2005-03-16N
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
16, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis
S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, Zoning Administrator, Amelia McCulley, Chief of Current
Development, Bill Fritz, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. Lance Fjeseth addressed the Board. He explained that he lives on Commonwealth Drive behind
Classic Furniture, behind the Waffle House. He has owned his home there for three years. Mr. Fjeseth
said that there have been instances of excessive noise, loud music, police chases, etc. He said that there is
170 feet between the Classic Furniture lot and his house. His family is awaken by loud music from 30 or 40
cars from each parking lot every Wednesday and Saturday night. Mr. Fjeseth added that the Police
Department sends seven officers each time to disband the crowd. He has contacted the Waffle House
corporate office and the Planning Department. His neighbors are also impacted by the activity on the
restaurant property.
Stating that this is his magisterial district, Mr. Bowerman asked for Mr. Fjeseth’s telephone number,
which he provided. Mr. Bowerman offered to meet with Mr. Fjeseth and his neighbors.
Mr. Fjeseth mentioned that there is karaoke at Wolfie’s each night that ends at 2:00 a.m., and once
that is over, everyone goes to the Waffle House. He confirmed that the restaurant is open all night. Ms.
Thomas commented that once before in a similar restaurant situation, management agreed to close earlier.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Wyant, seconded by Ms.
Thomas, to approve items 5.1 and 5.2, and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as
information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
__________
Item No. 5.1. Set public hearing on 2005-09 Housing Choice Voucher Five-Year Plan and FY
2005-06 Annual Plan.
The Executive Summary states that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
requires each public housing agency to prepare a 5-year Plan for administering public housing assistance
programs pursuant to Section 511 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA).
Administration of the Housing Choice Vouchers makes Albemarle County subject to this requirement. In
addition to completing the 5-year Plan, an Annual Plan must be submitted each year. A Public Hearing is
required prior to both plan submissions.
The County’s Office of Housing has developed a new 5-year Plan and Annual Plan with input from a
Resident Advisory Board consisting of current recipients of rental assistance under the Housing Choice
Voucher Program. The plans have been provided to members of the Albemarle Housing Committee for
review and recommendation. A required 45-day public comment period began on March 7, 2005. Any
additional comments received during this period including those received during the requested public
hearing will be addressed in the final submission to HUD.
Staff recommends setting a public hearing to receive comments on the 2005-09 Housing Choice
Voucher 5-Year Plan and the 2005/06 Annual Plan for April 20, 2005.
By the above recorded vote, the Board set the public hearing on the 2005-09 Housing
Choice Voucher Five Year Plan and FY 2005-06 Annual Plan for April 20, 2005.
__________
Item No. 5.2. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) appraisals for the Year 2003-04
applicant pool.
The Executive Summary states that four properties were appraised for the Year 2003-04 applicant
pool (the Bieker, Shifflett, Hill and Page properties). In August 2004, the appraisals were completed and
sent to the Appraisal Review Committee (the “ARC”) for review as required under the ACE Ordinance.
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ultimately, the ARC accepted the appraisals for the Bieker and Shifflett properties, but rejected the
appraisals for the Hill and Page properties. Though the ARC believed that the Hill and Page appraisals
were consistent with the appropriate appraisal guidelines and practices as required under ACE Ordinance §
A.1-106(B), it believed that the Hill and Page properties were undervalued and that specific “comparables”
were not given sufficient weight in the evaluations. After much discussion with the ARC, Hallmark
Properties respectfully declined to revise the appraisals, again stating that “qualified analysts often disagree
in value estimates”.
The Board approved the Bieker and Shifflett appraisals on December 1, 2004. Staff sent an
invitation to offer to sell to Mr. Bieker in January. In late January 2005, the County mailed out the new real
estate assessments. Because of some unresolved issues and the uncertainty in the appraisals for the
entire Year 2003-04 applicant pool discussed below, staff has delayed sending an invitation to offer to sell
to the Shiffletts. On February 2, 2005, the ACE Committee met to discuss the appraisals for the Year 2003-
04 applicant pool.
At its February 2, 2005 meeting, the ACE Committee (the “Committee”) considered a number of
options to allow the Year 2003-04 applicant pool to proceed. Mr. Bieker attended the meeting and
commented that the value of his land in the ACE appraisal was approximately 75 percent of its assessed
value in the new real estate assessments.
With respect to the appraisals for the Hill and Page properties, the Committee supported the ARC’s
recommendation that the Board reject those appraisals. With respect to the Bieker and Shifflett
applications, the Committee recommended that the applicants be given the option to either proceed with
the existing appraisals or to request that their lands be reappraised. Some Committee members were
concerned that if two of the four appraisals in the applicant pool were rejected because the ARC
determined that the properties were undervalued, there would be a public perception that all four appraisals
may have undervalued the properties.
The deadline by which Mr. Bieker was requested to submit an offer to sell an easement to the
County has long since passed. Under ACE Ordinance § A.1-111(I), the failure to submit an offer to sell
would remove the applicant from the applicant pool. Staff also has spoken to the Shiffletts, who have
expressed concerns that their appraisal was low, and Henry Page, who stated that he would like to have his
property reappraised. Note that reappraisal would not assure that the new appraised values will either be
higher than those in the existing appraisals or greater than the properties’ assessed values.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors: (i) reject the appraisals of the Hill and Page
properties, as recommended by the ARC and the Committee; (ii) authorize the reappraisal of all four
properties in the Year 2003-04 applicant pool unless an applicant decides to drop out of the applicant pool
or, in the case of Mr. Bieker or the Shiffletts, they elect to proceed with their existing appraisal, provided the
election is made before the reappraisal process begins; and (iii) waive ACE Ordinance § A.1-111(I) and
allow Mr. Bieker to remain in the Year 2003-04 applicant pool if he does not elect to drop out.
(Mr. Boyd asked why there was such a discrepancy in appraisals for this ACE property.
Mr. Davis replied that a specific property’s appraisal is a much different process than mass
appraisals done for county assessment purposes. He noted that the independent appraisal was actually
lower than the county assessment at that time, and it has been recommended to have the property re-
appraised. Mr. Davis mentioned that the County assessments are monitored and tracked by the state, and
generally the market value is actually higher than county assessed values. He added that most of the time
the appraisals have been in line, but this last group has not been.)
