08SN0235STAFF' S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
08SN0235
Holiday Signs, Inc.
Midlothian Magisterial District
North line of Hull Street Road
RE VEST: Conditional Use topermit acomputer-controlled, variable message, electronic sign.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Acomputer-controlled, variable message, electronic sign, incorporated into a
freestanding identification sign for a self storage facility is planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITION ON
PAGE 2.
AYES: MESSRS. BASS, BROWN, HASSEN AND WALLER.
ABSENT: MR. GULLEY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
A. The proposed computer-controlled, variable message, electronic sign does not
conform to the adopted Electronic Message Center Policy for such signs.
Specifically, the Policy suggests such signs should not be permitted within the
Route 3 60 Corridor.
B. The requested exception to the Policy could set a precedent for similar requests.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY
PROFFER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE
AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY
A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A
"CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED CONDITION
(CPC) In addition to Ordinance requirements, any computer-controlled, variable
message, electronic sign shall conform to the following standards:
a. Copy shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) lines which shall not
move, nor fade;
b. The message or display shall be programmed or sequenced to change no
more than once every ten (10) seconds;
c. The copy display color shall either be white or yellow;
d. Flashing and traveling messages shall be prohibited; and
e. Bijou lighting and animations effects shall be prohibited.
f. Such sign shall be located on Hull Street Road.
g. The base of the sign shall be constructed of brick or brick veneer as
depicted in the sign elevation titled "Mini Price Self Storage -Hull
Street", prepared by Holiday Signs and dated May 28, 2008. (P)
GENERAL INFORMATION
T ,ncati nn
North line of Hull Street Road, east of Turner Road and east line of Turner Road, north of
Hull Street Road. Tax ID 765-698-Part of 9008.
Existing Zoning:
C-5
Size:
Part of 11.2 acres
2 08SN0235-NOV18-BOS-RPT
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North - A; Single family residential
South - C-3 and C-5; Commercial
East - C-5; Commercial
West - C-5 and R-7; Commercial or single family residential
UTILITIES; ENVIRONMENTAL; AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
This use will have no impact on these facilities.
T,ANn TIFF,
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Route 360 Corridor Plan which suggests the property is
appropriate for general commercial, light industrial and mixed use corridor uses.
Area Development Trends:
The area is characterized by commercial uses along the north and south lines of the Hull
Street Road Corridor, with single family residential developments north along Turner Road
as part of the Forestdale, Woodfield and Providence Farms developments or on acreage
parcels.
Zonin Hg istory:
On April 28, 2004 the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by the
Commission, approved the rezoning of a 10.9 acre tract to General Business (C-5).
Commercial uses, to include a self storage facility, were planned (Case 04SN0187).
Proffered conditions require that freestanding signs be monument style and, if lighted,
internally lit. This case affected a majority of the property that is the subject of the
current request.
It should be noted that the existing freestanding sign identifying the self storage facility
currently does not comply with the monument-style sign condition of Case 04SN0187
and would need to be modified, accordingly.
3 08SN0235-NOV18-BOS-RPT
Sins.
Currently, the Ordinance permits two (2) freestanding signs identifying the self storage
facility, fifty (50) square feet in area and twenty (20) feet in height, one along Turner Road
and the second along Hull Street Road provided that both signs are not legible at the same
time from any one direction. The area of each sign maybe increased up to twenty-five (25)
percent provided such increase is for the purpose of including changeable copy.
The applicant plans to incorporate acomputer-controlled, variable message electronic sign
into a proposed freestanding sign. The proposed sign and computer-controlled, variable
message electronic sign would comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
which currently permits a freestanding sign 62.5 square feet in area (including changeable
copy) at a height of fifteen (15) feet. The proposal would also comply with the adopted
electronic message center policy relative to lines of copy, display color, timing of message
changes and lack of flashing and traveling messages, bijou lighting and animation. Further,
at the request of the Midlothian District Commissioner, proffers would prohibit the copy
from moving or fading with message changes, whereas the Policy would permit the latter.
The Proffered Condition also requires that the sign be located along Hull Street Road and
not Turner Road, consistent with the Policy relative to such signs not being visible from
residentially or agriculturally zoned properties. (Proffered Condition)
In response to a request by the Midlothian District Commissioner, the Proffered Condition
(Item "g") addresses the treatment of the Sign base as reflected in the attached elevation.
