Loading...
07-29-08 Item 151 South Miami AO- America City CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM 2001 To: The Honorable Mayor Feliu and Members of the City Commission Via: Ajibola Balogun, City Manager From: Ricardo Soto -Lopez MUP, Planning Director Date: July 29, 2008 ITEM No. Subject: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD (ERPB -08 -053) TO APPROVE THE INSTALLATION OF ADVERTISING SIGNAGE ON A CONSTRUCTION FENCE LOCATED AT 5966 S.DIXIE HIGHWAY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. APPLICANT'S APPEAL 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. ERPB 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`h Street and to allow the signage to remain for one year. The developer immediately removed the mural /banner from the side facing SW 74t" 2 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: \Comm Item s\2008 \7- 29- 08 \ERPB Appeal CM Report.doc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD (ERPB -08 -053) TO APPROVE THE INSTALLATION OF ADVERTISING SIGNAGE ON A CONSTRUCTION FENCE LOCATED AT 5966 S.DIXIE HIGHWAY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 WHEREAS, 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 74`x' 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 -0 &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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The City Commission hereby overturns and reverses the Environmental Review and Preservation Board on July 1, 2008 on Application No. ERPB -08 -053 which decision allowed 64 Development Corporation to place a mural /banner sign facing S. Dixie Highway at a construction site located at 5966 S. Dixie Highway. Section 2. This resolution shall be effective immediately after the adoption hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this , day of 52008 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 2 ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY X: \Comm Items \2008 \7- 29- 08\ERPB -08 -030 Appeal Reverse Resol.doc APPROVED: MAYOR Commission Vote: Mayor Feliu: Vice Mayor Beasley: Commissioner Wiscombe: Commissioner Palmer: Commissioner Beckman: 2 Co -*-/� -�-i :2,4 ,o R E �` i JUL 0 7 2008 CITY CLERK'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 SUMMARIZE THE DECISION OF THE ERPB: Approval of a mural/banner sign with promotional advertisement on the South Dixie Highway frontage at 5966 South Dixie Highway; sign to remain one year after permit is issued. SUMMARIZE REASON FOR APPEAL: 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 1 PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LINE ABOVE SUBMIT THIS FORM TO CITY CLERK X.• 1 Comm Items1200817 -29 -081 ERPB Appeal 5966 S Dixie Signage . doc July 2, 2008 DATE APPLICANT INTERESTED CITIZEN CITY ADMINISTRATION Ajibola Balogun 305- 668 -2510 SUMMARIZE THE DECISION OF THE ERPB: Approval of a mural/banner sign with promotional advertisement on the South Dixie Highway frontage at 5966 South Dixie Highway; sign to remain one year after permit is issued. SUMMARIZE REASON FOR APPEAL: 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 1 PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LINE ABOVE SUBMIT THIS FORM TO CITY CLERK X.• 1 Comm Items1200817 -29 -081 ERPB Appeal 5966 S Dixie Signage . doc July 2, 2008 DATE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI J� ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PRESERVATION BOARD To: Chair & Members, Environmental Review & Preservation Board Via: Sanford A. Youkilis, Al 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 2043(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 facade which is facing or is primarily visible from South Dixie Highway; graphics, including texts and logos, are limited to 40% of this same single facade 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- 43(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: 1. 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). MWL Y: \ERPB \ERPB Agendas\2008 ERPB AGENDAS \ERPB JULY 1, 2008 \ERPB 08- 053.doc 50UTy a 7 j3 i.rcwro.+�u CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PRESERVATION BOARD APPLICATION SOUTH MIAMI, FL STREET ADDRESS OF JOB: �q 6—w2# -- PROPERTY C»FR' ADDRESS: TEL. NO. o5 ' ( o(i 3. / Z q� WHAT IS THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY? �� II SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE BUSINESS OFFICE RETAIL STORI APARTMENT OR TOWNHOUSE MEDICAL OFFICE AUTO REPAIR PLEASE, BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE WORK Tlp BE PERFORMED: a r A A /'1 Wor ,�,, STREET t y f FAX NUMBER: 8-6' 3 3 CI 3 -rte OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE BUSINESS CONT. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT OTHER (provige address) TENANT / LESSEE P 13 IIIIIIIM 11602F. wm r TEL NO.30-S /12t�1 -,� CfIY SLATE � TIES CONTRACTOR I OTIER: ARCHITECT I I ENGINEER r qm "F.RPB's decision will be mailed to the PLEASE SIGN YOUR NAME ON THE LINE ABOVE Y :\ERPB\ERPB Application Form REVISED FOR- 2007- 2008.doc DATE lie g �s�,^4-Y �.,i° � '.x5 '•yam' :, -,c 1 1T • G Job ,w p.t � ���" • 1� ..frS .Z s r p,�t 91111 � _qr mm AIL 4w a. zk rn ' # .. c� iF , f ANA"". CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & PRESERVATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, July 01, 2008 8:30 AM EXCERPT I. CALL TO ORDER Action: Mr. Trautman (Chair), called the meeting to order at 8:30 A.M. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. III. ROLL CALL 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). IV. REQUESTS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1) [ERPB -08 -030] Applicant: City of South Miami Remanded Back Location: 6130 SW 72 Street Request: Awning Installation Applicants Present: Mr. De la Torre and Mr. Balogun 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 onto 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 Pg2of3 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