The URL can be used to link to this page

Ord. No. 05-87-1277ORDINANCE NO. 5-87-1277 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A LOW-PROFILE LAND SCAPE SIGN WHERE THE SETBACK OF 20'IS NOT IN EXCESS OF THE 20'MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1,LESS THE NORTH 25' AND LOTS 2,3,4 AND 5 OF WILLIAM A.HOBBS SUBDIVISION,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 111 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA,A/K/A 6262 SUNSET DRIVE,SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA. AGENDA ITEM PB-87-007 WHEREAS,Advance Development Corporation has requested a setback variance to install a low-profile landscape sign;and WHEREAS,on March 24th,1987,the Planning Board recommended denial. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA: Section 1.That a variance to permit a low-profile landscape sign on property which does not have the required 20'setback in excess of the minimum 20'setback required on property legally described as- Lot 1,less the North 25'and Lots 2,3,4 and 5 of WILLIAM A.HOBBS SUBDIVISION, as recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 111 of the Public Records of Dade County,Florida,a/k/a 6262 Sunset Drive,South Miami, Florida, is hereby denied. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19thday of ATTEST: READ AND APPROVED ASTOFORM Passed on 1st Reading:5/5/87 Passed on2nd Reading:5/19/87 APPROVED: May,1987. PAL M VILLAS 19/l>UNSUBDIVIDED -72nzf:ST.' APPLICANT:Advance Development Corporation KNUR:Advance Development Corp.-Lessee 1AP REFERENCE:6262 Sunset Drive,South Miami,FL :CV.MENTS:A variance to permit a low-profile landscape sign where the existing setback does not exceed the required setbackbyaminimumof20 feet. ITY op SOUTH MIAMI -PWWWHG BOARD Compass Scale..?".0.}9°.\.. Date.Y?*¥lY?YX9Y! Drn./PV..Chk Hearinq No.?7~QP7. *-..-»».- MSSESMmL REQUEST #1 LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: CITY COMMISSION HEARING: ©Clf|)of South \tLimi PLANNING BOARD NOTICE:OF PUBLIC HEARING HEAR1NC: DATE: TIML: APPLICANT: 87-007 March31,1987 7:30 P.M. Advance Development Corporation A variance to permit a low-profile landscape sign where the existing setback does not exceed the required setback by a minimum of 20 feet. 6262 Sunset Drive Lot 1 less North 25 feet for Right-Of-Way and all of Lots 2,3,4 and 5,William A.Hobbs Subdivision, Plat Book 4,Page 111,Public Records of Dade County, Florida. April21,1987 YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT IF ANY PERSON DESIRES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING OR HEARING,SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OFTHE PROCEEDINGS,ANDFOR SUCH PURPOSEMAYNEEDTOENSURETHATA VERBATIM RECORDOFTHEPRO CEEDINGS IS MADE,WHICH RECORD INCLUDESTHETESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THEAPPEAL IS TO BE BASED,(F.S.266,01 OS) OUOLIC HEARING Wll-I_BEHELD IN THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS ATTHE CITY HALL,6130 SUNSET ORIVE,SOUTH .••IAMI.FLORIDA,AT THE TIME AND DATE STATED ABOVE. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE URGED TO ATTEND.OBJECTIONS OR EXPRESSIONS OF APPROVAl MAY BEMADE *PERSON AT THE HEARING OR FILED IN WRITING PRIOR TO OR AT TMC HEARING.THE BOARD RESERVES '.HE ;GHT TO RECOMMENO TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHATEVER THE BOARD CONSIDCRS IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR •-IE AREA INVOLVED,THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION ON THIS MAT T IR WILL lit HEARD BY THE CITY COMMISSION •7 A FUTURE DATE.INTERESTED PARTITS REQUESTING INrOHMAT|.