PC_05-31-77_Meeting_Minutesi
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
• OF THE
SIGN ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING
Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room May 31, 1977
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman;
Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Thomas B. Rosenberger
ABSENT: George G. Snarr, Jr.; Elmer Venskoske
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman Called the Meeting to Order and proceeded-'With the Public
Hearing.
Mr. Berg was asked to brief the Commission on the progress made since
the last Public Hearing, and he stated that objections had centered around
three areas:
1. Matter of clarity and which zoning district would permit which
• types of signs.
2. Wayside stands and rural types of business.
3. The comments on area restrictions of the various types of signs.
Mr. Berg stated that under permitted uses both information and identification
signs are clearly listed as permitted uses under Section 18 -7 -1. The section on
wayside stands has been completely reworded to include larger size signs and
the setback line has been modified so that it is compatible with other districts.
The comment as to size of signs had been considered in length and in many instances
the minimum size was increased and this change would be applicable for'wayside
stands. The Planning Commission had increased to 64 square feet the sign area
for rural types of businesses. This change pre - supposes that businesses will be
zoned Commercial and therefore, would come under Commercial or Industrial District
and in that district the aggregate square footage has been increased to 100 square
• feet.
240
i
(P /C 05/31/77) p 2
The maximum for any single sign is 75 square feet. A maximum of three (3) signs
are permitted on businesses. Off- premise signs are permitted in this Ordinance
for informational purposes and those off - premise signs would be limited to
64 square feet.
f�1J9�iVYW /�l \1
Mr. Ed Guthrie °representative of interested business people and land.
owners, gave a slide presentation. He stated that signs need to be different
sizes, colors, etc and neatness is very important. He compared the size of
the actual sign against the proposed size, and he showed the signs'visibility
to the public from the highways. He stated that the electric wires are uglier
than signs. In his opinion when you go shipping you like to know which store
you are going to, therefore, you should be able to read the signs from a distance..
OPPOSITION
• Mr. Robert W. N. Smith President of Smith Advertising of Petersburg,told
the Commission that he was on•.a committee of eleven (11) people appointed by the
Governor to:
1. Review the Federal and State laws and regulations restricting the
erection and maintaince of signs and advertisements adjacent to Interstate and
Federally aided primary highways, and to determine convenience and safety impact
on the motoring public and the economic impact such restrictions are having on
businesses.
2. To_recommendtorithe State Highway and Transportation Commission revisions
to regulations or additional regulations, not in conflict with Federal and State
law, which the Committee feels necessary and desirable to improve convenience,
safety, and economic impacts on the business community.
•
G
241
I
(P/C 05/31/77) p 3
Several conclusions have been reached by the Committee that include:
• 1. Outdoor Advertising is a legitimate business enterprise.
2. Those who are against signs say„ "let's take them down ", while there is
no alternative to replace the communication that is being destroyed
by the take down.
One alternative to signs is a greatly expanded logo program where Interstate
81 will receive the logo sign program Interstate 95 has and eventually will
extend to Interstate 66. The Committee recommended establishing a priority list
for take down of non - conforming signs. The Frederick County proposed Ordinance
is frustating in his stand point because it eliminates the standardized outdoor
advertising industry and no provision has been made for those industries for the
loss of their soon to be oversized signs.
Mr. Smith proceeded to say that he had his office check and they found
that there had been no permits issued this year for off - premise, the 300 square
foot standardized outdoor signs in Frederick County and there had been only
40 nine (9) permits since 1972. His understanding was that an offer was made by
the Outdoor Advertising Association of Virginia to assist with the study and as
a resource for the Ordinance.
OP POSITION
Mr. L. J. McCormack and operator of Reimers Electra Company,commented
that he had a large sign near Interstate 81. He spoke for on- premise signs
because he had no contact with off - premise users. His sign has helped him
to obtain business from all parts of the country. His sign serves many purposes:
it illuminates the back of his business and keeps unauthorized people from
coming there, and many people on the Interstate have been able to stop there
under the light when they have break - downs. He added that his sign is kept
as neat as his buildings. Mr:. McCormack .saidr;the State operates sign laws
• as well as the Federal Government and they have rules and regulations and he
doesn't think on- premise signs should be handled by the County.
