19South Miami
bOd
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
qrrr
To: The Honorable Mayor and Members Ofth:/~ Commission
Via: Hector Mirabile, Ph.D., City Manager!!
From: Christopher Brimo, AICP fft /
Planning Director ;;
ITEM No .. __ 1_-,,"-_ Date: March 6, 2012
SUBJECT:
A Resolution relating to an appeal of a decision of the Environmental Review and
Preservation Board regarding the denial of non-illuminated landscape signage
installation located at 6333 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida; and providing an
effective date.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed permanent signage is located in the "RO" Residential/Office zoning
district, and pursuant to Section 20-4.3(I)(4) The Land Development Code [RO Zoning
Districts], Landscape Signs are not permitted.
At its December 20, 2011 meeting, the Environmental Review and Preservation Board
(ERPB) heard a request to allow the continued use of a previously approved landscape
sign at 6333 Sunset Drive, with a change of copy (sign lettering) to reflect the new
business located at the address; Case number ERPB-11-097
The applicant submitted a signage proposal to be heard by the ERPB at the December 20,
2011 regular meeting [Exhibit A]. While the "RO" zoning district does not permit
landscape signs, the applicant proposed to modify the existing landscape sign that had
been previously approved, and which had been used by the previous tenant. The request
also included a "Name Plate Sign", which is permitted within the RO zoning district.
Please see the attached permitted sign schedule for the RO zoning district (Exhibit B).
As noted in the staff report for Case ERPB-ll-097, "although landscape signs are not
permitted by right within the RO zoning district, the existing landscape sign was part of
an ERPB approved site plan in 2003, in conjunction with the renovation. Although the
applicant is changing the sign copy and reducing its height, the Department feels there is
precedent for its continuation since it was previously approved." Please refer to
photograph of existing landscape sign (Exhibit C).
APPEAL ITEM:
The applicant's legal counsel provided a letter in conjunction with the appeal that was
received by the City Clerk's office on January 19,2012, which is within the allowable
window for an appeal.
2001
Generally it states the following: The ERP B denied the replacement of an existing
landscape sign facing Sunset Drive. The existing landscape sign was already approved
by the ERPB in 2003 in connection with renovation plans for the subject property. The
Applicant is only changing the sign copy and reducing the height. Staffs analysis
confirms there is precedence for the continued use of the landscape sign by virtue of its
prior 2003 approval. Additionally, Code Section 20-4.3 (L) allows for approval of other
types of signs that are not specifically provided for in the regulations. Irrespective of
Staffs recommendation for approval, and the Code providing discretion to approve the
landscape sign, the ERP B denied the request. The denial was capricious and arbitrary
and was unsupported by any substantial competent evidence.
Please refer to Section 20-4.3(L) (Exhibit D); and Section 20-4.3(E) (Exhibit E).
The Land Development Code (Section 20-6.2(A)) provides that a decision made by the
ERPB may be appealed to the City Commission by the City administration, the applicant,
or an interested citizen. Attached is an appeal to case number ERPB-11-097, filed by the
applicant's legal counsel, on January 19, 2012. The City Commission has 60 days from
the filing date to hear the appeal and enter a decision (reverse, affirm or modify the
ERPB decision).
In order for the Commission to properly review the appeal, staff has attached the reports
for case number ERPB 11-097 from December 20, 2011; and the minutes from this
meetings.
20-6.2 -Appeals.
(A) ERPB Decisions; Time; Standing to Appeal. All decisions and
recommendations of the environmental review and preservation board (ERPB)
shall be posted on the City Hall bulletin board immediately following the ERPB
meeting. An applicant may apply for a building permit after noon of the day after
the ERPB meeting, at which the application was given final approval, if all other
requirements for the permit have been met. An appeal of an ERPB final decision
or recommendation may be filed within thirty (30) days of the ERPB final
decision or before a building permit is issued, whichever comes first, by filing
same with the city clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may be filed
by the applicant, a property owner, business owner, or resident of the City, the
city administration, or any interested citizens living in an abutting municipality
and within 500 feet of the property under review.
(B) Stay of Proceedings. An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the
action appealed from, unless the officer from whom the appeal is taken certifies to
the city commission, after notice of appeal has been filed with him, that because
of the facts stated in the certificate a stay would, in the officer's opinion, cause
imminent peril to life or property or that because the violation charged is
transitory in nature a stay would seriously interfere with enforcement of the Code.
(C) Restraining Orders. If certification occurs in accordance with subsection (B)
above, proceedings may not be stayed except by a restraining order, which may
be granted by the city commission or by a court of record on application, on
notice to the officer from whom the appeal is taken and on due cause shown.
(D) Appeal Hearing. The city commission shall hear and enter a decision on all
appeals within sixty (60) days of the date of filing said appeal, and shall provide
due notice of the appeal to the parties.
(E) Commission Action. The city commission may reverse, affirm or modify any
order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and shall make any
order, requirement, decision or determination that, in the city commission's
opinion, ought to be made in the circumstances.
(F) Modification Allowed. When practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships
would result from carrying out the strict letter of a Code provision, the city
commission may, in passing upon appeals, vary or modify any regulation or
provision of the Code relating to the use, construction or alteration of buildings or
structures or the use of land, so that the spirit of the Code is observed, public
safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done.
(G) Prior Denials. The city commission shall not be required to hear an appeal or
application previously denied if it finds that there has been no substantial change
in conditions or circumstances bearing on the appeal or application.
Backup Documentation:
• Resolution
• Request for an Appeal (Letter)
• Appeal Application
• Payment
• Staff Report ERPB 11-097 -December 20,2011
• Exhibit A -Applicant's Sign Submittal; December 20, 2011
• Exhibit B -Section 20-4.3(1)(4) -RO-Residential Office Districts
• Exhibit C -Existing Sign Photograph
• Exhibit D -Section 20-4.3(L) -Additional Signage
• Exhibit E -Section 20-4.3(E) -Prohibited Signs and Sign Characteristics.
• December 20,2011 Verbatim Minutes
Z:\Comm ltems\2012\2-21-12\ERPB Appeal -6333 Sunset Dr\ERPB Appeal_ 6333 Sunset Dr_staff report_2-21-12.docx
1 RESOLUTION NO. ____ _
2
3 A Resolution deciding an appeal of an order of the Environmental Review
4 and Preservation Board regarding the denial of non-illuminated landscape
5 sign age installation located at 6333 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida~
6
7 WHEREAS, the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) at its December
8 20,2011 meeting reviewed Application No. ERPB-II-097, which included a request to allow the
9 continued use of a previously approved landscape sign within the RO Residential/Office zoning
10 district, specifically located at 6333 Sunset Drive, with a change of copy to reflect the new
11 . business located at the address; and
12
13 WHEREAS, landscape signs are not permitted within the RO zoning district; and
14
15 WHEREAS, Section 20-4.3(L) provides that other types of signs, not expressly
16 permitted by Section 20-4.3(1), may be approved by the ERPB when certain conditions are met;
17 and
18
19 WHEREAS, said landscape sign did not violate the conditions of Section 20-4.3(L); and
20
21 WHEREAS, the ERPB at the December 20, 2011 meeting discussed the applicant's
22 request to continue using the existing landscaping sign, made a motion amending the request
23 approving a flat sign on the building, a nameplate sign over the doorway, and the existing marker
24 sign; and approved said motion by a vote of 3 yes; 2 no; and
25
26 WHEREAS, the applicant on January 19, 2012 filed an appeal to the decision of the
27 Environmental Review and Preservation Board, stating that the ERPB denied the replacement of
28 an existing landscape sign facing Sunset Drive; that the existing landscape sign was already
29 approved by the ERPB in 2003 in connection with renovation plans for the subject property; that
30 the Code provides discretion to approve the landscape sign; and
31
32 WHEREAS, Section 20-6.2(A) of the Land Development Code allows for an appeal of
33 an ERPB decision to be made to the City Commission by the applicant, interested citizens, or the
