Loading...
10SN0274CASE MANAGER: Robert Clay ~r s ~~ . .'f' ~ •. ~r ~ ,~~. ~:,. ,. , ~~ B S Time Remaining 365 days STAFF' S REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION l OSN0274 The Chester Company LLC ~~ n[IIIIC~~~ nrCT1 T l~Tn~ ~Aml,Ar 1 'iTZO-~rv as November 3 0, 2011 B S Bermuda Magisterial District East line of Iron Bridge Road, North of Landfill Drive RE VEST: Conditional use to permit acomputer-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. (STAFF NOTE: SUBSEQUENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE A REVISED ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER (EMC) POLICY WAS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT AMENDED THE PROFFERED CONDITION INCLUDED HEREIN SUCH THAT NOW THE PROPOSAL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEWLY ADOPTED EMC POLICY.) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval for the following reason: The proposed computer-controlled, variable message, electronic sign conforms to the adopted Electronic Message Center (EMC) Policy. Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service (NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS.) PROFFERED CONDITION (STAFF) 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 thirty (3 0) seconds; c. Flashing and traveling messages shall be prohibited; and d. Bij ou lighting and animations effects shall be prohibited. (P) GENERAL INFORMATION T nratinn~ 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 2 10SN0274-NOV30-BOS-RPT T ITTT ,TTTF,~ 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. 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. T,ANT~ TIFF, Current Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Central Area Plan, which suggests the property is appropriate for community mixed use, including shopping centers and other commercial and office uses. Draft Comprehensive Plan: The Revised Draft Comprehensive Plan (as of September 2011) designates the subject property "Community Corridor" area. This proposed land use designation encourages horizontally integrated mix of residential, office, public and open space uses. It should be noted that the revised draft plan is pending review by the Planning Commission, has not 10SN0274-NOV30-BOS-RPT been approved, and does not provide final land use guidance for the subject property at this time. As of the date of this report, the Commission has not forwarded a recommendation regarding the revised draft plan to the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, the Board has not reviewed the revised draft plan, nor has the Board taken any action on the revised draft plan to date. The recommendations of the revised draft plan are provided for reference purposes only. 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. Zonin H.~ istory: 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 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. Policy History: On September 21, 2011 the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission, adopted a revised EMC Policy. This occurred after the Planning Commission considered the current request; therefore, the Commission's recommendation on this case is based upon the fact the proposal did not comply with the EMC Policy that was in place at that time. Sins: The applicant plans to incorporate acomputer-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 also comply with the adopted EMC Policy. (Proffered Condition) 4 10SN0274-NOV30-BOS-RPT CONCLUSION The proposed computer-controlled, variable message, electronic sign conforms to the adopted EMC Policy. Given these considerations, approval of 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 Board requesting that the 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. 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 works with 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 be changed. On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Mr. Bass, the Commission recommended denial. AYES: Messrs. Brown, Hassen, Bass and 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. 5 10SN0274-NOV30-BOS-RPT 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. Board of Supervisors' Meeting (5/25/11): On their own motion, and with consent from the applicant, the Board deferred this request to their November 30, 2011 public hearing. Staff (5/26/11): The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information should be submitted no later than July 26, 2011 for consideration at the Board's November 30, 2011 public hearing. Board of Supervisors' Meeting (9/21/1 l): With a recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors approved and adopted an amended EMC Policy. Staff (10/31/11): A revised proffered condition was received. This revised proffer renders the applicant's proposal consistent with the newly adopted EMC Policy. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 6 10SN0274-NOV30-BOS-RPT w l ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ a o 1 - - } -~ i i ~ N r ~ ~ ~ ~ pN R DGE w c~ ~~~~ ~ N N } ~ i a U ~ (1 ~ U 0 ~ ~' i V N U ~ N W i N Q M ~i ~ z ~ Z~ 4 v - l N 111 ~ ~ ~' U ' U (~ N ' ......... I N Q ~ ~ ~~ Q l~ ~~~" Q ~ ~ ~ v W~ ~ i N BRI OE RB i ~Q ~ Q ,^~ i ICON c~ ~ v ~ oa ,r i i ~~ U UN ~N ~ Q .-~ i iii ~ ~ N m~ N ~~~ of ii ~ U -i ~ ~ U ~ ~ z~ o i ~ U N ^ ~ ~i ~i ~ ~ -y i ai ~ ~ i "~i w Q 0 Q Q~ Q Z (A ~~~^~ U +~ N N N ~ a~ 0 ~ °o ~ __ N 1 ~ 1~1 a a W (7 Q I U N i ti N O ~ Z V o Q r 0 O O '~ I1