The URL can be used to link to this page

09-04-07 Item 12South Miami kwoklml u- meica city CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER �ZCC=`Sr INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM 2001 To: The Honorable Mayor Feliu and Members of the City Commission Via: Yvonne S. McKinley, City Manager From: Date: Julian Perez, Planning Directoi ww . September 4, 2007 ITEM No. I Z Subject: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20 -4.3(n AND SECTION 20- 4.3(K-)(1) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PERMIT A NON - CONFORMING SIGN WITH NEW COPY TO REMAIN IN FRONT OF A BUSINESS LOCATED AT 6394 -96 S. DIXIE HIGHWAY IN THE "GR" GENERAL RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant and property owner MCTC Holdings LLC is requesting approval of a variance which would allow new wording or copy on an existing non - conforming sign. The sign located at 6394 -96 S. Dixie Highway is both a "Landscape" type sign (monument sign) and a "Detached" sign. The sign exceeds the maximum size allowed for a landscape sign making it non- conforming. A change in copy on a non - conforming sign is not permitted. Without a variance a new smaller sign will be required. The sign currently contains wording advising that there are two businesses (bicycle shop / rental car agency) located in the building at the same address. The new property owner will be operating an animal hospital (approved as a special use b;y City Commission in January, 2007) which will take over the building space previously occupied by the bicycle shop. The owner wishes to keep the existing landscape sign and substitute the name of the animal clinic in place of the bicycle shop on the existing sign. STAFF OBSERVATIONS (1) The existing sign face is 18 sq. ft., which is below the maximum permitted 20 sq. ft. in area. The height of the sign is 76 "or a little over 6.3 feet above grade which exceeds the maximum allowable height of 4 feet. The sign is therefore non- conforming, however, it is grandfathered. As shown above in Section 204.3(K), a grandfathered sign may not have a change of copy which is what the applicant is requesting. If the requested variance is not granted the applicant could place a. new landscape sign at the same location but at lower height above grade. (2) The applicant's claim of hardship is due to the irregular shape of the lot, narrow driveway entrance, and deep front setback. The applicant is concerned that if he is forced to reduce or remove the existing sign persons coming to the clinic driving north bound on Dixie Highway will be unable to see the entrance resulting in traffic safety issues. (3) The applicant's proposal is supportable under the variance decision criteria set forth for the Planning Board in Section 20-6. 1 (B)(3)(h) which states that "....a variance shall be made only when necessary to relieve particular hardships or extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property, and when the strict application of a particular regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional hardship upon the owner of such property as distinguished from reasons of convenience, profit or caprice. (4) The difference between a new sign and the existing sign is minimal (two feet). Forcing the owner to re -build the sign in order to change the name of the business can also be considered a hardship. PLANNING BOARD ACTION The Planning Board at its August 14, 2007 meeting approved a motion by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nays recommending that the variance application be denied. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the application be approved. Backup Documentation: Draft Resolution Location map Application Letter of Intent/ hardship Planning Department Staff Report 8 -14 -07 Boundary Survey Proposed Sign rendering Site Photos Planning Board Minutes Excerpt 8 -14 -07 Public notices JP /SAY P: \Comm Items\2007 \9 -4 -07 \6394 S Dixie Variance 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 RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20- 4.3(I) AND SECTION 20- 4.3(K)(1) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PERMIT A NON - CONFORMING SIGN WITH NEW COPY TO REMAIN IN FRONT OF A BUSINESS LOCATED AT 6394 -96 S. DIXIE HIGHWAY IN THE "GR" GENERAL RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Application No. PB -07 -020 was submitted to the Planning Board by applicant / property owner MCTC Holdings LLC requesting approval of a variance Section 20- 4.3(i) and Section 20- 4.3(k)(1) of the Land Development Code in order to allow new wording on an existing non - conforming sign located at 6394 -96 S. Dixie Highway; and WHEREAS the subject sign exceeds the maximum height allowed for a landscape sign making it non - conforming; and WHEREAS a change in copy on a non- conforming sign is not permitted without the granting of a variance; and WHEREAS, the approval of a variance requires a recommendation from the Planning Board and the approval of the City Commission after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2007 the Planning Board, after public hearing, adopted a motion by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nays recommending denial of the requested variance ; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1: That the subject application submitted to the Planning Board by the applicant / property owner MCTC Holdings LLC requesting approval of a variance Section 20- 4.3(i) and Section 20- 4.3(k)(1) of the Land Development Code in order to allow new wording on an existing non - conforming sign located at 6394 -96 S. Dixie Highway is hereby approved. Section 2: The City Commission finds that the applicant's claim of hardship due to the irregular shape of the lot is supportable under the variance decision criteria set forth in Section 20- 6.1(B)(3)(h) of the Land Development Code which states that "....a variance shall be made only when necessary to relieve particular hardships or extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property, and when the strict application of a particular regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional hardship upon the owner of such property as distinguished from reasons of convenience, profit or caprice Section 3. That this resolution shall be effective immediately upon execution. "A'ItiS. iTs fl 6510 0 7570 SW 76TH ST e 6620 � 6574 SW 76TH TEF m 6622 Z-1 � m X140 i 6501 o^ 6h �tls Qr� rn� NO 6^ 1h �S)7 r� ■ City of South Miami PB -07 -020 Variance Request- Permit Non - Conforming Sign 6394 -96 S. Dixie Highway. 7440 7450 7500 7510 7540 7600 7610 7620 7630 7640 7650 X69 $ $ sv� $s � N � mm v l� s X60 DAVIS DR ^O 6420 0 6495 6485 6475 6925 7421 7431 7437 7441 7511 7521 7531 701 7611 7621 1691 6400 6� % 0 �� sue, 0 SW 79TH ST ^ ^9p 6330 6310 W m co 6341 W Q Oy .. ]8020 ro� 6340 p0^ 6200 6 g m 801;; 8020 8025 8020 8025 8020 8025 8020 EL 8025 ' 8030 ' 8030 8045 8030 8035 8030 8035 8030 8035 ' 8040 N 8100 8101 8040 8045 8040 8045 ; 8107 8100 8100 8100 *81358114(o) 8101 811'1; 8120 8177 ' 8120 8125 8120 8120 8725 8740 8121 i 8130 6285 8141 8140 ' 11 1 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 Feet 7410 11 rl"4[21 7410 7411 7420 7420 7421 7430 7431 7430 W Q 7431 7500 7501 7500 M 7500 F- 7510 U O 7511 7510 U) 7511 7520 CO 7521 7520 7521 fn 7530 7531 7531 UU 7600 �o ^ 7610 7620 sue, 0 0 6� % 0 �� sue, 0 SW 79TH ST ^ ^9p 6330 6310 W m co 6341 W Q Oy .. ]8020 ro� 6340 p0^ 6200 6 g m 801;; 8020 8025 8020 8025 8020 8025 8020 EL 8025 ' 8030 ' 8030 8045 8030 8035 8030 8035 8030 8035 ' 8040 N 8100 8101 8040 8045 8040 8045 ; 8107 8100 8100 8100 *81358114(o) 8101 811'1; 8120 8177 ' 8120 8125 8120 8120 8725 8740 8121 i 8130 6285 8141 8140 ' 11 1 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 Feet City of South :Miami Planning & Zoning Department City Hall, 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, Florida 33143 Telephone: (3 )05) 663 - 6326; Fax: (305) 666 -4591 Application For Public Hearing Before Planning Board & City Commission Address of Subject Property: S 9� 60, b1X/E PB(sj _ ou� Mla.mi� TL Meets & Bounds: -Block Subdivision Applicant: MG-G (fO14 Ais Ld.G Phone: Representative: H la 14,&l cewan 1 Organization: Address: %.7o1(v Siena Ave I (,OKal Cable, r-L 16 Phone: 30f . 