Loading...
13SN0105CASE MANAGER: Robert Clay .:: i3 i'f~L_ t,,. ~ ..r:..~ ~~'~ BS Time Remaining: 365 days STAFF' S REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 SNO105 Holiday Signs Bermuda Magisterial District 2520 West Hundred Road c ~ nor i Q ~ni ~ rnr ~7C,p Ce~ PGTT~LZ.~ ~T,,..o,~,~.o,- i c ~ni ~ rnr December 12, 2012 BS REQUEST: Conditional use planned development approval to permit exceptions to ordinance requirements relative to signage in a General Business (C-5) District. Specifically, exceptions to the height and size limitations for a freestanding sign are requested. PROPOSED LAND USE: A non-conforming freestanding sign identifying an existing restaurant on the property was recently damaged during a storm event. The damage was only to the sign face. The sign exceeds the height and size requirements of the ordinance by more than 100 percent, therefore it cannot be refaced. The property owners have illegally refaced the sign and are now seeking approval for the sign to remain. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION ON PAGE 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend denial for the following reasons: A. The current sign standards of the ordinance provide adequate identification for uses on the property and are designed to bring oversized signs closer to compliance with current requirements. B. Approval of this request could encourage other businesses to seek similar exceptions, leading to proliferation of oversized signs. (NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITION NOTED "CPC" IS A CONDITION RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.) Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service CONDITION (CPC) The total area of the freestanding sign shall not exceed 179 square feet. The sign height shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. (P) GENERAL INFORMATION T ,.,.,,~;,.~ The request property is located on the north line of West Hundred Road, east of Jefferson Davis Highway and is known as 2520 West Hundred Road. Tax ID 799-654-0882. Existing Zonin C-5 Size: 1 acre Existing Land Use: Commercial Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North, South, East and West - C-5; Commercial T TTn TTY c Public Water Svstem: The existing structure is connected to the public water system. This request will not impact the public water system. Public Wastewater Svstem: The existing structure is connected to the public wastewater system. This request will not impact the public water system. ENVIRONMENTAL Drainage and Erosion: This request will have no impact on these facilities. 2 13SN0105-DEC12-BOS-RPT PUBLIC FACILITIES Fire Service: The Dutch Gap Fire Station, Company Number 14, 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. Vir ing is Department of Transportation VDOT~: VDOT has no objection to the sign as depicted in the attachment to the case so long as the support posts are located more than a foot beyond the right-of--way and behind the clear zone at that location. LAND USE Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Jefferson Davis HighwaX Corridor Plan, which suggests the property is appropriate for general commercial use. Area Development Trends: The area is characterized by commercially zoned and developed properties. It is anticipated commercial development will continue in this area, as suggested by the Plan. Recent Sign HistorX: • On June 21, 2011 Holiday Signs applied for a permit to reface the storm-damaged sign for the owner of the property. • On June 23, 2011 Holiday Signs was notified in writing that the Planning Department would not approve release of the sign permit until corrections had been submitted and approved. Corrections included reducing the size and height of the sign or apply for, and receive approval from the Board of Supervisors, a conditional use planned development to allow exceptions to height and square footage requirements for the sign. • On December 1, 2011 a complaint was received that a freestanding sign exceeding 100 percent of the ordinance requirement had been refaced on the subject property, in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Upon initial review, staff felt the sign had not been refaced and the complaint was closed on December 9, 2001. 3 13SN0105-DEC12-BOS-RPT • During further investigation it was realized the sign had indeed been refaced, and on March 8, 2012 a notice of violation was issued for the illegal refacing of a non- conforming sign. The owner confirmed the sign had actually been refaced. • On March 19, 2012 the owner was advised the sign would either have to be reduced in size and height or they would have to request and receive conditional use planned development approval to keep the existing sign in order to bring the sign into compliance. • An application for conditional use planned development approval was filed on July 9, 2012. Freestanding Sign: Currently, the ordinance permits one (1) freestanding sign identifying a business building, fifty (50) square feet in area and fifteen (15) feet in height. The sign area may be increased up to twenty-five (25) percent provided such increase is for the purpose of including changeable copy. The property owner has illegally refaced a previously damaged nonconforming freestanding sign which identifies a restaurant. Refacing is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 19-632, which is included as an attachment to this staff report. The applicant is requesting conditional use planned development approval to allow the refaced sign to remain. The sign is 179 square feet in area, with changeable copy, and is thirty (30) feet in height (Textual Statement) as depicted in the attached graphic. While the Zoning Ordinance allows for the refacing of nonconforming signs in some instances (See Zoning Ordinance, Section 19-650 (d), attached), signs that exceed the size or height requirements specified in the ordinance by 100 percent or more cannot be refaced (See Zoning Ordinance, Section 19-650 (e), attached). Such