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved staff’s recommendation to reject the
appraisals of the Hill and Page properties, as recommended by the ARC and the Committee;
authorize the reappraisal of all four properties in the Year 2003-04 applicant pool unless an
applicant decides to drop out of the applicant pool or, in the case of Mr. Bieker or the Shiffletts, they
elect to proceed with their existing appraisal, provided the election is made before the reappraisal
process begins; and waive ACE Ordinance § A.1-111(I) and allow Mr. Bieker to remain in the Year
2003-04 applicant pool if he does not elect to drop out.
__________
Item No. 5.3. Citizens Advisory Committee 2004 Annual Report of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Public Defender Office, was received for information.
__________
Item No. 5.4. Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for January 4 and January 11, 2005,
was received for information.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-2004-0060. Second Bank & Trust-Southside. Public hearing on a
request to allow drive-in window to serve bank in accord w/Sec 25.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for
drive-in windows serving or associated w/permitted uses. (Site plan SDP-2004-103 is currently under review
for this proposed development.) Property contains approx 1.34 acs. Znd PDSC & EC. Loc on S side of Rt
1150 (Mill Creek Dr) approx 240 ft E of intersec w/Rt 742 (Avon St Extd) adj to the Mill Creek Exxon.
Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 28 and
March 7, 2005.)
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Fritz reported that this application is a special use permit request for a bank with a drive-through
window. It was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 1, 2005, and was unanimously
recommended for approval with “very limited discussion.” Mr. Fritz explained that the property is located on
Mill Creek Drive just south of the Southside Shopping Center in the Scottsville Magisterial District, and the
access is taken off of an internal road, which also serves a car wash and a gas station/convenience store.
He added that the access road will ultimately serve some offices and other development in the area, noting
that the property is zoned PD-SC. Mr. Fritz reported that the plan was reviewed for compliance with both
the site plan criteria and the specific design criteria for drive-thrus and was found to meet that criteria in
terms of stacking, circulation, etc. He stated that staff was able to support the proposal and recommend
approval.
The Chairman asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Ray Gaines of the Gaines Group, the project architects, addressed the Board and offered to
answer any questions.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. There being no other public comment, the matter was
placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-2004-060 subject to the three conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. The site shall be constructed in general accordance with the preliminary site plan entitled
“Proposed Site Plan and Special Use Permit, Second Bank & Trust - Southside Branch”,
last revised December 27, 2004;
2. The furthest lane from the building shall be maintained free of any obstructions and limited
to bypassing traffic; and
3. Signage and pavement markings shall be provided at the entrance and exit points of the
drive-through lane, subject to Current Development Division engineering approval to
ensure appropriate and safe travel patterns.
_______________
(The next two agenda items were heard concurrently:)
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-2004-016. Glenwood Station (Sign #60). Public hearing on a request
to rezone 9.31 acs from PRD w/SUP for Office Use zoning district, to Neighborhood Model District (NMD) to
allow combination of residential & commercial uses. Development includes 50 residential condominium
units, 28 townhouses & 78,000 sq ft commercial/office space, which consists of 3 bldgs. TM 61, P 129F.
Loc on S side of E Rio Rd, directly across from Rio E Court & between Fashion Sq Mall & Squire Hill
Apartments, Rt 631, approx 1,600 ft from intersec of Rt 29 & Rio Rd E. (The Comp Plan designates this
property as Urban Density, recommended for 6.01-34 du/ac in Neighborhood 2.) Rio Dist. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 28 and March 7, 2005.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2004-061. Glenwood Station (Sign #69). Public hearing on a request
to allow dvlpment of drive-thru window as part of financial institution to include total of 3 lanes, with one
being dedicated to an ATM in accord w/Sec 20A.6b.1 of the Zoning Ord which allows for drive-through
windows serving or associated w/permitted uses in NMD. TM 61, P 129F. Loc on S side of E Rio Rd, directly
across from Rio E Court & between Fashion Square Mall & Squire Hill Apartments, Rt 631, approx 1,600 ft
from intersec of Rt 29 & Rio Rd E. Rio Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily
Progress on February 28 and March 7, 2005.)
(Mr. Bowerman filed a Transactional Disclosure Statement with the Clerk. He stated he receives
compensation of more than $10,000 annually from Parkside I, LLL., 690 Berkmar Circle, Charlottesville,
Virginia (the applicant for this rezoning and special permit and the owner of the property identified as TM 61
P 129F that is the subject of this transaction) and he has an ongoing business relationship with George W.
Ray, Jr., a principal in Parkside I, LLC., including an ownership interest in DEMREP, LLC., in which Mr. Ray
also has an ownership interest. He then disqualified himself from participating in these discussions and
excused himself from the meeting at 6:20 p.m.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this property is under development now, and the Neighborhood Model
District is being requested with a special use permit for the drive-through to include a total of three lanes,
one of which would be dedicated to an ATM. He said that what is currently approved for Glenwood Station
is comprised of three commercial buildings totaling 64,000 gross square feet of office space in two
buildings of three stories, and a third building of two stories in height. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the plan
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
maintains the three buildings for commercial uses, with an increase of 14,000 square feet to a total of
78,000 square feet and all three buildings now being three stories. He mentioned that the current plan also
includes 48 residential units and 28 townhouses, and the proposed plan would increase the number of
condominium units by 12 to 50 units, which is accomplished by introducing two units in a lower level of one
building, and combining two nine-unit buildings into one larger building with 28 units and structured parking
below. Mr. Cilimberg said the number of townhouses would remain the same.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the existing zoning – which is Planned Residential Development – was
primarily for the residential uses and there was a special use permit also authorized for office uses; the
Neighborhood Model District will allow the residential uses and increase flexibility in the office/ commercial
uses that may include a newsstand, dry-cleaners, and financial institutions. Staff has found that the
rezoning is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, and satisfies a number of Neighborhood Model
principles. Mr. Cilimberg said that staff finds the proposed use provides for a mixed use community, and
residential uses are supported by a pedestrian network, public services, and close proximity to shopping
and employment. He stated that staff did not find factors unfavorable to the rezoning, and recommended
approval. The Planning Commission has also unanimously recommended approval and the development
parameters are included in the code of development, so proffers were not necessary.