34 City Administration; and
35
36 WHEREAS, Section 20-6.2 (E) of the Land Development Code provides that the City
37 Commission may reverse, affirm, or modify any decision of the Environmental Review and
38 Preservation Board on which there has been an appeal.
39
40 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
41 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA THAT:
42
43 Section 1. That the appeal of the decision of the Environmental Review and Preservation
44 Board made on December 20,2011 regarding the approval of a signage installation located at
45 6333 Sunset Drive is -----------------------------------------------------~6
47 Section 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ , day of ,2012.
2
3 ATTEST: APPROVED:
4
5
6
7 CITY CLERK MAYOR
8
9
10 READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM, COMMISSION VOTE:
11 LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND Mayor Stoddard:
12 EXECUTION THEREOF Vice Mayor Liebman:
13 Commissioner Newman:
14 Commissioner Harris:
15 Commissioner Welsh:
16 CITY ATTORNEY
Jan 19 2012 11:54AM Cit~ of South Miami 3058636348
Ol-19-12P03:12 RCVD
City of South Miami
Environmental Review and Preservation Board -E R PB
APPEAL OF DECISION TO CITy COMMISSION
p. 1
Pursuant to Land Development Code Section 20~6.2 (A) an appeal of an ERPB final decision may be filed·
within 30 days of the ERPB decision or before a building permit is issued whichever comes first. The appeal is
to be ftled with the City Clerk upon a fonn prescribed by the Cler~. Appeals may be filed by the applicant, a
property owner, business owner or resident of the City, the City Administration, or an interested citizen in an
abutting mUIiicipality living within 500 feet of the property under review. The City Commission will hear and
enter a decision on all appeals within 60 days of the filing of an appeal. A fee of $} 00 must be paid by the
applicant at the time the appeal is filed.
ERPB Case No.: II -0 q (,? Date Of Decision ofERPB: t;) -d-~ -J I
Subject Address tz 33,'2 SW 1;). r·.Jv.-eJ( ,90iAJ:b Yl1l~((~:Jf 3_· _3_/..,;,:Lf=~,---__ _
INDICATE YOUR REL.ATIONSHIP TO SUBJECT CASE..:
. Name(Print Name) ContllCt No.
APPLlCANT P'V'of!-e-.;~ I'UI~ g lU'LII1<' 1\ A If jrL f1Il ,l,rlll
PROPERTY OWNER! RESrDENT J .~
BUSlNESS OWNER PJ'I\«!_V/-e. vJ SvhDd/<; a-f/\ v\. ~ I';/. '~A#"-JI'(,_-Z
CITY ADMIN1STRATION J ...-
INTERESTED CnlZEN
SUMMARIZE THE DECISION OF THE ERPB:
):)e,,1Q f J 0 r:-V -e..-pJ~'-Ge..VVl-e.V\+: /).(2 0: i '> bl {tao I c;Lhed. SC:A,p-e
SUMMARIZE REASON FOR APPEAL:
Q-e.?_ Cl~c1:gA. ,QJ?Hev 0-9 ~k
Jan 19 2012 11:54RM Cit~ of South Miami 3056636348 p.2
2
PLEASE SIGN
\
SUBMIT THiS FORM AND FEE TO CITY CLERK
X:\ERPB\ERPS Appeals\ElU'B Appeal Application Revised 2010. doc
Suzanne A. Dockerty, P.A.
A TTORNEY A T LAW
110 Merrick Way, Suite 3-B
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Suzanne A. Dockerty, Esquire Telephone (305) 443-9162
Telefax (305) 443-9155
City of South Miami
Clerk of the City Commission
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami, Florida 33143
January 19,2012
Re: Letter of Intent for Appeal of ERPB Decision to City Commission
ERPB-I1-097 -Hearing Date December 20, 2011
Professional Signs "Applicant" for Pineview Schools "Business Owner"
Property Address: 6333 SW 72 Street, South Miami, Florida 33143
Clerk of City Commission:
On behalf of our client, Pineview Schools as BusiI)ess Owner, and Professional Signs as Applicant, I
am submitting the attached Appeal of ERPB Decision to City Commission for the above referenced hearing
decision.
TheERPB denied the replacement of an existing landscape sign facing Sunset Drive. The existing
landscape sign was already approved by the ERPB in 2003 in connection with renovation plans for the subject
property. The Applicant is only changing the sign copy and reducing the height. Staff's analysis confirms there
is precedence for the continued use of the landscape sign by virtue of its prior 2003 approvaL Additionally,
Code Section 20-4.3(L) allows for approval of other types of signs that are not specifically provided for in the
regulations. Irrespective of Staff s recommendation for approval, and the Code providing discretion to approve
the landscape sign, the ERPB denied the request. The denial was capricious and arbitrary and was unsupported
by any substantial competent evidence.
We respectfully request this matter be heard by the City Commission. Thank you for your time and
attention to tIlis Application. Please contact me if you require any further documentation or information to
complete your analysis and review.
v~
Suzanne A. Dockerty
cc: Ms. Cynthia Suarez, Pineview Schools
Mr. David Moros, Professional Signs
_.~ •• N .... ~ __ .... _·_···
.~.-~,,-.' ,-._ . ..... " .... ~.-.. ~, .. " ...... ,
lE~
01-19-12P03:12 RCVD
SUZANNE A. DOCKERTY, P.A. 4399
CASH RECEIPT
City of South Miami
FUND ---------
CASH_~ __
. CHECK NO. cf3OJ.c1
DATE: 1121 /,2. ~ I
ACCOUNTNO _______ _
PLEASE MAKE ALL CHECKS PAYABLE TO:
AMOUNT $-+J~D;...;;O::;...._O_O_· __
"CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI"
"AUD ONLY WHEN BEARING OFFlClALJlE(JlSTER VAUru,.;,;,···· ; @""/ ...... ..;...~ . .,;... .. -C~A-S~H..;...IE-R--....;..;....:....--
'.
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
ENVIRONMENTAL REViEW & PRESERVATION BOARD
To: Chair & Members Date: December 20, 2011
Environmental Review & Preservation ~~cd Tuesday 8:30 a.m.
Via: Christopher Brimo, Ale?, Director GlV/ Re: ERPB-11-097
Planning and Zoning Department '/ First Review
From: Lo.ur~es Cabrera-~ef~1n.dez, LEED AP Request: Signa~e Installation -
Prmclpal Planner }(7t1C Two sIgns
ERPB Applicant: ................................ Professional Signs
For: ................................................. Pineview Preschools
Property Owner: ................................ Shelton & Stewart Realtors
Folio Number: .......................................... 09-4025-022~0580
Property Address: ............................. 6333 SW 72 Street, South Miami, FL 33143
Zoning District: ................................. "RO" Residential Office
Adjacent Zoning: ............................... RS-3 (North) and RO (East, West and South)
Future Land Use: .............................. Residential Office (Two-Story)
Current Use: ..................................... Daycare Facility
Flood Zone: .................................... ,x-Zone (Not in a Flood Zone)
Legal Description:
Lots 9-15, less the south 15 feet thereof, Block 9, of Cocoplum Terrace Subdivision,
according to the Plat thereof as recorded in plat book 25 at page 4, of the Public records
of Miami-Dade County, Florida. Less the South 15 feet of Lots 1 0 through 15, and that
part of Block 9 which lies of sand block 9 and tangent to a line that is 15 feet north of
and parallel to the south line of sand block 9 for road purposes.
