Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-13 adjM.B. 41, Pg. 90 May 13, 1992 (Page 1) (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginza, was held on May 13, 1992, at 4:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr,., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Mr. Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Zoning Administrator, Amelia Patterson. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:07 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Proposed Sign Ordinance. Mr. Bowerman said the purpose of this meeting is hold a work session on the proposed sign ordinance. He said staff would make a presentation to the Board. Ms. Patterson thanked the Board for having this extra meet- ing and allowing staff enough time to work on the proposed sign ordinance. She then introduced Ms. Marcia Joseph, Design Planner for the County and liaison for the Architectural Review Board. Ms. Joseph assisted with the sign ordinance. Ms. Patterson explained that through the use of audio-visual aids she would go through some general terminology and principles, since this Board does not typically review signage. She would also use excerpts of a video tape from a speech made at another location by Mr. Ed McMahon. She also intends to discuss what is being proposed, why the staff ms going through a comprehensive rewrite at this time, the history of this process and some of the issues the Board may need to discuss. She went on to say the Board would be presented with a slide presentation of signage that conforms with the pro- posed sign ordinance that is effective in other localities. She would also show szgnage that is found in the City of Charlottes- ville and Albemarle County which conforms to the proposed sign ordinance. She stated that graphics and overhead charts would be shown to illustrate signage under the existing and proposed ordinances. She mentioned that she has distributed to the Board a letter received from Mr. Don Wagner. She would discuss his comments later in the presentation. She noted that Board members received a copy of the staff report that went to the Planning Commission. Ms. Patterson said she would not go into great depth in terms of the general terminology because it would probably be easier to envision this with some of the slides and video tapes. She said it is good to begin with the understanding of the purpose of signage, which is to identify, inform and advertise. She went on to say that some businesses use signage to identify where they are located, and some businesses, based on their nature, capture drive-by traffic, and think of their signs as advertisement. She said the majority of people would probably not think it is essential to use signs for drive-by traffic. She noted that there are various other formats for advertising a service or product to the public. She read through the section of the report on the definition of signs, and called attention to two points within the definition. She stated that a sign can be on any medium, such as a vehicle or a rock. Secondly, she said a sign would not be regulated by the County, if it is not visible beyond the boundaries of the property on which it is located. She can think of a couple of signs within the Albemarle Square Shopping Center which would not be regulated by the County because they are not visible from the public roads. M.B. 41, Pg. 91 May 13, 1992 (Page 2) (Adjourned=AfternoOn Meeting) Next, Ms. Patterson talked about different kinds of signs, such as wall signs and free standing signs. She said that free standing signs seem to generate the most interest, and they can be pole signs, a monument or a pedestal sign.' She pointed to examples on the wall which she considers to be typical of free standing signs. She added that free standing signs serve several different purposes, such as for general business purposes and as directories. She said County staff is trying to encourage direc- tories, because once people are within the site, and it is a multi-business center, people need directions to find the business which they are seeking. She mentioned menu board signs which are associated with fast food restauranEs and are also found in car washes. Ms. Patterson then discussed off-site signs and stated that typical billboards are off-site signs. She said that off-site signs advertise a service or product not located on the property where the sign is located. She informed the Board that staff is recommending off-site signs only be permitted by special permit. Another type of sign distinguished from other signage, according to Ms. Patterson, is an electric message center sign, such as a bank's sign at a major intersection which flashes the time and temperature, and, sometimes, a public service message. She stated that these electric message center signs require a special permit. Ms. Patterson noted that staff is recommending that roof signs be prohibited. Ms. Patterson indicated that the most important thing to know in the basic understanding of sign size is that there is no commonly accepted methodology for computing sign area. She noted that some localities would count each face individually on a pole sign with a face on each side of it, and add up the amount of area, and that would be the sign area. She stated that Albemarle County officials have historically counted one sign face, even though there is the same area on each side of the sign. She pointed out that Charlottesville City officials count each individual sign face. She explained that what the County staff