Regarding the drive-through, he said, there were concerns expressed initially by Engineering staff
regarding the adequacy of staffing, the bypass lane necessary for the drive-through queue, and concern
that the outlet of one-way three-lane drive-thrus into a two-lane two-way parking aisle may be a circulation
issue in the future. Mr. Cilimberg said that Engineering and the applicant met and were able to resolve all
concerns with the exception of one: the County Engineer requests that the outside lane be dedicated to
bypass traffic only as a condition of approval.
Mr. Cilimberg concluded that staff recommended approval with two conditions and the Planning
Commission supported that recommendation.
Ms. Thomas asked him to show her where the bypass lane is on the map. Mr. Cilimberg pointed
out which lane would provide for the bypass, with the drive-thru teller and ATM on the inside lanes closest to
the bank.
The Chairman asked the applicant for comments.
Mr. Mark Keller with Terra Concepts, PC, addressed the Board. He reminded the Board that they
had originally been granted a special use permit for Glenwood Station to provide office use in a residential
zone, originally zoned R-15. He said that the application plan put forth looked almost identical to what’s
been presented now, and since then they have received approved site plans for Phase II. Mr. Keller
explained that they were able to design the site to use an existing sewer without a break in the wall on site,
as well as adding parking. He said that that they were able to determine that slightly less parking is
required to handle vehicles for three maximum 26,000 square-foot buildings. Mr. Keller said that the
parking is being monitored at the site plan level, and noted that two additional units would be in the terrace
level of the buildings. He said that the new plan brings the pool and fitness center closer to the residential
units, instead of in the back as originally planned.
Mr. Rooker opened the public hearing. There being no further public comment, the matter was
placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve ZMA 2004-016 as presented. Mr. Wyant
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
__________
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2004-061 subject to the two conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Wyant seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. The outside lane is dedicated to bypass traffic only; and
2. The drive-through window as part of a financial institution shall be limited to three (3)
lanes that follow through to the teller windows and the ATM machine.
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 6:35 p.m.)
_______________
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA 2004-0010. Civil Penalties. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend
Sec 37.2, Civil penalty, of Chap 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, to increase the civil penalty for
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
each violation subsequent to the first violation arising under the same operative set of facts from one
hundred fifty dollars ($150) to two hundred fifty dollars ($250), & to increase the total civil penalties resulting
from a series of such violations from three thousand dollars ($3,000) to five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 28 and March 7, 2005.)
Ms. McCulley said this is an amendment to Section 37.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, to increase the
civil penalty for zoning violations as allowed under Virginia Code 15.2-22.09. She explained that civil
penalties are an effective enforcement tool as a deterrent and as a consequence for non-compliance in
numerous zoning cases. Ms. McCulley noted that the ordinance currently imposes civil penalties of $50
and $100 for the first violation, and then $150 for each subsequent violation and a maximum of $3,000 for
each violation in a year. She reported that a recent revision to the state code now allows for higher civil
penalties for subsequent violations as well as a higher cap overall.
Ms. McCulley said staff is requesting that each subsequent violation fine be increased from $150 to
$250, and the cap be increased to $5,000. She said that there would be no change to the first violation
fees. Ms. McCulley emphasized that the increases have the potential to reduce staff workload if they result
in a more timely abatement of violations, and will come closer to covering staff costs for enforcement. She
reported that the Planning Commission heard this ZTA on February 15, 2005, and asked a few questions:
(1) What was the original date that civil penalties were adopted in Albemarle County (June 14, 2000
amended February 13, 2002 to include three additional more common violations); (2) Would the change in
fine amount change the time frames for compliance (Mr. Kamptner told the Commission it would not likely
change the time frames because most cases do not reach the cap/threshold).
Ms. McCulley reported that the county uses approximately 150 civil penalties per year, or 28
percent of cases, with revenue generating about $7,000 per year. She concluded that staff recommends
adoption of the ordinance as presented.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, the matter was placed
before the Board.
Mr. Dorrier moved approval of ZTA 2004-010. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE V, VIOLATION AND PENALTY,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter
18, Zoning, Article IV, Violation and Penalty, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 37.2 Civil penalty
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article V. Violation and Penalty
Sec. 37.2 Civil penalty.
Any person, whether owner, lessee, principal, agent, employee or otherwise, who violates any
provision of this chapter, or permits any such violation, or fails to comply with any of the
requirements hereof, or who erects any building or structure or uses any building, structure or land
in violation of this chapter or any site plan or other detailed statement or plan submitted by him and
approved under the provisions of this chapter, shall be subject to the following:
A. Schedule of violations subject to one hundred dollar ($100.00) civil penalty for first
violation. Any violation of the following provisions of this chapter shall be subject to a civil
penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation, and a civil penalty of two
hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for each subsequent violation arising from the same set of
operative facts:
1. Each use of a lot, including the use of any structure thereon, not authorized either
as a matter of right or by special use permit by the zoning regulations applicable to
the district in which the lot is located, in violation of, as applicable, sections and
subsections 10.2, 12.2, 13.2, 14.2, 15.2, 16.2, 17.2, 18.2, 19.3, 20.3, 20.4, 20.5,
20.6, 21.2, 22.2, 23.2, 24.2, 25.2, 25A.2, 26.3, 27.2, 28.2, 29.2, 30.2.4, 30.3.05,
30.3.06, 30.4.02, 30.5.5 or 30.6.3.
2. The location of a structure or improvement in an area other than a building site, in
violation of subsection 4.2.3.1.
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
3. The location of a structure or improvement or engaging in land disturbing activity
on slopes of twenty-five percent or greater, in violation of subsection 4.2.3.2.
4. The cutting of trees in violation of section 4.3.
5. The placement, allowance of, erection or maintenance of a material impediment
to visibility so as to restrict sight distance in violation of section 4.4.
