12SN0105CASE MANAGER: Jane Peterson
.:: i3 i'f~L_
t;v r;r~
BS Time Remaining:
365 days
cor~o,~,~.o,- ~n ~ni i rnr
,,~~~~.. ,' ``)
1`1VPe~PCY~~ 2Z~Tl CTS
vcc2i~a2r~~, gran
F 2l3inici ynnz2~c~z iii-cDrc
i~~ii~C~iz`Cr~ n~z cDrc
~~, 2~>~a
May 23, 2012 B S
STAFF' S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
12SN0105
(AMENDED)
Holiday Signs c/o
Allen M Twedt
Midlothian Magisterial District
11665 Midlothian Turnpike
REQUEST: Conditional use approval to permit acomputer-controlled, variable message,
electronic sign in a General Business (GS) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A computer-controlled, variable message, electronic sign (EMC), incorporated into a
freestanding identification sign for a cleaning establishment is proposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
A. The proposed EMC does not conform to the adopted Electronic Message Center
Policy for such signs relative to location within the Chesterfield Towne Center
Southport Special District.
B. The requested exception to the Policy could set a precedent for similar requests.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) MAY
PROFFER CONDITIONS.)
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
CONDITION
The total area of the freestanding sign shall not exceed 62.5 square feet. The sign height
shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. (P)
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 and shall not move
but may fade;
b. The message or display shall be programmed to change no more than once
every thirty (30) seconds;
c. Sequential messaging shall be prohibited;
d. Flashing and traveling messages shall be prohibited;
e. Bijou lighting and animation effects shall be prohibited;
£ The electronic message center shall be incorporated into an architecturally
designed sign structure that is compatible and complimentary to the
building it serves; and
g. Brightness shall be limited so as not to exceed 0.3 foot candles above
ambient light as measured using a foot candle meter at a distance of
seventy-seven (77) feet. (P)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
The request property is located in the southeast corner of Midlothian Turnpike and Grove
Road and better known as 11665 Midlothian Turnpike. Tax ID 739-708-6141.
Existing Zoriin~:
C-5
Size:
.5 acre
Existing Land Use:
Commercial
2 12SN0105-MAY23-BOS-RPT
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North - C-3 and C-5; Commercial and vacant
South, East and West - C-5; Commercial
UTILITIES
Public Water and Wastewater Systems:
While installation of the proposed sign will not require 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; FIRE; AND COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT~:
VDOT notes that a design for the electronic sign needs to be submitted to the VDOT
Richmond District, Central Region Permit 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. The
electronic message should not be a distraction to a driver along U.S. Route 60. Approval of
signage is not necessarily assured.
T,ANI~ TTSF.
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Powhite/Route 288
Development Area Plan, which suggests the property is appropriate for general
commercial use.
Area Development Trends:
The area is characterized by commercial and office uses along the north and south lines of
the Midlothian Turnpike Corridor.
Sign Design:
The Ordinance permits one (1) freestanding sign along Midlothian Turnpike to identify the
existing business (dry cleaners) on the property. The existing freestanding sign measures
101 square feet in area and twenty-five (25) feet in height.
12SN0105-MAY23-BOS-RPT
The applicant plans to replace this existing sign with a new sign to include an electronic
message board. The Electronic Message Center Policy indicates that electronic message
boards should not be incorporated into non-conforming signs unless such signs are brought
closer into conformance with Ordinance requirements relative to area and height. Further,
the Ordinance requires that, with the replacement of anon-conforming sign, the area and
height of the existing sign must be averaged with that of current standards for new signs.
New freestanding signs are currently limited to 62.5 square feet in area with the
incorporation of changeable copy and fifteen (15) feet in height. Averaging would yield a
maximum sign area of 81.75 square feet and a maximum sign height of twenty (20) feet.
The proposed sign, which contains an area of 62.5 square feet and a height of twenty (20)
feet, is in conformance with this Ordinance requirement and satisfies this aspect of the
Policy. (Condition)
The proposal would comply with the Policy relative to spacing, lines of copy, timing of
message changes with no sequential messaging, sign appearance, brightness and lack of
flashing and traveling messages, bijou lighting and animation. (Proffered Condition)
The proposal would not comply with the Policy relative to location within the Chesterfield
Towne Center Southport Special District, as discussed herein.
Special District:
With the adoption of the amended Electronic Message Center Policy in September 2011,
two (2) Special Districts are identified along Midlothian Turnpike as areas where EMCs are
prohibited. One such area is the Chesterfield Towne Center Southport Special District, the
boundaries of which are depicted on the attached map. The subject property is identified
within this geography.
CONCLUSION
The proposed computer-controlled variable message electronic sign does not conform to the
recently adopted Electronic Message Center Policy relative to location within Chesterfield Towne
Center Southport Special District. Approval of this exception to the Policy could encourage
others to seek similar exception.
Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (9/20/11):
On their own motion and with the applicant's consent, the Commission deferred this case
to their November 15, 2011 public hearing. This deferral would permit time to determine
4 12SN0105-MAY23-BOS-RPT
the outcome of the Board's consideration of the Electronic Message Center Policy
Amendments.
Staff (9/21/11):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information should
be submitted no later than September 26, 2011 for consideration at the Commission's
November 15, 2011 public hearing.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (9/21/11):
The Board of Supervisors approved amendments to the Electronic Message Center
Policy.
Applicant (10/ll/ll):
Proffered conditions and Textual Statement were submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (ll/15/ll):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation.