And
Lot 3 less the east 5 feet, less the north 10 feet and less the south 15 feet for right-of-
way, and lots 4 and 5, less the north 1 0 feet and less the south 15 feet thereof, in block
1 of Royal Palm Villas, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat book 19, at
page 1 '1, of the Public records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Applicant's Request:
The applicant is requesting approval for the installation of two signs at the above
referenced property, located in the Residential Office (RO) zoning district. The intent is
to install one "name platen wall sign on the east elevation facing the adjacent parking
area and another sign on the ground as a landscape sign facing Sunset Drive.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
TIJe proposed exterior signage is located in the "RO" Residential Office district. The
applicant's intent is to revise and maintain the character of the existing landscape sign
by maintaining its current location facing Sunset Drive and by reducing its size to nine
square feet. However, according to the City's Land Development Code (LOC),
landscape signs are not listed as permitted within the RO district.
Although landscape signs are not permitted by right within the RO zo"ning district, the
existing landscape sign was part of an ERPB approved site plan in 2003, in conjunction
with the renovation. Although the applicant is changing the sign copy and reducing its
height, the Department feels there is precedent for its continuation since it was
6333 SW 72 Street (Sunset Drive)
ERP8-11-097 presented on December 20, 2011
Signage Installation
Page 12
previously approved. The ERPS can approve the modification and continuation of the
landscape sign per Section 20-4.3(L) Additional Signage, which permits other types of
signs, not expressly permitted by regulations stated in Section 20-4.3(1), may be
approved by the Environmental Review & Preservation Board (ERPB) when the
following conditions are met:
1) That the proposed sign is not prohibited by Section 20-4.3(E);
2) That the proposed sign conforms to the South Florida Building Code and other code
regulations, as applicable;
3) That the proposed additional sign on the building does not occupy more than 30% of the
fagade on which it is proposed to be installed or more than 20% of any window area; and
4) Detached signs may be permitted on any commercial property with the approval of the
Environmental Review and Preservation Board, including detached signs that exceed the
permitted location and height standards set forth in Section 20-4.3(/).
Using this provision to allow the continuation of the, landscape sign would be
appropriate, as other properties within the RO district have obtained landscape sign
approval from the ERPB. Similar approvals include 6361 SW 72 Street and 6295 SW 72
Street in lieu of a flat sign that would have been installed on the wall of the building. It is
important to note that no grandfathering of the sign is allowed; a new business must
conform to the applicable sign regulations.
Pursuant to Section 20-4.3(8) Sign regulations, Applicability and Definitions, of the Land
Development Code, a landscape sign shall mean a detached sign appropriately
landscaped in a park-like manner and designed to be compatible with adjacent
architecture.
LANDSCAPE.......... One low-profile landscape sign may be permitted per prcifect when approved by
the Environmental Review and Preservation Board; the landscape sign shall be a
detached, low profile sign which is either of a single-face or double-face design;
the landscape sign shall not exceed four (4)feet in height from grade, nor twenty
(20) square feet in area; and landscape sign must be appropriately landscaped in
a park-like manner, designed to be compatible with adjacent architecture of
surrounding premises. Direct illumination is permitted.
As proposed, the wood design of the landscape sign is compatible with adjacent
architecture, and it will be maintained in its current location facing SW 72 Street. The
sign, which is approximately ten square feet (20 square feet allowed by code) will be
constructed of sandblasted wood and will read "Pineview Preschools" with a logo on the
right hand side and the street number [6333] below; the sign colors are illustrated on the
attached drawings. Please refer to attached photographs submitted by the applicant of
the subject property, showing the existing sign and the new proposed sign
superimposed. Pursuant to the Code's guidelines for a landscape sign, it is staff's.
observation that the sign shall not exceed four (4) feet in height from grade and must be
appropriately landscaped at in a park-like manner. Furthermore, the actual proposed
material and color samples (green and blue) will be presented at the E'RPB meeting.
Planning Department staff would suggest to the ERPB members that if a landscape sign
LCH Z:\ERPB\ERPB Agendas\2011 ERPB AGENDAS\ERPB -December 20. 2011\ERPB-11-097,doc
6333 SW 72 Street (Sunset Drive)
ERPB-11-097 presented on December 20, 2011
Signage Installation
Page 13
is to be approved, that it be a condition that it be appropriately landscaped at all times.
A second condition shall be that the proposed landscape be native drought-tolerant
plants, limiting the need for irrigation.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1) That the area around the sign be appropriately landscaped at all times.
2) That the proposed landscape be native drought-tolerant plants, limiting the
need for irrigation.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
A second sign will be installed on the east elevation facing the adjacent parking area, in
the "RO" Residential Office district. Pursuant to Section 20-4-3(4), RO-Residential
Office Districts a name plate sign is are permitted, as per the following regulation:
NAME PLA TE .......... One (1) NAME PLA TE identification sign per licensed business establishment,
not to exceed one (1) square foot in area. Indirect illumination is permitted.
As proposed, the name plate will consists of the same wood design as the landscape
which is compatible with adjacent architecture. The sign at a size of almost one square
foot in area, and is consistent with the one square feet allowed by code. The sign will
read "Pineview Preschools" with a logo on the right hand side, and of the colors
illustrated. Please refer to attached photographs, submitted by the applicant, of the
subject property with an existing address identification sign and the new name plate
sign below superimposed. Therefore, as per the Code's guidelines for a name plate it is
staff's observation that the sign is in compliance.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1) Additional signage will require a separate submittal; and,
2) Any comments and concerns by the Board.
Attachments:
• ERPS Application, dated December 7,201'1
• Fee Schedule, Part 1 of 4, dated December 13, 2011
.. Approval Letter from the property owner, dated December 9, 2011
• Plans prepared by Professional Signs:
at Photograph of subject property -Landscape Sign facing Sunset Drive
w/superimposed sign.
• Photograph of subject property -East Elevation w/superimposed sign and
Details.
• Photographs of subject property
LCH Z:\ERPB\ERPB Agendas\2011 ERPB AGENDAS\ERPB • December 20, 2011\ERPB··11·097.doc
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ReVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD APPLICATION
..--'-=* -
STREET ADDRESS OF /'3 '3< /3 (l ! '.
JOB: ~(i~1~'·~,~.~: __ ~'J~(.d~(~),~S~P~-_·«~j~J~a~l~v~e~, _______________________________ __ SOUTH MIAMI. FL
PROPERTY C «< i /-, j TEL.
OWNER '. __ ,=.1_,/-.:,.' 1 1:;;-." L_'f""",,?) !...."):....-",-'!-,,-C_JE.,.')_i '_ 1< ~-,<"'<-_« -<,-",,1),=, ,-,-/;,-/,-," -"'-___ NO . • ' / L «.J I "v,·" / Fed ;'"( (J
ADDRESS: T'L T .'
STREET STATE ZIP
WHAT IS THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY?
I SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE BUSINESS RETAIL STORE OTHER:
OFFICE
]}:J 'I C/-}/d (~-I
APARTMENT OR MEDICAL OFFICE AUTO REPAIR
TOWNHOUSE
WHAT WILL THE TOTAL COST BE TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT? $ _-"fl",---"e'-.< ~_,,_O_Ill ____ _
APPLICANT'S NAME:/flo(i?SS'lci)d/ S'ifjV) TEL NO. CcqO:~)I.JY 1·,~ly?,L/ CELLNO. _____ _
ADDRESS: (/I(~() S'LA,). 3tr-lt• 8:lfC'.tJ tn/eif)"),' FL. 33/SS"
STREET CITY STATE ZIP
WEB ADDRESS: ____________________ FAX NO: ___________ _
AS THE APPLICANT INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROJECT .
OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TENANT I X CONTRACTOR OTHER:
LESSEE
OWNER OF THE BUSINESS ARCHITECT ENGINEER
INDICATE CONTACT PERSON (ERPS's decision will be mailed to the contact person indicated below)' " !) /., .« '( (', • :Ti~ ('. PROPERTY OWNER /L ('OV t'.5) i l) r~ (·i • .:> i ji>!rs
<.z "yt.-(' d ('i'e.f nU:',/\ n(/ 0J {)5jLif:'f/J (/0 S1.i.A) '~.( APPLI~ANT .. ' .. -) J
GilbO y) ,)
" ~
,'i' ,( .) '" " /11) , FC 3'3). '5 .. ) 0 1 / •
/ ~(H (/? () .... L) \ '\r11; v)lYJ ~
... OTH~R )lrovf9£hl~~\e and ~c(c(;ess) ~~ -"
J / 1,/ ... j ?
)j/. (////1 ,/ IJ j. /0/\ J .' lA, ····lSi;;· ;. .............. ";;1:............... /111(' (/ L/,l.t; l./et1((/(.l
J SIGffATlJi1 PRIN YOU NAME
( J
Y:\ERPB\ERPB ApS'lication\ERPB Application Form REVISED FOR-2011.doc
/2·, iJ?-/i
DATE
4
City of South Mialni, Florida
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Part 101'4
APPLICATION, MISCELLANEOUS AND DOCUMENT FEES
t t m. eN
CHECK NO: ____ 4:.....;:::5_:,"-;:;;;.2,_'.-:.!-/,, ___ _
PHONE NO:
03.41.300
7!'1 {qt, <)7:;:: V 0 "'''1 [.f:, .. ~ ~" .. .I , . ERPB HEARING FEES
Environmental Review and Preservation Board (TOTAL)
Applications for new constmction in the RS and RT zoning districts (two (';V4V~q,)
All other applications/or: New constmction ($900); Renovation ($450); ~1 " Single dwelling unit ($750)
Sign~_(~.3~~ ~o.r first sign,.!?_OJ?r each addiiional sign); Revisions, fences, walls, etc. ($225)
For each additIOnal appearance before the Board ($150)
02.19.161
03.41.200
02.19.161
03.41.200
03.41.200
02.19.161
02.19.161
03.41.200
02.19.161
03.41.200
02.19.161
03.41.200
03.41.200
Appeal ERPB decision ($100)
V ARJANCE, ,FIRST REQIJEST
Advertisement and Notice Fees ............................. ..... ($1,500)
Admin Fee .... " ......................................... "." ............... ($1,500)
EACH ADDITIONAL VARIANCE REQUEST ............. ($1,125)
SPECIAL USE/ SPECIAL EXCEPTION
Advertisement and Notice Fees ................................... ($1,500)
Admin Fee ............................................................. ($1,500)
EACH EXTENSION REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, SPECIAL USE
OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION ...................................... ($500)
REZONING APPLICATION
10 acres or less ($6,000)
More than 10 acres ($20,250)
LDC TEXT AMENDMENT I (General standards, misc. provisions)
Advertisement and' Notice Fees .................................... ($1,500)
Adnlin Fee., ...... " ..... '.e .......... ", .................................... ($1,500)
LDC TEXT AMENDMENT II (Change Permitted Use Scbedule)
Advertisement and Notice Fees .................................... ($1,500)
Admin Fee .......... " ....................................... 1!' ••••••••••• , ....... ($4,500)
PUDIMAJOR CHANGE
Advertisement and Notice Fees .................................. ($1,500)
Admin Fee ............................................................. ($3,750)
PUD MINOR CHANGE
Adnlin Fee ............................................................. ($1,500)
GRAND TOTAL
X:\Fonns\Receipt fOfms\RECEIPT FORM Part 11-4-1 Ldoc
Ordinance No.04-1 1·2077, adopted 1-4-11
White copy to Planning; Pink copy 10 Customer; Yellow copy to Finance
(TOTAL $ 3,000)
(TOTAL $ 3,000)
(TOTAL $ 3,000)
(TOTAL $ 6,000)
(TOTAL $ 5,250)
December 9, 2011
City of South Miami
Zoning & Planning
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami, FL 33143
Re: l>ermit for Signs
Dear Sir:
CTTK, Inc.
6301 Sunset Drive, Suite 202
South Miami, FL 33143
Please be advised that CTTK, Inc. authorizes Professional Signs to make and post a sign
at the property located at 6333 Sunset Drive, South Miami, FL 33146 for the Pineview
Preschool. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (305) 666-0669. '
Sil1Cer~./ ..J.-
Teresla~
President
18'
7Z'
reschool
REPLACE EXISTING SIGN FOR SAME SIZE SANDBLASTED WOOD SIGN
18"
I I
6" [ "-'6-331'~ ATTACHED WITH (6) 3" COMMON NAil
TO EXISTING 4'')(4'' POSTS
NEW PROPOSED SIGN
18"x 72" LAW OFFICE
TO BE REMOVED
8"x 64" LAW OFFICE
TO BE REMOVED
18"x 24" BUILDING NUMBER
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING SIGN
18"
1-
6"[ A .L ..... \.,} ........ .i...A.'-'~.LU{'t'\ I..!O,I:NGtt_GG.e
MANUFACTURE & INSTALL SANDBLASTED WOOD SIGN
FOR MAIN ENTRANCE
Liquid nai exteri« grade
adl1esive
East Elev. Facing Parking
LJ
1~'
Manufacture and install
1" Qeep Sandblasted \M)od Sign
Wind Load Information
I M6 mph
, avid E. fl,4oros P.E. #17757
'9371 S.w. 3rd St.
Miami, Fl,33174 Ph.305-281-1569
Job # F;<;·;£iil"Pi_:,;",'Pr.u,,/.$;;f
Date ;", /i-; / ",f,/!
EXHmIT "A"
,ES 12000186
, 0
~~~
6460 S.W. 35 ST. ~~
MIAMI, FL 33155 FAX(aosl fJ65-23S7
Pineview Pre-School
6333 Sunset Drive Miami. FL.33143
EXHffilT "A"
ES 12000186
, ,
6460 S.W. 35 ST. ~_ •• ,t
MIAMI, FL. 33155 FAX!3051 66S-2357
Pineview Pre-School
6333 Sunset Drive Miami, FL.33143
EXHIBITB
Section 20-4.3(1)(4) RO-Residential Office Districts.
Sign Type Conditions
ADDRESS ID One (1) ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION SIGN per premises permitted, not to exceed one (1)
square foot in area. Indirect illumination is permitted.
BUILDING One (1) BUILDING MARKER SIGN per premises permitted, not to exceed two (2) square
MARKER feet in area.
CONSTRUCTION One (1) CONSTRUCTION SIGN per project, not to exceed four (4) square feet in area
nor six (6) feet in height to be erected only during the progress of actual
construction.
DIRECTIONAL Two (2) DIRECTIONAL SIGNS per lot, not to exceed two (2) square feet in area per
sign nor four (4) feet in height per sign. Direct illumination is permitted.
FLAT One (1) FLAT sign not to exceed six (6) square feet in area, nor six (6) feet in length,
to be located on the postal address side of the building. Signage is not permitted on
side streets facing residences.
NAME PLATE One (1) NAME PLATE identification sign per licensed business establishment, not to
exceed one (1) square foot in area. Indirect illumination is permitted.
POLITICAL One (1) POLITICAL OR CAMPAIGN SIGN may be permitted as provided in Dade County
Code of Ordinances.
REAL ESTATE One (1) REAL ESTATE SIGN per lot, not to exceed six (6) square feet in area. For sites
of five (5) acres or more in area, such signs shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square
feet in area.
