12SN0105CASE MANAGER: Jane Peterson
.:: i3 i'f~L_
t;v r;r~
cor~o,~,~.o,- ~n ~ni i rnr
,,~~~~.. ,' ``)
1`~P~ PCY~ ~ 2Z~S l
vcc2i~a2~~, gran
F 2l3inici ynnz2~c~z iii-cDrc
i~~ii~C~iz`Cr~ n~z cDrc
~~, 2~>~a
June 27, 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.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has withdrawn this request from consideration. The Board should acknowledge
this withdrawal.
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
the outcome of the Board's consideration of the Electronic Message Center Policy
Amendments.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
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.
2 12SN0105 JUN27-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.
3 12SN0105 JUN27-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.
4 12SN0105 JUN27-BOS-RPT
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (5/23/12):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was support and opposition
present. Those in support indicated the proposal was good for business and complied all
elements of the Policy except location.
Those in opposition noted the proposal was contrary to the Policy; would set a precedent
for similar signage in prohibited locations; and that the sign height should be limited to
fifteen (15) feet consistent with ordinance requirements for new signs.
Ms. Jaeckle expressed concerns relative to the late inclusion of special districts into the
Policy; that special criteria for signs in these areas may be appropriate; and that reader
boards were not an effective way to advertise.
Mr. Gecker noted that the inclusion of the special districts was to support investment
made by local businesses to enhance the corridor; that there was no indication these
businesses supported a proliferation of electronic message centers; and that approval
could set a precedent for future requests contrary to corridor beautification efforts.
Mr. Elswick indicated that the proposed electronic sign was more attractive than the
existing sign.
Discussion ensured relative to deferring the request for the applicant to consider lowering
the proposed sign height to fifteen (15) feet.
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their June 27, 2012 meeting, noting
that the public hearing was closed.
Staff (5/24/12):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than May 29, 2012 for consideration at the Board's June 27,
2012 meeting.
Applicant (6/6/12):
The applicant withdrew the request.
The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take under
consideration this request.
5 12SN0105 JUN27-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