71 o - �� f Property Owner. MG.M d t n5 S j(,L Signature ti- Mailing Address: 14.X SIeAAa ft re 0640 CA 6111; Phone: 3 Architect/Engineer Phone: Sc Ar fV %% re-- 1� 3CS- 44V -df8I4 AS E APPLICANT, PLEASE INDICATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP 7'0 THIS PROJECT: Owner _Owner's Representative Contract to purchase _Option to purchase —Tenant/Lessee APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR THE FO LOWING: SUBMITTED MATERIALS PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE ITEM: _ Text Amendment to LDC _Variance PLEASE CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: a/Letter of intent —Zoning Map Amendment _Special Use ^ Justifications for change _ PUD Approval Special Exception _ Statement of hardship _ PUD Major.Change _Other -v! Proof of ownership or letter from owner V_ Power of attorney Briefly explain application and cite specific Code sections: Contract to purchase Current survey (1 original sealed and - copies of�fi+ie Plan and Floor Plans 1 reduced copy @ 11" x 17" Val(mnce R lL ,J , 1 -1v GmnAf Sfir4a.�- 51 at a Vc proper � �e ►YG� a owner signatures 516:; ✓Mailing labels (3 sets) and map �✓ Required Fee(s)�`� �► Section: Subsection: Page #: Amended Date:_ /JrC':S 7- 8� read this comppleted a placation and represents that the in io and all submitted materials are true and 1 ap 'cants knowledpge and belief. and title ate ipt, applications and all submitted materials will be reviewed for compliance with the Land Development Code and other regulations. Applications found not in compliance will be rejected and returned to the applicant. OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Filed Date of PB Hearing Date of Commission Petition Required Petition Accepted Method of Pavment 8/2/00 4'e y*Ime June 23, 2007 Mr. Julian Perez Planning Director City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, FL 33143 Ref: Variance Request — 6394/96 South Dixie Hwy, South Miami Dear Mr. Perez: I want to thank you and Sandy for taking the time to meet with me during my recent visit to City Hall. This letter outlines our intention to apply for a variance to grandfather the existing street sign at the referenced property as well as the justification for such request. Specifically, the referenced property is a large irregularly shaped (triangular) lot covering 16, 607 SF of land in South Miami with limited access through a single driveway measuring less than 20 feet on US 1. Because the zoning regulations of South Miami restrict many veterinary clinics to this area, there are at least three other veterinary clinics on or visible from US 1 within less than a half a mile of this new clinic. In fact, the closest one is less than 125 feet north of the referenced building! It can be easily assumed that should the subject street sign be removed for the new animal clinic, an individual seeking the South East Veterinary Referral Center will probably end up at the South Dade Animal Hospital (125 feet north), a building with a similar size regularly shaped lot but with a large lighted sign in front. This, will not only slow down traffic significantly along US 1 as traffic that drove by in error will need to re -exit the South Dade Animal Hospital parking lot onto US 1 and make two consecutive and potentially dangerous U turns before reaching the correct address, but will add to the congestion already experienced on US 1 creating a potential safety hazard. The probability that clients of the South East Veterinary Referral Center drive by because of their inability to see the clinic in time when driving north along US 1 is further exacerbated by the fact that the building immediately south of the referenced property was recently demolished and a new larger footprint building is being erected along the common FRONT property line - further blocking the view of the new clinic for northbound drivers. Finally and as stated before, the single entrance and exit to the referenced property is a very narrow driveway on US1 that measures less than 20 feet thus making unplanned turns (because of the inability to see the business ahead of time) more dangerous to drivers and pedestrians alike. The higher elevation