is the case for the subject sign. It should also be noted that a nonconforming sign may be replaced under the following conditions: the sign is brought into conformance with current ordinance requirements; or the area and height of the sign are reduced by fifty (50) percent of the amount the size and height exceed the current ordinance and all other requirements of the ordinance are met (See Zoning Ordinance, Section 19-650 (g), attached). This would allow replacing the sign with one that is a maximum of fifty (50) square feet in area, plus 12.5 square feet with changeable copy, and a maximum of fifteen (15) feet in height; or 114.5 square feet in area and 22.5 feet in height. These requirements are designed to bring these signs closer into compliance with current ordinance standards. Staff has identified several freestanding business signs in the immediate area of this request that are larger than permitted by current ordinance standards. Examples include Exxon, Days Inn and the Clarion Hotel/Hooters, ranging in height from thirty-two (32) to sixty (60) feet and in area from 140 to 184 square feet. Both the Days Inn and Clarion Hotel/Hooters have been reduced in size consistent with ordinance provisions for reducing the size of non- conforming signs. Days Inn was reduced from fifty-nine (59) to thirty-seven (37) feet in height and from 407 to 184 square feet in area. The Clarion/Hooters, as a result of incorporating an electronic message center, was reduced from forty-nine (49) to thirty-two 4 13SN0105-DEC12-BOS-RPT (32) feet in height and from 270 to 176 square feet in area. Staff research has found that ten (10) other non-conforming freestanding signs in the general vicinity of Route 10 and Route 1 have been reduced in size through application of the Section 19-650(g) standard. Should the current request be approved, there would be no requirement under the current ordinance to reduce the area and/or height of this sign if in the future, it is replaced or refaced. CONCLUSION The current sign standards of the ordinance provide adequate identification for uses on the property and are designed to bring oversized signs closer to compliance with current requirements. In addition, approval of this request could encourage other businesses to seek similar exceptions, leading to proliferation of oversized signs. Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended. CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (9/18/12): The applicant did not accept staff's recommendation. There was support for this request present. There was general discussion about all businesses in the area being treated the same with respect to signage and that it was reasonable to allow a business owner to repair a damaged and unsafe sign. There were questions from the Commission about what the applicant was told and when; about whether the process was followed or not; and about what the Zoning Ordinance contained concerning the re-facing of freestanding signs. Mr. Patton noted the business and sign has been there a long time and he supports the proposal. A motion by Mr. Patton recommending approval of the request, seconded by Mr. Waller, did not pass. AYES: Messrs. Waller and Patton. NAYS: Messrs. Gulley, Brown and Wallin. Dr. Wallin stated he needed more time and clarification from staff. This was the feeling of a majority of the Commissioners. On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their November 15, 2012 public hearing. AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Waller, Patton and Wallin. 5 13SN0105-DEC12-BOS-RPT NAY: Dr. Brown. Staff (9/19/12): The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information should be submitted no later than September 24, 2012 for consideration at the Commission's November 15, 2012 public hearing. Staff (10/25/12): To date, no new information has been received. Planning Commission Meeting (11/15/12): The applicant did not accept staff's recommendation, but did accept the Planning Commission's recommendation. The applicant indicated they attempted to correct a safety hazard and requested approval. There was opposition present, noting the sign should be brought into compliance; noting a list of refaced non compliant signs handled by the applicant; and that staff is correct in their findings. There was general discussion as to what events occurred and when that resulted in the refacing. Dr. Brown referenced the 2011 complaint and asked staff to explain why it was first thought the sign was not refaced. Mr. Patton stated the sign was damaged in a storm; the damaged sign was dangerously hanging out of the frame; it was not a rebranded sign; was nothing more than a repair/maintenance issue; other signs in the area went against the ordinance; and this was not done in malice. Mr. Waller asked for clarification of the value of the whole structure and how much was replaced. This led to general discussion concerning the value of the "repair" in relation to replacing the sign. Dr. Wallin stated he felt this was a breakdown of communication; that the repair was done for the safety of the citizens. Dr. Brown and Mr. Gulley agreed. On motion of Mr. Patton, seconded by Mr. Waller, the Commission recommended approval subject to the condition on page 2. AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Waller, Brown, Patton and Wallin. 6 13SN0105-DEC12-BOS-RPT The Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 13SN0105-DEC12-BOS-RPT _yj ~ Holida ~~ Case 12-ZO-0318 Textual Statement 29 June 2012 The following exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance requirements shall apply: 1. A fifteen (15) foot exception to the fifteen (15} foot freestanding sign height limitation. 2. Aone-hundred and twenty-nine (129) square foot exception to the fifty (50} square foot sign area allowance. .%' -~ /'. EV .Opel Holiday Signs, Inc. r- , Date 11930 Old Stage Road • Chester, Virginia 23836 Phone (804) 796-9443 • FAx (8134) 796-9454 RECEIVED JUL 0 9 2012 DIRECTOR ~'LANNING DEPT i 13SN0105-1