6. Any violation of section 4.10, which regulates the height of buildings and other
structures, except as provided in subsection (B)(1).
7. Any violation of section 4.12, which regulates off-street parking.
8. Any violation of section 4.15, which regulates permanent and temporary signs,
except as provided in subsection (F).
9. Any violation of section 4.17, which regulates outdoor lighting.
10. Any violation of section 5, which establishes supplementary regulations for certain
uses authorized in the several zoning districts. (Amended 2-13-02)
11. Any violation of sections 31.2.1, 31.2.2 or 31.2.3, which regulate use and
occupancy when building permits, certificates of occupancy, and zoning
compliance clearance are required, respectively. (Added 2-13-02)
12. Any violation of section 32, which regulates site plans and development pursuant
thereto. (Amended 2-13-02)
13. Any violation of a proffer, or a planned development application plan, special use
permit, variance, site plan, certificate of appropriateness or any condition related
thereto. (Amended 2-13-02)
B. Schedule of violations subject to fifty dollar ($50.00) civil penalty for first violation. Any
violation of the following provisions of this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty of fifty
dollars ($50.00) for the first violation, and a civil penalty of two hundred fifty dollars
($250.00) for each subsequent violation arising from the same set of operative facts:
1. The construction, erection or location of an accessory building in a residential
district in violation of subsection 4.10.3.4.
2. Any violation of section 4.11, which regulates uses and structures permitted in
required yards.
3. The use of a major recreational vehicle in violation of subsection 4.13.1.2.
4. The parking of a truck with a gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000)
pounds or more or a dual-wheeled recreational vehicle in a residential district in
violation of subsection 4.13.3. Each such truck or dual-wheeled recreational
vehicle parked in a residential district in violation of subsection 4.13.3 shall
constitute a separation violation.
5. Any violation of section 4.18, which regulates noise.
6. The failure to maintain or replace recreational equipment in violation of subsection
4.16.3.2.
7. Any violation of section 6, which regulates nonconformities. (Amended 2-13-02)
C. Each day during which a violation is found to exist shall be a separate offense. However,
the same scheduled violation arising from the same operative set of facts may be charged
not more than once in a ten (10) day period, and the total civil penalties from a series of
such violations arising from the same set of operative facts shall not exceed five thousand
dollars ($5,000.00).
D. Any person summoned for a scheduled violation may elect to pay the civil penalty by
making an appearance in person or in writing by mail to the department of finance prior to
the date fixed for trial in court. A person so appearing may enter a waiver of trial, admit
liability, and pay the civil penalty established for the offense charged. A signature to an
admission of liability shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of court.
However, such an admission shall not be deemed a criminal conviction for any purpose. If
a person charged with a violation does not elect to enter a waiver of trial and admit liability,
the violation shall be tried in the general district court in the same manner and with the
same right of appeal as provided by law. A finding of liability shall not be deemed a
criminal conviction for any purpose.
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
E. The designation of a particular violation in section 37.2(A) or (B) shall be in lieu of any
criminal penalty and, except for any violation resulting in injury to persons, such a
designation shall preclude the prosecution of the particular violation as a criminal
misdemeanor, but shall not preclude any other remedy available under this chapter.
F. The designation of a particular violation in section 37.2(A) or (B) shall not be construed to
allow the imposition of civil penalties: (i) for activities related to land development within the
meaning of Virginia Code § 10.1-603.2; or (ii) for violation of any provision of the zoning
ordinance relating to the posting of signs on public property or public rights-of-way.
G. Any reference herein to a section of this chapter shall include all subsections and
paragraphs of that section.
(Ord. 00-18(5), 6-14-00; Ord. 02-18(3), 2-13-02; Ord. 05-18(3), 3-16-05)
State law reference
– Va. Code § 15.2-2209.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA 2004-005 – Signs. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend Sec
4.15.2, Definitions, Sec 4.15.6, Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement, Sec 4.15.7, Prohibited signs
& sign characteristics, Sec 4.15.16, Regulations applicable to certain sign types, & Sec 4.15.22, Sign
maintenance, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec
4.15.2 by amending the definitions of “advertising vehicle,” “banner,” “farm sign,” “flag,” “pennant,” “portable
sign,” “temporary sign,” & “window sign,” & would add definitions for “rare gas illumination” & “agricultural
product signs”; amend Sec 4.15.6 by exempting certain window signs, flags, advertising vehicles &
agricultural product signs from the sign permit requirement; amend Sec 4.15.7 by deleting the total
prohibition of neon signs, & by prohibiting certain types of signs using rare gas illumination, certain window
signs, animated & moving signs using rare gas illumination, & certain advertising vehicles, & by exempting
authorized flags from the class of prohibited moving signs; amend Sec 4.15.8 by imposing a brightness
standard of 30 milliamps on signs using exposed rare gas illumination throughout the county, & on all signs
using rare gas illumination covered by transparent material within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District;
amend Sec 4.15.22 to establish maintenance standards for lighting fixtures & the sources of illumination on
illuminated signs; & other nonsubstantive changes in those sections. (Notice of this public hearing was
advertised in the Daily Progress on February 28 and March 7, 2005.)
Ms. McCulley reported that this amendment applies to Section 4.15 of the Zoning Ordinance, and is
an amendment to neon, advertising vehicles, commercial flags, window advertisement, and agricultural
product signs. She said that as a result of community reaction to county enforcement of current sign
regulations, the Board adopted a resolution of intent in February 2003, and also chartered a focus sign
committee to provide “broad and balanced citizen input” and to serve as a focus group. Ms. McCulley said
that this committee was comprised of representatives from various citizen and business interests, including
the Chamber of Commerce, PEC, Citizens for Albemarle, League of Women Voters. Free Enterprise
Forum, Rutherford Institute, the Architectural Review Board, the Albemarle Neighborhood Association, and
the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development.
She said that the Focus Sign Committee met six times with staff over the course of six months, and
staff provided research of sign regulations from 21 different localities inside and outside of Virginia related
to the four topics. Ms. McCulley reported that staff also utilized the expertise of two local sign business
owners. She said that the committee’s majority opinion and recommendations are reflected in Attachment
A and Attachment B. Ms. McCulley said that staff held a community roundtable on February 25, 2004 to
hear public input based on the committee’s recommendations, and also solicited generalized community
input following that and received input via email and other means. She stated that they have held two work
sessions with the ARB, and three work sessions with the Planning Commission.