TEMPORARY One (1) TEMPORARY sign may be permitted by special permit issued by the Planning
and Zoning Department. Only one (1) sign is permitted per calendar year for each
licensed business establishment. Each sign shall be permitted for no more than 30
days, except that this time limit may be extended by the Planning and Zoning
Department twice, for 30 days each, where total duration, including all approved
extensions, shall not exceed 90 days. A temporary sign may be permitted up to 30
square feet in area. A temporary sign must be firmly affixed to the front face of a
building.
TOW AWAY TOW-AWAY ZONE SIGNS are permitted per Florida Statutes.
ZONE
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBITD
Section 20-4.3(L) -Additional Signage
(L) Additional Signage. Other types of signs, not expressly pennitted by regulations stated in
Section 20-4.3(I), may be approved by the Environmental Review and Preservation
Board (ERPB) when the following conditions are met:
(1) That the proposed sign is not prohibited by Section 20-4.3(E);
(2) That the proposed sign confonns to the South Florida Building Code and other code
regulations, as applicable;
(3) That the proposed additional sign on the building does not occupy more than 30% of the
facade on which it is proposed to be installed or more than 20% of any window area; and
(4) Detached signs may be pennitted on any commercial property with the approval of the
Environmental Review and Preservation Board, including detached signs that exceed the
pennitted location and height standards set forth in Section 20-4.3(I).
1
2
3
4
IN THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, CITY HALL
IN AND FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-097
5 APPLICANT: PROFESSIONAL SIGNS,
6 PROPERTY OWNER: SHELTON & STEWART REALTORS,
7 FOR: PINEVIEW PRESCHOOLS,
8 LOCATION: 6333 SW 72 STREET,
9 REQUEST: SIGNAGE INSTALLATION.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PRESERVATION BOARD
City Hall/Commission Chambers
6130 Sunset Drive
South Miami, Florida
Tuesday, December 20, 2011, 12:05,p.m. to 12:29 p.m.
EXHIBITE
Section 20-4.3 -Sign Regulations
(E) Prohibited Signs and Sign Characteristics. No sign shall be constructed, erected,
used, operated or maintained which:
(1) Blinks, flashes, rotates or displays intermittent lights similar to or
resembling flashing lights customarily associated with danger or
customarily used by police, fire or other emergency vehicles.
(2) Uses the words "stop" or "danger" or implies the need or requirement for
stopping; or which is a copy or imitation of an official sign. Prohibition of
the words "stop" or "danger" does not apply in instances when such words
are used in descriptive lines of advertising, so long as they are not used to
copy or imply any official traffic warning.
(3) Creates a blended background of colored lights with traffic signal lights
which might confuse motorists when viewed from a distance of up to
three hundred (300) feet.
(4) Projects over any public street, sidewalk or alley in a single-family
residential zoning district.
(5) Is a snipe sign on either public or private property.
(6) Is a ballo<:m or blimp.
(7) Is located on the roof, except for signs located on mansard or shed roofs
where such signs are permitted.
(8) Advertises products, services or establishments not available on premises.
(9) Is located on a back lit and translucent awning.
(10) Is a flat or hanging sign not providing adequate clearance above public
walkways as required by the Land Development Code and the South
Florida Building Code.
(11) Blocks egress, ingress, light or ventilation to a site.
(12) Conveys the impression that property or structures can be used for
purposes not permitted by this Code or other regulations.
(13) Is a pennant, streamer or other fluttering, spinning or similar type sign,
including all animated signs.
(14) Is portable or movable, including those signs that are tied down with metal
straps, chaining or otherwise temporarily anchored to an existing structure
or other similar method of anchoring, excluding permitted PORTABLE
OUTDOOR DINING signs.
(15) Is a sign painted or affixed in any manner to any vehicle, trailer or truck or
similar transportable device and which is used to advertise a place of
business or activity as viewed from a public right-of-way, except for:
(a) Commercial vehicle signs when such vehicles are operational and
used daily for delivery or service purposes and not used or
intended for use as portable signs, and
(b) Buses, taxis or similar common carrier vehicles which are licensed
or certified by Dade County or other governmental agencies.
1
2 APPEARANCES
3 FOR THE BOARD:
4 1 : Beth Schwartz
5 2 : Sharon McCain
6 3: Danny Montana
7 4 : Bob Welsh
8 5 : Edward Corlett, IV
6: Christopher Brimo, 9 AICP, Director. Planning and Zoning
10 Department
11 7: Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez, Principal Planner. Planning
12 and Zoning Department
13
14 FOR THE APPLICANT:
15 8: Nelson Suarez (Owner, Male)
16 9: Cynthia Suarez (Owner, Female)
17 10: Suzanne Dochertz, Esq., (Legal Representative)
18 11: Andy Oquendo, Professional Signs (Sign Company)
19 ALSO PRESENT:
20 Tiffany Hood, Office Support. Planning and Zoning
21 Department
22 Marcus W. Lightfoot, Permit Facilitator. Planning and
23 Zoning Departmen t
1
2 (Thereupon, the following proceedings were had :)
3 3:17:26.8 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: For the record,
4 it's: 11-097 -Applicant: Professional Signs -Property Owner:
5 Shelton & Stewart Realtors -For: Pineview Preschools -
6 Location: 6333 SW 72 Street -Request: Signage Installation. Not
7 to sound redundant but this is located in the residential office
8 zone district. The land development code, is section 24.34,
9 clearly identifies the signage that's permitted in the R.O. The
10 application request is indeed for the installation of two signs.
11 Okay? We've got two signs. I'm going to start off with the first
12 sign which I'm not going to read the report.
13 3:18:18.6 ~ Sharon McCain: What is permitted in R.O.?
14 3:18:22.4 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: It's in the book.
15 That's in the book.
16 3:18:24.6 ~ Sharon McCain: No but is it in the backup?
17 3:18:27.2 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: Well it' sin your
18 code. Everything that's permitted in R.O. is listed in the code.
19 3:18:32.1 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay but how many signs
20 permi tted-
21 3:18:35.7 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: I don't think that
22 way. I think of the sign type that it's under the zoning
23 district, and then it's up to the ERPB to say, "Too many," or,
24 "not desirable," and so forth ...
1 3:18:52.6 ~ Sharon McCain: I have a simple question. How
2 many signs are allowed in residential office?
3 3: 18: 59. 6 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: Well...
4 3:19:00.3 ~ Christopher Brimo: If I might Mr. Chair, of
5 course, Brimo ,again. Planning Director. R.O. allows for the
6 signs that are being requested. The nameplate sign, it's
7 allowed, one per licensed business within the R.O.
8 3:19:15.3 ~ Sharon McCain: One sign?
9 3:19:16.7 ~ Christopher Brimo: One nameplate, per licensed
10 business. So if you have, 5 businesses in that each, licensed
11 business can have a nameplate sign, which is within that one
12 square foot dimension. The other sign that is being requested is
13 a sign that has-I'm sorry.
14 3:19:37.6 ~ Sharon McCain: You know I know it's late, but
15 it's very frustrating as a member of this, 6 months, and not
16 having to love this when I don't find the backup in here okay?
17 We've seen other applications, for example the 7000 building.
18 How many signs? We just read the backup. Four signs are allowed.
19 I just want simple language. How many signs are allowed?
20 3:20:01.7 ~ Christopher Brimo: Let me pull that section for
21 you and I will get you on that.
22 3:20:04.5 ~ Sharon McCain: Why isn't it in here?
23 3:20:06.2 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: There's a 3 page
24 report. May I chair?
1 3:20:09.9 ~ Sharon McCain: I just want to know how many
2 signs are permitted in R.O.
