Res. No. 118-08-127151, 12 KIJ' ON III j IM 10 11. 1 1110KI) ='V I Owe] V VMII M
U "'1619113 1
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review and Preservation Board (ERPB) at its July 1, 2008
meeting reviewed Application No. ERPB-08-053 submitted by the 64 Development Corporation requesting
approval of mural/banner signage installed over two sides of the green construction fence located at the
5966 S. Dixie Highway; and
VMEREAS, the Environmental Review and Preservation Board reviewed Application No. ERPB-
08-053 in accordance with Section 20-4.3(L) of the Land Development Code which provides that the
Board has the ability to approve additional signage types, or any signage that is not expressly permitted by
the current signage regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review and Preservation Board at its July 1, 2008 meeting
granted approval for the signage facing S. Dixie Highway, required the removal of the signage facing SW
74th Street and to allow the signage to remain for one year; and
WHEREAS, Section 20-6.2(A) of the Land Development Code allows for an appeal of an ERPB
decision to be made to the City Commission by the applicant, interested citizens, or the City administration;
and
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2008 the City Manager on behalf of the City administration filed an
appeal to the decision of the Environmental Review and Preservation Board in the matter of Application No.
ERPB-08-053 requesting the City Commission to overturn and reverse the ERPB decision allowing the
mural/banner signage facing S. Dixie Highway; and
WHEREAS, Section 20-6.2 (E) of the Land Development Code provides that the City Commission
may reverse, affirm, or modify any decision of the Environmental Review and Preservation Board on which
there has been an appeal.
Imp
RVIIIIIJIM-13 a 111 Intel I &TIM] WIIIIIIJ VON §0 1 alifflargel', I
Section 1. The City Commission hereby affirms the decision of the July 1, 2008 Environmental
Review and Preservation Board decision on Application No. ERPB-08-053 which allowed 64 Development
Corporation to place a mural/banner sign facing S. Dixie Highway at a construction site located at 5966 S.
Dixie Highway.
hereof.
Section 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately after the adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29TH day of July, 2008
I;,"?= 0 ►r, v I
19
APPROVED:
/- �C�
bfY CLERK 'MAYOR
�#t U
X:\Comm Items\2008\7-29-08\ERPB-08-053 Appeal Affirm Resol.doc
Commission Vote:
4-1
Mayor Feliu:
Yea
Vice Mayor Beasley:
Nay
Commissioner Wiscombe:
Yea
Commissioner Palmer:
Yea
Commissioner Beckman:
Yea
iMir,
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
mrrf-m �crinr- enr-nannnwlnl Intl 2001
Evora: Ricardo Soto -Lopez MUP, Planning Director
Date: July 29, 2008 ITEM No.
The Land Development Code Section 20- 6.2(A) provides that a decision or recommendation
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 filed by the applicant, the South Miami
City Manager on behalf of the Administration, dated July 7, 2008. 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).
PROPOSED SIGNAGE
In May 2008 the 64 Development Corp. installed a green construction fence on all four sides of a
new building site located 5966 S. Dixie Highway. The company also fully covered two of the
sides (Dixie Highway and SW 74 Street) with promotional advertisement signage in the form of
a mural /banner. Each mural/ banner sign measured over 600 square feet. There were no permits
applied for.
The corporation was advised by the Planning Department that proposed signage due to size did
not qualify as a wall, mural or banner sign and therefore was not permitted. The company
requested the opportunity to go before the Environmental Review and Preservation Board
(ERPB) seeking approval of signage not permitted by the sign regulations. Section 20- 4.3(L) of
the Land Development Code provides that the Board has the ability to approve additional signage
types, or any signage that is not expressly permitted by the current signage regulations.
EI2PP ACTION:
The ERPB at its July 1, 2008 meeting reviewed an application for 64 Development Corp. to
allow all of the mural /banner signage to remain. The Planning Department recommended denial
of the signage and suggested that the standard temporary banner sign (maximum -30 sq. ft.) would
be sufficient:
The final decision of the ERPB was to grant approval for the signage facing S. Dixie Highway,
require the removal of the signage facing SW 74`x' Street and to allow the signage to remain for
one year. The developer immediately removed the mural /banner from the side facing SW 74`x'
Street.
