Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 03 16 PC MinutesThe Town of Lees6urq in Virginia Leesburg Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 3, 2016 The Leesburg Planning Commission met on Thursday, November 3, 2016 in the Town Council Chamber, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176. Staff members present were Brian Boucher, Chris Murphy, Shelby Caputo, and Karen Cicalese. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm by Chairman Welsh Chamblin PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Members Present: Chairman Welsh Chamblin, Commissioners Babbin, Barnes, Harper, Kidder and Robinson and Vice Mayor Burk Absent: Commissioner Burk ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: Commissioner Harper Second: Commissioner Robinson Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent) APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 20, 2016 Motion: Commissioner Robinson Second: Commissioner Harper Vote: 6-0-1 (Burk absent) DISCLOSURE OF MEETINGS No meetings were disclosed, however, Commissioner Harper wished to congratulate Commissioner Kidder for her Civic Achievement Award. CHAIRMAN'S STATEMENT Chairman Welsh Chamblin commented that the Commission had a light agenda for the evening and she was looking forward to a good discussion. She also encouraged everyone to vote in next week's election. PETITIONERS None PUBLIC HEARING None Leesburg Planning Commission November 3, 2016 Minutes SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT None ZONING TLOA-2015-0006 Sign Regulations Text Amendment (Continued), Chris Murphy, Zoning Administrator and Shelby Caputo, Deputy Town Attorney Mr. Murphy, continued the discussion from the previous meeting on October 20, 2016. Discussion at that meeting focused on temporary sign regulations, specifically the 90 -day use limitation and the allowance of off -premises temporary signage such as real estate open house signs, place of worship signs, yard sale signs, lost dog/cat signs, etc. A motion to postpone action to November 3, 2016 was passed for the purpose of giving staff additional time to address these concerns. Ms. Caputo spoke with Martin Crim, author of the Local Government Attorney's Association (LGA) model ordinance, regarding the 90 -day limit. Mr. Crim noted that the LGA was also struggling with the duration limitations and explained that 90 days is justified when established on the basis of aesthetic concerns and potential hazards created by less resilient materials. Additionally, 90 days will adequately address signage concerns associated with elections, holiday expressions, and the typical amount of time it takes to sell or lease a property. Properties can go up for sale or lease more than once per year, there are multiple holidays per year, and one might want to make political statements multiple times per year. Mr. Murphy concluded that staff found that it would be difficult to devise further limitations on the current 90 day period that wouldn't potentially run afoul of the strict scrutiny provisions established in the Reed decision Commissioner Babbin asked for clarification on real estate signage duration limits. Mr. Murphy responded that real estate signs were in a separate sub -category of temporary signs and there was a provision that they be removed within 10 days of the sale or lease of the property. Commissioner Babbin commented that properties can be up for sale for longer than a 3 month period and for sale/lease signs should not fall under the 90 day durational limit. She also expressed concerns regarding political signs as there can be more than 1 election in a given year. Mr. Murphy explained that this was in response to her concern that there wasn't a provision to prevent someone erecting a sign for 90 days, removing it for 1 day, and erecting another sign again. Commissioner Babbin clarified that her concern regarded erecting the same sign and wished to have that distinction made in the ordinance. Chairman Welsh Chamblin raised concerns regarding the impact this limitation would have on a sign for a church meeting or some other type of meeting where the same sign is put up each weekend. She used the Farmer's Market as an example and asked if it was allowable to place a temporary directional sign on the shopping center's property. Ms. Caputo commented that the Farmer's Market is on commercial property and would require a sign permit. A sign permit is not required for temporary signs placed on residential property. Commissioner Babbin asked about churches that don't fall under commercial or residential zoning. Mr. Murphy responded that a lot of churches are on residentially zoned property. Commissioner Babbin reference Page 15-8, Item E-3 of the proposed amendment which Leesburg Planning Commission November 3, 2016 Minutes addresses temporary signs on residential property and commented that if a property is considered residential, due to its zoning district that should be indicated in the ordinance. Ms. Caputo agreed and suggested changing the language to "On a property zoned residential' which would include churches and schools. Chairman Welsh Chamblin asked if schools were zoned residential. Mr. Murphy answered that the majority of schools and churches are on properties that are zoned residential and that staff will make the suggested change to the language. Commissioner Baines asked how this would affect churches not located in residential districts and suggested they be treated the same as churches located in residential districts. Mr. Murphy explained that this would be illegal as it addresses content based signage. Commissioner Babbin asked if it were possible to separate out properties that are used as a place of worship. Ms. Caputo replied that staff could add a section (15.4.E.4) to address signage for properties that are used as a school or place of worship and a permit would not be required. There was discussion as to whether to recommend these changes as part of the motion or to allow staff time to incorporate the changes and bring it back to the Commission. Vice Mayor Burk asked the Commission to consider what impacts the changes they propose might make to other categories of signs, such as political signs. She also noted that she appreciated how much effort and detail the Planning Commission puts in in its review of applications and amendments and strongly encouraged the Commission to not send anything to Council that was not complete. Brian Boucher, Deputy Director, Department of Planning and Zoning asked if Reed allowed the separation of signs by various categories. Ms. Caputo replied that it goes to location. Reed is violated when a sign is regulated based on its content. Commissioner Babbin commented that there were 3 categories of signs being dealt with. The first was content based and is prohibited by Reed. The second is regulation by location which is not specifically addressed by Reed but seems to be allowable. The third deals with regulation based on who is placing the sign. For instance, if a church or non-profit is placing a sign on school property can it be regulated differently than a commercial entity? Ms. Caputo responded that she did not think