Ms. McCulley reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft
ordinance after their February 15 public hearing. She noted that staff recommended an additional
amendment for agricultural product signs to forward the Comp. Plan purposes related to promoting viable
agricultural uses, and thus the draft ordinance includes language for agricultural product signs.
She reviewed the sign categories and recommended changes:
Neon – bare or uncovered neon is currently prohibited. She noted that staff is changing the
terminology as it is outdated and only represents one of many gas types. The new term is “rare gas
illumination,” and staff and the committee recommended that bare or uncovered rare gas illumination be
permitted with a few limitations, including maximum brightness standard. She explained that they worked
with a local sign professional and found that a limitation to the transformer size – the amount of electrical
output that would feed the sign with electricity was the way to address that – would be incorporated as a
design feature. Ms. McCulley added that the maximum transformer size for bare gas illumination would be
30 milliamps, which has been in place as a cap for other types of lighting as well.
Commercial Flags – are currently not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance, except for
government buildings. Ms. McCulley said that the committee recommended three flags per pole with a
maximum of three poles per lot, which could result in a total of nine commercial flags. She reported that at
the community roundtable, it was felt that that was excessive. Ms. McCulley said that staff recommends
one commercial flag per lot, at a maximum of 24 square feet; more than one sign would be allowed on
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
large parcels with multiple frontages. She added that non-commercial expression has also been
addressed for residential and commercial settings, so that people may fly flags at their homes.
Mr. Boyd asked if the committee agreed to modifications prior to them being presented to the
Board. Ms. McCulley replied that the committee provided input to staff and board, acknowledging that staff
may have independent and different recommendations. She said that she has informed the committee
along the way of what staff and the roundtable have recommended. Ms. McCulley noted that some
committee members agreed that the nine-flag permission was excessive.
Mr. Boyd said that he has a problem with staff changing committee recommendations. Mr. Tucker
stated that what is being presented is both what the committee recommends and what staff recommends.
Mr. Davis noted that the committee has had the opportunity to participate in five work sessions with
the Planning Commission and ARB, and with the staff roundtable. There has been plenty of opportunity
and notice to them of what is going on and how it has evolved from the time that they had made their
recommendations. Mr. Tucker added that the committee was informed that staff might have changes to
their recommendations.
Mr. Boyd suggested that staff and committee members should come to consensus prior to bringing
the results to the Board.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that there are plenty of times when staff doesn’t agree 100 percent with
committee recommendations, and the Planning Commission doesn’t always agree with staff or the
Committee, and the Board might not agree with the Commission or staff or the committee. Mr. Rooker
added that the Board has to make a decision based on what it hears.
Mr. Wyant asked if a maximum of three flagpoles would be allowed. Ms. McCulley responded that
that is what the committee has recommended, noting that in some corporate locations, they may want three
different poles to fly the flags.
Mr. Rooker noted that the new proposed ordinance is much more lenient in allowing commercial
flags, neon signs, and flags on personal property.
Ms. Thomas said that there have been committees in the past that have worked hard and felt that
their recommendations have not been implemented.
Ms. McCulley noted that they do not regulate the number of governmental flags, and this change
applies to other flags.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this would allow for a large U.S. flag. Ms. McCulley replied that there is no
limit on governmental flags.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that one debate at the Planning Commission level was that there was no
limit on the size of governmental flags, and some businesses use it for commercial purposes, such as “All
American Carwash.”
Mr. Bowerman noted that there are engineering requirements related to flag size.
Mr. Wyant asked if the ARB was involved in the limitations. Mr. Rooker replied that in the Entrance
Corridors, they would be.
Ms. McCulley said that for a commercial flag that is 24 square feet, it is exempt from a permit
requirement, and said that she would have to look up the specifics on EC limitations. She added that for
sites that are larger than four acres, with more than one approved entrance, additional flag locations are
permitted. Ms. McCulley added that variances may be sought also, and those requests might be an
indication that the number of flags permitted needs reconsideration.
Ms. Thomas asked about the flag situation at Northridge on Route 250 West. She said that they
have four flagpoles, each with four or five flags. Ms. McCulley pointed out that they would be pre-existing to
any new ordinance.
Mr. Wyant asked about signs that mark the entrance to farm properties. Ms. McCulley replied that
that is a different type of sign that is already provided for as a farm sign, and that is not part of this
amendment. She noted that agricultural product signs are for specific items – such as apples, peaches,
etc. – that would be advertised separately from the name of the farm. Ms. McCulley noted that signs of an
aggregate 32 square feet are permitted, recognizing that with different seasons, those signs might need to
be changed. She mentioned that staff wanted to allow equivalent provisions to real estate signs, based on
concerns raised about equity of sign display.
Mr. Wyant asked about Pepsi signs and other commercial signs being large. Ms. McCulley replied
that different regulations apply to temporary signs, and they are not supposed to be larger than 32 square
feet.
Advertising Vehicles – she said that current regulations regarding vehicle signs have been
somewhat problematic, and are addressed “as best we can” in the new language. Ms. McCulley said that
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
staff and the committee had considerable discussions on vehicles that are specifically modified for
advertising, usually parked, versus vehicles that are being driven with just a business number painted on the
side.
Window Advertisement – Ms. McCulley described this section as “confusing,” noting that there are
several types of window signs. She said that the current regulations only address exterior signage, located
on the exterior on the glass of a window or door; a lot of signage is put on the inside of the glass.
Ms. McCulley said that the committee and staff agreed to treat both types the same through the
ZTA, and came up with a proposal for an exempt sign that allows a certain percentage coverage (25
percent maximum) applying to permanent signs. She mentioned that the signs advertising “specials” are
treated as permanent signs that change out over time, and staff recommends the best way to regulate
them is to limit the coverage percentage, with some exceptions (credit card signs, open/ closed signs, etc.)
Ms. McCulley added that staff recommends window signs only on the first floor of the building unless the
business doesn’t have first floor space, and then it can be on the second floor.