REASONS FOR APPEAL
The City Administration's appeal requests the City Commission to overturn the decision of the
ERPB which allowed promotional advertisement signage facing S. Dixie Highway. The
Administration's application lists the following reasons for the appeal:
• Signage size of 690 square feet is excessive; it exceeds the 30 square foot temporary
sign permitted by Code;
• Signage advertises products/ services not related to the site;
• Signage approval could create a precedent for other construction sites;
• Planning Department recommended denial of the proposed signage.
It is important to note that signage was installed without approval or a permit. Code Enforcement
issued a courtesy violation notice and advised them to remove the advertising mural. The
application to the ERPB for special consideration places a temporary stay on their violation.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Administration is requesting the City Commission reverse that portion of the decision
made by the ERPB on July 1, 2008 which permits the signage on the S. Dixie Highway side.
Documentation:
Draft Resolution
ERPB Appeal Application
ERPB Staff Report/Application 7-1-08
ERPB Minutes Excerpt 7-1-08
Public Notices
RSUSAY
X:\Cornrn Items\2008\7-29-08\ERPB Appeal CM Report,doc
7 4 R 4 V.?W;2
Z, 0,
101
n R;
J U L I
0 7 200
CITY CL EPIC'S OFFICE
City of South Miami
Environmental Review and Preservation Board - E R P B
APPEAL OF DECISION TO CITY COMMISSION
An appeal of an ERPB decision or recommendation may be filed at any time before a building permit is issued
by filing the same with the City Clerk upon a form prescribed therefore. Appeals may be taken by the applicant,
interested citizens, or the city administration (per Section 20-6.2 (A) of City's Land Development Code). The
City Commission will hear and enter a decision on all appeals within 60 days of the filing of an appeal
ERPB Case No.: 08-053 Date of Decision of ERPB: July 1, 2008
Subject Address 5966 South Dixie Highway
INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO SUBJECT CASE:
Name (Print Name)
Contact No
Approval of a muralfbanner sign with promotional advertisement on the South Dixie Highway frontage at 5966 South
Dixie Highway; sign to remain one year after permit is issued.
Signage was placed without approval or permit;
Signage size of 690 square feet is excessive; it exceeds a 30 square feet temporary sign permitted by Code.
Signage advertises products/services not related to the site.
Signage approval creates a precedent for other sites.
Planning Department recommended denial of the proposed sign
ae
PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LINE ABOVE
SUBMIT THIS FORM TO CITY CLERK
X.-(Comm ltems1200W-29-081ERPB,4ppeal 3966 S Dixie Signage .doc
July 2, 2008
DATE
APPLICANT
INTERESTED CITIZEN
CITY ADMINISTRATION
AjibolaBalogun
305-668-2510
Approval of a muralfbanner sign with promotional advertisement on the South Dixie Highway frontage at 5966 South
Dixie Highway; sign to remain one year after permit is issued.
Signage was placed without approval or permit;
Signage size of 690 square feet is excessive; it exceeds a 30 square feet temporary sign permitted by Code.
Signage advertises products/services not related to the site.
Signage approval creates a precedent for other sites.
Planning Department recommended denial of the proposed sign
ae
PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LINE ABOVE
SUBMIT THIS FORM TO CITY CLERK
X.-(Comm ltems1200W-29-081ERPB,4ppeal 3966 S Dixie Signage .doc
July 2, 2008
DATE
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
........... N Mi-1-1 FZ_W "0 W1291*09TT WC
To: Chair & Members, Environmental
Review & Preservation Board
Via: Sanford A. Youlkilis, A11CP
Acting Planning Director
From: Marcus W. Lightfoot
Permit Facilitator
Applicant: 64 Development Corp.
Location: 5966 South Dixie Highway
Request: Signage Installation
Date: July 1, 2008
Tuesday 8:30 a.m.
Re: ERPB-08-053
APPLICANT'S REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval to install a mural advertising sign which will be
attached to the construction fence that surrounds the above referenced property.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Located in the General Retail (GR) zoning district, the proposed mural sign will be
utilized to display information pertaining to the construction of the new multi-use building
which is currently under construction at the above referenced location. This information
includes contact information for the real estate agency, Holly Real Estate, which is
handling the leasing of space within the building.
