The issue of parking facilities is still on the table with a public hearing scheduled for Jan. 6, 2009 (the first Town Council Meeting of the new year ... which will also host the first Public Hearing on the Aquatic Center agreement with Virginia Tech where one of the hottest issues will be how much time will citizens actually have available for swimming in this new community facility).
I've posted the audio online for you to listen to the discussion. The only thing I really came away with is that it looks like is that there is no real estimate of the parking places that will be needed when the project is completed. It sounded like the estimates for parking places needed were based upon the Courthouse only and not including predictive traffic/parking patterns as the County continues to build new and renovate old structures which may expand the parking needs.
I'll bet you can count on one thing. If the estimates are low, downtown parking will become nonexistent. Due to the distance from the parking facility, I'm betting that the Town parking lot is quickly taken over by court house parking anyway.
In reference to the digital sign issues, the use of CUP's again came up but it was acknowledged by Mr.Terpenny that they would not work because the sign ordinance is separate from the zoning ordinance. (The Town Attorney noted at the last Town Council meeting that this was true and could be problematic. He also noted that most jurisdictions have these two combined.)
Each of the town officials I have asked about the combining of the zoning and sign ordinances have reported that it wasn't done because it would result in variances going to the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) and they would overrule the Town 99% of the time. (A quick scan of the Montgomery County records pertaining to BZA and signs shows this is not something that should occur. In fact, the research I've done shows that having the two incorporated reduced the number of issues as compared to where they are separate.)
Combining the two would mean the Town Manager would not be the sole determining factor pertaining to any variances. For those who would argue that it would require more people to enforce, nope....sign ordinances aren't that well enforced now. Most of the people I've talked to report that illegal signs are not dealt with unless some citizen complains. In those cases, there is some concern that if the signs are already up, the only thing that happens is that the violator is required to get a sign permit and it is passed regardless of citizen concerns.
There was some discussion of research that the Planning Dept. was to do concerning two other jurisdictions and how they deal with digital signs, Salem and Charlottesville. Well, it took me all of five minutes to find those in Municode (I'm looking at them now.) Salem only addresses illuminated signs which are not the same thing as digital signs. In the Charlottesville code Illumination of signs is discussed (Sec.34-1034) but applies to the illumination of signs not digital signs. In another section it is noted the following signs are prohibited: (Sec. 34-1029 Prohibited Signs) "(4) Any sign that moves or contains or consists of a searchlight, beacon, strobe light, flashing lights or similar form(s) of illumination; provided that this provision will not affect traffic, parking or informational signs placed by a public authority."
For those signs that are illuminated, simply signs that have lights shining on them, the restrictions/criteria can be found to include electrical permits and a minimum insurance of $300,000.00. They must be so constructed with gooseneck reflectors or other devices to prevent glare and attention is to be paid to illumination avoiding glare on adjoining residential properties. The lighting of these signs must comply with the outdoor lighting ordinance.
The removal of any signs in violation of the ordinances and enforcement of maintenance of those signs falls under the authority of the zoning administrator.
(There may be a surprise coming in the next few days so watch for special notices:)