The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, April 4, 2007, was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairman William Cook in the Board of Supervisors Chambers of the County Administrative Center.

Members Present: Cook, Kirby, Pitzel, Mitchell, Carlone, Rhodes and Di Peppe.

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Stepowany, Baker, Hornung and Gregori

Declarations of Disqualification

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

Item 1 Changeable copy/internal illuminated signs

Mr. Stepowany stated he spoke with Allan Griffith of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) about non-conforming signs. He stated non-conforming signs could only be upgraded to fifty-percent of the cost. He stated if a sign was deemed non-conforming then it needed to be on VDOT’s list of non-conforming signs. He stated he was going to meet with Jim Barrett, VDOT’s State Program Manager for Outdoor Advertising Signs.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he thought all the billboards in Stafford County were non-conforming.

Mr. Stepowany stated the majority of the billboards were non-conforming. He stated if the billboards were under 20 feet and less than 40 square feet than they were still conforming.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he thought if the Planning Commission deemed a billboard to be non-conforming than VDOT would determine it to be non-conforming as well.

Mr. Stepowany quoted from Section 24 VAC 30-120-20-A of the State Code.

Mr. Di Peppe stated it would be easier to have a list of conforming billboards.

Mr. Stepowany stated every single sign along the highway was a billboard, including historical markers and Welcome to Stafford signs.

Mr. Cook asked why Code Administration did not have a list of non-conforming signs.

Mr. Stepowany stated while he could not speak on behalf of Code Administration, they received a list but were not aware that if the sign was non-conforming with the County, than it needed to be marked non-conforming with VDOT.

Mrs. Kirby asked if Code even knew the signs were non-conforming.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if it would be possible for Rachel Hudson to attend an Ordinance Committee meeting.

Mr. Cook stated Ms. Hudson should be at the meeting because it was an Ordinance Committee meeting.

Mr. Stepowany stated Ms. Hudson was not available to attend tonight’s meeting.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if Ms. Hudson could explain the fifty-percent cost of upgrades.

Mr. Judy stated non-conforming signs could only be upgraded to fifty-percent of the cost to rebuild the sign new. He stated Stafford County never officially submitted lists of non-conforming signs to VDOT.

Mrs. Carlone stated she thought someone was supposed to clarify the fifty-percent upgrade issue.

Mr. Judy stated the fifty-percent upgrades were not the issue, but the non-conformity needed more clarification.

Mr. Stepowany stated VDOT probably did not deem the signs to be non-conforming.

Mrs. Kirby asked Mr. Stepowany to provide a list of non-conforming signs, and why no one from the Board of Zoning Appeals was present.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Building Official, not the Zoning Administrator, determined if there was a discrepancy in the costs of upgrades.

Mrs. Kirby stated on Route 610, one day it was a regular billboard, the next day it was an electronic billboard. She stated, in her opinion, that was not a repair, it was a whole new sign.

Mr. Stepowany stated no one knew the sign was non-conforming.

Mr. Cook stated, in his opinion, it was unclear how a permit could be issued for a sign when Code Administration did not have a list of non-conforming signs.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if signs would be grandfathered in.

Mr. Stepowany stated on the list of signs there were some marked (NC) for non-conforming and others marked with a (G) for grandfathered.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the size of a sign was measured in square feet.

Mr. Harvey stated yes.

Mr. Pitzel asked what SDT was.

Mr. Judy stated Site Distance to Top of Sign.

Mr. Stepowany asked the Planning Commission for input as to how Stafford County should regulate “television signs”.

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion, she did not want to drive down the highway looking at televisions.

Mr. Stepowany stated billboards were general advertisement signs. He stated a commercial use could put up a sign along the street on the property and a billboard. He stated flashing or intermittent lights have always been prohibited in the Code.

Mr. Di Peppe stated electronic signs should only allow time and/or temperature.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this applied to indoor and outdoor signs.

Mr. Stepowany stated it would apply to all signs.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this would apply to signs inside of a business looking out.

Mr. Stepowany stated window signs would be controlled.

Mr. Rhodes stated this would apply to anything which could be seen from outside of the building.

Mr. Stepowany stated yes.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the Ordinance would apply to businesses where cars do not drive by.

Mr. Stepowany stated yes.

Mr. Pitzel asked if this would affect the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) signs. He asked if the phrase “visible from the roadway” could be added to the Ordinance.

Mr. Rhodes stated they did not want to preclude every small business. He stated small signs were used in store windows to attract pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Mrs. Carlone stated she was concerned about trucks with signs on them parking in neighborhoods or along the roads.

Mr. Stepowany stated that was addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated staff was reviewing the Zoning Ordinance and he was reviewing the section on signs.

Mrs. Carlone stated she was concerned about the neon signs.

Mr. Harvey stated a sign that was less than two feet was not technically a sign.

Mr. Di Peppe stated perhaps there could be a regulation on the size of the letters on the sign.

Mr. Harvey stated anything smaller than two square feet was not a sign in the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Di Peppe stated that would allow the electric CVS signs.

Mr. Stepowany stated the CVS signs were larger than 2 feet.

Mr. Pitzel asked if there was a definition for glare.

Mr. Stepowany stated glare was changed to foot candles.

Mr. Rhodes asked if a parking lot or a travel way in a shopping center was a street.

Mr. Stepowany stated no.

Mr. Judy stated instead of using the term street, use the term public right of way.

Mr. Rhodes asked for a definition of public right of way.

Mr. Judy stated public right of way was dedicated to public use.

Mr. Stepowany asked the Planning Commission what the Ordinance should read for television signs. He asked about the language LCD and multi-sided signs.

Mr. Cook asked that prohibiting multi-cylinder signs be enforced through the Ordinance.

Mr. Rhodes stated he was concerned that an 18 inch square monitor in the window of a small business would be precluded by the Ordinance.

Mr. Cook stated on Route 630 near the Rappahannock Regional Jail, there was a business with a flashing light in the window. He stated it was almost like an emergency vehicle.

Mr. Stepowany stated that would be addressed in the section on illumination. He stated signs could not be internally lit or in the public right of way.

Mr. Pitzel stated some stores downtown have a lap top in the window and in the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) the public right of ways were very narrow.

Mrs. Kirby stated electronic signs were dangerous because of the changing lights.

Mr. Stepowany stated he would review the Ordinance and bring it back to the Ordinance Committee on April 18, 2007.

Item 2 Zoning Administrator

Mr. Stepowany stated Item 2 was to repeal Section 28-295 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Cook made a motion to send Item 2 to the full commission. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Item 3 Industrial Schools

Mr. Stepowany stated Item 3 would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an industrial school in the M-2 Zoning District.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to send Item 3 to the full commission. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Item 4 Commercial apartments

Mr. Stepowany stated Item 4 would require a CUP for commercial apartments in the B-2 Urban Commercial Zoning District.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to send Item 4 to the full commission. Mr. Cook seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.