considers a 20 square foot sign, which has 20 square feet on each face, would be counted as a 40 square foot sign by the City. At the last Virginia Association of Zoning Officials meeting, a survey was done. Ms. Patterson indicated that approximately one- half of Virginia localities compute sign area by one means and one-half compute it by the other, so there is no commonly accepted method. She pointed out that, because of this, it is difficult to make comparisons between different localities, as far as how different localities allow differenu amounts of signage. She next showed the video made by Mr. McMahon entitled, "Avoiding the Anyplace USA Syndrome". Ms. Joseph explained that the video was done in Franklin, Tennessee. She said a lot of the signs shown are in Franklin, but some of them are from other areas of the country. After the video presentation, Ms. Patterson stated that the current Zoning administration feels the efforts for the sign ordinance have a lengthy history, and is a big item to undertake. She added that the Zoning administration feels this proposed ordinance depicts a middle ground of ideas and opinions. Ms. Patterson then discussed Mr. Wagner's suggestions and talked about the language under Section 4.15.9.5 which she said would allow replacement of a nonconforming sign as long as it is 25 percent or more conforming. She noted that signs do non have to completely conform with the regulations. She added that City officials have indicated that this regulation worked well for them, and City officials cited one business in the City which has changed its sign three times. She went on to say that she does not want to discourage people from making appropriate sign changes with older signs. M.B. 41, Pg. 92 May 13, 1992 (Page 3) (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) Mr. Marshall asked if it would be mandatory for businesses with older signs to install new ones. Ms. Patterson answered, "no." She explained that if a person has to change a sign, it can be done without having to meet new regulations. Mr. Martin clarified. Ms. Patterson's statement by saying that the regula- tions would be mandatory if a sign is replaced, but they are not mandatory if a sign ms changed. Mr. Marshall wondered if he would have to comply with new regulations, if he wanted to change a sign on his building, or could he put the sign back the way it was in the beginning. Mr. Martin responded that Mr. Marshall would not have to comply fully with new regulations. He explained that the sign would only have to have as much as 25 percent compliance. Ms. Patterson explained that without the language in the proposed ordinance, a person in the type of situation to which Mr. Marshall referred, would have to fully comply with the ordi- nance regulations. She added that a person might choose non to replace the sign, and only do normal maintenance, but she noted that this is not always the best idea. She said staff will support keeping the 25 percent standard because a standard cre- ates a fair and even application. She said that a standard can be quantified, and it ms not a matter of judgment. She also thinks that a standard makes it easier for people to know what is expected of them. Ms. Patterson next mentioned that the proposed ordinance would put the burden of proof on the owner of the sign that a sign was in place on the date of adoption of the ordinance. She said that Mr. Wagner asked this not be required of the owner because it follows the thinking that a person is guilty until proven innocent. She added that staff would support the current ordinance language because in the case of nonconformity, the reverse burden is commonplace. She stated that the burden will be on the owner to prove that a sign is nonconforming, because it would be difficult for the locality to have records that would show the sign was there on a certain date. Mr. St. John explained that the proposed ordinance maintains the status quo with respect to the burden of proof. He said this is the way it has been ever since the County has had zoning laws, and, to his knowledge, it is the universal rule of law in every locality in Virginia and in every other state. He added that what Mr. Wagner is suggesting would be contrary to every rule of zoning in the United States. He went on to say the old ordinance regulations and the new ordinance recommendations are in accord with the universal rule. Ms. Patterson then mentioned that Mr. Wagner also asked that portable signs be allowed, such as temporary event signs. She stated the ordinance, as written, prohibits a temporary event sign. She said staff's basis for this regulation is that these types of signs lead to visual clutter, and there is an enforce- ment difficulty. She noted that, typically, the signs are close to the highway rights-of-way and sometimes they are obstructing sight distance, and are not properly secured, so that wind can move them. She added that staff is not prohibiting changeable copy. For example, she said if someone wishes to advertise a weekly special at a restaurant or a quarterly car sale, a sign could be designed that would identify the business and allow for changeable copy that would provide temporary identification rather than using a portable sign. She pointed out that banners are permissible as temporary event signs. Mr. Marshall commented that he has approximately 500 people come from his churck each year for a Labor Day picnic on his farm. He said his church has a four by eight sign that is on wheels. He explained that thms sign can be