Loading...
Ord. No. 21-94-157121-94-1571ORDINANCENO.H AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(i)WHICH PROVIDES FOR LANGUAGE AND GRAPHICS WHICH ILLUSTRATE BOTH ACCEPTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE EXAMPLES OF WOODEN FENCE TYPES;CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(ii)WHICH PROVIDES FOR LANGUAGE AND GRAPHICS WHICH ILLUSTRATE BOTH ACCEPTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE EXAMPLES OF MASONRYWALLTYPES;CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(iii) WHIGH-PROVI©E&-FOR-iANGUAGE-AN&-GRAPHI€^-TO-ILLUST«^^ BOTH-A€€*PTABL^-AND--UNACGEFq^BLE-EXAMPL*S--0^iATTl^ FEN€-E---TY^E^---€«EATING---SE€-TIO^--30^.-^--(H)<3-Xe)(iv)WHICH PROVIDES FOR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR TRELLISES AND HEDGES ALONG RIGHTS-OF-WAY;CREATINGSECTION20-3.6 (H)(2)(c){iv)<v) WHICH PROVIDES FOR AN EXEMPTION FOR VINES AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 20-2.3 REGARDING THEOPACITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 20-3.5 (H)(2)(c);CREATINGSECTION20-3.6 (H)(2)(c){v}(vi) WHICH PROVIDES FOR LIGHT FIXTURES TO EXTEND UP TO 16 INCHES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR PHYSICAL BARRIERS ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDINGFORORDINANCESINCONFLICT;AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,theCityofSouth Miami amended Section 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)Physical Barriers oftheLand Development CodeonApril19,1994,via Ordinance No.7-94-1556, which established language regulating the height of fences along rights-of-way as follows: In required yards adjacent toa right-of-way,fences,walls,trellises,gatesand hedges shallnot exceed four (4)feetin height above grade.Fences and walls may be increased by two (2)feet in height above grade and gates may be increased by three (3)feet above grade provided that the upper two (2)feet of the fenceor wall surface and the upper three (3)feet of the gate between vertical supports is designed asa uniform pattern with a minimum ofsixty (60)percent open area.;and, WHEREAS,the Building,Zoning &Community Development Department regularly receivesinquiriesregardingthe interpretation ofsaid Section 20-3.6(H)(2)(c);and, WHEREAS,theCity Attorney has advised the Department toseekdirectinputfromthe City Commission concerning the interpretation of "uniform pattern",andinthateffortstaffhas prepared graphics to provide both acceptable and unacceptable examples ofbarrier types;and, WHEREAS,theCity Commission desirestoprovideinputintheformof regulations to be contained inthe Land Development Code which will supplement the existing regulations concerning physical barriers and more adequately inform the public concerning those regulations; and, AMENDED Physical Barriers Ordinance Page #1 WHEREAS,theCity of SouthMiamipreviouslyenactedOrdinanceNo.12-90-1452on July24,1990,which reduced the height of fences,walls,trellises and hedges along rights-of- waytofourfeetinheight,andtheCity of SouthMiamithenenactedOrdinanceNo.7-94-1556 whichallowsfortheextension of fencesandwallsonly;and, WHEREAS,the City of SouthMiamipermits vines as defined underSection 20-2.3 whichincludesthe following statement:...Vines maybeusedin conjunction withfences,screens and wallstomeet physical barrier requirements as specified.',and, WHEREAS,theCity of SouthMiamidesirestospecifyhereinthatvinesare exempt from the60%openarea minimum,becauseenforcement of foliagedensityisnot feasible;and, WHEREAS,the City of SouthMiamidesiresto permit the height of lightfixturesto extendabovethemaximumheight of physical barriers onsingle-family residential properties; THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA: SECTION1.ThatSection20-3.6(H)(2)(c)(i)be,andishereby,created,shallbeentitled "Wooden Fences Types",andshallcontainthe information intheattached "Exhibit A"andthe following language: Wooden fences exceedingfourfeetinheight along rights-of-way shall providefor a minimum of sixty (60)percentopenareaforallportions between fourandsix feetinheightabove grade.The graphic "WoodenFenceTypes"includesan example of bothan unacceptable and acceptable prototype. SECTION2.ThatSection20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(ii)be,andishereby,created,shall beentitled "Masonry Wall Types",andshallcontainthe information intheattached "Exhibit B"andthe following language: Masonrywallsexceedingfourfeetinheightalongrights-of-waysshallprovidea minimum of sixty(60)percentopen area forallportionsbetweenfourandsixfeet inheight above grade.No portion of any solid masonry wall above four feetin heightabove grade along rights-of-way shall exceed14inchesinwidth.Thisis toprovideforverticalsupport [per Section 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)]of screening material.The remaining balance of open area maybe screened bymetalwork, wooden lattice oranyother non-masonry screening material.Aminimum of sixty (60)percentopen area shall be maintained.The graphic "Masonry WallTypes" includes anexample of bothan unacceptable andan acceptable prototype. AMENDED Physical Barriers Ordinance Page #2 SECTION3.ThatSection20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(iii)be,andishereby,createdas follows:T-shalJ-be- entitied--Lattiee-^Feflees-T-ypesV^^^^-€^»t^-fe^fflfeFff»^e«--ift-the-attached -'-Exhib&C- and-the-feli0wmg-4anguageT Lattiee-fenees-^xeeeding-fotir-feet-4ft4ieight-aleng-rights-0f^way-^jalt-provide-feF a-iHHrimum^-six^-(60>^er-eem-<)pen-ar«a-fer-aM^ feet4n4*eight-abeve^ader--Tlie-epen-«^©f^-^^ matheiRftfieally7--T4ie-graphie--La^ a»-ufrae€^ptabte-afld-aft-a€€^ptabte-pr<*t^^ a-«nass-p«KlH€^4atttee-^ie&-y4ei^ e*ampte-eIe3riy-maintaH»^-miflimHffl- S^-TIQN-4r--TliafcxSe€4k^3^^^ (iiiiv)Trellises and hedges cannot exceed four feetinheight along rights-of-way. Freestanding trellisesnot located alongpropertylinesandnot installed to create aphysical barrier mayextenduptosixfeetinheightabove grade inany required yard.Ornamental vegetationand landscaping notlocatedalongpropertylinesand notinstalledtocreatea physical barrier mayextenduptosixfeetinheightabove gradeinanyrequiredyard.Treespeciesincludedinthe Official Tree List of the City of SouthMiamishallnottebe considered asphysical barriers. SECTION4 &ThatSection20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(k v)be,andishereby,createdas follows: (iy.v)VinesasdefinedunderSection20-2.3maybepermittedonany physical barrier, butinnocase shall avinebeallowedtocreatea100%opacity situation forthat portion of aphysicalbarrierwhichis greater thanfourfeetinheightabovegarde alonganyright-of-way;innocase,shallvinesbepermittedtoexceedsixfeetin height above grade. SECTION5 6t ThatSection20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(y vi)be,andishereby,created to read as follows: (vvi)Lightfixturesarepermittedtoextenduptosixteen(16)inchesabovethe maximumheightfor permitted physical barriers onsingle-family residential properties. SECTION6 1-:If anysection,clause,sentence,or phrase of this ordinance isforany reason heldinvalidor unconstitutional byacourt of competent jurisdiction,thisholding shall notaffect thevalidity of theremainingportions of thisordinance. SECTION7 &t All ordinancesorparts of ordinances in conflict withtheprovisions of this ordinanceareherebyrepealed. AMENDED Physical Barriers Ordinance Page #3 SECTION8 9t Thisordinanceshalltakeeffectimmediatelyatthetimeofitspassage. PASSEDANDADOPTEDTHIS20stDAY OF/DECEMBER,1994. ATTEST: Rosemary J.Wascifira fy Clerk m^ Neil Carver Mayor READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: Earl G.Gallop City Attorney c:\reports\fencing.amd c:\forms\pcx\fence-a.pcx c:\forms\pcx\fence-b .pcx AMENDED Physical Barriers Ordinance Page #4 Exhibit A:Wooden Fence Types ACCEPTABLE: Sine wave pattern yields more than 60 percent open area ^ n& i i g%^JlUl i M*,Ki *»«!»