The proposal would not comply with the Policy relative to location within the Route 360
Corn or.
CONCLUSION
The proposed computer-controlled, variable message, electronic sign does not conform to the
adopted Electronic Message Center Policy relative to its location within the Route 360 Corridor.
Approval of this requested exception to the Policy could set a precedent for similar requests along
the Corridor.
It should be noted that the Commission and Staff are currently evaluating the Electronic Message
Center Policy. The Commission has set a work session for November 17, 2009 to discuss Policy
amendments relative to Electronic Message Centers. The applicant may wish to seek to defer this
request pending any revisions to the Policy. Future amendments could affect whether or not this
proposal is appropriate.
Otherwise, given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended.
4 08SN0235-NOV18-BOS-RPT
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (6/17/08):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to their September 16,
2008 public hearing.
Staff (6/18/08):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than July 7, 2008 for consideration at the Commissions
September public hearing.
Also, the applicant was advised that a $130.00 deferral fee was due.
Applicant (6/26/08):
The deferral fee was paid.
Area Property Owners, Applicant, Staff and Midlothian and Clover Hill Districts Commissioners
(8/12/08):
A meeting was held with the Route 360 Corridor Committee to discuss this case.
Concerns were expressed relative to the size, height and lighting of the proposed sign;
architectural treatment of the sign base; pattern of electronic message changes; impact on
traffic safety; and precedent for future requests along the Hull Street Road Corridor.
It was generally agreed that the Committee members in attendance were not in support of
this request
Staff (8/14/08):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Applicant (9/12/08 and 9/16/08):
The Proffered Condition was amended.
5 08SN0235-NOV18-BOS-RPT
Planning Commission Meeting (9/16/08):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their October 21, 2008 public
Baring.
Staff (9/17/08):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than September 22, 2008 for consideration at the
Commission's October public hearing.
Staff (9/25/08):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (10/21/08):
The applicant accepted the Commission's recommendation, but did not accept Staff s
recommendation. There was no opposition present.
Dr. Brown questioned the benefit to the County of prohibiting electronic message center
signs along the Route 3 60 Corridor when the Ordinance permitted lighted signs with
manual copy change along this same Corridor.
Messrs. Bass and Hassen noted the improved appearance of the electronic message center
over a standard manual copy change panel.
Mr. Waller indicated that this proposal, as conditioned, aligned with his position on
revisions to the Electronic Message Center Policy.
On motion of Mr. Waller, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended
approval and acceptance of the Proffered Condition on page 2.
AYES: Messrs. Bass, Brown, Hassen and Waller.
ABSENT: Mr. Gulley.
Board of Supervisors (11/19/08):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their April 29, 2009 meeting.
6 08SN0235-NOV18-BOS-RPT
Staff (11/20/08):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than February 4, 2009 for consideration at the Board's April
public hearing.
Staff (3/19/09):
On December 16, 2008, the Planning Commission appointed a committee to include
representatives from the business and residential communities to evaluate the Electronic
Message Center Policy and provide recommendations to the Commission. The
Committee has met bi-weekly since January 23, 2009. An update on the status of the
Committee's recommendations has been scheduled for the Commission's April 21, 2009
work session. It is anticipated that proposed modifications to the Policy will not be
available for the Commission's consideration until at least June 2009.
Staff (3/20/09):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Board of Supervisors (4/29/09):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their September 23, 2009 meeting.
Staff (4/3 0/09)
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than June 8, 2009 for consideration at the Board's
September public hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting (8/18/09):
The Commission recommended denial of proposed Code amendments relative to
Electronic Message Centers and directed Staff to bring forward recommendations for
amendments to the Electronic Message Center Policy at the Commission's November 17,
2009 work session.
Staff (8/20/09):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
7 08SN0235-NOV18-BOS-RPT
Board of Supervisors (9/23/09):
The Board did not set a public hearing on the proposed Code amendments relative to
Electronic Message Centers.
Board of Supervisors (9/23/09):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their November 18, 2009 meeting.
Staff (9/24/09):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than September 28, 2009 for consideration at the Board's
November public hearing.
