HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201000005 Legacy Document 2010-10-15pF AL
�i
a�
�'fRGII3�p`
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2010 -00005 Potential Sign
Ordinance Zoning Text Amendments
SUBJECUPROPOSAUREWEST:
Work Session - Discussion of ideas and comments put
forward in roundtables in response to the Board of
Supervisors Resolution of Intent of May 12, 2010.
STAFF: Ron Higgins, Stewart Wright, Margaret
Maliszewski, Brent Nelson and Greg Kamptner
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: October
19, 2010
BACKGROUND: On January 6, 2010, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a "2010 Albemarle County
Action Plan" (see Attachment A) which included as item #6 the following:
"Sign Ordinances — The sign ordinances need to be re- examined to ensure they do not overly restrict
economic vitality of area businesses. Staff should work with local retailers to develop new ordinances
that will help promote good business practices as well as maintaining quality aesthetic values. "
The Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent on the Sign zoning text amendments (ZTA) on May 12, 2010
(see Attachment B). To begin this process, on May 13'h we hosted an initial roundtable discussion to seek input from
those in the sign industry, business community, local elected and appointed officials and various other groups, to hear
what they had to say about the present sign ordinance and sign permit approval process. A second roundtable was held
June 29, 2010 to solicit comments and suggestions on the subject from a broader group before reporting this information
to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB) for discussion and further action (see Attachment C).
On August 16th, we held a work session on the Potential Sign ZTAs with the ARB. They were asked to comment on a
number of items, including: the predictability of the sign review process in the entrance corridors; improvements in sign
application materials and application process; changes in sign regulations for planned developments; making some
standards more consistent (e.g. wall sign allowances, setbacks, window sign sizes); window sign regulations and
applicability; review of sign packages and coordination with site plans; entrance corridor guidelines, and; increased
heights for wall signs.
At that work session the ARB provided comments and suggestions on changes to allowable wall sign heights,
freestanding sign sizes and window sign area limits. Of particular note was their request to have the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors provided with data on the number of signs that actually get submitted for review
and approval and the number of those reviewed by the ARB and Design Planning staff. They were concerned that we
have a full understanding of the actual review times and the number of applications that are submitted incomplete. The
ARB also suggested that window sign regulations should be simplified and be treated the same whether or not they were
in an entrance corridor. Regarding the actual size allowance for window signs they said that 0% is not the answer, but
were unsure what the right number should be. They were concerned that there is a point where a window ceases to be a
window and becomes a sign.
We have attached all comments and suggestions from the roundtables for your review along with the latest revision to the
schedule for this process (Attachments C & D). As you will see from the attachments, there are items suggested for
amendment that staff had already discussed with the ARB prior to the BOS Action Plan of January 6, 2010, including:
changes to the "off- site" designation in planned developments; allowances for increased sign size and height when
shopping centers can present a consolidated sign for the center that includes tenants; increases in the height limit for wall
signs, and; some possible process changes and county -wide administrative approvals.
DISCUSSION: We have analyzed data on the number of sign permits reviewed and the timelines for administrative
approvals and ARB approvals. The total number of sign permit applications that have been submitted for 2008 (109),
2009 (109) & 2010 (100) have been about the same each year. Given that most signs are for development areas, it is not
surprising that two thirds of these are in entrance corridors and receive ARB or Design staff review before issuance. The
average total county review time has gone from 77 days in 2008 to 34 days in 2009 and 23 days in 2010. That is a 70%
reduction in the amount of time it takes for total review and approval. Further analysis reveals that the longer review
times are not due to design review but due to the experience that all types of applications are submitted with incomplete
information and applicants often resubmit as many as three and sometimes four times before it can be approved. It is also
quite common for a sign application to be submitted that needs a Board of Zoning appeals action (variance or special
permit) or is for a use that has no approved zoning clearance.