There was opposition present expressing concerns relative to the sign not complying with
Ordinance and EMC Policy standards.
The Commission agreed that deviations to the recently-adopted EMC Policy should be
determined through discussions at the Board of Supervisors' level.
On motion of Mr. Waller, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission recommended
denial.
AYES: Messrs. Bass, Brown, Gulley, Hassen and Waller.
Applicant (12/14/11):
The applicant amended the request to withdraw the exception to the Ordinance
requirement that the changeable copy be integrated into or abut the sign face and
submitted a revised textual statement.
5 12SN0105-MAY23-BOS-RPT
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (12/14/11):
On their own motion, the Board remanded this case to the Planning Commission.
Staff (12/15/11):
The applicant was advised in writing the case would be scheduled for public hearing before
the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting in February 2012. Further,
the applicant was advised that any significant, new or revised information should be
submitted no later than December 19, 2011 for consideration at the Commission's February
2012 public hearing.
Staff (1/11/12):
The applicant was advised that, with the withdrawal of the exception to the Ordinance
requirement regarding the location of the changeable copy, the planned development
component of the request was no longer needed.
Applicant (1/17/12):
The applicant withdrew the planned development component of this request; thereby,
requesting conditional use approval. The textual statement was withdrawn and the
proffered condition amended accordingly.
Planning Commission Meeting (2/21/12):
The applicant was not present for the public hearing.
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their March 20, 2012 public
hearing.
Staff (2/22/12):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than February 27, 2012 for consideration at the
Commission's March 20, 2012 public hearing.
6 12SN0105-MAY23-BOS-RPT
Staff (2/28/12):
To date, no new information has been received.
Planning Commission Meeting (3/20/12):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation, noting that the application was made
prior to the adoption of the new EMC sign policy.
There was opposition present expressing concern that the proposed sign was against the
Board's policy; the area was being revitalized with new landscaping; and that the case
would set a precedent.
The Commission stated that the applicant worked hard on the Policy with staff and that
there were changes made to the recommended Policy at the Board meeting; approval
would set a precedent; it is the Board's Policy and that it would be up to the Board to
change the Policy.
On motion of Mr. Waller, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended denial.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Waller, Brown, Patton and Wallin.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (4/25/12):
On their own motion and with the applicant's consent, the Board deferred this case to
their May 23, 2012 public hearing.
AYES: Jaeckle, Warren, Holland and Elswick.
ABSENT: Mr. Gecker.
Staff (4/26/12):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than April 30, 2012 for consideration at the Board's May 23,
2012 public hearing.
7 12SN0105-MAY23-BOS-RPT
Staff (5/4/12):
To date, no new information has been received.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take under
consideration this request.
12SN0105-MAY23-BOS-RPT
1 ~ ~ 1 w
1 1 Z
~ 1 ~
MALL DR 1 ~ 1
1 U 1
1
1 1
1 ~ P~ R '
1 BAN ' y
•~~
1 cV
1
M 1 '
. I N U N W
V ~ ;
1 ~
1 `
1
r CJ
v
U O
y U
~ rV~NO~ ~ N G
~` NuG M ~ F' m0
~y
1' n - ( 1 ~ ~ Q
U ~ 1 ~ `J Cpl
1 ~ 1 ~
1 ~ U `~ W
1~ j a ~
U
~ , ~ ~ ~ N
R E
~ Q ~ U N
N Q `' N _
~P~ , U 1
d, i ~ ~~
0
0
~c
C
I N l'
Z
U
m
1
1
1 1 ~~
U
~~ 1~ ,,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
w
U
Q
W
O
>-
Z
I~ n
~Iw
z ~~
~`VVV
W
~~ Z
W
a
0
goo,
0
ZV
N a
r
O
0
N
O
0
li:.
~~
`~O
oco
a N~>o
, NH
~~
ti
J
)~
~C
J~
t~
l ~j
~S
~
Od
~ Sti
id ~~
'~~ 2J
~~
.~
2{n O).3/~'iyJ~yo
U
a~
~° ah"f dw
o-r dp~~~.u N~
n
d~~.cr/oWOao~ o
o
~P
c` ~
v
as 3ain~~sa
J
i /
~~/
i
~ _~ --
~ ~ ~~ _
~~ ~ I
\ II
~~
~ ~ ~~'
~.. ',~ ~, ~ I ~~
~ ~ ~~ ~.
~ \\\ ~\\
~ -~ ~~;
X19
y
~t,~ I ~~
~ ~~
~-
-- ~
o d
ao o~ooO ~Gh~tiy~ °r a -s~
v~
~ ~O >
2 O~ ~L GP
~ ~dAii \ J~ ~ o~
CAL, 7
y) S
S.. ~+ ~ ~J
C
.~ ~ ~~ ~~
~~d,~ v F .
O ~'. l Q J
® ~s~ ~w ao NoloNraavH~~ ? ~
/~ ~ H, cn Q Z 2 `y0
6Y / ~~~ 5 y G z °i U C ~~~Sn
~2 s ~ o n o riy~b.
~ ~ Q'` ~K t O' .r U ~/i
-N S_ ~ C
~ ~ w C ¢
~ ~ :J
Q z ,tl Q ~ _
Z ~_ C I Y
5 L ,~
~u z
2 ~ '
W
r
~~
~„
~`~~
ey
~~
0
°~U
y.~
P~,
0.~~
F~.
O~
1
d~ ~~0
? ^ ~O
Sy
~~~ ~
O
O
u
5
__ J+_