide to withdraw the appeal, or it may be heard at the June meeting. Chairman Catlett told the citizens attending the meeting that if anyone is here for the Cook Variance or the Arogas Appeal, those two will not be heard today. PUBLIC HEARING Variance Request #07 -06 of Elizabeth Ann Cook, for a 35' variance on the eastern side of the property. This property is located on Bethel Grange Road (Route 630), Lot 153, and is identified with Property Identification Number 41 -A -153 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. ACTION — VARIANCE POSTPONED UNTIL JUNE 20, 2006 Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2006 Minute Book Page 1376 PUBLIC HEARING Appeal Application 406 -06 of Pierce Hardy to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165 -30 Signs, H — Size (1)(3). The subject property is located off of Route 11, south on Yardmaster Court, and is identified with Property Identification Number 44- A -75 -13 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. ACTION — APPEAL DENIED Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with regard to Section 165 -30G of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Signage height in the B3 (Industrial Transition) District is not allowed to exceed 35' in height. The applicant submitted a sign permit with a sign at 60' in height. This proposed signage exceeds the allowed sign height in the B3 zoning district. Mr. Cheran further stated that the applicant also applied on the same sign permit for a sign to exceed 150 square feet in area. Section 165- 301 -1(l) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for franchise signage to be 150 square feet in size. The applicant submitted a sign with an area of 200 square feet. This sign exceeds the maximum sign area for a franchise sign. Mr. Cheran told the Board that it is important to note that in 1997 the County did study and ultimately adopt an ordinance establishing the IA (Interstate Area) overlay district to enable larger signs heights and display face sizes) at appropriate locations. The locations deemed appropriate for the larger signs were further identified and designated to be adjacent to I -81 interchanges. As the subject site of this appeal is not adjacent to an interstate interchange, nor does the site have direct vehicular access to the interstate, the IA district sign regulations do not apply. As such, the County Ordinance, whish is based on previous studies on visibility and traffic speeds, would not permit the larger sign as sought by the appellant. Staff is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165 -30G and H(l) regarding height and sign area for signage that is not permitted in Frederick County. Mr. Cheran stated that representatives from 84 Lumber are present to answer questions. Mr. Rinker asked how far the interchanges for I -81 are on either side of the property. Mr. Cheran estimated a mile to a mile and one half. Mr. Shenk informed Chairman Catlett that due to a conflict of interest, he must abstain from voting on this appeal. Mr. Mike McCowsky, National Director of Outdoor Signage for 84 Lumber, approached the podium. Mr. McCowsky stated they would like to withdraw their request for a larger sign; the 150' franchise sign will be adequate for their needs. They would, however, like to request the additional height. Although the ordinance is pretty specific, the sign they are requesting is basically along 1 -81, 0 which is an interstate and they are very close to the overlay districts. The I -81 visibility would provide Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2006 Minute Book Page 1377 their company with great visibility, based on location. The sign, even at 50' to 60', would only be visible from the interstate. The only other option to make their store visible would be to cut all the trees, which they prefer not to do. The trees would block the sign at 35'. Mr. Perry asked Mr. McCowsky, hypothetically, if people traveling at 65 or 70 miles an hour, north or southbound on 1 -81, see this 84 sign, do you really think they're going to know how to get off I- 81? Mr. McCowsky stated that, hypothetically, he thinks they will because they'll know the location is between the two exits. Mr. McCowsky further stated that their primary business is not the interstate traffic but the local people. Mr. Perry stated that local people will know they're there anyway. Mr. McCowsky stated that over time, they'll know they're there, but right now they won't, and this sign will definitely help with identification along the interstate. The size of the sign is not to the point where it's going to be overwhelming. Mr. Perry asked if the sign is going to be illuminated with spot lights and Mr. McCowsky responded that it's an internally illuminated sign, using dawn to dusk timers, which could be adjusted. It throws off very little light. Mr. Scott asked Mr. McCowsky if they do not get the variance, will some trees come down. Mr. McCowsky stated he didn't think that will happen. Mr. McCowsky stated there is a gap where trees have been removed previously, and it would be a perfect place to set the sign. The extra 15' would put them above that. They would like 60', but 50' will accomplish what they're trying to do. Mr. Scott asked what the percentage is of contractors versus the average public. Mr. McCowsky stated that basically about 90% to 91% is contractor driven. Mr. Scott stated that contractors tend to know where things are. Mr. Perry asked Mr. McCowsky if he realized that this Board doesn't have the power to allow him to put the sign at even 36' when the ordinance says 35'. Mr. McCowsky stated no, he was not aware of that. He thought that relief could be granted through this Board. Mr. McCowsky asked what would be the process then. Mr. Perry stated that he would have to gel the ordinance changed. Chairman Catlett told Mr. McCowsky that what is before this Board today is an appeal application, which means that this Board is asked to rule on whether or not the Zoning Administrator made the right decision in interpreting the Code. They do not have the power to increase the sign size or height. Mr. McCowsky stated that they were told there is not a process that exists to change the ordinance. Chairman Catlett stated that individually, she doesn't know that there is, but the Board of Supervisors could change the ordinance. Mr. Cheran commented that to change the ordinance, the Board of Supervisors would have to go through a public hearing to do that. Currently, the ordinance is in the process of getting changed — the regulation of signage. It won't help this applicant because it's proposed to bring the signage lower. If someone wanted to change the ordinance, they would apply through the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). It would take a couple of months to go through the process. Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2006 Minute Book Page 1378 Mr. McCowsky stated that was not brought to his attention until now. They would have followed that approach first, rather than coming before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Cheran stated that a letter of determination was sent to the applicant which does give them an opportunity to file. The letter of determination did say they could not have that sign and their only recourse at that time was to come before the BZA. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is present who would like to speak, either in favor or opposed to the appeal application. Ms. Jolene Orndorff approached the podium and spoke in opposition of granting the appeal request. Chairman Catlett closed the public portion of the hearing after determining no one else wanted to speak. Discussion Mr. Rinker made a motion to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Perry seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING is Appeal Application #09 -06 of Valley Farm Credit, to appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Section 165 - 30A(1), animated or flashing signs. The subject property fronts Route 11, south of the interchange of Route 37 and Interstate 81, within the Kernstown Business Park, and is identified with Property Identification Number 75 -A -10 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION — APPEAL APPROVED Mr. Cheran gave the staff report. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator with regards to LED (Light Emitting Diode) signs and EMB (Electronic Message Board). The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not define this type of sign; Section 165 -4 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance authorizes the Zoning Administrator to make interpretations and applications of the zoning ordinance. Historically, Frederick County has not allowed this type of signage. Any change to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance is a legislative action and not within the scope of the BZA Board. Furthermore, Section 165- 30A(1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance does not allow animated or flashing signs within Frederick County. Section 165 -156 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance defines animated and flashing signs. 0 Mr. Cheran further stated that this area of Route l 1, from the Route 37 Exchange to the Stephens Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2006 Minute Book Page 1 379 City boundary, is currently called our business corridor, as identified in the Comprehensive Policy PlanforFrederickCounty. The Comp Plan calls for any new signage in this area to be a monument -type sign. Introducing a new type of sign, which may be flashing or animated, would be outside of what the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for. Staff is requesting to affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Section 165- 30A(l) and Section 165 -156, that LED and EMB signage is not permitted in Frederick County. Mr. Cheran stated for the record that Mr. Robert Carpenter, President of Valley Farm Credit, is present. Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Cheran if this is the same situation that they've had the last couple of months where the only issue is the light. Mr. Cheran stated that is correct. Mr. Rinker informed the Chairman that he is going to abstain from discussion and voting on this appeal because he does business with Valley Farm Credit. Mr. Shenk also informed the Chairman that he must abstain. Mr. Robert Carpenter approached the podium. Mr. Carpenter stated that he has made available to the members an additional packet. Mr. Carpenter stated that their primary reason for appealing is 40because of the ambiguity associated with flashing and animated signs in the ordinance. They are 1 completing an additional expansion to their facility, they have multiple tenants, and the tenants have requested better illumination to the sign so it could be seen after hours. Because they are completing the expansion, this is the time for them to make modifications to their sign. It is their intent to keep within the existing framework of their current sign, but they would like to go to illuminated panels just to provide the tenants, and them, with better coverage. In addition, they have requested to put in an electronic message board. He would like to say that he knows this is a controversial subject and there are two types of signs operating in the County right now; the Sportsplex, CVS and the American Red Cross, have messaging -type boards. Valley Farm Credit does not want to follow the model of the Sportsplex. They are not interested in animation or cartoon figures flashing across their sign. They are very interested, however, in being able to communicate with the public, on behalf of their own business as well as their tenants, certain types of information that can best be communicated through some type of electronic- messaging system. Mr. Carpenter believes the issue is exactly like what was presented to the Board earlier by CVS. It is their intent, that if approved, they would follow a similar model. They would like to have an electronic messaging board placed near the top of their sign. They are not talking about, and they are willing to commit to, having a message center that is not flashing. It's going to change messages, but it happens just like a traffic light changes. They're asking that they have the ability to compete with other businesses; the City has a much more liberal ordinance in this regard than currently the County has. Chairman Catlett asked Mr. Carpenter if the messages would be limited to you're his business or would that be something that would change for all the businesses. Mr. Carpenter replied it is their intent that it could be used by anyone in their building. However, Valley Farm Credit would control the Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2006 Minute Book Page 1380 message board; tenants would not have access to the computer. Tenants would submit to them any prepared text that they would like to have displayed and they would input that at whatever agreed upon interval of change, and they would rotate messages among themselves and their tenants. Chairman Catlett asked if anyone is present who would like to speak in favor of, or opposed to, the appeal and no one responded. Chairman Catlett closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Discussion Mr. Perry made a motion to grant Valley Farm Credit the ability to have the LED with the EMB, changing no sooner than two minutes and restricted to the tenants of the building. Mr. Scott added to the motion that no animation affects would be permitted. Mr. Scott seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. OTHER Chairman Catlett asked if there is any other business to come before the Board. Mr. Cheran updated the Board members on the status of the legal cases against the Board of Zoning Appeals. 16 As there were no other items or new business to be discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Theresa B. Catlet , Chairman Bev Dellinger, Secretary Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of May 16, 2006 Minute Book Page 1 381