Staff (10/22/09):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, November 18, 2009, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
8 08SN0235-NOV18-BOS-RPT
~~ 1
~ ~~ i~ 1 ~
I ~~ ~~~
r ~ ~
II ~ j
1 1 1 ~ o r
I ~ 1
I ~
1 ~ ~G r ~
~r I - Q
~ I ~ ~ ~
•~I I I
~~ I I I ~ ~
~ II
~~ I N INI
N ~
V ~ 1
Z ~ 1
{
{
U
I • j`'
U ~
` It
~ ~ ~ ~ ~c
~ ~~
~ ~r 1
N ~.
y
Y
a
_ ~ 1 1
~~ o~~e
spa o~ Q
V i
Z ~ 1
W ~
~ ~ \
0 ~ / I _"
~. ' ~ f
• ~ ~
r ~ ~ ~
~ ~
f ~ ~ ~ /
~~ ~~ ~ Q
~ ... ~ / ~ ~ Q ::::::::::::::::::::::::::'~.
..........(J........~.....~.~
~ ...;::~:::::::...I :::::~:': ::
t~ a :..
~ ~
0 ~
~ ~I~
~~ ns ~ ~ I
~ ~~~ U ~
0 0
o
~ W
v.
~ N
~~ Q
I~ ~ ~
~ I ~ ~ I ~ R~ pR
~~ _ ~ w ,~
Q
~a w_
or
U ~
N
M
U ~
I~
w
z ~
M
N .
U
U O
U ~
UU Z
U
U U ~ .,
O
U
Y
~ 0
0
y
o ~
~ 1
O
0
c~
U ~~
N ~.a-
60.83 Sq. Ft.
Total
~,
1 ,_ ~-
SELF STORAGE
V.O.56" x 116"
45.11 Sq. Ft.
V.O.21.28" x 106.4"
15.72 Sq. Ft.
~~• ....:. INI I~ ICE SELF 51"0 A - L T
1 ®1_•
Chester, Virginia 23836
c ~- ~
(804) 796-9443
-~, a ~ '. KYLE ®~ ~ ,.
C(~us~towme~r7~Appro~: yd Customer Approved
-, .
All concepts, designs, and plans represented by this document are the property of Holiday Signs and may not be reproduced, copied, or 08SN0235-1
without written consent from an authorized officer of the company OCopyri
p~~1 ~f~~ew«z b`6SNoa3s'
November 18, 2009
Remarks from Mike Sawyer
Good Evening Mr. Chairman,
~1 i' (~ e S ~ y er
U~SN~a3s"
My name is Mike Sawyer and I live in Chester,VA. I am a licensed professional engineer
in the Commonwealth of Virginia and a highway safety expert.
I believe this case has several engineering decisions that need to be signed and sealed by
a Professional Engineer licensed in the commonwealth of Virginia.
Professional Engineers review and approve plans based upon known traffic safety
engineering principles to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the traveling public
from hazards. Electronic Advertising Signs are a relatively new technology and recent
national research has shown that there is cause for concern related to these advertising
signs and their effect on driver behavior.
This research has identified and provided guidance on several traffic engineering
decisions. These include, but not limited to:
^ Crash history and crash trends
^ Roadway geometrics
^ Sight Distance
^ Speed Limit
^ Visual clutter with existing traffic control signal operations
^ Size of the proposed sign
^ Amount of Information on the sign at any one time
^ Message display duration
Proximity to other signs
^ Text size
^ Message sequencing
^ Visual effects between messages
I would encourage you to follow the Code of Virginia tonight and require that a
professional engineer sign and seal these engineering decisions from a highway safety
perspective and require a report on how these engineering requirements were applied to
the specific case and context. Each evaluation is independent and the professional
engineer's recommendation should lead the discussion, not be an afterthought. The
health, safety, and welfare of the traveling public can ask for no less.
This case is on a dangerous corridor and as far as I know there is no professional
engineering seal on the plans; therefore I strongly oppose this case. These engineering
decisions should not be left to the whims of salesmen and advertisers.
Midlothian is #2 in the Richmond Metro Area for death and injury from motor vehicle
crashes. Hull Street is #3. (Broad Street in Henrico is #1)