of the property vis a vis its southern neighbor together with the existence of a light post on the sidewalk at the property line further complicate the turn forcing cars to slowdown even more before making a turn into the driveway. Mr. Julian Perez City of South Miami The street sign in question is a pedestal type lighted sign that measures 42 inches wide by 36 inches high, well within the current size restrictions. It is also located on a planter to enhance its appearance and make it blend with the environment. The sign is a double sign currently advertising Enterprise Rent a Car and Bicycle & Fitness, the previous tenant. Our proposal contemplates replacing the Bicycle & Fitness part of the sign with the South East Veterinary Referral Center new sign. In summary, we believe that grandfathering the street sign on this property makes sense now and in the future primarily because of the serious traffic safety issues that applying the new sign regulation to this irregular shaped lot creates and respectfully request that the sign be grandfathered. I thank your for your consideration and hope that you see this situation in the same light we do. I look forward to meeting with you, the City Attorney and/or the Mayor should you need further clarification. sere igue A Cervom r M C Holdings LLC 1426 Siena Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33146 305- 790 -9746 cc: Hon. Horace Feliu, Mayor City of South Miami 6130 Sunset Drive South Miami, FL 33143 sour South Miami o� �f d All- America City • INCORPORATED 1927 CpRX4 2001 CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI To: Honorable Chair & Planning Board Members From: Julian Pere Planning Director PR -07 -020 Applicant: MCTC Holdings LLC Address: 6394 -96 S. Dixie Highway Date: August 14, 2007 Re: Variance Request Signage 6394 -96 S Dixie Highway A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20- 4.3(I) AND SECTION 20- 4.3(K)(1) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PERMIT A NON- CONFORMING SIGN WITH NEW COPY TO REMAIN IN FRONT OF A BUSINESS LOCATED AT 6394 -96 S. DIXIE HIGHWAY IN THE "GR" GENERAL RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant and property owner MCTC Holdings LLC is requesting approval of a variance which would allow new wording or copy on an existing non - conforming sign. The sign located at 6394 -96 S. Dixie Highway is both a "Landscape" type sign (monument sign) and a "Detached" sign. The sign exceeds the maximum size allowed for a landscape sign making it non - conforming. A change in copy on a non - conforming sign is not permitted. Without a variance a new smaller sign will be required. The sign currently contains wording advising that there are two businesses (bicycle shop / rental car agency) located in the building at the same address. The new property owner will be operating an animal hospital (approved as a special use by City Commission in January, 2007) which will take over the building space previously occupied by the bicycle shop. The owner wishes to keep the existing landscape sign and substitute the name of the animal clinic in place of the bicycle shop on the existing sign. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS (SIGNS) Land Development Code Section 20- 4.3(I) Permitted Sign Schedule Sign, landscape. Shall mean a detached sign appropriately landscaped in a park- like manner and designed to be compatible with adjacent architecture. PB 07 -020 Variance Request —6394 S Dixie. Page 2 of 5 One low profile landscape sign may be permitted ,per project 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 the landscape sign must be appropriately landscaped in a park -like manner, designed to be compatible with adjacent architecture of the surrounding premises. Direct illumination is permitted. • Land Development Code Section 20- 4.3(K) Nonconforming Signs All existing signs, legal when originally installed, may remain as legal, non- conforming signs (referred to as " grandfathered'). Any "grandfathered" sign may be repaired; however, any alterations, modifications, changes of copy, or expansions will be considered a new sign. