Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010_tcwsmin0927Council Work Session September 27 2010 Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, 7:30 p.m. Mayor Kristen Umstattd presiding. Conncil Members Present: David S. Butler, Thomas S. Dunn, II, Katie Sheldon Hammier, Marty Martinez, Kenneth "Ken" Reid, Kevin Wright and Mayor Kristen Umstattd Council Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Town Manager John Wells, Town Attorney Jeanette Irby, Director of Planning and Zoning Susan Berry Hill, Deputy Dtrector of Planning and Zoning Brian Boucher, Zoning Administrator Chris Murphy, Deputy Zoning Administrator Wade Burkholder, Assistant to the Town Manager Kathy Leidich, Director of Finance Norm Butts, Director of Public Works Tom Mason and Clerk of Council Lee Ann Green AGENDA ITEMS 1. Work Session Items for Disrnssion a. Siva Ordinance Wade Burkholder on July 27, the Town Council held a public hearing related to a zoning ordinance amendment for the sign ordinance. He stated due to the discussion held at the public hearing, several points were identified that would need more explanation as to what was being proposed. He stated staff will introduce these topics. He described some of the existing and proposed language. He stated that each section contains some suggested options for Council to consider. He stated that staff would like some direction on how to proceed which wiB help staff draft the ordinance. He stated the topics that needed work as discussed at the public hearing included roof signage, vehicle signage, temporary signs for places of worship and real estate sales, upper story signs, neon signs and window signs. Council Member Butler stated it is important for the citizens to know whether the proposed language is more restrictive or less restrictive than the current language. Mr. Burkholder provided Council with examples of different types of roof signs. He noted that existing roof signs in town are grandfathered as they are currently prohibited under the sign ordinance and have been for about 15- 20 years. He stated if they are removed, they could not be replaced. He stated that the Planning Commission has recommended no changes to the roof sign regulations, thus continuing the prohibition on roof signage. Council Members Martinez, Hammier, Butler, and Vice Mayor Wright expressed a design to continue the prohibition on roof signs. t~~.,; Council Work Session September 27, 2010 Council Member Hammier questioned how Williamsburg handles roof signage. Council Member Reid stated he would like a compromise to allow roof signage that is under an eave as long as it is not in the H-2 district and the H-2 provides some protection if staff does not feel comfortable approving it. He stated the Patient First people were very concerned because all of their other facilities have roof signs. Council Member Dunn stated that overall he would like the town to consider the conditions under which a roof sign can be allowed and allow renewal baring some violation. He stated there are some circumstances where this type of sign may be acceptable rather than saying outright that we do not allow a type of signage. Mayor Umstattd questioned how the Patient First sign would differ from an upper story business sign? Mr. Burkholder stated a lot of upper story signage is part of a sign plan for a multiple story building that holds multiple businesses. He stated the Patient First building is a single story building which has an architectural feature that makes it look like a two story building. Vice Mayor Wright stated that the problem with the Patient Fust sign is the primary roof that is below the sign. He questioned whether permanent architectural awnings qualify as an eave. Chris Murphy clarified the sign is a roof sign because the lowest eave of the ioof is below the sign. He stated an architectural element like an awning would not be considered an eave. Council members posed various situations to staff to better understand what triggers the designation of roof sign. There was discussion regarding the prohibition on roof signs. Council Member Reid expressed concern that a business could be penalized for adding an architectural feature such as a cupola. Mr. Boucher stated it goes back some years, but many of the single story buildings are under the maximum height for the district and could be made a little higher to allow a sign under the eaves. Mayor Umstattd stated she would be open to authorizing a roof sign like the one that Patient First had proposed, but a free standing roof sign does not appeal to her. She stated she would not mind amending the language to 2F°ac~ Council Work Session September 27, 2010 allow a little more flexibility, but the majority of Council would prefer to leave the language alone. Council Member Hammler stated the Council is trying to create incentives for more historic oriented, high quality construction. She stated she would be interested m knowing how Williamsburg has achieved high quality roof signage. CouncIl Member Dunn stated he has been to Williamsburg and there are two parts to Williamsburg, the historic area and the touristy area. He stated that Falls Church has a very restrictive ordinance. He stated it is nice to look at otherjurisdictions, but the Council needs to decide how they want Leesburg to look. He stated he would be interested in seeing how Williamsburg regulates the colonial area of town. Mr. Burkholder stated the next point of discussion is vehicle signage. He stated it provides visual clutter and increases trafffc hazards. He stated the intent of the regulations are to provide fair and equitable opportunities for