*&•*•«•«<<s m SI **<Si:'''"- $ ^_j©»_j®A <&, & sl i S S 8 £S ISS§S :S 5S5 '%SS :S 5 S:«ii «;i£>g:lii:g:ii;&j ii &iu ';, UNACCEPTABLE: Pre-fabricated lattice yields less than 60 precent open area 6' (max) 4' (max) 6' (max) 4" (max) Exhibit B:Masonry WallTypes ACCEPTABLE: Vertical supports (columns)do not exceed 14 inches in width m ^•A§§§^S^^^wS§^^?^>^>?>&"£&J^^ HH ?ggg^^«-^^"g^gggmfs UNACCEPTABLE: Vertical supports exceed 14 inches in width SW:}WS P 'lis .<w«WSSftS:SW:: 6" (max) 4* (max) 6" (max) 4' (max) To: From: Dean Mimms Slaven Kobola Planner CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Date:October 5,1994 Re:10/11/94 Planning BoardAgenda Item#2:Physical Barrier Ord REQUEST: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA,AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(i)WHICH PROVIDES FOR LANGUAGE AND GRAPHICS WHICH ILLUSTRATE BOTH ACCEPTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE EXAMPLES OF WOODEN FENCE TYPES;CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(ii)WHICH PROVIDES FOR LANGUAGE AND GRAPHICS WHICH ILLUSTRATE BOTH ACCEPTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE EXAMPLES OF MASONRY WALL TYPES; CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(iii)WHICH PROVIDES FOR LANGUAGE AND GRAPHICS TO ILLUSTRATE DOTH ACCEPTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE EXAMPLES OF LATTICE FENCE TYPES;CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (II)(2)(c)(iv)WHICH PROVIDES FOR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR TRELLISES AND HEDGES ALONG RIGHTS-OF-WAY; CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(iv)M WHICH PROVIDES FOR AN EXEMPTION FOR VINES AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 20-2.3 REGARDING THE OPACITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 20-3.5 (H)(2)(c);CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(vlH WHICH PROVIDES FOR LIGHT FIXTURES TO EXTEND UP TO 16 INCHES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR PHYSICAL BARRIERS ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND: Applicantsforfencepermitsoftenhaveproblemsinunderstandingtheregulationprovidedin Section 20-3.6 Supplemental Regulations,(H)Physical Barriers. ANALYSIS: TheCityAdministrationpreparedaproposedordinancetoamendtheLandDevelopmentCode, sothatallthe pertinent information regarding physical barriers will be included inthe Code.The ordinancehasbeenmodifiedtosatisfythecommentsbyCityCommissionprovidedatthefirst reading on 9/20/94. RECOMMENDATION: ThatthePlanningBoardvotetorecommendapprovaloftheproposed ordinance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The proposed ordinance is consistent with the Goals,Objectives and Policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section20-3.6 (H)(2)(c);creatingSections20-3.6(H)(2)(c)(i),(ii),(iii),(iv)and(v). \reports\fencing.mem PB-94-020 Applicant:Mayor &City Commission Request:AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(i)WHICH PROVIDES FOR LANGUAGE AND GRAPHICS WHICH ILLUSTRATE BOTH ACCEPTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE EXAMPLES OF WOODEN FENCE TYPES;CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(ii)WHICH PROVIDES FOR LANGUAGE AND GRAPHICS WHICH ILLUSTRATE BOTH ACCEPTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE EXAMPLES OF MASONRY WALL TYPES; CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)(iii)WHICH PROVIDES FOR LANGUAGE AND GRAPHICS TO ILLUSTRATE BOTH ACCEPTABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE EXAMPLES OF LATTICE FENCE TYPES; CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(d)WHICH PROVIDES FOR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR TRELLISES AND HEDGES ALONG