rolled out and put in his driveway, so that people can find his place. He asked if this would be an illegal sign, if the proposed ordinance is adopted. He emphasized that the sign he uses is not a banner, May 13, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 4) M.B. 41, Pg. 93 but, instead, it is a permanent sign used year after year. He said he does not want to be in violation of the law, and he noted that temporary signs are used for auctions, etc. He pointed out that the sign would only be in a certain location for a short time, and then it is gone. He believes language needs to be included in the ordinance describing temporary and permanent signs. Ms. Patterson answered that, if the Board concurs with Mr. Marshall's comments, it would be simple to add the language to allow portable signs for temporary events. Mr. Martin pointed out there would have to be a time limit placed on temporary signs because there could be a temporary event held every day. Ms. Patterson responded that temporary event signs do have time limits within the ordinance, so she thinks the ordinance, as it is written, will accomplish what Mr. Martin is suggesting. She went on to say that temporary signs were one of the points of concern by the business community. She believes that an administrative process needs to be developed that would make a fairly quick and easy approval for a temporary event sign. She said staff needs to be able to track the temporary event sign, but it should not be a cumbersome process for someone to have a sign for an event of such a short duration. Mr. Marshall indicated that he would hate for a businessman to decide he wants to have a sale on Saturday, but, first, have to come to the County Office Building to get a permit, and he would get involved in a long process. He thinks that a burden is being placed on the businessman for something that should be his right. Mr. Bowerman said there is a big difference between a sign a businessman uses for a sale, and a portable sign such as the one that Mr. Marshall puts in front of his farm. Mr. Marshall responded that he is non necessarily talking about signage pertaining to his farm. He said if this ordinance is adopted, as it is, even the sign referring to a picnic on his farm would be illegal. He is also referring to signs for special sales which are usually white and have letters that fit on them. He said fire stations often use them for advertising bingo nights, rummage sales, etc. He believes some businesses would use these sorts of signs, too. He noted that in the summer, farmers put these types of signs in front of their farms advertising fruit stands, etc. He asked what would be done about this type of sign. Mr. Bowerman stated that a temporary sign does not relate to a Saturday sale, which might occur two times a month, and would require that it be put ou5 24 times a year. He said in this situation, the sign becomes a permanent sign. He added that the situation with this type of sign is like every- thing else, mn that it can be abused, so it becomes a problem. Mr. Marshall responded that he is concerned about some of the smaller businesses because this may be the only means they have to advertise. He said some business people cannot afford advertising on Television or radio stations. He asked how this problem could be solved. He hopes the ordinance will not be made so restrictive than it will harm the small businessman. Mr. Tucker indicated that there is a provision in the rural areas and agricultural districts for temporary signs. He thinks this addresses fruit stands, but it may not address the temporary event such as Mr. Marshall's church picnic. He said this ms a smaller sign, which is 32 square feet, and meets the same provi- sions. He does not know, however, if there is a provision that would relate to a temporary event on a Saturday or Sunday. Mr. Bowerman noted that Ms. Patterson stated that a simple language change could address this problem. Mr. Marshall said he would like some consideration for the person who is opening up a new business and who would like to set up a temporary sign indicating this fact. May 13, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 5) M.B. 41, Pg. 94 Mr. Bowerman suggested that Ms. Patterson continue with her presentation, and then the Board members could ask specific questions. Ms. Patterson stated that Mr. Wagner mentioned some new language that would allow sign structures for monument signs to be larger than the sign, itself. She added that staff would support the language recommended by Mr. Wagner. She went on to say that if the language proposed by staff is approved, it may · discourage someone who mmght want to have a smaller sign with a larger base. Next, Ms. Patterson said that Mr. Wagner had referred to wall signage. She does not believe Mr. Wagner has received a revised copy of the ordinance, because this was discussed before the Planning Commission meeting, and proposed provisions were distributed. She said the current ordinance, included in the Board members' packets, removes any reference to aggregate sign area. She stated that staff agrees with Mr. Wagner, and she thinks it is just a misunderstanding. She added that staff would not recommend there be a maximum aggregate total sign area for any given site. She went on to say that any individual sign could not exceed 200 square feet. Ms. Patterson then showed slides of signs in the City and County, as well as other areas, and she gave dimensions of signs that are located in the County. She said this would give Board