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS (VARIANCES) - ATTACHED • Land Development Code Section 20 -5.9 Variances Approvals • Land Development Code Section 20.- 6.1(B)(3)(h) - .Powers and duties — Planning Board STAFF OBSERVATIONS • The existing sign face is 18 sq. ft., which is below the maximum permitted 20 sq. ft. in area. The height of -the sign is 76" or a little over 6.3 feet above grade which exceeds the maximum allowable height of 4 feet. The sign is therefore non- conforming, however, it is grandfathered. As shown above in Section 20- 4.3(K), a grandfathered sign may not have a change of copy which is what the applicant is requesting. If the requested variance is not granted the applicant could place a new landscape sign at the same location but at lower height above grade. • The applicant's claim of hardship is due to the irregular shape of the lot, narrow driveway entrance, and deep front setback. The applicant is concerned that if he is forced to reduce or remove the existing sign persons coming to the clinic driving north bound on Dixie Highway will be unable to see the entrance resulting in traffic safety issues. • The applicant's proposal is supportable under the variance decision criteria set forth for the Planning Board in Section 20- 6.1(13)(3)(h) which states that "....a variance shall be made only when necessary to relieve particular hardships or extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property, and when the strict application of a particular regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional hardship upon the owner of such property as distinguished from reasons of convenience; profit or PB 07 -020 Variance Request —6394 S Dixie. Page 3 of S caprice. The difference between a new sign and the existing sign is minimal (two feet). Forcing the owner to re -build the sign in order to change the name of the business can also be considered a hardship. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the variance request be approved. Attachments: Location Map Application Letter of Intent/ Justification Survey Site Photos Copy of Public Notices JP /SAY P: \PB\PB Agendas Staff Reports\2007 Agendas Staff Reports \8••14- 07 \PB -07 -020 6394 S Dixie Variance Report.doc PB 07 -020 Variance Request —6394 S Dixie. Page 4 of 5 ATTACHMENT • Land Development Code Section 20 -5.9 Variances Approvals (A) Expiration of Variance Approvals.. A variance approved pursuant to Section 20 -5.5 shall lapse after six (6) month if no substantial construction or change of use has taken place in accordance with the request for such variance and if the city commission has not specified a longer approval period for good cause shown. (B) Extension of Variance Approvals. Four (4) affirmative votes of the city commission may grant an extension to a previously approved variance if a proper and timely request is made by the applicant prior to the expiration of the six (6) month period. (C) Hardship Statement. All applications for a variance shall include a letter of intent indicating the specific nature of the hardship upon which the request is based. (D) Property Survey Required. All applications for a variance shall include a current property survey prepared by a registered surveyor. (E) Neighborhood Concurrence. All applications for a variance shall be accompanied by a map which reflects all properties and the names of all property owners within a five hundred (500) foot radius of the subject property. The applicant shall obtain and submit the signatures of at least twenty (20) percent of such property owners, indicating their awareness of the proposed variance request. (F) Proposed Site Plan Required. A site plan shall be required showing all proposed buildings and setbacks and any other features relating to the variance request. (G) Permitted Variance Requests. Applications for variances shall be restricted to only the following: (1) Yard setbacks (2) Lot size (3) Lot coverage (4) Building height (5) Fences and walls (6) Impervious coverage PB 07 -020 Variance Request —6394 S Dixie. Page 5 of 5 (7) Off - street parking (8) Open space (9) Signs (10) Landscaping • Land Development Code Section 20- 6.1(B)(3)(h) - Bowers