Pursuant to Section 20-4.3(B) of the Land Development Code, a mural sign shall mean
any painted image or graphic which is applied to a building or structure, where no
portion projects more than three (3) inches from the surface of the principal building. At
a meeting held between the applicants and staff, the Acting Planning Director ruled that
a fence can be considered a structure and advised the applicant to submit their sign for
review by the Board. Therefore, pursuant to Section 20-43(1)(6) of the Land
Development Code, signage is permitted as follows:
One (1) MURAL SIGN is permitted per licensed premises where text and
logos are limited to 30% of a single fagade which is facing or is primarily
visible from South Dixie Highway; graphics, including texts and logos, are
limited to 40% of this same single fagade area; scenic murals are not limited
regarding area, but are limited to same single face as any graphic mural,
text and logos (if any).
The proposed sign in question exceeds the regulations listed above. Also pursuant to
the Prohibited Signs and Sign Characteristics, Section 20-4.3(E)(8) of the Land
Development Code, no sign shall be constructed, erected, used, operated or maintained
which advertises products, services or establishments not available on the premises.
5966 South Dixie Highway
ERPB-08-053
Signage Installation
July 1, 2008
Page 2 of 2
It is important to note that signage has already been installed without permit and applied
over the required green construction fencing. Code Enforcement has issued a courtesy
violation notice and advised them to remove the advertising mural. The application to
the ERPB for special consideration places a temporary stay on their violation.
RECOMMENDATION: Denial with the following recommendations:
The Planning Department would suggest that the applicant apply for a temporary sign,
which must comply with the regulations set forth in Section 20-4.3(1)(5) of the Land
Development Code. These regulations are as follows:
One (1) TEMPORARY sign may be permitted by special permit issued by
the Planning. Division. 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 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
It should be noted that pursuant to Section 20-4.3(L) of the Land Development Code,
members of the Board have the ability to approve additional signage types, or any
signage that is not expressly permitted by the regulations listed in Section 20-4.3(1) of
the Land Development Code.
The Planning Department also recommends that if any temporary signage is approved
by the Board, it must comply with the following conditions:
Temporary signage must be located on S. Dixie Highway only, and be removed
once construction of the multi-use building is complete.
Attachments:
• ERPB application, dated June 19, 2008
• Article from South Miami New: "New Eco-Friendly Office Building Breaks Ground in South Miami,"
dated June 17 — 23, 2008
• Applicant Photographs;
• Boundary Survey (On File).
C06 SOUTH MMM, FL
STREET ADDRESS OF JOB: -547
PROPERTY %,mmn.
ADDRESS:
TEL. NO. ' 305 - 6V � - / Zf �
WHAT IS THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY?
' RETAIL STOR1
BUSINESS OFFICE SINGLE-FANELY RESIDENCE
CE
_4B 7-�
ApARTN ENT OR TOWNHOUSE MEDICAL OFFICE - AUTO REPAIR
PLEASE, BRIEFLY SLTMMAPM, THE WORK T BE PERFORNED:
I
I T
TEL NO.
Rio
STREET
FAX NUNMER: 43
AS THE APPLICANT, PLEASE, INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP
OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
OWNER OF THE BUSINESS
CONTACT
APPLICANT
OTHER (provide D=c and address) 4
TENANT / LESSEE
ARCHITECT
PLEASE SIGN YOURNANE ON THE LINE ABOVE
Y:\ER.PB\ERPB,kpplication Form REVISED FOR-2007-2008.doc
I
STATE ZU?
decision will be m led to the contact
DATE
a.
I A
j
u
IRI
U"ll I'MIg vm-'
IR anp
riot .
.. . .......
Er a
U"ll I'MIg vm-'
IR anp
SOu
INCORPORATED
1927
0 R1
Action: Mr. Trautman (Chair), called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M.
Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
Action: Mr. Trautman performed roll call.
Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Bedell, Mr. Balli, Mr. Rivera, Mr. Chandler
Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Rivera and Mr. Trautman. Board members absent: Mrs. Mark and Mr. Jude.
