Loading...
10SN0144,• •'~'~'•_~i~ .h{fr ~f~ ..~~. .~{~ +,~..~,f ..~ f.r I~ STAFF' S REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION l OSN0144 Holiday Signs c/o Allen M. Twedt RE VEST: Tlanoml,or 1 S ~nno rpr January 27, 2010 BS Matoaca Magisterial District Northeast corner of Brad McNeer Parkway and Hull Street Road Amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 87SN0134) relative to signage in a Community Business (C-3) District. PROPOSED LAND USE: Currently, two (2) freestanding signs are permitted within the Village at Swift Creek development for the purpose of identifying the residential and nonresidential tenants and projects within this community. This amendment will permit a third freestanding sign to identify the commercial and office tenants located on the subject properties. (Proffered Condition) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITION ON PAGE 2. AYES :Messrs. Brown, Bass, Hassen and Waller. NAY: Mr. Gulley. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend denial for the following reasons: A. The current sign standards of the Zoning Ordinance as well as existing exceptions granted through a previous Conditional Use Planned Development amendment (Case 03SN0303) adequately address the identification needs in the project. B. The requested exception 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) Freestanding Sign. One (1) freestanding sign identifying the tenants on Tax ID 732-676-8872 and 733-675-0245 (Swift Creek Office Park) shall be permitted on Tax ID 732-676-8872. Such sign shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in size or twenty (20) feet in height. The aforesaid sign shall be in lieu of a freestanding sign identifying uses on Tax ID 732-676-8872 that would otherwise be permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, but shall not affect other signage permitted by such Ordinance. (P) GENERAL INFORMATION Location: Northeast corner of Brad McNeer Parkway and Hull Street Road and the north line of Craig Rath Boulevard across from Sapphire Drive. Tax IDs 732-676-8872 and 733-675-0245. Existing Zoning: C-3 with Conditional Use Planned Development Size: 10.6 acres Existing Land Use: Commercial and office Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North - C-2; Commercial South, East and West - C-3 with Conditional Use Planned Development; Commercial; multifamily and single family residential; or vacant UTILITIES; ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC FACILITIES The requested amendment will have no impact on these facilities. 2 10SN0144 JAN27-BOS-RPT T,ANT~ TIFF, Comprehensive Plan: Lies within the boundaries of the Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment which suggests the property is appropriate for regional mixed use. Area Development Trends: The subject property is part of the Village at Swift Creek, a mixed use development consisting of commercial, office and residential components located west of and adjacent to the Commonwealth Center project. Zonin H.~ istory: Case 87SN137, as amended by Case OOSN0280, zoned a 191 acre tract with Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a mixed use development now commonly known as the Village at Swift Creek. Conditions affecting signage were part of these approvals. On August 28, 2002 an amendment was approved which deleted these signage conditions, thereby allowing signage to comply with current Ordinance requirements. (Case 02SN0283) On September 17, 2003 the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation by the Commission, approved an amendment to Case 87S 134 relative to signage (Case 03SN0303). Specifically, the Ordinance permitted two (2) freestanding signs for the project on Hull Street Road, one that was limited to identifying the name of the overall project and the names of residential and non residential components of the project and one (1) that was limited to identifying the names of nonresidential tenants, only. This amendment permitted each of these two (2) freestanding signs to identify both residential and nonresidential tenants and projects within the development. Staff supported this request given that the size and number of signs did not exceed that permitted by Ordinance, but allowed flexibility in the use of such signs given the topographical challenges affecting the project's visibility from the Corridor. Sins: Freestanding signage for this project is currently regulated by Zoning Ordinance requirements, as amended by Case 03SN0303 (reference "Zoning History"). Specifically, these restrictions permit a maximum of two (2) freestanding signs on Hull Street Road, each not exceeding 100 square feet in area and twenty (20) feet in height, to identify residential and nonresidential tenants and projects within this development. These signs are currently located as generally depicted on the attached map ("Existing Project Signs"). The Ordinance also permits each individual business building located on an out parcel one (1) twenty (20) square foot freestanding sign. When such sign advertises multiple franchise businesses within the same building, the permitted sign area is thirty (30) square feet and the 3 10SN0144 JAN27-BOS-RPT height is eight (8) feet. The applicant has requested that, in lieu of the existing individual business sign for the multi-tenant property located at the northeast corner of Brad