10SN0274
CASE MANAGER: Robert Clay
October 19, 2010 CPC
November 17, 2010 BS
May 25, 2011 BS
STAFF’S
BSTime Remaining:
REQUEST ANALYSIS
365days
AND
RECOMMENDATION
10SN0274
The Chester Company LLC
Bermuda Magisterial District
East line of Iron Bridge Road, North of Landfill Drive
REQUEST:Conditional use to permit a computer-controlled, variable message, electronic sign.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A computer-controlled, variable message, electronic sign, incorporated into a
freestanding identification sign for a convenience store and car wash is proposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
AYES: MESSRS. BROWN, HASSEN, BASS AND WALLER.
ABSENT: MR. GULLEY.
STAFFRECOMMENDATION
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 relative
to spacing between signs; lines of copy; display color limitation; and timing of
message changes.
B.The requested exceptions to the Policy could set a precedent for similar requests.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S)MAY
PROFFER CONDITIONS.)
Ю±ª·¼·²¹ ¿ Ú×ÎÍÌ ÝØÑ×ÝÛ ½±³³«²·¬§ ¬¸®±«¹¸ »¨½»´´»²½» ·² °«¾´·½ »®ª·½»
PROFFERED CONDITION
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 three (3) lines which shall not move,
but may fade;
b.The message or display shall be programmed or sequenced to change no
more than once every six (6) seconds;
c.The copy display color shall be in full color;
d.Flashing and traveling messages shall be prohibited; and
e.Bijou lighting and animations effects shall be prohibited.(P)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
The request property fronts the east line of Iron Bridge Road, north of Landfill Drive. Tax
IDs 774-657-2272 and 4874.
Existing Zoning:
C-3
Size:
4 acres
Existing Land Use:
Commercial
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North–A and C-3; Vacant
South–C-2 with conditional use planned development: Commercial
East–C-3; Vacant
West–A and I-1 with conditional use planned development; single-family residential or
vacant
UTILITIES
While installation of the proposed sign will not impact the required use of the public water
system, the applicant is cautioned that the proposed sign must not be placed so as to conflict with
the existing public utility lines, or their easements, on this site.
îïðÍÒðîéìóÓßÇîëóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
ENVIRONMENTAL
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Fire Service:
The Chester Fire Station, Company Number 1, currently provides fire protection and
Emergency Medical Service (EMS). This request will have a minimal impact on Fire and
EMS.
County Department of Transportation:
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT):
Electronic outdoor advertising signs located adjacent to Principal highways, such as State
Route 10, are subject to a VDOT permitting process. A design will be required to be
submitted through the VDOT Richmond District, Central Region Permit Office, to be routed
to the Richmond District Roadside Development Office for review and evaluation. The plan
is to show the location of the sign relative to the right of way (and outside the appropriate
clear zone) and operational details, as deemed necessary, for evaluation of the signage.
Approval of signage is not necessarily assured.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Central Area Planwhich
suggests the property is appropriate for community mixed use, including shopping
centers and other commercial and office uses.
Area Development Trends:
This portion of the Iron Bridge Road corridor is characterized by a mix of commercial uses
and agricultural properties which are vacant. A church use is located to the northwest of the
subject property. This pattern of uses is expected to continue along this portion of the
corridor, as suggested by the Plan.
Zoning History:
On September 25, 1996 the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation
from the Planning Commission, approved C-3 zoning on the request property, adjacent
property to the east, and on a portion of the adjacent property to the north (Case
íïðÍÒðîéìóÓßÇîëóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
96SN0281). With the approval of Case 96SN0281 signage for the proposed development
was controlled by the ordinance.
On April 23, 1997 the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation from the
Planning Commission, approved an amendment to Case 96SN0281 concerning the
orientation of bay doors associated with a motor vehicle repair business (Case
97SN0194).This amendment did not modify sign standards.
Signs:
The applicant plans to incorporate a computer-controlled, variable message electronic sign
into an existing freestanding sign. The proposed sign would comply with the size and height
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which currently permit a freestanding sign 62.5
square feet in area (including changeable copy) at a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet.
The proposal would not comply with the adopted electronic message center policy relative
to spacing between signs, lines of copy, display color, or timing of message changes.
(Proffered Condition)
The Policy suggests that electronic message centers should be spaced at least 2,000 feet
apart. An existing business (Iron Bridge Sports Park) closer than 2,000 feet to the subject
property has an electronic message center which was granted approval in August of 2006.
The Policy also limits lines of copy to two (2); display colors to white or yellow; and timing
of message changes to ten (10) second intervals. The applicant is proposing three (3) lines of
copy; no limitations on color; and message changes at six (6) second intervals.
CONCLUSION
The proposed computer-controlled, variable message, electronic sign does not conform to the
adopted Electronic Message Center Policy for such signs relative to spacing between signs; lines
of copy; display color limitation; and timing of message changes. The requested exceptions to
the Policy could set a precedent for similar requests.
Given these considerations, denialof this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
______________________________________________________________________________
Planning Commission Meeting (10/19/10):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation.
Mr. Bass stated that he had asked the chairman to send a memo to the Boardrequesting
that the Electronic Message Center (EMC)policy be re-visited; that the public must
address the issue with the Board; code enforcement must make the EMCs conform; and
that EMCs need to be done professionally.
ìïðÍÒðîéìóÓßÇîëóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
There was opposition present expressing concerns relative to enforcement issues; the
presence of an off-site sign on the property; plans presented to the Commission not
shown to public; too much signage; does not meet the policy; detriment to the area;
Commission and Board are too fair to business community; and businesses need to learn
to be community friendly.
Dr. Brown clarified that the Commission workswith area residents and the business
community before zoning cases come to public hearings so that the best case can come
forward.
Mr. Hassen stated that he was in favor of EMCs but the problem is that the case deviated
from the policy, which creates a nightmare; until such time as the Board deviates, then
the Commission cannot deviate from the policy; and that the Commission all agreed that
the policy needs to bechanged.
On motion of Mr.Hassen, seconded by Mr.Bass, the Commission recommended denial.
AYES: Messrs. Brown, Hassen, Bassand Waller.
ABSENT: Mr. Gulley
______________________________________________________________________________
Board of Supervisors’Meeting (11/17/10):
On their own motion, and with consent from the applicant, the Board deferred this
request to their May 2011 regularly scheduled public hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff (11/18/10):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than March 7, 2011 for consideration at the Board’s May
2011 public hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff (5/6/11):
To date, no new information has been received.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, May 25, 2011, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take under
consideration this request.
ëïðÍÒðîéìóÓßÇîëóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