members an idea of what ms in compliance with the ordinance and what is not. Mr. Bowerman referred to certain signs shown in the slide presentation, and he asked if these signs are illuminated at night. Ms. Patterson replied that most of the signs are lit internally. She then informed Board members that one of the things to keep in mind was that staff tried to create a balance between a need for a business to identify itself and the enhance- ment of that which makes Albemarle County distinctive. She discussed existing regulations, proposed regulations and business community proposed regulations, and she stated that Ms. Joseph would present some graphics. Ms. Patterson said that it is important to carry through the philosophy of protecting the image of this community. She then compared the existing ordinance with the proposed ordinance. Ms. Patterson stated that, in conclusion, most people will recognize that sign regulations are difficult to develop because there will always be double-edged issues. She said the sign regulations should strike a balance between the need for site identification and provision of information plus meeting the needs of traffic safety and enhancement of the community's resources. She stated that the staff is trying to avoid the "any place USA syndrome" and protect what makes Albemarle County dis- tinctive. She said it is the staff's opinion that this ordinance strikes that balance and provides a middle ground. She added that staff recommends the Board set a public hearing date for the ordinance'and adopt the ordinance as it is recommended by staff. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff has any changes to make to the ordinance, in light of Mr. Wagner's letter. He said that Ms. Patterson has gone through all of the points, and the only question ramsed related to Mr. Marshall's inquiry concerning temporary szgns. He added that Ms. Patterson is not necessarily agreeing with that change, but she has indicated it can be done. Ms. Patterson responded that staff recommends one change that Mr. Wagner is recommending, and that is the fourth item under Section 4.15.7.1, as it relates to the size of the support structure. She said the regulation is simpler to understand the way that Mr. Wagner has written it, and it makes good sense. Mr. Wagner recommends that the last paragraph of Section 4.15.7.1 be deleted and replaced with the following: "The maximum combined size of any freestanding sign and its support structure shall not exceed 2.5 times the maximum allowable sign smze." M.B. 41, Pg. 95 May 13, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Bowerman then inquired if staff had indicated that Sec- tion 4.15.6 could be changed, but is not recommending the change. Ms. Patterson replied that Mr. Bowerman is correct. Next, Mr. Bowerman asked if staff feels that increasing the limits for the signs in the entrance corridor is consistent with the purpose of the entrance corridor. He wondered if, in staff's opinion, in order to make all signs standard throughout the County, would it be at the sacrifice of the entrance corridor. Ms. Patterson believes that this can be handled without sacrificing the entrance corridors. She stated that one thing she did not mention was that some of the issues which came up earlier relating to regulation of window advertisement, holiday decorations, flags, etc., requiring comprehensive signage plans within multi-business developments and some of the more aesthetic design issues would be discussed and addressed by the ARB in its design guidelines. Mr. Bowerman reminded Mr. Marshall that he had raised a question about temporary event signs. Mr. Marshall replied that he is still concerned about temporary event signs. He mentioned that there are some unsightly signs on wheels that stay in the same place 365 days a year, and he would be opposed to this type of situation. On the other hand, he does not want to hamper a fire company, for example, which will be having a special event to raise money, but would not be able to put a sign in place for 24 or 48 hours. He said the same thing is true for a small businessman who might be having a grand opening. He noted that a grand opening of a business would not be held 365 days a year. He added that the sign would probably only be in place for three days. He thinks that language needs to be put into the ordinance that would set situations such as this apart. He mentioned that he is getting ready to open a new business in the County, and he intends to rent such a sign. He said that his business is in a shopping center with a small sign on top of the building, and there is nothing to distinguish his business from the other businesses in that location. He wants people to know that his business will be located there, but he will not leave the sign there any longer than five or six days. Mr. Martin asked if the language that Mr. Wagner proposes would be included under Section 4.15.11. Ms. Patterson answered, "yes." Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Martin to clarify his statement. Mr. Martin responded that Mr. Wagner uses terminology regarding separate use of a portable sign and a temporary sign, and the terminology relates back to the regulation for temporary signage, which is Section 4.15.11. Mr. Martin stated that there is a restriction for temporary signs regarding usage for no more than twice a year and not to exceed 30 days. Mr. Marshall that was a good restriction. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Martin to explain his statement again. Mrs. Humphris clarified what Mr. Martin said by saying that temporary signs are covered in the ordinance under the section on temporary signs, Letters A, B and C under Section 4.15.11. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Martin and Mrs. Humphris are saying that Mr. Wagner's suggestions are already included in the ordinance. Mr. Martin replied that is correct, if Mr. Wagner's language is used. He then read from Mr. Wagner's letter. He reiterated that this language brings the situation back to the restrictions in Section 4.15.11. He said this would address Mr. Marshall's concerns. Mr. Bowerman agreed that the language will also take care of his concern about temporary signs that become permanen5 fixtures, rather than how they were intended. Ms. Patterson told Board members the Commission did not take a position on the ordinance, except to endorse the staff's recommendations and forward them to the Board. She said one concern of the Commission was that the signs be anchored properly, so that wind, etc., would not move the signs into traffic. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is language in the M.B. 41, Pg. 96 May 13, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 7) ordinance that speaks to this issue. Ms. Patterson replied, "no." She said signs are not permitted without proper anchoring. Mr. Martin asked what is the rationale, as it relates to temporary signs, for a 30 day time limit as opposed to 15 days. He wondered if Mr. Wagner's suggested change could be adopted and included in the language for temporary signs with the time limit changed to 15 days. Ms. Patterson answered that staff has studied a lot of different scenarios for temporary signs. She said a business could use a sign up to one month for each season of the year. Mr. Martin believes it might be a reasonable compromise to use Mr. Wagner's language which puts the situation under the category of temporary signs. He said the time limit could be changed to 15 days because 30 days is a long time. Mr. Bowerman concurred. Mr. Marshall agreed. He reiterated that he does not want to put an undue burden on the small businessman who is trying to open a business. He stated that it is difficult enough to survive when a business ms opened. Mr. Bowerman commented that it seems to him if this change is made, Mr. Marshall's and Mr. Wagner's concerns will be satisfied. Mr. Bowerman stated this change would be enforceable, and it would have a reasonable time period. He mentioned, too, that the change would not violate the spirit of what the staff and Board are trying to accomplish. Mr. Marshall stated that he is not opposed to a 15 day time limit. He does not know why a business would need the stipula- tion relating to each season, and he is unsure how often fire companies, etc., have to use these signs for their fund raising. He thinks this needs to be examined. Mr. Bowerman responded that fire companies usually have a repeating event such as bingo on Thursday nights. Mr. Tucker pointed out that seasons also refer to agricultural seasons for fruits and vegetable stands. Mr. Marshall remarked that this discussion does not relate to fruits and vegetable stands. Mr. Tucker agreed. Mr. Bowerman asked if he understood correctly the staff's response to Mr. Marshall's concerns that fruit and vegetable stands are not a problem. Several Board members responded that fruit and vegetable stands are listed. Mr. Marshall mentioned that temporary signs would be needed for the County Fair. He asked if the Board was creating a situa- tion where these signs cannot be used. Mrs. Humphris answered that the County Fair is covered under Section 4.15.11, where it relates to advertising a special civic or cultural event such as a fair or exposition. Mr. Martin pointed out the problem relating to two signs being allowed per year. He mentioned this would be harmful to fire departments and rescue squads, etc., in advertising their evenns. He wondered if these service groups only have two fund drives per year. Mr. Marshall agreed this is something that is a concern to him. Mr. Bowerman responded that he does non have an answer, because some events happen 52 weeks a year. He does not know how fire departments, etc., would advertise these events, except by word of mouth, unless there was a sign in front of the place. Mr. Martin stated that, according to these regulations, fire companies, etc., would have to invest in a permanent sign. He said this makes sense, anyway, if an event is being held every week. Ms. Patterson said staff would look into the situation concerning fire companies, etc. Mr. Bowerman remarked that some issues have been raised, and he wants to identify them, because staff input needs to come back to this Board. He said it might be good to set a public hearing, but the Board should have an opportunity before the hearing to discuss these issues. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Supervisors give the staff some direction as to the information they would like to receive. M.B. 41, Pg. 97 May 13, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 8) He said staff could bring back this information to the Board on June 3. He added that the hearing date could be set at that meeting. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He asked if there are other issues that need to be raised. Mr. Martin said he thinks the compromise works well on the first issue. As far as fire companies and rescue squads are concerned, if they are having events that are happening a large portion of the time, then he thinks they should consider getting a permanent sign. Mr. Bowerman concurred that this is a good point. Mr. Martin stated that, on the other hand, if the norm is for these companies to have three fund raising events per year, he thinks the Board could be flexible and change the limit to three events per year instead of two. He pointed out that these companies will still not have as many days to advertise, because now they can advertise for 60 days. He said if the proposed changes are approved, the time limit would be reduced to 45 days, but it might serve the purpose better. Mr. Tucker responded that Mr. Martin's suggestion could be considered by staff. He mentioned that the Board might want to make some distinction between profit and nonprofit organizations. He said the Board could give some discretion to the Zoning Admi- nistrator for certain events relating to profit and nonprofit organizations. Mr. Bowerman stated that it may not be possible to ascertain what ms needed by all of these different organizations, so he would rather be conservative in the beginning. He said if it becomes a significant problem for a number of organizations, then the Board could consider a change. He does not want to put a lot of latitude in the ordinance, if it is not needed. Mr. Martin commented that the Supervisors' objective is to reduce the overall effect of these signs, aesthetically. He reiterated that now the regulations allow for 60 days for such signs, but with his suggested change, there would only be a 45 day allowance. Mr. Bowerman responded that he understands Mr. Martin's point. He said he liked Mr. Martin's first suggestion relating to a two 15-day time limitation. He reiterated that he does not think the limitation should be changed from two to three unless a need has been brought out by the public. He said if the public hearing is advertised, maybe the Supervisors will get this input. Mr. Tucker pointed out that an individual in such a situation would always be able to seek a variance. Mr. Bowerman answered that it is not desirable to get to a point where a variance becomes the rule rather than the excep- tion. He said if this becomes the case, then the Supervisors need to examine the ordinance in order to accommodate some uses that were no5 anticipated. Mrs. Humphris called attention to Section 4.15.10 relating to a nonconforming sign which is destroyed or damaged to an extent exceeding 50 percent. She said the regulation stipulates that the sign may be restored within two years of the damage. She asked why anyone would want a sign with this much damage sitting there for up to two years. Ms. Patterson replied the hope is that the sign would be replaced sooner than that time. Mr. St. John commented that State law on nonconformities has that time limit. He wenE on to say that if a person has a vested right to a nonconforming sign, and the sign is discontinued through its being destroyed, or a person voluntarily discontinues it for a period of two years or longer, then that person loses the right to rebuild the sign under State law. He thinks this is probably why this stipulation is mn the ordinance. Ms. Patterson agreed that this is correct. M.B. 41, Pg. 98 May 13, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Marshall called attention to the regulation regarding the replacement of nonconforming signs at 50 percent of the appraised value. He said the signs are surely not going to get cheaper. Mr. Bowerman stated that he likes the provision dealing with nonconforming signs whereby if they are replaced voluntarily by the owner, the owner will have the right to change the smgn four times, by reducing it 25 percent each time, before having to meet conformance standards. He said this is a liberal regulation. He went on to say that it is not going to be more enticing for people to go to larger signs in terms of promoting a company, because of the number of nonconforming signs that are mn the County. He asked if the Supervisors need to consider this point, or is it a totally separate issue. He wondered if there could be a situation whereby the Supervisors decided that it is in the public interest to purchase smgns after they are nonconforming for five years or after a certain point is reached in their amortization schedule. Mr. St. John answered that legislation is needed before signs can be amortized. Mr. Bowerman responded he thought Mr. St. John had told the Supervisors in the work session, that if they so choose, the County could purchase the sign. Mr. St. John replied, "no." He said that no sign can be amortized, which means that it is being killed by age. Mr. Bowerman said that is not the type of amortization to which he is referring. Mr. St. John agreed that Mr. Bowerman is talking about condemnation. He stated that under Title 33.1, localities are given the power to purchase certain signs, which are mentioned in the Federal Highway Beautification Act. He said this Act has been inter- preted to mean that it only applies to off-site advertising. He added that even if the County was going to pay for it, the owner cannot be forced to sell the sign, or submit to condemnation. He reiterated that the County does not have a right to condemn a sign and pay for it, unless it is an off-site advertisement. He thinks that off-site advertisements are a small percentage of signs mn Albemarle County, and he is unsure if numbers have been developed.on this percentage. He does not think this would affect the clutter on Route 29 North, if the County was only purchasing off site