all businesses. He noted that some vehicles with signage are not located anywhere near the business they are advocating. He stated the proposed language is more restrictive than the existing language because the language more clearly defines vehicle signs. He stated the current defmirion of a vehicle sign is a portable sign, which is not fair to the real estate agents who have small, portable signs. He stated they would like to see that the vehicles are being used in the daily operation of the business and notjust sitting on flat tires and are set back from the public right of way. He stated that temporary banners placed on trucks to advertise sales would not be allowed. He stated the Planning Commission recommends the language as proposed. Mr. Boucher stated that a vehicle with a sign on it that just sits in one spot is a sign, not a vehicle, but calling it a vehicle gives the business an advantage over other businesses who comply with the two signs per business rule. He stated the proposed ordinance will address this. Council Member Hammier questioned why the ordinance does not prohibit vehicle signs, but allow portable signs. Council Member Reid stated he is astonished at the mistrust of the private sector. He stated that just because the ordinance is revised, not everyone will want a vehicle sign. He questioned why the town would want to make it more difficult for businesses during this difficult economic period. He stated other jurisdictions don't even address this. He stated there are only three or four of these vehicles in town. He stated he errs on the side of less restriction, not more. 3~r,__ Council Work Session September 27, 2010 Vice Mayor Wright stated in some instances it wiD be less restrictive, because legal vehicle signs would not be questioned. Council Member Dunn stated the property owner's obligations are not addressed with this change. He stated it is a subjective determination as to what is a legitimate business use and it will be lefr to the zoning inspector to make that determination. He questioned what will happen if there is an assigned parking space within the shopping center. Mayor Umstattd stated there are two separate issues, one being vehicle signs and the other being inoperable vehicles. She stated the town should not try [o regulate the inoperable vehicles issue with the sign ordinance. Mayor Umstattd stated CouncIl consensus is to strike #2. Mr. Burkholder stated that over the past few years it has become more popular for places of worship to operate in buildings where they are not the primary use for the building and they are looking to advertise to others where they are located. He stated that the Planning Commission has recommended permitting off site place of worship and real estate temporary signs from sundown Friday until sundown on Sunday and on legal holidays. He stated this does correspond with some state legislation regarding temporary signs and what is being done in other jurisdictions in the state. Ms. Irby noted that the time language needs to be removed in the case of places of worship, possibly using a length of time before and after the service. Council Member Dunn stated he did not like the prohibition against putting the signs on public property as the right of way of intersections is public property. Ms. Irby stated that signs in the public right of way would cause safety concerns as they may block line of sight. Mayor Umstattd noted that school grounds are public property and a number of religious institutions use school property for their services. She suggested that language be included to restrict signs to areas not interfering with sight distances be added. There was discussion regarding restricting the placement of temporary signs. Ms. Irby noted that nothing is permitted in the town's right of way. Council Member Wright noted that there are also restrictions regarding VDOT right of way. Council Work Session September 27, 2010 There was discussion on how to limit sign clutter on both public and private property. Ms. Irby noted that the attorney general has opined that the number of temporary signs cannot be restricted. There was discussion regarding balloons. It was CouncIl consensus to eliminate #1 and eliminate the language from #2 except for signs cannot be posted within the public right of way. The allowable size was deemed to be acceptable. Mr. Burkholder stated the proposed language relating to upper story signage would allow a lot of the existing signs in town. He stated [hat some upper story signs are included in sign plans. He stated there is relief available through the BAR in the historic districts or a comprehensive sign plan to the restrictive application of this language. There was discussion regarding projecting signs. Council Member Reid questioned what the LDBA recommended. Butch Porter, an LDBA member and member of the Town's Economic Development Commission, stated that upper story businesses should be able to advertise thew businesses. He stated he was pretty sure they did not have a comment on the 14 foot maximum for projecting signs. Council Member Reid stated that many upper story offices will not need signage. He stated he would erz on the side of being business friendly and allow businesses to have a sign in the window. Council Member Butler urged caution as the majority of feedback from [he community did not want to see sign clutter. Mayor Umstattd and Council Member Reid agreed on the position [ha[ window signs for second floor tenants should be allowed and could be right up against the glass. Mr. Burkholder stated one of the areas where the proposed language is more restrictive is neon signage. Currently