Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8673 Staff AnalysisAUGUST 29, 2011 MtA it M I[611AI File No.: Z-8673 Owner/Applicant: Diana Thomas Address: 9412 Crofton Drive Description: West side of Crofton Drive, South of Tedburn Drive Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: A variance is requested from the sign provisions of Section 36-551 to allow a sign which exceeds the maximum sign area allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: Public Works does not support the sign being located within the public right-of- way in this residential neighborhood. B. Staff Analvsis: The R-2 zoned property at 9412 Crofton Drive is occupied by a one-story brick and frame single family residence. There is a one -car wide driveway from Crofton Drive at the southeast corner of the property. The applicant recently placed a ground -mounted sign in the front yard of the residence advertising "Arkansas Real Estate Prof essionals.Com". The sign is located within a landscaped area on the north side of the driveway. The sign is 4 feet — 5 inches tall, with four (4) square feet (two(2) feet by two (2) feet) of sign area. The sign is located approximately seven (7) inches back from the curb edge of Crofton Drive. The applicant notes that the sign is required by the Arkansas Real Estate Commission because she is a licensed broker. Section 36-551 of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum sign area of one (1) square foot for signs in single family residential zones. This section also allows said signs to only contain the name and address of the occupant; no commercial message(s). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the larger sign at her residence. Staff does not support the requested variance. Staff feels that the proposed sign is too large for a residential lot, and does not meet the intent of the ordinance in AUGUST 29, 2011 ITEM NO.: A CON'T. allowing some signage in residential zones. This sign containing commercial advertising is out of character with the neighborhood. The applicant notes that the Arkansas Real Estate Commission requires a real estate broker to have a sign at the place of business. Staff checked with the City Collector's office and found that the applicant does not have a home occupation permit to operate a business from this residence. Additionally, the sign is located entirely in the public right-of-way of Crofton Drive, only seven (7) inches inside the edge of curb. Public Works does not support the sign being located within the right-of-way. If the applicant were to obtain a home occupation permit, staff could support a one (1) square foot sign containing the name of her company, located on or next to the front door of the residence. Staff believes the sign is too commercial in nature, and fails to maintain the residential character of the single family property and the neighborhood in general. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested sign variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT- (JUNE 27, 2011) Staff noted that the applicant submitted a letter to staff on June 16, 2011 requesting the application be deferred to the July 25, 2011 agenda. The applicant was not able to attend the June 27, 2011 meeting and had not completed notifications to surrounding property owners. Staff supported the deferral request. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the July 25, 2011 agenda with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JULY 25, 2011) Staff informed the Board that the application needed to be deferred to the August 29, 2011 agenda based on the fact that the applicant failed to complete notifications to the surrounding property owners. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and deferred to the August 29, 2011 agenda with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (AUGUST 29, 2011) The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. Staff noted that the applicant was informed that the application might be discussed and voted on in her absence. Staff briefly described the history of the application, noting that the application had been deferred twice. This issue was discussed briefly. AUGUST 29, 2011 ITEM NO.: A CON'T. There was a motion to approve the requested sign variance application. Vice -Chairman Smith discussed the issue of another deferral of the application. This issue was discussed further. Chairman Winchester called for a vote on the previous motion. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 5 nays and 0 absent. The application was denied. Staff suggested the Board grant the applicant 30 days to remove the sign from the property. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent, requiring the sign to be removed by September 29, 2011.