Ms. Thomas asked about the sign company on 29 North that has neon signs in the second floor
windows. Ms. McCulley responded that that would be treated as a permanent sign, and would need
approval from the ARB because it is on an Entrance Corridor. Ms. Thomas commented that the signs have
been there for a long time, and have been on the second floor all of that time. She guesses that they are
not particularly wanted to be duplicated. Ms. McCulley replied that they may be grandfathered in, noting
that the ordinance says excessive window signage is discouraged and the ARB can address it. She added
that the ARB sign guidelines specify a maximum sign size in the Entrance Corridor of nine square feet for a
permanent sign, and because that is a standard, staff felt it should also be included in the zoning ordinance
for EC.
The Chairman then opened the public hearing.
Mr. Murray Whitehill addressed the Board. He said that if signs and banners are continued to be
allowed, Charlottesville will lose its “world class city” stature. Mr. Whitehill said that zoning is totally
overwhelmed and doesn’t have time to chase down signs, such as the “stop bad credit” and “bottom level
topsoil” signs nailed to poles everywhere. Regarding permission of neon, Mr. Whitehill asked if Board
members have been to Myrtle Beach.
Mr. Tom Loach next addressed the Board. Mr. Loach stated that he served on the committee, and
speaks as a veteran. He said that soldiers don’t “fight for that flag,” but they do “die for that flag,” and the
symbol of their respect for their service and sacrifice is that flag. Mr. Loach stated that the current
ordinance is good and simple as it relates to the U.S. flag, and encouraged the county to retain the
ordinance to keep the flag flying alone.
Mr. Wyant asked if there are other flags allowed with the American flag. Ms. McCulley replied that
under the draft ordinance, the county wouldn’t regulate whether the governmental flag is flown with
commercial flags.
Mr. Davis noted that there are federal regulations that prescribe how flags are flown in relationship
to the American flag, and cannot be regulated by the county. He said that they are referenced in the
ordinance, and he is not sure if commercial flags are permitted on the same flagpole.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he believes that the federal law stipulates that the U.S. flag flies alone.
Mr. Rooker said that that establishes a protocol, but it is not easily enforced by the federal
government.
Ms. Thomas asked how those protocols are referenced in the ordinance. Mr. Davis read the
reference to federal law in the ordinance, and suggested that the language be changed to say “for rules
and customs pertaining to the flag.”
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there is legislation pertaining to not flying a commercial flag on the
same pole as the American flag, but he wasn’t sure if it was mandatory or protocol.
Mr. Davis responded that the part about flying it at the highest point and not having other flags on
the pole is mandatory, but he has not reviewed that recently. He said it is not something the county is in a
position to enforce as part of the zoning ordinance. This zoning ordinance amendment has not attempted
to regulate political flags.
Ms. Thomas suggested that it be worded as strongly as possible, as the “rules and customs”
language seems too soft. Other Board members agreed.
Mr. Davis said that there could be general regulations done for political flags, but the first
amendment is a difficult area to enforce in that way. He mentioned that the genesis for this ZTA was a
lawsuit challenging the county’s prohibition of commercial flags. Mr. Davis said that the committee
approach attempts to address whether flags are “a reasonable form of commercial speech,” and the
consensus is that they are as long as they are properly regulated.
Mr. Wyant asked if commercial signs on Entrance Corridors would be addressed. Mr. Davis replied
that a certificate of appropriateness would be required for visible signs, including flags. He said that general
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
provisions could be issued by the ARB that would cover the flags. Mr. Tucker noted that it is possible to
have that fall under a single permit reviewed administratively. Mr. Davis said that a non-commercial flag is
exempted from regulation. Ms. Thomas clarified that commercial flags, then, would go before the ARB in
the Entrance Corridor.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the
Board.
Mr. Boyd moved for approval of ZTA 2004-005 Signs with the modifications as recommended. Mr.
Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:)
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(4)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE
CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18,
Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained
as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Sec. 4.15.16 Regulations applicable to certain sign types
Sec. 4.15.22 Sign maintenance
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article 2. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15:
(1) . The term “advertising vehicle” means a motor vehicle, trailer or semi trailer
Advertising vehicle
(collectively, “vehicle”) having a permanent or temporary sign affixed, painted on or placed upon it, including
a sign that alters the vehicle’s manufacturer’s profile; provided that a temporary sign affixed to an
employee’s private vehicle during his or her working hours is not an advertising vehicle.
(1.1) . The term “agricultural product sign” means a sign or signs identifying the
Agricultural product sign
produce, crops, animals or poultry raised or quartered on the property.
. . .
(7) . The term “banner” means a temporary sign that is not a pennant, consisting of a piece of fabric
Banner
or other flexible material, suspended from a fixed structure, rope, wire, string or cable.
. . .
(20) . The term “farm sign” means a sign that identifies the name of a property in agricultural or
Farm sign
forestal use.
. . .
(22) . The term “flag” means a sign consisting of a piece of fabric or other flexible material attached to
Flag
a flag pole, except as otherwise authorized. A flag representing the official symbol of a national, state or
local government is not a sign for the purposes of section 4.15 (for federal law pertaining to flying the flag of
the United States of America, see 4 U.S.C. § 5 ). A “commercial flag” is a flag that contains
et seq.
commercial speech. A “noncommercial flag” is a flag that contains no commercial speech, such as
decorative, hospitality, and seasonal flags containing no advertising, words or logos related to a specific
business, product or service, and does not represent the official symbol of a national, state or local
government.
. . .
(37) . The term “pennant” means a series of two (2) or more sections of a piece of fabric or other
Pennant
flexible material that is generally triangular and tapering, suspended from a fixed structure, rope, wire, string
or cable and designed to move in the wind and including, but not limited to, streamers and tinsel.
. . .
(39) . The term “portable sign” means a temporary sign that is not permanently affixed to the
Portable sign
ground or to a permanent structure, or a sign that can be moved to another location including, but not
limited to, a sign erected on a trailer, a sign with attached wheels, or a sign consisting of A-shaped or T-
shaped frames. See Figure I following this section.