the only stipulation is that the BAR must approve neon signage regardless of the district. He stated currently neon is prohibited in the H-1. Council Member Martinez stated there is a unique quality to neon signs and he is tom about prohibiting them m the H-1. There was discussion regarding neon sigttage including open signs. g~i,.;. Council Work Session September 27, 2010 Mr. Porter offered the opinion that if the historic district is to compete with other commercial areas in town, they will need to be allowed to have the same type of signage as businesses in other parts of town. Council Member Butler stated his opinion that people visit the downtown for the historic character and allowing the proliferation of neon would work against that character. Council Member Martinez stated his opinion that with the appropriate regulations, neon could be allowed in certain cases. Further he added the downtown lease prices are very expensive and the business owners need to fmd a way to make their space work for them. Council Member Dunn stated his opinion that neon represents a different era of history and is considered a higher end lighted sign. He questioned under what circumstances neon could be allowed rather than being prohibited outright. It was Council consensus to modify the proposed language to include circumstances where neon could be allowed and to allow neon "open" signs in the H-1, but not LED. Mr. Burkholder stated the Planning Commission recommendation liberalizes the window coverage area for temporary window signs from 25 to 50% with permanent window signage remaining at 25%. He stated for second Floor windows, 25% of the existing window area not displayed on the fast Floor, would remain unchanged. There was discussion regarding window signage and the percentage of coverage for first and upper story businesses. Mr. Porter stated the LDBA is in agreement with the Planning Commission's proposed language. There was Council consensus for 50% coverage of temporary window signs in the H-1 on both [he fast and upper stories. Mr. Burkholder stated the current language would count any advertising visible from the public right of way to be a sign. He stated the recommendation from the Planning Commission was that any signage set back from the window three feet would be exempt from regulation. There was Council discussion regarding the distance of setback and materials of signs. 6~r,.,, Council Work Session September 27, 2010 Mr. Porter stated the LDBA does not feel the town should regulate past the window. It was Council consensus that the town not regulate past the window other than those attached or applied duectly to the surface. Council asked for language to allow temporary signage on porches and railings. b. Budeet 2012 Overview Mr. Wells stated staff will be preparing a two year budget for FY2012 and FY 2013. He noted that the Council can only adopt one year at a time, but can adopt, for fiscal planning purposes, the FY 2013 numbers. He stated Council will be looking at taxpayer affordability, service levels, community expectations and trying to work back in some of the delayed and deferred purchases. He stated this will be changing the outlook from managing through the recession to long term fiscal and financial sustainability. He noted that while the economy is improving from a revenue perspective, probably is not improving to the level that most would have expected it to. Mr. Wells recapped the un-audited numbers for Council. He noted that the town will come in slightly under budget for FY2010 by about $650,000. He stated there are two revenue sources that total about $1.1 million that could have been ata~ibuted to FY2010, but could not have been because of accounting rules and regulations. He stated those revenues will be counted in FY2011. He stated that expenditures came in right about budget. He stated staff is still m a cost savings mode and is being very frugal in terms of operations. Mr. Wells stated the projected revenue shortfall for FY2012-FY2013 is about $1.5 to 3.5 million per year. Mayor Umstattd stated concern with continuing to provide current service levels and questioned whether more staff or overtime would be required. She stated the Council may need to redefine normal operations, which might mean redefming service levels down. Mr. Wells stated all future agenda items will have a Fiscal Impact statement and staff will provide monthly updated. He stated the budget that will be presented to Council in February will contain no changes to the tax rate. He stated he expects the numbers in the proposed budget maybe better than they are now, but he cannot guarantee the gap will be closed. Council Member Reid questioned whether car stickers would be included in the fee study and said he would like to eliminate the yearly sticker in favor of a one-time decal fee. He stated it maybe another budget cycle without pay or merit raises. p,.,~ Council Work Session September 27, 2010 Mr. Wells stated that can be brought back for further conversation, but car stickers are not technically part of the fee study. He stated he would like to present a budget that redefines what the staff will be doing on a regular basis so that if the assumptions for revenue gowth are more depressed, how the town can look at providing for pay raises in some manner. Council Member Reid expressed concern that there are some areas and deparhnents where people could make more money elsewhere. He stated Council may have to look at cutting back on some capital projects. Vice Mayor Wright stated his appreciation for starting the process early. He stated Council may have to look at what services are