3 3:20:12.3 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: You can have-let me
4 finish the report, then if you have further questions I will
5 gladly answer them please. The R.O. zoning district, that's
6 where the site is located, and the request again is for two
7 signs. One of them is a landscaping sign, which there is a
8 precedent. There is landscaping signs that have been allowed
9 the R.O. zoning district. Several different sites, throughout
10 Sunset Drive, for example, similar approvals include: 6361 on
in
11 Sunset, 6295 on Sunset. This is in lieu of a flat sign for which
12 as we know would allow one sign per side of the building. This
13 being R.O., which does not allow signage facing the residential,
14 that's why the other sign, which is the nameplate, is indeed
15 facing the parking lot. It is one nameplate identifying the
16 licensed business as the director stated. It's based on the
17 licenses that are in that established building. That is a one
18 square foot sign in area. That's what the request is for. You
19 clearly see it on the plans prepared by professional signs. That
20 east elevation facing the parking is a small, 6 inches by 18
21 inches. On the side of the wall, next to the window, where a
22 nameplate would be. That is by the code. There's also the
23 precedence of the existing sign that's facing Sunset drive.
24 Adjacent to the sidewalk it's literally between the sidewalk and
1 the physical barrier. It also reads, "Pineview Preschools." This
2 sign is supposed to be maintained as a landscape. It's supposed
3 to be compatible with the architecture of the building. That's
4 the landscaping criteria for landscape signs. As I said there's
5 a precedent. The name-I'm sorry but the number 6331 indeed is a
6 typo, the address for this side is 6331 and so it will have the
7 4 digit as indicated. Just indicated incorrectly. There you see
8 the existing sign, which was previously approved by ERPB.
9 There's other signs in the neighborhood such as State Farm and
10 other businesses that have the landscape sign approved in lieu
11 of the flat sign. Staff recommends approval of both signs, with
12 the following conditions: That the additional signage will
13 require for submittal, a third sign, any other signage, for
14 Pineview Preschools, and any comments and concerns from the
15 board. Thank you. Any questions?
16 3:23:43.2 ~ Danny Montana: No questions?
17 3:23:43.8 ~ Sharon McCain: Yea, I have a lot of
18 comments here, I'm sorry but-
19 3:23:44.7 ~ Danny Montana: Oh sorry.
20 3:23:46.6 ~ Sharon McCain: You know this still doesn't help
21 me out. I see a lot of backup in here on what the ERPB in 2003
22 approved that was not part of the land development code, but we
23 are here 8 months, 8 years later, and I'm here to do it right.
24 Although I see a lot of staff analysis approving what the
1 applicant wants, even though the land development says they
2 can't have it. I would appreciate having, like other
3 applications, what the land development codes states for R.O.
4 Which this still doesn't help me. I believe it's one sign. Is
5 that correct?
6 3:24:31.2 ~ Nelson Suarez: It's two signs.
7 3:24:32.4 ~ Sharon McCain: For residential office?
8 3:24:33.4 ~ Nelson Suarez: Yea there is one sign-one wall
9 sign and one landscaping sign.
10 3:24:42.1 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay let's go to page one of the
11 backup. It says the proposed exterior signage is located in R.O.
12 The applicants intent is to revise and maintain the character of
13 the sign, its current location, facing Sunset by reduce.
14 However, according to the city's land development code,
15 landscape signs are not listed as permitted within residential
16 office. Although landscape signs are not permitted by right,
17 within R.O. zoning district, the existing landscape sign was
18 part of and ERP approved site plan in 2003, in conjunction with
19 the renovation. Well in 2003 it wasn't a daycare center is that
20 correct? Okay, so ...
21 3:25:32.0 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: No the renovation of
22 it being prior to being a day school because a day school was
23 not around in 2003.
1 3:25:38.7 ~ Sharon McCain: In 2011 it's going to be a
2 daycare center so, what kind of sign can we have, in 2011, that
3 the land development code approves for this.
4 3:25:52.6 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: The land development
5 code has approved landscape signs for R.O. districts. As a
6 matter of fact they are somewhat preferable because they are
7 compatible with the architecture of the building. Particularly
8 this building that is made to look like wood, landscape and park
9 like manner.
10 3:26:11.5 ~ Sharon McCain: So then why does it state in the
11 last paragraph they are not permitted in--landscapes are not
12 permitted in an R.O.?
13 3:26:21.5 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: That is correct.
14 3:26:22.7 ~ Sharon McCain: You just said that they are
15 permitted.
16 3:26:24.5 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: They've been
17 approved by the board. The board has the discretion to approve
18 beyond what the code allows.
19 3:26:31.2 ~ Beth Schwartz: That is correct pursuant to
20 section 24.3 L.
21 3:26:33.1 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: It's 24.3 B.
22 3:26:35.4 ~ Sharon McCain: L.
23 3:26:35.8 ~ Beth Schwartz: Correct L.
24 3:26:36.5 ~ Sharon McCain: Real simple--
1 3:26:36.8 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: Additional signage,
2 which permits other sign types of signs not expressly, permitted
3 by regulation, stated in 4.3I.
4 3:26:44.9 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: May be approved by
5 the ERPB. This sign has been approved by the board.
6 3:26:51.2 ~ Sharon McCain: But it wasn't.
7 3:26:51.9 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: They just want to
8 change a copy now, for the new tenant.
9 3:26:53.8 ~ Sharon McCain: That's not what this is about.
10 It says although landscape signs are not permitted by right,
11 within residential office. Is that what it says? In your last
12 paragraph that's what it says right? I just want to do what's
13 correct by the code. I just keep going around in a circle here
14 and I'm not happy. You know it's very frustrating for me to get
15 to this level right now. I'm sorry and I apologize to the board
16 members and the applicant.
17 3:27:26.3 ~ Christopher Brimo: If I might Mr. Chair.
18 3:27:28.0 ~ Sharon McCain: I just want to know, are
19 landscape signs permitted in R.O.?
20 3:27:32.8 ~ Christopher Brimo: Landscape signs are not
21 permitted in R.O. Flat signs are permitted in R.O. as Mr.
22 Cabrera had indicated, this sign was approved previously by the
23 board at two separate occasions, and the reason that the report
24 is written the way it is, as staff recommending approval. Since
1 it was part of prior approvals for the site, it felt that there
2 would and there are other R.O. districts that have had approved
3 signs by the board. However, they are not allowed by right.
4 3:28:04.1 -Sharon McCain: Okay, I would like, that, in the
5 future, to be explained in here. You know, just because like the
6 other lady that got up here and said, "You know, you're going to
7 set precedence. The ERPB board in 2003 voted for it even though
8 it wasn't approved so that means we need to approve it?" no. You
9 know, I'm a stickler for doing, what's (unintelligible). If you
10 don't like the land development code and the signage, or
11 whatever the issue is, please change it. But it's 12:15 and I
12 would appreciate the documentation be written here. As of 2011,
13 Chris.
14 3:28:43.1 -Christopher Brimo: Yes?
15 3:28:43.6 -Sharon McCain: What can this daycare center,
16 what type of this signage can they have according to our land
17 development code? Two signs?
18 3:28:51.0 -Christopher Brimo: They can have a flat sign on
19 the building.
20 3:28:53.3 -Sharon McCain: Okay
21 3:28:53.7 -Christopher Brimo: Instead of a landscape sign.
22 3:28:54.9 -Sharon McCain: Okay and what else?
23 3:28:56.0 -Christopher Brimo: They can have their
24 nameplate sign.
1 3:28:57.8 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay.
2 3:28:58.7 ~ Christopher Brimo: They can have their
3 numerical identification signs.
4 3:29:01.5 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay.
5 3:29:02.4 ~ Christopher Brimo: That list I provided you.
