Asheville's Love Affair with Sign Ordinances
by Leslee Kulba

ASHEVILLE – July 23 – Many developers believe the UDO is unwieldy, and they have called for streamlining the document. The city has responded with more ordinances.

Most amendments to the UDO now come with a severability clause to salvage the bulk of the text should a court find some portion to be unenforceable. Further, city staff continually finds things in the city that have not been regulated, and contradictions in the regulations on the books. They therefore routinely come before council with what they call “housekeeping amendments,” to make the UDO more all-encompassing and self-consistent.

Proposed Sign Ordinance Changes –
Tuesday night, staff asked members of council to approve the following:
· Extending the wind sign ordinance to include signs on balloons.
· Extending the timeframe to begin construction on a sign, once permitted, from six months to one year.
· Exempting signs officially approved for the city’s wayfinding program from regulation.
· Requiring real estate signs to be set back 10’ from curbs.
· Requiring construction signs to be set back 10’ from curbs.
· Requiring vehicles parked in front of businesses as signs to be used “daily during the normal course of business,” rather than “periodically.”
· Exempting the vertical, triangular portion of a gabled roof from prohibitions on roof signs.
· Adding snipe signs to the list of signs prohibited in all zoning districts.
· Permitting A-frame signs only temporarily with annual renewals.
· Limiting the number of faces on free-standing signs to two.
· No longer allowing property owners to split the sum of the allowable square footage of yard signs and wall signs as they pleased.
· Limiting commercial subdivision signs to 60 ft2 per face, and 8’ in height, and requiring a 10’ setback from the curb.
· Reducing the maximum area of signage in four districts from 90 to 60 ft2.
· Requiring the single sign permitted for public businesses to be located at the public entrance.

Brownie Newman thought 10’ was a considerable setback for a for-sale sign on a house. This might put it behind the bushes of some houses. With a little persuasion, he talked Urban Planner Julia Cogburn down to a 5’ setback.

Robin Cape didn’t want business owners to have to make useless trips, wasting money on expensive gas and polluting the atmosphere, just to prevent their sign trucks from getting a ticket. Cogburn said the city was trying to prevent some businesses from working around ordinances by using vehicles strictly as signs. Cape and Vice Mayor Jan Davis preferred more ambiguous language, but decided “weekly” was better than “daily.”

Cape noted that landscaping and position relative to roads rendered the optimum visibility of signage unique for several businesses. Assistant Planning and Development Director Shannon Tuch explained the city was trying to prohibit businesses with service entrances facing the freeway from putting up wall signs as billboards.

Mayor Terry Bellamy cautioned council that as they construct ordinances on the fly, their word becomes law. Should their wording be careless, the city was setting itself up for a lawsuit.

Dr. Carl Mumpower described the UDO as an “excessive intrusion into our personal lives.” It went beyond providing reasonable protections for property owners. “As the document gets larger, the rest of us get smaller.” Drug dealers were operating in public housing as council deliberated over whether signs should be 5’ or 10’ from a curb. The obsession with “trivia and nonsense” was “frightening.”

Newman moved, and Holly Jones seconded, to accept staff’s housekeeping recommendations, changing the minimum setback for real estate signs to 5’, and the minimum frequency for driving truck signs to once per week. Council voted 4-3, Mumpower, Bill Russell, and Bellamy opposed. The proposed amendments will therefore return to council for a second reading.

Glitch with Ban on Gated Communities –
Council was asked to consider an amendment to the UDO for problems arising with council’s recent ban on gated communities. According to Tuch, “the prohibition did not contemplate property that was in possession, marketed, or otherwise encumbered for the purpose of developing or expanding a gated community.” To remedy the situation, Biltmore Farms took the trouble to craft an ordinance on their dime, and submit it to the city with payment of a $500 fee.

When the matter was opened for public comment, Jesse Junior complained that people wanting to live behind gates were exclusive, expressing us-versus-you mentality, and unnecessarily afraid of other elements in the community. Alan Ditmore said gated communities would provide protection from victims of hate crimes, like gays and abortionists, because these classes of people are usually wealthy enough to afford to live in them.

Representatives of Biltmore Farms claimed the ordinance was unfair to people who had purchased property with the expectation that it would be gated. Further, Biltmore Farms had met with opposition in attempting to build within an existing gated community. Decision-makers in the review process were of the opinion that a new road could not be gated, but that would open the entire development to the free ingress and egress of outsiders.

Mumpower asked who members of council thought they were to impose their agendas on private property owners. The current loophole was “a result of previous excessive control” by council.

Council voted unanimously to accept the amendment, which would allow people buying or owning property in a community, demonstrably intended to be gated prior to June 12, 2007, to enjoy the benefits of gating for which they had already paid.