Laserfiche WebLink
cotsts <br /> * • <br /> •oo • MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON "PROJECTIONS OVER STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY," <br /> 54 "ZM-19 - REZONING REQUEST OF TUNIS H. CAMPBELL, ET UX" AND "ZM-20 - <br /> REZONING REQUEST OF WILLIAM S . SAVOPOULOS, ET UX, " APRIL 5, 1978. <br /> A meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held in the Council <br /> Chambers, 10 West Loudoun Street, Leesburg, Virginia on April 5, 1978 <br /> for the purpose of holding public hearings on the above-mentioned <br /> amendment in the Town Code and Rezoning Requests of Tunis H. Camp- <br /> bell, et ux and William S. Savopoulos , et ux. The meeting was called <br /> to order by the Mayor at 7 :42 P.M. Present were: , Mayor Mary Anne <br /> Newman, Councilmembers Glen P. Cole, Stanley D. Herrell, Jr. , John <br /> W. Tolbert, Jr. ; also Town Manager John Niccolls, Assistant to the <br /> Manager Jeffrey, H. Minor and Town Attorney George M. Martin. Absent <br /> from the meeting were Councilmembers Charles E. Bange, James A. Rock <br /> and C. Terry Titus, all of whom joined the meeting at a later time. <br /> Amendment to Cha.ter 16 of the Town Code re Projections over Street <br /> Rights-of-Way. <br /> Mayor Newman explained that projections, in this instance, would <br /> mean architectural features of buildings, such as cornices, bay windows, <br /> window plant boxes, mail boxes, wallgraphicsor signs, projecting <br /> graphics, temporary window graphics and seasonal decorations*. <br /> Mr. George B. Reynoldst Jr. , President of the Downtown Business <br /> Association of Leesburg, said members of the Association have worked <br /> with the Council and with staff members for the last four or five <br /> months in formulating this sign ordinance.. They are quite pleased <br /> with its tenets and with the rules , that will control signage in the <br /> downtown area, particularly with graphics and what will or will not <br /> be allowed. At the last DBA meeting, the ordinance was gone over in <br /> its entirety and discussed at great length. A motion was made and <br /> adopted to exempt the presently standing signs from the permit fee--. <br /> requirement of the ordinance. In talking with some of the members <br /> subsequent to that meeting, there seemed to be some confusion as to <br /> whether this motion exempted the permit requirements as well as the <br /> fee. A telephone vote on the motion as presented at the meeting, <br /> along with an amendment which would exempt the permit requirements <br /> as well, resulted in a vote to exempt the fee only. Thus the' graphics <br /> presently standing would have to meet the requirements of this ordi- <br /> nance. The basic purpose of the ordinance is to create a character <br /> in downtown Leesburg by controlling the signs. Mr. Herrell felt that <br /> those signs in existence now should not have, to come down - some of <br /> these signs might be historic. Also, this could mean considerable <br /> expense to some of these merchants. Mr. Reynolds said this gives the <br /> Town the right to control encroachments on its property. Mayor Newman <br /> felt that it might be wise to find out how Lexington handled this type <br /> of situation. Mr. Reynolds said Mr. Forbes and Mr. Niccolls have <br /> copies of the Zoning Ordinances of Lexington and Middleburg. Mr. <br /> Bange asked if anyone has checked with the City of Alexandria, which <br /> has been almost rebuilt - he knew there were still some old signs <br /> there. Mr. Niccolls said a survey can quickly be conducted on this <br /> point. Some ordinances in other states permit a deadline for a non- <br /> conforming use. Another suggestion might be to share in the cost of <br /> removal. Mr. Reynolds added that there is no provision in, the ordi- <br /> nance for some sort of visual identification for those businesses. <br /> that do not front on the public right-of-way. The DBA is working <br /> on something for these people. . <br /> There was no-one to speak against the proposed ordinance. <br /> Mr. Herrell objected to the requirements in Section 16-31 concern- <br /> ing the "removal of the graphic and structure within six months after <br /> the activity it advertises is no'onger conducted." Most of such <br /> structures have been put up at considerable expense to the owners <br /> and would be included as a part of the real estate if it is for sale. <br /> It sometimes takes a year to sell such properties. Mayos Newman <br /> felt that there might be a point about the structure. . As an example, <br /> S & R Chevrolet has removed the graphic from its former structure, <br /> but another automobile business can use this same structure. Mr. <br /> Niccolls suggested removingthe words "and structure. " <br /> The public hearing on this proposed ordinance was closed at <br /> 8 : 02 P.M. , <br />