6 3:29:04.1 ~ Sharon McCain: Mmhmm.
7 3:29:04.4 ~ Christopher Brimo: Has that enumerated on that.
8 3:29:05.8 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay. That's what I'm going to
9 propose. That we go according to the land development code in
10 2011, that was in 2003 and which actually gives them more
11 signage than they needed before.
12 3:29:23.6 ~ Cynthia Suarez: .1 just wanted to note, that
13 landscape sign like Mrs. Cabrera said, was previously approved
14 and I know that you are concentrating on 2011, however--
is 3:29:32.7 ~ Sharon McCain: No I'm concentrating on 2003
16 which was not approved in 2003.
17 3:29:39.3 ~ Cynthia Suarez: Yes it was.
18 3:29:39.8 ~ Sharon McCain: But it was not permitted.
19 3:29:42.1 ~ Cynthia Suarez: Correct but it was approved by
20 the board.
21 3:29:44.4 ~ Sharon McCain: This is a new board, 8 years
22 later.
23 3:29:47.9 ~ Cynthia Suarez: I understand, I just want you
24 to understand my rationale on the sign.
1
2
3:29:51.0 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay.
3:29:51.4 Cynthia Suarez: And the importance it carries.
3 The board has mentioned their concerns and are about the
4 traffic. Now we want to get those parents into the property and
5 if you, I know you are all familiar with the property, it is set
6 very back. SO if we put a wall sign. There's no visual from the
7 street on that side. So you may have parents wondering, "Where
8 do I go?" Whereas this sign, is right on the st-:'" right at our
9 entrance.
10 3:30:22.3 ~ Sharon McCain: okay but if I'm a parent and I
11 bring my child there on Monday, and I bring my child there on
12 Tuesday and I bring my child there on Wednesday, I know where to
13 go, because I've visited that site, and when you enter that site
14 it says, "Shelton Building to the right, daycare ce-" that's the
15 way I see it.
16 3:30:40.1 ~ Cynthia Suarez: But there's also the point that
17 we want to be able to-for new parents to know where we're at.
18 3:30:45.5 ~ Sharon McCain: How many times does it take
19 after one or two visits to the property to drop the child off to
20 know that there's-that the building is to the left?
21 3:30:54.5 ~ Cynthia Suarez: Ma'am, I'm saying new families,
22 looking for our school, and even for advertisement purposes. You
23 cannot see that wall sign if you put it on the wall. This
24 property is set to back for that.
1 3:31:09.2 ~ Suzanne Dochertz: And other places have been
2 approved for the sign.
3 3:31:12.2 ~ Sharon McCain: I am well aware of that sir.
4 3:31:13.8 ~ Suzanne Dochertz: I'm saying, 2010, 2009, 2011;
5 they have been approved for landscaping signs.
6 3:31:19.3 ~ Sharon McCain: But you know what sir, there's a
7 big binder, right there, that I took an oath to abide by and I'm
8 not going to
9 3:31:30.5 ~ Cynthia Suarez: I understand we're just asking
10 for your consideration, that's all.
11 3:31:34.0 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay well you know what-
12 3:31:35.4 ~ Suzanne Dochertz: Before here today we were
13 allowed 4 other signs. But only 4 were uh ...
14 3:31:39.5 ~ Sharon McCain: No they asked for 8 and got 4.
15 3:31:43.3 ~ Andy Oquendo: But just may I add--
16 3:31:43.8 ~ Sharon McCain: According to the land
17 development code, sir. , .
18 3:31:45.8 ~ Andy Oquendo: This board has wide discretion
19 with regard to signage and your discretion is given for a
20 purpose. If it was only about following the code exactly with no
21 deviation, it would be staff approval. We come to a board for
22 uniqueness of properties, like this one, that say, "this is
23 what's allowed in R.O., this is what makes sense at this site,
1 this is reasonable and appropriate, and that's within your
2 discretion." that's why you sit here.
3 3:32:10.3 ~ Sharon McCain: Ma'am, I know why I sit here,
4 okay? And to tell you the truth I'm going to go according to the
5 code.
6 3:32:21.3 ~ Andy Oquendo: That's your discretion.
7 3:32:22.5 ~ Sharon McCain: And the people that sit here
8 now, are total different group than 2003 and I don't know how
9 they're going to vote, but you know what? I'm not going to open
10 up Pandora's Box. I'm not going to do it. And as far as
11 discretion goes-as far as my vote, I don't have discretion. I
12 go with according to what's in on the books. Now I'm going to
13 say it out loud and clear. I don't appreciate when staff writes,
14 what we did in 2003. It's like, who is staff working for? I work
15 for free, and I work and I take an oath to abide by the land
16 development code, whether it's right or wrong. So I'm going to
17 stick to my guns and I'm going to vote consistently the way I
18 have been. Now I'm going to ask you as a board member what would
19 help you out to get, other than a landscape sign, in there.
20 Because there's nothing right? I'm sure there's something.
21 3:33:27.9 ~ Cynthia Suarez: We can certainly place a wall
22 sign and that's not going to be seen.
23 3:33:31.5 ~ Sharon McCain: Can you put a wall sign on the
24 fence that faces Sunset?
1 3:33:34.7 ~ Danny Montana: No.
2 3:33:35.4 ~ Bob Welsh: No.
3 3:33:35.8 ~ Cynthia Suarez: That's not allowed.
4 3:33:37.7 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: We're using the
5 characteristics of a landscape sign that is allowed in other
6 districts. It's defined in the code (unintelligible)
7 3:33:46.1 ~ Sharon McCain: Well don't you think-?
8 3:33:46.8 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: Landscape or
9 maintaining its height, that's the way it's been approved on
10 this site, and other sites in R.O. It's not just, "let's put a
11 sign here on th~ fence," we don't allow signage on fences.
12 3:33:59.0 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay. Going back to question for
13 staff is then, how come in 7 or 8 years, that you're reverting
14 back to what we used to do, why hasn't it changed? It should
15 have changed.
16 3:34:10.6 ~ Cynthia Suarez: So you're proposing that I put
17 a sign on the fence.
18 3:34:13.2 ~ Sharon McCain: I never said that. I asked, "Is
19 that feasible?"
20 3:34:15.3 ~ Cynthia Suarez: Okay. rather than just sticking
21 to what's been there for years that looks wonderful on the
22 property and that's going to obviously attract business, direct
23 parents, I don't see how a sign on the fence-
1 3:34:26.6 ~ Sharon McCain: As a parent of two that are now
2 out of school I don't think I need a sign there on a daily basis
3 to tell me how to get, if you've all been to the sight-
4 3:34:34.6 ~ Cynthia Suarez: You're entitled to your
5 opinion.
6 3:34:37.2 ~ Danny Montana: I would really like to get this
7 to a vote now.
8 3:34:39.0 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay, I would like-let me get
9 this straight, before I was, you know, taken off the subject. We
10 are allowed how many signs according to land development code?
11 2?
12 3:34:49.6 ~ Cynthia Suarez: Mr. Brimo?
13 3:34:52.0 ~ Sharon McCain: Again. And we won't divert
14 because I see we have 5 people from the school. This daycare
15 center that is, you know, for some reason, for a sign. Mr.
16 Brimo, how many signs-
17 3:35:04.3 ~ Christopher Brimo: They can have a flat sign;
18 they can have their name plate sign.
19 3:35:05.6 ~ Sharon McCain: A flat sign.
20 3:35:06.0 ~ Christopher Brimo: They already have a number
21 sign on the structure.
22 3:35:09.3 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay. Where can we put this flat
23 sign to identify?
1 3:35:12.9 ~ Christopher Brimo: On the facade of the
2 building.
3 3:35:13.9 ~ Sharon McCain: On the facade of the building.