and duties Planning Board (h) The board shall review and make recommendations on . all applications for variances from the requirements, of this Code for yard setbacks, lot size, lot coverage, building height, fences and walls, impervious coverage, off - street parking, open space, signs and landscaping. Recommendations for a variance shall be made only when necessary to relieve particular hardships or extraordinary conditions relating to a specific property, and when the strict application of a particular regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional hardship upon the owner of such property as distinguished from reasons of convenience, profit or caprice. . � � § � m ` ... .. . yp.�y � c : °» » � Al � \ \ \^ . ?: � y ... .. . yp.�y � c : °» » � Al � \ } }� \\ i\ J : \ N O UQ 00 n L u1 _ _ _ _ tf) Ln N Q A rn c m 0 c rn N C LIJ� E p e it.� E O d V ! N O VMI W l� 1 ` L I z I : 1 L I N H Q of c L C T Ln N C OA .r. N t E G _ JIM. �r O d a_ Q A O" Q O U z O J o_ qTLIO�JV � m Ll� --JJJP a C �I np O ®� 3 b �� Q N O N L��JI O L ILL ra C, ' O U M Z O Uj ®U q�.l IpII ® J L V L aI C _ a ® _ 3 a z ° z � a a MHIOo � ° z � 0 � z 3 a " w F a a g � o_ qTLIO�JV � m Ll� --JJJP a C �I np O ®� 3 b �� Q N O N L��JI O L ILL ra C, ' O U M Z O Uj ®U q�.l IpII ® J L V L aI C _ a ® _ 3 s 0 C W µu ° t•V� a pin vaUi Z I eC e W °zow a z ° z � a a MHIOo � ° z 0 � z ,� aawwz>• a " w F a a g � c�2� a p zCn °yM. ° .a°�a o� h° O �ZNQ" a I5M w� pU >' � m z wzu a�❑Y❑ U�.��ayg °c o°im °a IFV 8n P;p-�h0.a P Cwwv R m o a a w papI?? -a�pw0e4 w G w3 a 5N E is VJ a�a�.a ....o � �� °. ..a°a.aoaw rr s 0 C W µu ° t•V� a pin vaUi Z I eC e W °zow a MHIOo � ° z a ,� aawwz>• " zmw a awe? WH<za3°Fo w>• c�2� a p zCn °yM. ° .a°�a o� h° O �ZNQ" a I5M w� pU >' � m z wzu a�❑Y❑ U�.��ayg °c o°im °a IFV 8n P;p-�h0.a ® Cwwv R a:rn pw a a w papI?? -a�pw0e4 NAN� �w�a � v, a�a�.a ....o � �� °. ..a°a.aoaw rr d b,°.zaoc �25."" ° °o °z wyooGo �• a a�In��so �O��a�'waw,F,��o �C g °�CCoE��kF og33 33 33 3 ° a pp�F� °a'�w'� fig5- a"HWE FAN. Oa ?° <� �w on '''' Fa o °a% �NN°d H, rn RE R za� !aym coo maw - EwHHHA °s �a <° -o C7 ems.. S00'00'49" L `SE 1 r- -10.0( v�0y O,i� s0•� r ,90'BLL 3„00,00.ON `JNINIV13Ei 'JNOJ m cd L 3 0 in o � ro <v vtOi Ob -49 -9£ '03S 30 MN '{ 3S d0 3NIl 1S3M ' n \ OJ Z� \ \ 1S3 Htl 9Z bS21 [002 /f2 /I xp 2[662 -Ga\ p \2[662 -LO \2 Y31Nn9 \S1�3fOHd 1- 6033A39 aN- 1- 413A30 QNtlI \N3�'IOJ NItlW SNOI1tlY3d0 R CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, August 14, 2007 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. CER�'T I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7: 40 A.M. Action: The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call Action: Chairman Morton requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Mr. Davis, Mr. Farfan, Ms. Young, and Ms. Beckman. Board Member Absent: Ms. Yates and Ms. Chael City staff present: Julian H. Perez (Planning Director), Sanford A. Youkilis (Planning Consultant), and Lluvia Resendiz (Administrative Assistant). IV. Planning Board Applications / Public Hearing PB -07 -020 Applicant: MCTC Holdings LLC Address: 6394 -96 S. Dixie Highway A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20- 4.3(I) AND SECTION 20- 4.3(K)(1) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PERMIT A NON - CONFORMING SIGN WITH NEW COPY TO REMAIN IN FRONT OF A BUSINESS LOCATED AT 6394 -96 S. DIXIE HIGHWAY IN THE "GR" GENERAL RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Board Meeting Page 2 of 4 Action: Mr. Morton read the resolution into the record. Mr. Youkilis advised that the applicant is requesting that a landscape sign be allowed to remain. Currently there are two signs displayed on the landscape sign, a bicycle shop and a car rental agency. One business has left and the new applicant, The Pet Emergency Room, which was approved as a Special Use by the City Commission, is requesting approval for a variance to allow new wording /copy on an existing non - conforming sign. The current sign exceeds the maximum size allowed for a landscape sign making it non - conforming. The LDC dictates that all existing signs, when originally installed, may remain as