Planning Commission recommends Amberwood Animal Hospital sign plan to Town Council

The Town of Culpeper Planning Commission voted to forward a conditional-use permit (CUP 48142024) to the Town Council recommending approval of a comprehensive sign plan for Amberwood Animal Hospital at 123 Sycamore Street.

Town planner Louis Bancati presented the proposal and explained that, under Town Code section 27-2-38(f), an approved comprehensive sign plan as part of a CUP can allow site-specific deviations from ordinance standards. Bancati said the plan shows three signs for the site, including an internally illuminated V-shaped monument sign with a 100-square-foot face; the code maximum is 180 square feet.

Bob Hudson, speaking for the applicant, described the site's history and current use, noting founder Dr. Harry Burchard opened the facility in 1980 and the property functions as a single operational site despite being two lots. Hudson said the previous monument sign had been destroyed more than two years ago and the proposed sign replaces that prior sign. Hudson urged the commission to recommend approval, saying the design was “justifiable” and that the CUP mechanism allows reasonable, site-specific flexibility while protecting the town.

The primary deviation sought is height: the applicant requested a 12-foot monument sign where the ordinance maximum is 8 feet. Hudson and the applicant’s engineer explained the chain-link security fence at the site averages about 6 feet in height; combined with a roughly 5-foot sign face, the applicant said the higher face is needed for visibility above the fence. The plan would internally illuminate only the letters and icon (a push-through cabinet design) and requires landscaping and lighting to meet ordinance standards. The applicant also agreed to remove an existing banner sign that had been permitted in error once the new monument sign is installed.

Commissioners asked whether the CUP could restrict what the sign may advertise if Lot 12 were later conveyed or converted to residential use; Hudson pointed to staff’s proposed condition that signs on the parcel “may only advertise business activity conducted on the subject parcels,” and said more restrictive language would be onerous. Staff also noted the current chain-link fence would be required under modern code to be covered with vinyl, which could further obscure a sign and is a consideration for long-term visibility.

After public hearing testimony and questions from commissioners, a motion was made and seconded to forward the CUP to Town Council with the conditions recommended by staff. The commission approved the motion by voice vote (recorded as an ‘aye’ voice vote in the transcript; individual roll-call tallies were not recorded). The recommendation to Council includes the requirement that the banner be removed and that the monument sign meet the listed landscaping, illumination and size specifications.

The matter will next be considered by the Town Council. The Planning Commission’s motion and the conditions recommended by staff are part of the record forwarded to Council for its decision.