McNeer Parkway and Hull Street Road (Tax ID 732-676-8872), a third freestanding sign not exceeding 100 square feet in area and twenty (20) feet in height be permitted on this same property to identify the occupants of this building and the offices located on Craig Rath Boulevard (Tax ID 733-675-0245). The existing sign to be removed and the proposed replacement sign are depicted in the attached elevations. The Ordinance also permits one (1) freestanding sign, thirty-two (32) square feet in area and eight (8) feet in height, for the purpose of identifying the aforementioned office buildings on Craig Rath Boulevard. Further, with the approval of Case 03SN0303, flexibility exists for use of the two (2) existing freestanding project signs along Hull Street Road to accommodate this office project and/or tenants. CONCLUSION The purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance sign requirements, in part, is to protect and enhance the character of roadways and surrounding areas and to prevent excessive signage, to protect property values and to minimize visual distractions. As previously noted, current regulations permit identification of the subject business and office uses on the two (2) existing freestanding project signs on Hull Street Road, as well as individual building signs along their respective parcel frontages. Approval of this request to permit an additional sign for this purpose could encourage other businesses to seek similar exception. Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended. CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (12/15/09): The applicant accepted the Commission's recommendation, but did not accept Staff s recommendation. There was no opposition present. Dr. Brown and Mr. Hassen noted support for the request given that the proposal replaces an existing sign. Mr. Waller noted that he reluctantly supported the request, expressing concern that use of the existing project signs for tenant exposure should be resolved through private contractual arrangements. Mr. Gulley noted that existing zoning conditions provided maximum flexibility in the use of the two existing project signs; the lack of guarantee that all office tenants would be 4 10SN0144 JAN27-BOS-RPT accommodated on the new sign; and that approval could set a precedent for future amendments. Mr. Bass indicated the need for visibility by the office park on the Corridor and the County's responsibility to provide for this exposure. On motion of Mr. Bass, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended approval and acceptance of the proffered condition on page 2. AYES :Messrs. Brown, Bass, Hassen and Waller. NAY: Mr. Gulley. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, January 27, 2010, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 5 10SN0144 JAN27-BOS-RPT ~ z~ I v ~ ^ -~ ((,, - , V ! J , I J ~ M v ~ I Z Q ` N~ •I Q ` ,~ a \`~~ ~. .___ -_- ~ ~~' _ ;~ . i ~ 5 's'til ~= ,k• ;.s vs. - 5 e' x I} 5 f ~ y~ ~- t fir.{ ~ i~~ ~ ~ . I k- a. n r L - v • - ~~ s -. r _ - j '~ ~~~ .. ~~,_. ,~ r '_ r. _ ~• _ r~ _ •4 Iii ~~ ~~ ~ ~r ~r . rr. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ f ~eI _+ ~ i ~ ~ ® - ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ i is ^ ~ ~ ^ . ~ ^ ~ ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ^ ^ Case 1 OSN0144 Holiday Signs concerns the expansion of the sign below to a larger sign similar to the existing sign that can be seen in the back ground of the picture below. Staff, has recommend denial for the following reasons: A. The current sign standards of the Zoning Ordinance as well as existing exceptions granted through a previous Conditional Use Planned Development amendment (Case 03SN0303) adequately address the identification needs in the project. B. The requested exception could set a precedent for similar requests. The present signage is appropriate for the location. As evidenced by the photo below The sign advertises the businesses adjacent to the sign However the applicant wants to add a larger sign to advertise possible offices iT an area of the development that is located behind the shopping center located o~ 360. This is a simple case of off premise signage that is not presently allowed i~ Chesterfield County You will notice that the two small red circles in the center of the picture are the locations of the existing signs, while the building to be advertised on the sign is located a half a mile, and three turns from the sign. This will be very confusing to people trying to find an advertised business, expecting it to be located near tl sign. And, if they should turn into the main shopping center expecting to find the business they will find they can not connect because of a twenty foot drop and ~ connecting road as seen in the next photograph _ _ , _y ~=F ~ III ~y <_,_. ~~ ~, '~~ -~ r t e ' '` 3 ,r'i'd j. ,~ ..`,« The existing signage for this location is appropriate for the existing usages ~ There is appropriate signage for each of the strip type businesses that were constructed. The problem is not a signage problem. It is a marketing problem that the developer and sign company want the County to solve. Any signage placed on 360 for this business location is inappropriate, and will cause more unnecessar} signs to direct people to a location that is a half a mile from the actual sign location. This is off site signage plain and simple!