. . .
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
(42.1) : The term “rare gas illumination” means a sign using a rare gas such as
Rare gas illumination
neon, argon, helium, xenon or krypton in a glass tube for illumination.
. . .
(47) . The term “sign” means any object, device or structure, or any part thereof including the sign face
Sign
and the sign structure, visible from beyond the boundaries of the lot on which it is located, which exists
primarily to advertise, identify, display, or direct or attract attention to a structure, object, person, institution,
organization, business, product, service, event, issue or location by any means, including letters, figures,
designs, devices, pictures, projected images, symbols, fixtures, colors, logos, emblems, or insignias or any
part or combination thereof.
. . .
(51) . The term “temporary sign” means a sign that is displayed for only a limited period
Temporary sign
of time authorized in section 4.15.4(D), that describes or identifies participants in a seasonal, brief or
particular event or activity to be or being conducted upon a lot.
. . .
(55) . The term “window sign” means a permanent or temporary sign affixed to the interior
Window sign
or exterior of a window or door, or within three (3) feet of the interior of the window or door; provided that the
display of goods available for purchase on the premises is not a window sign.
Sec. 4.15.6 Signs exempt from the sign permit requirement
The following signs are exempt from the sign permit requirement set forth in section 4.15.4 provided that
they comply with the regulations set forth below and all other applicable regulations of this section 4.15:
(1) . One or two agricultural product signs that do not exceed an aggregate of
Agricultural product sign
thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area.
(2) . An auction sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area, and which is
Auction sign
posted for a total of thirty (30) days or less in a calendar year. Such an auction sign shall be removed
within seven (7) days after date of the auction.
(3) . A commemorative plaque that does not to exceed four (4) square feet in
Commemorative plaque
sign area.
(4) . A construction sign that does not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area.
Construction sign
Such a construction sign shall be removed within seven (7) days after issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
(5) . An estate sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area.
Estate sign
(6) . A farm sign that does not include commercial identification and does not exceed four (4)
Farm sign
square feet in sign area.
(7) . A home occupation class B sign that does not exceed four (4) square
Home occupation class B sign
feet in sign area.
(8) . An incidental sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area.
Incidental sign
(9) . One or more political signs that do not exceed the maximum sign area allowed for the
Political sign
physical type of the sign (e.g., freestanding, wall) within the applicable zoning district.
(10) . A private drive sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area, limited
Private drive sign
to one such sign per entrance.
(11) . A public sign.
Public sign
(12) . A residence sign that does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area.
Residence sign
(13) . One or more residential signs that are not illuminated signs and do not exceed
Residential sign
thirty-two (32) square feet in cumulative sign area.
(14) . A special decorative display used for holidays or public events, and which
Special decorative display
is displayed for a total of sixty (60) days or less in a calendar year. Such a display shall be removed
within seven (7) days of said event.
(15) . A temporary directionalsign that is erected no closer than five (5) feet
Temporary directional sign
from a front lot line and does not exceed four (4) square feet in sign area.
(16) . A real estate sign that does not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in sign area.
Real estate sign
Such a real estate sign shall be removed from the site within seven (7) days of sale, lease or rental.
(17) . A warning sign that is erected by a private landowner and does not exceed four (4)
Warning sign
square feet in sign area.
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
(18) . A permanent window sign, provided that it does not exceed twenty-five percent (25%)
Window sign
of the total area of the window or door on which it is located, and the aggregate area of all window
signs on each window or door does not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the total area of the
window and door; and further provided that if a permanent window sign will be on a structure within
the entrance corridor overlay district and the window sign is visible from an entrance corridor overlay
street, that the aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed nine (9) square feet per business
and that a certificate of appropriateness for the window sign is obtained as provided in section
4.15.15.
(19) . A commercial flag, subject to the following: (i) not more than one (1) flag may be
Commercial flag
flown on a lot, provided that if the lot is four (4) acres or larger, then one (1) additional flag may be
flown; (ii) the flag shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in size; and (iii) the flag shall be flown
on a flag pole and, if two (2) flags may be flown, they may either be on the same or on separate flag
poles.
(20) A noncommercial flag, subject to the following: (i) the flag shall not exceed
Noncommercial flag.
twenty-four (24) square feet in size; (ii) on commercial, institutional and industrial lots, the flag shall
be displayed only on privately owned light posts and shall be installed in a manner so that it remains
taut and flapping and movement is minimized; (ii) on residential and agricultural lots, the flag shall be
displayed from a mount on a dwelling unit or other permitted primary or accessory structure, a flag
pole, a mast, or suspended from a fixed structure, rope, wire, string or cable.
(21) . An advertising vehicle in which none of the prohibited conditions delineated in
Advertising vehicle
section 4.15.7(c)(2)(ii) or (iii) exist that is: (i) used as transportation for the business; and (ii) parked in
an approved parking space or parking area that serves the advertised business, or temporarily
parked at another business to actively receive or provide goods or services, such as to load or unload
goods, provide on-site services, receive vehicle maintenance and repair, or obtain food for the driver
and passengers.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.04; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference
– Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 4.15, the following signs and sign characteristics are
prohibited in all zoning districts:
a. . Signs that violate state or federal law, including but not
Signs that violate state or federal law
limited to:
1. A sign that violates any law of the Commonwealth of Virginia related to outdoor advertising,
including but not limited to Virginia Code §§ 33.1-351 to 33.1-381, inclusive, and 46.1-174.
2. A sign that violates any law of the United States related to the control of outdoor
advertising, including but not limited to 23 U.S.C. § 131.
3. A sign that violates any state or federal law related to Virginia byways or scenic highways.
4. A sign that violates the building code or the fire code.
b. .
Signs with characteristics that create a safety hazard or are contrary to the general welfare
Signs whose construction, design, location or other physical characteristic create a safety
hazard or are contrary to the general welfare, as follows:
1. . A sign, other than a public sign or a warning sign,
Sign that is attached to another thing
that is nailed, tacked, painted or in any other manner attached to any tree, cliff, fence, utility
pole or support, utility tower, rack, curbstone, sidewalk, lamp post, hydrant, bridge or public
property of any description.