legal, non- conforming however, change of copy will be considered a new sign. The applicant claimed hardship due to the irregular shape of the lot. The applicant was also concerned that by reducing the size of sign persons coming into the clinic driving north bound on US -1 will not have clear visibility into the entrance which may result in traffic safety issues. Recommendation: It was recommended that the variance request be approved. Mr. Morton questioned whether the Board would set precedence should the variance be approved. Mr. Perez responded that staff does not want to set a precedence but rather assure consistency with the LDC. He asked the Board to consider the irregularity of the sign and the potential safety hazard it could present. Ms. Beckman questioned whether the dimensions will remain the same and whether or not the neighbors were notified. Mr. Youkilis responded that only the copy will change, from the Bicycle shop to The Pet Emergency Room, however the dimensions will not be altered. He added that notices were mailed to owners within 500 feet and the public hearing notice sign was posted on the property however staff has received no responses. Mr. Davis stated there are several points of reference pertaining to the grade height of the sign and questioned where the grade height was taken from. Mr. Youkilis responded the grade would be to the middle of the sign therefore it shows 6 feet 4 inches. Mr. Cervoni, applicant, stated he wanted to apply for the variance because he perceived it as a potential safety issue as access to the property would be difficult if the sign should be removed. The property is irregular with only one angle facing Dixie Highway, with a driveway 20 feet wide which has to provide exit and entry to the building. The request of the variance is for two reasons; the adjacent property was demolished and the new larger footprint will be flushed with the front of our property. Should this sign be removed access to our property would not be seen. A driver heading north on US -1 will not see it until he /she is in the front of the 20 foot driveway and would be forced to make a sharp turn to get into our business. The second concern is that in South Miami, veterinary clinics are forced to be in a small area. Should the sign be removed the two situations would create traffic hazard and potential safety issues. He requested that the Board consider the sign grandfathered. He added he is not proposing a bigger sign but rather simply changing the copy. Ms. Beckman questioned whether it was a competition matter. Mr. Cervoni replied the issue was not a matter of competition but rather an issue of concern with the new Planning Board Meeting Page 3 of 4 construction next to his property that will block the sign. He explained that their office is a referral office and other veterinary clinics refer business to them. Mr. Morton stated that the sign as it appears obscures the view of oncoming traffic. He then questioned staff if the placement of a pole sign would be a possibility. Furthermore, he questioned if it was not possible would the applicant to request a variance for the placement of the pole and further added that placing a four foot high sign would not solve the issue because it would still obscure traffic. Mr. Youkilis responded with a negative adding that the LDC does not permit it because the property does not have 100 feet of frontage. Mr. Youkilis added that the possibilities of obtaining a variance would be slim because generally urban design policy is to get rid of pole signs. If he does not get the variance he would just have to tear it down and put up a smaller sign. Mr. Cervoni responded that he does not believe the sign blocks the traffic sight. He has never experienced a problem exiting or entering the property. He stated he was willing to work with the City to find something that works with the City code. Mr. Morton questioned if it was possible to raise the sign three feet because he finds the pole sign would provide more visibility. Mr. Youkilis repeated that in order to have a pole the applicant must come before the Board and City Commission for the variance