242
r
(P /C 05/31/77) p 4
• The Chairman told Mr. McCormack that his sign would not be affelted by
the Ordinance.
OPPO SITION
Mr. Bob Cooper commented on beautification. He stated there are news-
papers up and down the highway and no one stops their advertising, yet they
want to stop outdoor advertising agencies. Mr.-Cooper�_said lots
of signs that should have been taken.down a long time ago. He added he would
like to see the Commission see fit to deny the proposed ordinance.
OPPOSITION
Mrs. Libby Pingley ,operator of L. L. Wholesale Distributing Company and
the Branner Gift Shop,told the Commission that she had seven.(7) off - premise
signs which are painted every year and kept up properly. She stated she
also had twelve (12) on- premise signs. 99% of her business is tourist related
• and Frederick County relies a lot on tourist for income. 50% of her customers
stop because of her signs. Mrs. Pingley presented,a petition with 191 signatures
that she had obtained in ten (10) days from people that had stopped in because
of her signs. She agreed that signs.need to be cleaned up, however, she does
not think she should be told how many signs she can have because this would hurt
her business and she doesn't think this is fair.
OPPOSITION
Mr. Kenneth Stiles commented that Virginia has a major advantage by being
an historical spot. He stated the historical value has brought businesses into
the State and it has helped keep the economy better than the nation as i a whole,
and it has helped keep unemployment lower than the nation as a whole. Mr. Stiles
stated the reason for this is that we have not harassed the businesses. He
commented that he is not opposed to a sign ordinance, however, he does feel the
proposal is above and beyond what we need. He suggested taking the State sign
I
regulations and applying them to the Frederick County Ordinance as it exists
now.
243 J
Pr
(P /C 05/31/77) p 5
OPPOSIT
• Mr. Donald Vaden operator of Lee Jackson Motel and Restaurant, handed
in petitions with 668 names of County and City persons opposing the Sign
Ordinance. Mr. Vaden stated the State is requiring take down of signsiwhere
appropriate. He doesn't think there_.is much support for the Sign Ordinance
and he recommended we let the State regulate signs along with the highways.
OPPOSITION
Mr. Long -has a business in the County and he told the Commission we
should leave the regulations to the State.
Mr. Tony White stated that he had arrived in the area about two years ago,
and he would have had difficulty finding stores if they had been restricted to
smaller signs. There are people continually coming into the area and he feels
some consideration should be given to them.
OPPOSITION
Mr. John DiGuardo of the Quality Inn, brought up the aspect of safety.
He maintained that smaller signs could cause accidents because the motorists
would be tired and they would have trouble reading the signs.
REBUTTAL
Mrs. C. Ridgely White ,;President of Belle Grove, Inc., spoke in favor
of the Sign Ordinance. She felt that billboard size signs are not acceptable.
Mrs. White added that she thought Mr. Guthrie's slide presentation was an
indictment against signs. If a person is driving the 55 mile per hour ,speed limit,
she feels they can read the smaller signs from the highway. She doesn't feel that
businesses will be hurt by smaller signs. Frederick County is growing and this
would mean more businesses and that means more signs. She does not feel that
businesses have the right to spoil the view for the people who live here.
El
244
I
6
(P /C 05/31/77) p 6
The Chairman stated that the citizens from Frederick County had expressed a
• need for the Sign Ordinance. It was not the ideas only of the Planning
Commission. He stated that the meeting was for ideas and inputs from the people
and that there would be no action taken on the ordinance at this time.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and
approved unanimously,
•
0
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
Virginia does hereby adjourn its meeting; there being no further business.
THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
Respectfully submitted,
// &Jv�
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
,;,W-
C. Langdon ordon, Chairman
245