signs. Mr. Bowerman stated that he misunderstood what Mr. St. John told the Board at the joint meeting with the Commission. He thought that a company would be able to put a value on its smgn because it would have been depreciated in tax returns. He added that it would have a certain value because it would be purchased by the County and, for example, would be amortized by the com- pany's schedule over five years of a ten year life span. He remarked that then there would be a known price, and the County could purchase the sign. He said, though, that Mr. St. John is indicating this is not the case. Mr. St. John answered that is the case only with respect to off-site advertisements. He said the question had also been asked that even if signs could be amortized, how would it be done. He said this is not a consti- tutional question. He stated that Federal courts have stipulated it would not be the taking of property even if a sign is amor- tized and nothing is paid for it. He added that all that is needed is enabling legislation from the Legislature to allow this to be done. He pointed out that there is no enabling legisla- tion, at this time. Mr. Marshall asked how enforceable this ordinance will be. He said there are other ordinances that are either not enforced or there is not enough personnel to enforce them. He mentioned a junk yard in his district of the County that has been there a long time. Mr. St. John replied that it will be easier to enforce the proposed sign ordinance than the existing one. He believes the County is catching up with the enforcement of ordi- nances, but he agreed that there are junk yards in the County. He said that he passes one every day coming to work. He then mentioned trash and inoperable vehicles. He said that he keeps M.B. 41, Pg. 99 May 13, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 10) hearing people say that laws are not being enforced. He stated that the laws that are being enforced are not seen. He pointed out that people would not know what the County would look like, if none of the zoning laws were being enforced. He added that most laws are being enforced, and he thinks the sign ordinance is being enforced, but a defective ordinance is difficult to enforce. He remarked that this proposed ordinance that Ms. Patterson has written and recommended, in his opinion, is not a defective ordinance, and, therefore, will be easier to enforce. He believes the County will have more citizen support for volun- tary compliance to the ordinance. He mentioned that Mr. Frank Kessler had spoken at the Commission meeting about a situation in Florida where business people were against a sign ordinance. He said the ordinance was passed over their objection, and now they are all in favor of the ordinance and are glad it was approved. He stated that the problem with the enforcement of this ordinance lies with the nonconforming signs. He said there will be inequi- ties because the existing signs are more visible since they are higher and bigger and will obscure some of the signs that will be in compliance with the ordinance. He said this is going to be a real problem, but he believes this problem is outweighed by the good things that are in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Marshall stated that he had gone to Mr. McMahon's meeting. He said that Mr. McMahon showed a video of a community that had enacted a sign ordinance, and it took five ~ yeams to get rid of all of the unsightly signs. He asked how this community got rid of the signs in that period of time, and he does not recall that he got an answer. Mr. St. John reiterated that most other states have enabling legislation to amortize signs, and Virginia does not have such legislation. Mr. Bowerman recalled that the Supervisors have discussed this matter as one of their legislative initiatives with the Commissmon. Mr. St. John mentioned that there are some states that have amortization with all nonconforming uses. He said amortization does not just apply to szgns, when all nonconforming uses are considered. He pointed out that nonconforming uses can also relate to buildings. He said that a monetary life can be assigned to a building, which has to be done, anyway, for tax purposes. He added that when the life of that building is over, the building has to be torn down, and another one built in accordance with that state's ordinance. He said this is the theory of amortization. Mr. Bowerman said the Board would discuss this further on June 3. He said staff would have a report for the Board at that time, and asked what the report would specifically address[ Mr. Tucker answered that staff would rewrite the language relating to temporary signs, as Mr. Wagner has suggested. Mr. Bowerman said staff would need to review this new language to see if there are any other difficulties created by changmng the language. Mr. Tucker agreed. Mrs. Humphris recalled that staff was going to do some research on rescue squads, fire stations and other nonprofit organizations as they relate to temporary signs. Mr. Tucker concurred. Mrs. Humphris recalled that Ms. Patterson had said she could adminisnratively require temporary signs to be anchored. She asked if Ms. Patterson thinks that this is something that should be included in the ordinance. Ms. Patterson responded that she would look into this matter. M.B. 41, Pg. 100 May 13, 1992 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 11) Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. At 5:50 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. /"~" C~airman