because the applicant's property does not have 100 feet of frontage. Should the applicant come before the Planning Department for a variance the director will recommended against it. Mr. Perez advised the Board that he will recommend against the variance for a pole sign. Ms. Young stated she is concerned with the new construction underway and what it would do to the businesses south of there. She questioned how it will fit into the scheme of the surrounding signs. Mr. Cervoni stated that based on the plans of the future construction he finds that the sign will be flushed with his building it will not cover the sign and believes all signs are in line. Ms. Beckman stated the applicant may be too worried. She suggested letting the issue go and instead wait to determine what happens after the new construction of the building. If there is a hardship then the Board might reconsider. Mr. Cervoni responded that it is not the hardship but rather a traffic safety issue. Mr. Morton questioned if the Board could approve the variance for the change in copy for a temporary period. He also questioned if the Board deferred the item for six months would the applicant have to repay the fee. Mr. Youkilis replied with a negative adding that the Board cannot put a time line on zoning /variances because it goes with the property. The applicant has a right to present his case before the City Commission. The only issue that could present itself is that if another company would request a change of copy would they be allowed to do that without returning before the Board for another variance. Mr. Morton stated that it appeared as if the sign was encroaching on the neighbor's property. Mr. Davis questioned how the Board could "grandfather" a sign which Planning Board Meeting Page 4 of 4 encroaches the abutting property. Mr. Perez answered that the property has been there for years and it was out of compliance because it was there before the statutes were written. It was out of compliance until modifications were made thereafter it was "grandfathered." It is not unusual to have signs overlapping on the neighbor's property and if so it is between the neighbors to resolve the issue. Motion: Mr. Morton moved for denial of the variance. Ms. Young seconded. Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays PAComm Items \2007 \9- 4- 07\PB- Mins- 08 -14 -07 Excerpt.doc � °v °oho i 00'0 L —� M „6tbr00.00S O WD C ) m on�,Z C IT1 ON m N 0 c U1Ar na' mu Z v C7 r z W z O U O roml �M 'No :0' 1 'Z I �r owl i0O N� y I i c i A o I A I �x O,Z] air G/ O N O o -o cl OgWg 'JaF�. v�ymy'yxi :U'30 mca'fOy xH CE=ioc0]'c1�:U0 �HC] .7FJ C LL�+�]] W M WW A mm O z y7. ff]� �Ki�oo t1 m pm �] M 0 RP 10W. m bgtoay�H�o.rCO5OC Zp.jm[y.yroiy 91 m my [zzO+�yyy.Nd 'may y y [[1aJ7 PC7 'C 2 l7 � oowmwom yy ” � y � � ��•+ 0z 10 m e n W, � r to a n y en CG o .. zCz07"o� ❑❑LLm�ym��11a�ry >n l��y7 tz t MC x �� a"O' :yy'AU �O D S:�o ,v�o�a�z�n�mcai�c]n m. odx�xnx��oH��S �.d zdo9mm.E C e� ro Cyy�� kd�]00''yyyymoyrrd' c]��.�M pyx� '< tt•O�, d � l7 z y pRyyyR�?�y7 yyz ��"ACC ECECFF�++�++m111111 d � ryy w H �° �3 0-3 y 9 y� y OfOm�l Oi fT `P C1 NI+�HO O ro ' ro zzz"AZZ�UZZHx o x z000�o0 0x �a OHHH'�HH'�HH0[gN � �Qoyo m ci n 000yoomoo0 °K H � 0m �5� moo o O O rA � � � CA VJ ^'UJ fn ^gym VJ tz70O'� o � C r,� n rH 'p z� 13 H H WC, Y C d tv O C yyO 1Zm Y mm 9 d "d z y. .A 0 d [yn a mooM I d H x d o Imo z N m �nm rq rA C O K E] O d to � l o � y m f] IgO VJ bdH m ro � rn � 0 H o� O o� m [ti m y H 0 r z 0 o � N W � o d �1 i - - O O •A \ r �U o, d T _ o [h m Q D (� C� �u n D D = o o �; m =o ^ U! z D D o m tv M o 4 y A U] �� dm .- ,y z a rA Z °xa 0 ro ny P H 0 !;4 C to O 0, W tv m �? 0 cl oy c n O °x� z 4] 0 mr � y� W yro a O z d m _ g� C yF" H H m 0 a d a a cn H x m La � O O T� � K '1] m °z a m a o hi o r �U o, d T _ o m Q D (� C� �u n D D = o o �; m =o ^ U! z D D o m < ruu M n `L m 2 Ln N z N K O m O O y c n z m z m D o r --- INS � F- 0 zD O O Fri D n w cp o��°, (L' CD cn LY N N D �> F L� N �0 N D o CA rn � a � Ui D to o MAI k4 � 0 0 a q mz z Z n AI \\ L. o pD c Z 9� cn d gii o � o _ o \ > .Tl o _ :0 m o ra c] z. z n A o m m O D z m z m m -i M O � lam/ L z z m m �j O r 0 O -i