-i Ar<l A«i*K:>TO i'ONTaUT THE :>FFI\.».OF i HI DING director by calling w7-s«9i or by writing.REFER TO HEARING NUMBER WHEN MAKING •*:ouiry. PLANNING BOARD ;t«IQ0-7 RZ REV,l2-»-»»IS A COURTESY NOTICE •-v_ WLLAS 19/)>UNSUBD1V1DED ~72nd: APPLICANT: OWNER: Advance Developaent Corporation Advance Developaent Corp.-Lessee MAP REFERENCE:6262 Sunset Drive,South Miami,FL COMMENTS!Avarianceto permit a low-profile landscape sign where the existing setback does not exceed the required setback bya minimum of20 feet. CITY of SOUTH MIAMI ~PUNNING 60M5.D m^^KM^W«Mwm*(i Compass Scale..?:.-.100'... Date,.^fch ,10,1987 Drn..*?}•..Chk Hearing No.??-°P7. Mark C.Balkovek -2 -March 23,1987 Staff Report -PB-87-007 3.ANALYSIS (cont'd.) the Applicant's request.At the same meeting,Staff recommended denial based on the sign not complying with zoning regulations. The granting of the request would constitute a precedence and/or a need to revise the 20 foot setback in excess of that required in the Code. Staff does not feel that the Applicant has demonstrated a hardship if the City does not grant the variance.Staff believes that an alternate architectural solution can be found to locate the address number of this building. 4.RECOMMENDATION Denial ofthe request. ADL:db •aajSB }ou pTP pjaog aq}'aaAawoq JdTqspaaq baq pXnoo 3EU}Pub saTWs ocis jog sapaqsuns VTa paaaAoo aae 3uTpXTnq aqi go saPTs Tun^oe aqa **q:»paws aT^eag -jW 'oSb sieaX uaAas jo xxs XXa3eaiTxoadde *UBfl ems auTHSuns aq}se*n uaq*paAoadda sb»u8Ts aa:juaD DTqsouSeTa •W *wn paws uanqoo *jh P^'passnosTP a-ia«su8Ts TBUTdsoa utv*1 pw iarjuao oT:jsou3bt(I aqx -dTMsp^q b a:»BTAaXXB oj pa^aea3 aq PXnow aouBTJBA b }aq:i si Sujpueasjapun sxq Pub «dxqspjeq Kub pjeaq 8uTABq 5ou SB 0073001 9V&aoj uosBaJ sxq 3ab3 ssT^uaJi -aW uoTssnosxp aq*ui •uoT^oni 9V&papuooas aaBomiB8xT ajjbi •uox^BOTXddB aq}Auap 03 paAoui sspuaj<f p**«PT>I :NOHOW •uoxssas aA^noaxa 05 paAom Pub Suxasaq am™*aq:»pasoXa ujnqo0 ubuuxbid •saSueqo auoz qSnoaqi SuxoS uaqri aaqao aAX^BUja^TB ou sT a^aqi papuodsai ^aAo^TBg -jW pus «aAT:jBuaa:iTB ub sb* aaain iT pa*sa uubuijjoh -*W #««7*sTq3 a*qons sb n aapTsuoo a.uao a* •uawo*st apoo aq}£ba aqrj }nq «su8Ts :juaumuoui japTSUoo 03 qua*pXnoA X*70 ^aiaqA q^V9 PUB Pa€9 «°PUB 33sunS uo b3jb aaTJJ°TBUOTssajoad aq*sbqons 'sbbjb araos aq XBm ajaqtl ^aq^paws osib ^aAo^TBg mW •pa^sanbaa 3uTaq st ©oubtma aq*aaojaaaq^«aXqTSSod aq *ou pXno/* SuTPTTnq n***°*I^W *WJ 0*7 i°I*'0*B xo €Wa«'°°J 02 I*uo7*-TPPB ub spaau uSts 8utpub:»s aaaj b pub ABft-jo-aqSTi aq*jo a3pa aq} 3B suT3aq sXbatb ipaqias b }aq:i paws jjms Pub pa*oXXoj uoTssnDsxa l(«ajnsodxa aaiBS aq} 10 u3Ts 1*U pa^pnaad auo ^seaX qa saDBXdaa u3xs PTbs pue 5aaj A3uaA1 10 mnorcuTni e Xq ^aaq^s pa^nbaa aqa spaaoxa ^DB^as aq^ aaaqA sauoZ aoT^0 -[SToaaomioo uT Ktuo pa^x^ad aq 03 su3xs PTbs •TTDunoo A^to aq^jo a^OA g/v b Pub piaoa *iaxAa>i XB^uauiuoixAua aqa iCq paAOJddB uaq*pai5T«»d 9<l IIB^S su8?s adaospuei-amo^-noi suoT^daoxg XBToads„ •v_£-2-9 uot^Das aapun ^ooq apoo aqa moji pa^onb ^aAO^Bfl -aW „-IT^noD XqiD »m J°S/V P«e pjeog uoTqBAjas -ajd puB A3TA3H XB3uaaiuoJT^a a^^q paAoadda uaqn pa53x^ad aq XXaqs u8ts adBospuBX aoX|I :sftoXXoi sb 3ducuTpjo u3Ts aq3 uioaj paaonb aT^eaa •1W -aq pXnoqs ^oaq^as paJT^baa aq3 3BU"pauoT^sanb uanqoo UBauTBqD •aAT^OBa^^s ssaX aq pXnoA pua 8uTdaospuBX aq3 uT XXaA sb uoxqounj 3|UpXnow aAaTiaq Xaqa qoTHA 48uTPXTnq aq^uo dn uSxs aq^8uX3and uaq:j jaq^aa *aXBDS pua u8ts aaBTidoaddB ub aq pXnoA u8Xs sTq3 n*J H*n^**aq^^aajqs aq*qnqs ^Bq3 apTS aaaq^uo sapeqsuns paaaAnoX saq 8uTPXTnq aqn aouTS •sjaqomu dTXo^osq n8Xq „Z\M1T«aoBXJ pu39 pua }asunS jo jaujoo aqa 3B adBqs „!