City Staff present: Mrs. Lourdes Cabrera-Hernandez (Planner), Mr. Marcus Lightfoot (Permit
Facilitator) Lluvia Resendiz (ERPB Coordinator) and Alerik Barrios (Assistant) Staff absent:
Sanford Youkilis (Acting Planning Director).
Applicant: City of South Miami
Remanded Back
Location: 6130 SW 72 Street
Request: Awning Installation
Ms. Resendiz read the item into the record
ERPB Mins07-01-2008
Pg 1 of 3
Mr. De la Torre commented that the City Administration and City Commission strongly feel that
the "L configuration" as approved by the Board does not address the issues. Some safety issues
were discussed regarding the "L configuration." The issues include water being dumped right on
the handicap ramp in front of City Hall which may cause accidents. He also addressed that no
shelter area will be provided with the approved awning. He added that during a previous
meeting the Board deferred option "A" so that the City may revisit the proposal. Mr. De la Torre
advised that he addressed the Board's concerns and modified option "A," thus presenting "L"
and "T" configurations. The adjustment that was made consisted of lowering and creating a
border where the water will be dumped orrto the green space therefore eliminating safety hazard
concerns.
Mr. Ajibola Balogun also commented that the City Commission saw the need to provide the
courtesy to the Board therefore remanded the request back for the Board's review. Mr. Balogun
added that the awning installation heavily discussed during the budget process. During the
discussion there was consideration of the services that the City provides to its residents and how
the awning will compliment the needs to the services provided by the City Clerk's, Human
Resources, and Central Services. This covered area as proposed with option "A" will help
provide an area for individuals to stand while they wait for a service to be rendered. For that
matter the City Commission saw the need to approve the project during the budget process.
With the condition previously approved (L configuration) the commission saw it proper to
explain the awning needs as well as safety concerns to the Board. Mr. Balogun advised that the
"L" configuration approval will create more safety concerns due to the fact that the water will
run onto brick paved area as opposed to the landscape area. The City Commission has remanded
the request back so that the Board may reconsider their decision while looking at the safety
elements, services provided to the residents, and how it will provide a safer and better
environment to the citizen and employees. Mr. Balogun added that the City Commission
requested that the City administration forward a report that echoes the project will be completed
before the summer.
Mr. Trautman questioned if the services that the city provides were split between the main
building and the old library. He also questioned if the east side of the City Hall there is a
handicap ramp. Mr. Balogun replied that the services he identified included Central Service
which is located behind the Silva Martin Building, City Clerk's office, and Human Resources; all
three which are directly in front of office located in this building. With regards to the handicap
ramp Mr. Balogun replied that on the east entrance, which is the main entrance, there is a
handicap ramp.
Mr. Trautman questioned why the awning was not being placed on the east side of the building
instead of the north side. He noted that the north side has a complicated geometry. Instead of
putting a very complicated and cumbersome shape on the north side which will be more visible
to all the improvements along Sunset Drive where the City is spending money, another
alternative should be considered. Mr. Trautman recommended that it would be easier to put the
awning on the east side of the building where it could be a very simple shape and accomplished
two of the three expressed concern by the administration. Mr. Balogun responded that the
improvements were part of the master plan for Sunset Drive along with the parking lot of City
ERPB Mins07 -01 -2008
Pg 2 of 3
Hall. A second phase consists of going through the front of City Hall and improves the front that
will bring the sidewalk and the ramp all the way around to the north side of the building. In
addition the parking lot on the north side will be improved.
Mr. Chandler suggested that a permanent structure be constructed instead of a temporary
structure. Mr. Balogun responded that the funds for a permanent structure must be secured. The
next process is to include it in the five years Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Balogun added that
the awning is a temporary structure that could be removed during a hurricane and can be easily
replaced.
Mr. Fernandez questioned when the permanent structure will occur and if there was assurance
that the permanent structure would be included into the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Balogun
replied that there is no expected date because that is based on the budget.
Mr. Trautman questioned if the color is going to be the same green. Mr. Balogun replied in the
affirmative.
Motion: Mr. Rivera moved to approve the awning labeled "Option A" as initially proposed. Mr.
Bedell seconded.
Vote: 5 Approved 0 Opposed
ERPB Mins07-01-2008
Pg 3 of 3