title
PZ 17-019: City of Powder Springs- 4010 Fambrough Drive, Land Lot 675, Change is Stipulations of Variance, Monument Sign
body
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulations:
1. The current refaced monument sign will not undergo any additional changes in structure or location without first applying for a permit.
2. Applicant assumes the risk by continuing to maintain the sign structure within the sewer easement, as original stipulation circa 2005.
3. The City will not own or be responsible for the sign in any manner. Thus, if the City needs to perform maintenance work on the Public ROW where the sign is currently located, the City shall be allowed to remove at the owner’s sole cost and expense.
Background:
The subject property originally underwent a special use approval and hardship variance on May 3, 2004 to permit a church and to vary acreage requirements. The applications were heard and approved at the Mayor and Council hearing. The Planning and Zoning Commission at that time recommended approval for the church only, and for a sign to be no greater that 4’ x 4’ or 6’ in height. The applicant at that time, Mr. Huddleston, requested a temporary banner until a monument style sign could be installed. The motion was approved 5-0 allowing a temporary banner to be displayed for 45 days only, and the church was also required to obtain a permit for the banner, from the City, which was allowed only two (2) times per year.
A second application was presented on July 18, 2005 at the Mayor and Council public hearing. The application presented by Richard Calhoun was a variance request for Legacy Church/R.E. Smith, 4010 Fambrough Drive. The request was for a sign setback of 10 feet for a proposed monument sign. Mayor Vaughn gave a review of the presented recommended conditions as follows:
1. Sign shall be removed at such time as the Legacy Church relocates to another location. This includes the concrete base unless the property owner obtains prior approval from the City to retain the base and if required by the City shall relocate the sign at the applicant/owner’s sole cost and expense for maintenance purposes.
2. Applicant assumes the risk by placing the sign structure within the sewer easement.
The applicant agreed to the presented recommended conditions as amended by the City Attorney.
This application is City initiated in order to remove the sign restriction regarding the stipulations presented.
Analysis:
In accordance with Section 14-24 of the Unified Development Code, staff has reviewed the application and determined that one or more of the conditions required by Section 14-24 for issuing a variance exist as follows:
(a.) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions or practical difficulties pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape or topography that are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same district.
There are not other extraordinary or exceptional conditions or practical difficulties pertaining to the particular piece of property in question because of its size, shape or topography that are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same district.
(b.) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this development code would effectively deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties of the district in which the property is located.
The code that was in place at the time of the application required a setback of 42 feet from the center of the road. A literal interpretation of this code at the time would have placed the sign in the parking lot. The current code requires the setback be located 1 foot from the right-of-way. The sign appears to meet the current code requirements, with the exception that it is located in a sewer easement.
(b.) Granting the variance requested will not confer upon the property of the applicant any special privileges that are denied to other properties of the district in which the applicant’s property is located.
Granting the variance will confer upon the property of the applicant a special privilege. However, in this case, since the current sign was previously allowed, allowing the sign and base to continue to be established would allow the current tenant “Hearts on Fire” to advertise the church and its location to its visitors. There have been no noted issues or complaints regarding the sign location.
(c.) The requested variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this development code and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or to the general welfare.
Granting of the requested variance will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this development code as the currently allowed stipulation would be allowed to continue upon the removal of the change of ownership restriction.
(d.) The special circumstances are not the result of the actions of the applicant.
The City of Powder Springs placed a stipulation on the application that if there is a change in ownership, the monument sign is required to be removed. Prior to requiring the new church to remove the sign, Community Development staff initiated an application to bring the issue before the Mayor and Council.
(e.) The variance requested is the minimum variance that will make possible the proposed use of the land, building, or structure in the use district proposed; and/or
It is staff opinion that the variance requested is the minimum variance possible for the proposed use of the land, building, and structure in the district proposed. Due to the original allowance of the monument sign to be placed, removing the change of ownership restriction would only benefit the current tenant without augmenting hardship to any surrounding property owners. Additionally, the sign underwent a refacing, but will not be changing location or structure at this point in time without first seeking a permit.
(f.) The variance shall not permit a use of land, buildings or structures, which is not permitted by right in the zoning district or overlay district involved.
The current monument sign is allowed under the LI Zoning District. The variance was approved, as discussed above, on July 18, 2005. Thus, allowing the current monument sign to continue existing and removing the change of ownership restriction would be allowed in the current Zoning District.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulations:
4. The current refaced monument sign will not undergo any additional changes in structure or location without first applying for a permit.
5. Applicant assumes the risk by continuing to maintain the sign structure within the sewer easement, as original stipulation circa 2005.
6. The City will not own or be responsible for the sign in any manner. Thus, if the City needs to perform maintenance work on the Public ROW where the sign is currently located, the City shall be allowed to remove at the owner’s sole cost and expense.