2. . A sign that casts illumination, directly or indirectly, on
Sign that casts illumination off-site
any street, or on any adjacent property within a residential district.
3. . A sign that is a moored balloon or other type of tethered floating sign.
Floating sign
4. . Lighting that outlines any structure, window, sign structure,
Lighting that illuminates outline
sign or part thereof using rare gas illumination or other light.
5. . A sign that imitates an official
Sign that imitates a traffic sign or signal or a road name sign
traffic sign or signal or a road name sign, or conflicts with traffic safety needs due to its
location, color, movement, shape or illumination.
6. . A sign that uses exposed, bare or uncovered rare gas
Sign using rare gas illumination
illumination having a brightness that exceeds thirty (30) milliamps; provided that a sign
within the entrance corridor overlay district that is visible from an entrance corridor overlay
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
street that uses exposed, bare or uncovered rare gas illumination in clear, rather than
frosted, tubing, regardless of brightness, is also prohibited.
7. . A sign that obstructs free or clear vision, or otherwise causes a
Sign that obstructs vision
safety hazard for vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic due to its location, shape,
illumination or color; and window signs whose aggregate area on a window or door exceed
twenty five percent (25%) of the total area of the window or door.
8. . Pennants, ribbons, spinners, streamers or similar
Pennants, ribbons, spinners streamers
moving devices, whether or not they are part of a sign.
9. . A sign, other than a public sign, erected on or over a
Sign erected in public right-of-way
public right-of-way unless the sign is authorized under section 4.15.5.
10. . A sign, other than a
Sign that contains or consists of searchlight, beacon or strobe light
public sign, that contains or consists of a searchlight, beacon, strobe light, or similar form
of illumination.
11. . A sign that produces sound for the purpose of attracting atten-
Sign that produces sound
tion regardless of whether the sign has a written message content.
12. . A sign that contains or consists of
Sign that contains or consists of strings of light bulbs
one (1) or more strings of light bulbs that is not part of a decorative display.
13. . A sign that is illuminated so as to be unsafe to vehicular or
Sign with unsafe illumination
pedestrian traffic.
14. . A sign that is erected in a location so as to be unsafe to
Sign erected in unsafe location
vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
15. . A sign whose characteristics, including
Sign determined by official to create safety hazard
but not limited to its construction, design or location, are determined by a fire official, the
building official, or a law enforcement officer to create a safety hazard.
16. . A commercial window sign affixed to a
Window sign above the first floor, exception
window or door above the first floor of the structure unless the business to which the sign
pertains does not occupy any first floor space.
c. . Signs that are:
Certain sign types
1. Animated signs, including signs using rare gas illumination, that give the appearance of
animation.
2. Advertising vehicles, where the: (i) the vehicle is parked so as to be visible from a public
right-of-way in a parking space or parking area not authorized by section 4.15.6(20); (ii) the
vehicle is inoperable; or (iii) the vehicle is incapable of moving on its own or is not self-
propelled.
3. Banners, except as an authorized temporary sign under section 4.15.4(d).
4. Billboards.
5. Flashing signs.
6. Moving signs, including signs using rare gas illumination, that give the appearance of
movement, but not including flags that meet the requirements of sections 4.15.6(18) or
4.15.6(19).
7. Roof signs.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.06; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference
– Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.16 Regulations applicable to certain sign types
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations apply to the
sign types identified herein:
a. . The following regulations shall apply to all signs, including exempt signs: (i) no
All sign types
sign shall be erected within the applicable minimum setback area or within the sight distance
triangle; and (ii) the area of the sign face shall not exceed two hundred (200) percent of the
sign area.
b. . In each shopping center exceeding one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet
Anchor signs
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
in gross floor area: (i) one (1) freestanding anchor sign shall be permitted for each one
hundred thousand (100,000) square feet in gross floor area, not to exceed four (4) anchor
signs at the shopping center; and (ii) each anchor sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet in
sign area.
c. . A canopy sign shall not extend above or below the edge of the canopy’s fascia.
Canopy signs
d. . The following regulations shall apply to freestanding signs: (i) the
Freestanding signs
maximum combined size of a freestanding sign and its support structure shall not exceed two
and one-half (2.5) times the maximum allowable sign size; and (ii) a lot with less than one
hundred (100) feet of frontage, on which there is erected a freestanding sign on the date of the
adoption of this regulation, shall be permitted one (1) freestanding sign.
e. . Gasoline service stations shall be permitted additional
Gasoline service station fuel price signs
sign area for the exclusive purpose of displaying fuel prices. This sign area shall be calculated
at a maximum of fifty (50) percent of the principal sign area to which it is attached or sixteen
(16) square feet, whichever is less.
f. . An outdoor menu sign shall be permitted as a directory sign only on a lot with a
Menu signs
permitted drive-through use and shall not be visible from any street.
g. . An off-site sign shall count toward the signage allowed on the lot on which the
Off-site signs
sign is located.
h. . A projecting sign shall not be mounted on the fascia of a canopy and shall
Projecting signs
not be mounted such that the projecting sign extends, in whole or in part, above the top of the
wall structure.
i. . In order to be eligible to have a wall sign, the establishment shall have an exterior
Wall signs
wall.
j. . Signs using exposed rare gas illumination, and signs within
Signs using rare gas illumination
the entrance corridor overlay district visible from an entrance corridor overlay street that use
rare gas illumination covered by a transparent material, shall not have a brightness that
exceeds thirty (30) milliamps. Brightness shall be determined by the zoning administrator, who
shall consider information provided by the sign manufacturer, the rated size of the sign’s
transformer, and any other relevant information deemed appropriate.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05)
State law reference
– Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Sec. 4.15.22 Sign maintenance
Each sign, including the sign structure, shall be maintained at all times in a safe structural condition, and in
a neat and clean condition, and shall be kept free from defective or missing parts. If the sign is illuminated,
all lighting fixtures and sources of illumination shall be maintained in proper working order.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no other matters.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn to March 21, 2005, 1:00 p.m., Room 235.
At 7:15 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to adjourn until March
21, 2005. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 06/01/2005
Initials: DJM
March 16, 2005 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)