RIGHTS-OF-WAY;CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(e)WHICH PROVIDES FOR AN EXEMPTION FOR VINES AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 20-2.3 REGARDING THE OPACITY REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 20-3.5 (H)(2)(c);CREATING SECTION 20-3.6 (H)(2)(f)WHICH PROVIDES FOR LIGHT FIXTURES TO EXTEND 16 INCHES ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR PHYSICAL BARRIERS ON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr.Basu read request.Staff recommended approval,stating that theintentoftheproposedordinanceistosimplifyandclarify thepresentordinance.Staffpresentedgraphics detailing acceptable and unacceptable patterns for fences. In response to Mr.Basu's inquiry,Staff confirmed that the proposed ordinance is applicable to those fences along the ROW. Mr.Gutierrez suggested theeliminationoflanguagethat regulates planting and landscaping,i.e.,hedges,trellises. Mr.Mimms responded that the reasoning behind the restriction is theavoidanceofa"barricaded"lookintheCity,alook that is commoninareasof unincorporated DadeCounty. PublicHearingwas opened.Therebeingnopersonswishingto speakeitherfororagainstsaid ordinance,thehearingwas closed and executive session was convened. Motion:Mr.Gutierrezmovedapprovaloftheproposed ordinance, as presented,based on the condition that language restricting height of hedges and trellises be stricken from the said ordinance,specifically lines12 through 24,number iiiof Section 3 and number iv of Section 4.Ms.Thorner seconded the motion. Vote:Approved:5 Disapproved:0 E»B M±n 11/8/94 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Mayor &City CprfjJh'ission die Cox / City Manager To: From may :^/^EoMi Date:December 14,1994 Re:12/20/94 Commission Agenda Item #/3:Physical Barrier Ord Background: The City Administration is often approached on various occasions by applicants for permits, citizens and members ofthe general public requesting interpretations concerning the regulation of physical barriers.Frequently,these inquiries center around the "intent"ofthat legislation. InorderthattheCity Commission mightexpressits legislative intentandprovide direction and guidance to staff,the Administration prepared a resolution which appeared onthe July 26,1994 Commission Agenda.The Commission raised concerns overthe clarity oftheitem presented; thegraphicsand photographs,aspresented,werenotclearlylabeledoreasily understandable. The Commission requested that clarification be provided.Staffpreparedarevised resolution. Language was modified to reflect changes inthe exhibits,andtheexhibitswere reorganized to show comparison as well as examples.The section which proposed a maintenance policy for hedgeswasremoveduponconsultationwiththeCityAttorney.Therevisedresolutionwas scheduledtobepresentedattheAugust2,1994CommissionMeeting. On reviewing the resolution,Commissioner Cooper raised the question ofthe advisability of not incorporatingthesepoliciesasapartoftheLandDevelopmentCode.Hisconcernswerethat thepublicwouldbeunabletorelyontheLand Development Codeforcomplete information,if thesedesignissuesweresetforthinaresolutionformat,separatefromtheCode;staff concurs. Theitemwasthen rescheduled toappearattheSeptember20,1994Meeting,asan ordinance. Therefore,staffhaspreparedaproposed ordinance toamendtheLandDevelopmentCode,sothat allthepertinentinformationregardingphysicalbarrierswillbeincludedintheCode.Duetothe format andnatureoftheLand Development Code,staffhasremovedthephotographexhibits fromtheproposedordinance,asphotographsareinappropriateforinclusionintheCode. Recommendation:Approval. 1.Advantage toCity:Providesfor clarification oftheLand Development Code. 2.Disadvantages to Citv:None. 3.ThisOrdinanceis sponsored byAdministration. 4.ThePlanningBoardvoted5-0torecommendapproval. 5.This Ordinance refers to§20-3.6 (H)(2)(c)and§20-2.3 oftheLand Development Code.