„b uT 8uoX ^aaj aATj pue XXaa ^aaj aaaq^XXbm x^iq a^aao -uoo B aq pXno/*qoTq^u8ts ssajppB aqi josSutwbjp qqT«paqsyuanj sba pjBog aqi 'djoo auamdoXaAaa aouBApv SuT^uasaadaa st oqn '^oa^Tq^^V «AaXABd saXiBqo 8uT^uasajdaj pJBog aq^aaojaq paaaadda aX33Bag AJaaf •aAT^a aasuns 3939 st uox^bdoi •^aaj 03 }o rnnorruxai b Aq ^oeqaas paj|nbaa aqa paaoxa 3ou saop ^oaq -3as 3uX3STxa aq^aaaq*u3ts adeospuex aujoad-aox e 3xm-*ad 03 aDuexaBA b aoj nsanbatf --daoo auaoidoX3Aaa a^ueApv -200-£8 *°N auiaean oxXqnd Z86I 'ISie HDWW QdVOa 9NINNV1d lN3Wd013A3Q 33NVA0V Z00-Z8'9d 9NiyV3H 0H8nd Mr.Coburnstated that he liked thesignandwouldliketosupportit, buthefeelsthattheBoardhastosupporttheordinanceasitiswritten. His feeling is that the ordinance needs tobe adjusted to fit the situation, andhe requested thisbe reflected inthe minutes. Vote:For denial:6Oppose:0 MOTION:Chairman Coburn moved that the Board direct Planning staff to investigate changes tothe monument requirementsintheCOzoneandbring that back to the Board members for considera tion. Christopher Cooke-Yarboroughsecondedthe motion. Vote:For:5 Oppose:1 (R.P.) Mr.Cooke-Yarborough stated that he thinks that good design ofthe environ ment is something they should strive for.Itisa benefit to the conmninity to have fine design,and it isa hardship onthe community where there is bad design.He would support the staff in trying to clarify this type of signage so that the signage and the building can be one unified concept rather than having one person design the building and another slap a sign onitina mish mosh.Mr.Coburnstatedhesupportedthatstatementand would liketohavethesecommentsquotedintheminutes. Mr.Prentiss stated he considered thesignageandthe building tobeall part of what is being put forth inanew building.Therefore,he would have thought that architects would have taker into consideration the signage when the building was designed.He has a hard time with anew building which hasn't been occupied coming up with a variance for a sign.He feels very strongly that the community hasgonetoa large effort to prevent a highway of free standing signs along U.S.1 and along Sunset Drive asin other communities and that the free standing sign hastobevery carefully looked at.He suggested that perhaps the free standing sign could be withinthe confines of the outline ofa building,rather than physically on the wall,but in alignment with the wall,but as purely a free standing sign,he is very strongly opposed to such type modifications* Mr.Hoffmann stated that he didn't believe that by voting in favor of Mr. Balkovek looking into the matter and coming back with a recommendation meansthe Board isin favor of creating a community offree standing signs. He is not in favor of any such thing but would like to hear if there is some unique approach such as the suggestion of.keeping the sign within the profile ofthebuilding.