provided and how they are provided. Council Member Hammier questioned how employees can be incentivized to have fewer people provide the same service level. Mr. Wells stated that is what has been done for the past several years because there have not been a lot of service reductions and the town is working with less staff, excluding the police deparhnent. He stated we will need to look at whether the workload is fair in all areas and whether any additional efficiencies can be achieved. Council Member Dunn stated his hesitancy to look at two budgets at one time. He stated even though one will be unofficial, Council may have a reluctance to look at the second budget closely the next year. c. Linden Hill Access Road Verbal Update 7eanette Irby stated the realtor has conveyed the town's offer to the bank. She stated at this point in time, there has been no response from the bank, but hopefully the town should have an answer in the next few weeks. She stated the property owner has been informed of the process and there are 30 days left on the due diligence period to determine whether or not CouncIl wants to move forward with respect to the deal. She stated the town does not have a counter offer from the bank and we do not know if the bank has accepted the offer. She stated the town is trying to get on the approval list so that the bank will discuss the offer with the town. Council Member Hammier questioned whether there is a staff update regarding the implications for Country Club Drive. Mr. Wells stated staff is working on the design and should have something on that soon. Si ._. Council Work Session September 27, 2010 Council Member Butler questioned what the cost will be to the Linden Hill Homeowner's Association. Ms. Irby stated the Linden Hill Homeowners Association has executed a deed providing all of the right of way the town will need, which will unfortunately result in the loss of most of the trees, the park area in front of the subdivision and a portion, ff not all, of the fence. She stated there is white tape on the elements that will need to be removed. Council Member Reid questioned the status of the widening project and the trail. Mr. Wells stated that information would be provided to Council at the next work session. Council Member Dunn questioned what price was offered. Ms. Irby stated $375,000 was offered on the short sale, which is the amount that Council authorized. She stated the property is in a federal and short sale program. She stated she is trying to get information on the programs. She stated there are two deeds of trust, a primary and an equity line. She stated the second deed of trust may waive their interest, but she is trying to get confirmation of that since the offer price is significantly below the amount of indebtedness on the property. Council Member Dunn questioned whether the Country Club wall sign wdl need to be removed. Ms. Irby stated the sign is on the town's right of way. She stated the rough sketch design shows a possibility of saving the sign. Council Member Wright questioned whether the turn issues can be addressed if the concern is to save the house. Mr. Wells stated he would like to bring a report back in two weeks because there are a lot of issues such as saving the house, making the turn lane practical, preserving trees, and preserving the sign. Council Member Reid stated there will probably not be that many cars coming out of Linden Hill. He stated the house is an important asset that the town will need to resell at a higher value to help recover some of the cost of this project. He stated Council has come under some criticism for this project, too. He stated the town needs to consider a double left turn lane at Country Club onto U.S. 15 northbound since the road will be wide enough at that intersection. d. Joint BOS/Council Meeting A eg nda qli,, Council Work Session September 27, 2010 This item was deferred. 2. Items for Future Coancil Meetings Council Member Butler asked for the following: a. Request to look at a text amendment for the zoning ordinance so that someone can pay for residential parking spaces the same way that they pay for commercial parking spaces. He stated this would make it easier to have residential infill downtown which would bring more people downtown. b. He questioned what the costs for burying the power lines downtown would be as part of the downtown improvements project. c. That staff look at pedestrian and bike crosswalks across the bypass to solve the safety issues at Battlefield, Edwards Ferry, Fort Evans and Sycolin Road. He stated he talked with VDOT and it is the town's decision. He stated the north side of the intersections would probably be the most appropriate. Council Member Reid asked for the following: a. That staff give a presentation about the CIP easement process. He stated some reforms are needed there. He expressed concern as to why the easement process is not performed on the front end of the process. b. That staff take a look at the VDOT audit and where the $1.5 billion is coming from. c. Wants details on complaints about the water and sewer rates going up. d. Information about the projects that Senators Webb and Warner picked for the appropriation process because they mmed down the Sycolin Road Flyover. e. Information about the Senate Reauthorization bill for highways - is there still an opportunity to get funds there. Vice Mayor Wright asked for the following: a. Add information on the process of adding items to the CIP to the CIP discussion item. 3. Adjournment On the motion of Mayor Umstattd, seconded by Vice Mayor Wright, the meeting was adjourned at 1122 p. m. Clerk of Council zo~a_u,~,mmo9zr