that would be possible. Mr. Murphy noted that additional language changes can be made to address this concern. After further discussion, it was determined to bring this back to the Commission after staff has had an opportunity to draft this new language. Discussion moved to temporary off- premises directional signs. Mr. Murphy explained that during the last meeting concerns were expressed regarding the need for an allowance for off - premises signs for yard sales, lost dog/cat, etc. Off -premises signage has been specifically prohibited in the Zoning Ordinance since 1961. Because the Town has prohibited all off - premises signs since 1961, regardless of the message, there is no concern that this will violate the Leesburg Planning Commission November 3, 2016 Minutes Reed ruling. Due to the narrowly focuses direction of Town Council in Resolution No. 2015- 141, staff is not proposing any new language that is not directly related to the strict scrutiny test resulting from Reed. There is no direct nexus between granting more rights pertaining to residential off -premises directional signs and amending Article 15 to comport with the Reed decision. Therefore, it is staff s position that such a change has not been authorized by Council. If the Planning Commission would like to take a more comprehensive look at other elements of the sign ordinance they can address Council and ask them to initiate different amendments to the sign ordinance. Commissioner Babbin asked why a directional sign was not considered a minor sign as they were all under 2 square feet in size. Mr. Murphy answered that directional signs could be minor signs if they were posted on a property. Off -premises signage, regardless of size, is prohibited. Commissioner Babbin noted that she was not in support of prohibiting all off - premises signage, however she was also not in support of having an ordinance that was flagrantly violated. She did not wish to vote for an ordinance that was not going to be enforced. Mr. Murphy responded that he understood her concerns, however, this fell beyond the purview of what staff is permitted to do under the initiation to comport with Reed. Permitting off -premises signage is a change to the ordinance that is not affected by Reed and would be instituting a new form of sign that has been prohibited since 1961. Commissioner Harper asked if it were possible to amend the sign ordinance to address these concerns all at once instead of this piecemeal approach. Mr. Murphy responded that it was not due to the confines of the resolution initiated by Council. The Commission could send a recommendation to Council to initiate sign ordinance amendments. A number of Commissioners commented that this was an inefficient approach and that a more comprehensive approach was needed. Chairman Welsh Chamblin commented that she too agreed that it would be beneficial to look at the entire sign ordinance as a whole. However, she was concerned that if the Commission were to go back to Council with this request and Council were to say no; they could adopt what is currently written without the Commission's suggestions to these amendments. Commissioner Babbin suggested malting a motion to recommend to Council that they initiate a resolution to review the entire sign ordinance rather than sending a recommendation of denial. They could then postpone the vote on what is in front of them now. Ms. Caputo explained that revising the sign ordinance and getting it approved could tape another year at least and the ordinance needs to comply with Reed now. The Town does not have the resources to have a committee or staff of people to work solely on the sign ordinance. Commissioner Kidder commented that she was in support of the prohibition of off -premises signage for aesthetic reasons. She was opposed to a proliferation of off -premises signage and it makes sense for a Town that cares about its appearance to have limits. Commissioner Babbin responded that she was in agreement that there needs to be limits however, she was against the entire prohibition of off -premises signage which exists currently and is flagrantly violated every day. She was not in favor of having laws on the books that will be violated. Leesburg Planning Commission November 3, 2016 Minutes Chairman Welsh Chamblin expressed concerns regarding Council voting on the amendments as is if the Commission chose not to act on these amendments but rather send a request to Council to initiate a resolution to make changes to other elements of the sign ordinance. Vice Mayor Burk responded that she thought that Council probably would vote on the amendments as is. She encouraged the Commission to move forward on these amendments to make the ordinance legal and then make a recommendation that they would like to continue to look at the entire sign ordinance. Commissioner Robinson expressed concerns regarding the complexity of the ordinance as it is difficult to understand. She was hesitant to pass this along to Council and wait another year to address these other issues. After further discussion it was determined to move forward on these amendments and to continue discussion and take action at their next meeting on November 17, 2016 to allow staff time to make the proposed changes. Ms. Caputo confirmed that staff will be revising the residential property language under the temporary sign permit exemption 15.4 and adding another section that would exempt temporary signs located on other types of property such as school, educational properties and other institutional non-profit properties from the permit process. This is to ensure that this will be allowable regardless of where the church is located as some are not located in residential districts. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING None COUNCIL AND REPRESENTATIVES REPORT Vice Mayor Burk encouraged everyone to vote. STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Kidder noted that there was a lot of concern expressed regarding the Tree Canopy at the last EAC meeting she had attended. She noted that the Planning Commission is supposed to have semi-annual briefings from the Tree Commission. The last briefing was in November of 2015 and she asked to have staff schedule a briefing for an upcoming meeting. STAFF DISCUSSION None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Robinson noted that Brian Boucher and Scott Parker were giving a presentation regarding the drafted procedures for the interim approach to the new proffer legislation. She encouraged the Commission members to come prepared with their questions. Leesburg Planning Commission November 3, 2016 Minutes Commissioner Robinson reminded the Commission that they had voted to send a recommendation to Council to initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment to address the appearance of stacked townhouse (two -over -two) units and lots. This needs to be brought forward to Council and she asked if there was a Commissioner member willing to bring this recommendation forth to Council. Commissioner Harper volunteered to bring the recommendation forward. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 8:18 PM: Zr oved by a, en Cicalese, Commission Clerk