4 3:35:15.2 ~ Christopher Brimo: Correct.
5 3:35:16.0 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay and the nameplate sign go
6 at the entrance of the door.
7 3:35:19.7 ~ Christopher Brimo: Correct.
8 3:35:20.8 ~ Sharon McCain: Third one?
9 3:35:20.9 Christopher Brimo: The number sign which is
10 existing.
11 3:35:23.9 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay
12 3:35:24.9 ~ (unintelligible question from unidentified
13 person)
14 3:35:26.3 ~ Christopher Brimo: Yea.
15 3:35:26.6 ~ Cynthia Suarez: Its address ID, building
16 marker, construction.
17 3:35:29.4 ~ Christopher Brimo: They have signs that direct-
18 directional signs that they can have.
19 3:35:33.0 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay.
20 3:35:33.4 Christopher Brimo: That is already on premise.
21 3:35:34.3 ~ Sharon McCain: So in other words, this is what
22 I'm going to recommend. Before I recommend it, the
23 recommendation says according to the ERPB department says that
24 they are approving a landscape sign, when the land development
1 code does not approve a landscape sign in R.O. So my suggestion
2 is to amend this as 3 signs according to the land development
3 code. To have the flat sign on the building, identifying it as
4 Pineview Preschool. Nameplate sign over the entrance doorway.
5 And the marker sign that's already there that's according to
6 code. Is there a 2nd?
7 3:36:14.2 ~ Bob Welsh: 2 nd •
8 3:36:18.9 ~ Danny Montana: Any other comments?
9 3:36:21.6 ~ Beth Schwartz: I don't know if this is moot at
10 this point but when you're talking about, maybe I missed this
11 earlier, the existing landscape sign that faces sunset drive,
12 you mentioned reducing it to nine square feet. What was it
13 reducing it from? What to nine square feet? It's on the very
14 front page. Second to last paragraph, from the bottom.
15 3:36:49.3 ~ Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez: Well the proposal is
16 16 inches by 72 inches so the existing one could indeed be
17 larger. As you can see it reads, "Law Offices of Shelton-" so
18 the new copy that reads, "Pineview Preschool," is going to be
19 indeed smaller than what's existing there now that you can see
20 on the bottom photograph. That's illustrating the new and the
21 existing. That's where that calculation comes from.
22 3:37:22.9 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay so we have my amendment. Do
23 I need to repeat it?
24 3:37:27.2 ~ Danny Montana: Is there a 2nd?
1 3:37:29.0 -Sharon McCain: There's a 2nd.
2 3:37:29.3 -Danny Montana: How do you vote Ms. Schwartz?
3 3:37:31.8 -Beth Schwartz: Yes.
4 3:37:33.6 -Sharon McCain: McCain. Yes.
5 3:37:35.1 -Bob Welsh: Welsh. Yes. This thing's got to go
6 before the commission and change the LDC.
7 3:37:40.5 -Edward Corlett, IV: No. I vote no.
8 3:37:44.2 -Sharon McCain: Wait, I'm sorry. I vote for my
9 amendment, yes.
10 3:37:48.8 -Danny Montana: This is voting for the
11 amendment.
12 3:37:50.1 -Bob Welsh: For the amendment.
13 3:37:50.4 -Edward Corlett, IV: Yeah.
14 3:37:50.9 -Sharon McCain: Okay. And what was the vote? 3
15 to 2?
16 3:37:55.1 -Danny Montana: Your amendment passed.
17 3:37:56.0 -Sharon McCain: Okay.
18 3:37:57.4 -Suzanne Dochertz: I have a question towards
19 Sharon McCain. When you say that you are on the board for,
20 certain things that belong on that--on the land development-
21 yea. Then what's the reason of having you on the board when we
22 could just go to them directly and they got to go by the code.
23 But now when you have you guys in front of us, it's for you guys
1 to give us some type of suggestion so we could try to fix it. I
2 just don't think it was right to say those words.
3 3:38:31.0 ~ Sharon McCain: I can answer that. Because I
4 don't think the planning department, specifically the
5 environmental review section, should recommend to any applicant,
6 anything other than what's written in the land development code.
7 I will agree with 5. That there are many things in the land
8 development codes that are ambiguou?, and that should be
9 changed.
10 3:38:56.7 ~ Suzanne Dochertz: Okay.
11 3:39:00.4 ~ Cynthia Suarez: And just my last comment.
12 There's a series of properties on Sunset Drive that have been
13 approved for landscape signs. Some which have not come before
14 you when they've had a change in tenant, how will you deal with
15 those, and have you ever voted for a landscape sign in an R.O.?
16 3:39:17.5 ~ Sharon McCain: I don't recall that I have.
17 3:39:19.6 ~ Cynthia Suarez: Okay.
18 3:39:20.5 ~ Sharon McCain: I can't remember.
19 3:39:22.4 ~ Cynthia Suarez: And just for the record, I
20 would like, that is public record. I would like to find how
21 that's been voted on before.
22 3:39:30.2 ~ Beth Schwartz: Landscape signs?
23 3:39:32.3 ~ Cynthia Suarez: Yes. On R.O. district by Ms.
24 McCain.
1 3:39:34.8 ~ Beth Schwartz: She's a new member but I can
2 double check. They're all new members actually.
3 3:39:40.3 ~ Sharon McCain: We're all new members, are you
4 targeting me?
5 3:39:43.9 ~ Cynthia Suarez: No not at all Mrs. McCain,
6 that's how I felt today and the DVD will show it.
7 3:39:48.5 ~ Sharon McCain: The what?
8 3:39:49.2 ~ Cynthia Suarez: The recording will show it.
9 3:39:51.8 ~ Sharon McCain: Let me just say this for the
10 record. You know, I do this voluntarily, as we all do. It's
11 12:30 p.m. I rely on what I'm giving here, in the backup. Okay?
12 Sometimes-And I read it. I mean I read the backup and sometimes
13 there's stuff there that I don't understand. Sometimes there's
14 stuff missing. Sometimes there's stuff that should be there. But
15 let me ask you a question, why is it necessary that we have 5
16 members from the nursery to come out for a sign?
17 3:40:26.7 ~ Andy Oquendo: (unintelligible) they know.
18 3:40:29.2 ~ Sharon McCain: No, you're the applicant. I'm
19 just here-
20 3:40:30.9 ~ Cynthia Suarez: Ma'am, I am the owner. My
21 husband's the owner.
22 3:40:35.1 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay.
23 3:40:35.3 ~ Cynthia Suarez: He is from the-
24 3:40:35.9 ~ Andy Oquendo: -from the sign ...
1
2
3
4
5
3:40:36.1
required to be
3:40:38.2
3:40:38.5
representatives
~ Cynthia
here.
~ Sharon
~ Cynthia
and also
Suarez: From the sign company and he's
McCain: Okay.
Suarez: And these two individuals are
our architect for our first item. So
6 they are the people that are here to give you their professional
7 opinion, when asked.
8 3:40:49.6 ~ Sharon McCain: Okay that's fine.
9 3:40:50.1 ~ Cynthia Suarez: When asked.
10 3:40:50.8 ~ Sharon McCain: But you know personally speaking
11 I don't think there's a problem with the flat sign where we
12 suggested it.
13 3:40:57.6 ~ Cynthia Suarez: Even though it' snot going to
14' be viewed.
15 3:41:01.1 ~ Sharon McCain: Well that's your opinion. But,
16 you know, I will abide by, just like this painting thing that
17 was not done according to the way it was written. I'm sorry.
18 3:41:11.1 ~ Cynthia Suarez: Thank you.
19 ***
20 (Thereupon the transcript of December 20, 2011 was
21 concluded. )
22 ***
23