One thing that has been evident in the discussions with various stakeholders, is the perception that the process takes too
much time and effort on the applicant's part. We have not heard a large outcry about the standards themselves. It is our
conclusion that the sign permit review and approval data confirms this but puts the issue in some perspective. To this end
the staff has been working on a number of efforts to streamline the approval process, including: better coaching of
applicants on what to provide to get a speedy review; county -wide administrative ARB approval standards, and;
improvement to the sign application and materials to better guide applicants.
ISSUES AND DECISION POINTS:
The primary areas where decisions and guidance are requested are (Current regulations in italics):
Window Signs: Existing regulations define a window sign as "any sign affixed to the exterior or interior of a window or
door or within 3' of the interior of the window or door... " Window signs are limited to 25% of the area of a window or
door and no more than 25% of the aggregate area of the window or door. In the entrance corridor these are limited to 9
sq. ft. per business and require a certificate of appropriateness. Window signs currently do not require a sign permit.
Options for addressing these include:
- -not having them subject to reviews at all (no permit, no ARB). Staff recommends this.
-- requiring a permit. Not recommended.
-- requiring non - illumination. Not recommended.
-- having a 50% maximum coverage area per window with no other review. Staff recommends this.
-- having a maximum size area apply to all (e.g. 9 sq. ft.) with no other review. Not recommended.
-- having the window signs be a percentage of wall sign allowance. Not recommended.
Wall Signs: Questions for these include:
-- should the area maximum be the same in all commercial and planned districts (e.g. 1 %2 sq. ft. of
area for each 1 linear foot of wall)? Currently it is 1:1 in some and I % :1 in other areas. Staff recommends
the single standard of 11 /Z : 1.
-- should the height allowed be above the current 30' maximum in non - residential development for buildings that
are taller? Should this be a distance from the top of the wall or a "not to exceed" standard? Staff recommends
this limit as "not to exceed the cornice line" on any building.
Temporary Signs: Questions for these include:
-- should the number per year increase from the current limit offour? Staff recommends yes, but with a total
limit on number of days per year.
-- should the length of time they are up be increased from the current limit of 15 days? Staff recommends an
allowance for temporary signs while a permanent sign is being made.
-- should it just be a 60 day limit per year that can be used by the property as needed? Currently this can be done
in four separate 15 day periods with at least a day lapsing between each. Staff recommends this be allowed
to be used in any combination of time periods totaling 60 days per year.
Planning Commission Work Session October 19, 2010 2
-- should sandwich board signs be allowed in all planned development districts as they currently are in the
Downtown Crozet district? In DCD they are allowed one per establishment at maximum height of 4' and 2'
width or 8 sq. ft. per sign face. It cannot block pedestrian passage, shall not be in vehicle area and shall not be
illuminated. The signs must be removed during non - business hours and are exempt from Entrance Corridor
review. Staff recommends this.
Areas where we have found consensus include
Planned Developments and shopping centers:
- -The "site" should be redefined to include the entire planned development in order to address the
issue of "off- site" signs in unified developments, thus not requiring an SP for these as now required.
- -The size for the freestanding sign for planned developments and shopping centers should be increased to 64 sq.
ft. maximum to allow for up to four "anchor signs" to be included within the primary sign. The current
ordinance limits this to 32 sq. ft. in some districts and 24 sq. ft. in other districts. In shopping centers with at
least 100,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area you can have one anchor signs at 6 sq. ft. for each 100,000 sq. ft.
- -The anchor sign provision should be allowed for shopping centers of at least 50,000 sq. ft.
General: Some general sign regulation issues include:
-- Freestanding and monuments sign setbacks should be made consistent (e.g. all 5' instead of some 5' and
some 10' as the current regulations require).
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide guidance on the pending ordinance changes. Once you point us in the appropriate direction, we then plan to set
this ZTA for public hearing with the Commission and Board as soon as practical after the ordinance amendments are
developed. (See Attachment D for the draft schedule).
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Board of Supervisors "2010 Albemarle County Action Plan"
B: Board of Supervisors May 12, 2010 Resolution of Intent
C: Roundtable comments, notes and suggestions
D: Schedule for the Sign ZTA process
Planning Commission Work Session October 19, 2010