HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-00-1139J-00-1027 (a)
12/08/00
00-139
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION DATED
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000, REGARDING FREESTANDING
BILLBOARDS IN THE SD-6 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL -
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN THE' CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of
November 6, 2000, Item No. 3, following an advertised public
hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 2000-0378, by a vote of four
to two (4-2), to approve the appeal of the -Zoning Administrator's
interpretation dated September 19, 2000, regarding freestanding
billboards in the SD-6 Central Commercial -Residential Districts
in the City of Miami, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the City Zoning Code_ (Ordinance No. 11000, as
amended) requires five (5) affirmative votes to grant an appeal
of the interpretation by the Zoning Administrator; and
WHEREAS, the vote of the Zoning Board did not have the
required five affirmative votes to grant the appeal and therefore.
the appeal was denied and the Zoning Administrator's
interpretation was upheld; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of
this matter finds that the stated grounds for the appeal and the
facts presented in support thereof do not justify reversing the
above mentioned Zoning Administrator's interpretation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference and
incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
Section 2. The City Commission hereby denies the appeal
and affirms the Zoning Administrator's interpretation dated
September 19, 2000 (Zoning Board Resolution No. ZB 2000-0378,
adopted November 06, 2000), regarding freestanding billboards in
the SD-6 Central Commercial -Residential Districts in the City of
Miami, Florida.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor'/
�i If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at
the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted. If
the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately
upon override of the veto by the City Commission.
Page 2 of 3 0 0 -113 9
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of December , 2000.
JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR
In accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2-36, since the Mayor did not indicate approval of
this legislation by signing it in the designated place ; aided, said legislation no
becomes effective with the elapse of ten (10} ay, fro ' to d of mmissir.+ n
regarding same, without the Mayor exercisi g a t B ®%
ATTEST:
WALTER J. FOEMAN
CITY CLERK
APPROV5B# AS FO ! AN ORRECTNESS:V
! ATTORNEY 1910,
4864:YMT:nr:BSS
Waiter J.
Page 3 of 3 00`-1 13 9
E
INCDNP ONATED
`O f8q_96 s^Q
Case Number: 2000-0395
• PZ-6
ZONING FACT SHEET
06-Nov-00 Item No: 3
Location: Appeal of a decision of the Zoning Administrator
Legal: (Complete legal description on file with the Office of Hearing Boards)
Applicant: Paul J. Warren, President
North Star Media, Inc.
251 Maitland Avenue, #208
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
App. Ph: (407) 659-9119
Zoning: SD-6, 6.1 Central Commercial -Residential Districts
Request: Appeal by Paul Warren of the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding
placement of freestanding billboards in the SD-6 (Central Commercial -Residential
Districts).
Purpose: This will allow a freestanding offsite sign in the SD-6 zoning
designation.
Recommendations:
Planning Department: N/A
Public Works: N/A
Plat and Street Committee: N/A
Dade County Transportation: N/A
Enforcement History, If any C.E.B. Case No: Last Hearing Date:
Found:
Violation(s) Cited:
Ticketing Action:
Daily Fine: $0.00 Affidavit Non -Compliance Issued on:
Warning Letter sent on:
Total Fines to Date: $0.00 Lien Recorded on:
CEB Action:
History:
Analysis:
Zonina Board R6solution No: ZB 2000-0378
Zoning Board: Denial
Appellant: Paul J. Warren, President of NS Media, Inc.
Comply Order by:
Vote: 4-2
00- 1139 /
f.
Miami Zoning Board
Resolution: ZB 2000-0378
Monday, November 06, 2000
Mr. Humberto J. Pellon offered the following Resolution and moved
its adoption
Resolution:
A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL FAILS DUE TO A LACK OF NUMBER OF AFFIRMATIVE
VOTES, CONSTITUTING A DENIAL OF THE APPEAL BY PAUL WARREN OF THE DECISION OF
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING PLACEMENT OF FREESTANDING BILLBOARDS IN
THE SD-6 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Upon being seconded by Mr. Angel Urquiola,
the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote:
Mr. George Barket
Ms. Gloria M. Basila
Mr. Rodolfo De La Guardia
Mr. Charles J. Flowers
Ms. Ileana Hemandez-Acosta
Mr. Humberto J. Pellon
Mr. Juvenal Pina
Mr. Ricardo D. Ruiz
Mr. Angel Urquiola
Mr. Georges Williams
Yes
Away
Away
No
Away
Yes
Yes
Away
Yes
No
AYE: 4
NAY: 2
ABSTENTIONS: 0
NO VOTES: 0
ABSENTS: 4
Ms. Fernandez: Motion fails 4-2 (5 affirmative votes required)
r
Teresita L. Fe nandez, Chief
Office of Hearing Boards
Case No.: 2000-0395 Item Nbr: 3
0.9-I139
NS
Media • •
November 16, 2000 .Transmittal via Facsimile to: (305) 416-2035 i1/i71oo
City of Miami
C/O Mrs. Teresita Fernandez, Executive Secretary
Office of Hearing Board
444 S.W. 2Ind Avenue, 7th Floor
Miami, FL 33130
SUBJECT: North Star Media Application for an Outdoor Advertising (Offsite)
Advertising Sign permit, Decision of Zoning Board Item #3 11/6/2000,
Notice of Appeal to Miami City Commission
Ref: a) Initial Letter Request, November 10, 2000, same subject
b) Notice of Public Hearing, 11/06/2000, 7:OOP.M.
Dear Mrs. Fernandez,
This letter serves to advise you that relative to the Public Hearing of 11 /6/00, item 3, Petition
for Appeal by Paul Warren of the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding placement
of freestanding billboard in the SD-6 (Central Commercial- Residential Districts), North
Star Media respectfully requests to appeal the decision of the Zo_ ning Board to the Miami
City Commission. The Board voted 4 to 2 to deny the appeal.
The issues, points and the arguments of the Applicant's Appeal heard by the Zoning Board
were and are relatively simple and straightforward. However, because of the inter-
relationships of more than one zoning district, the related codes and the modifications and
exceptions made to the code sections, appropriate time and effort is logically required in
order to fully understand the issues and the Applicant's arguments. The subject matter of the
Applicant's Appeal, being the sign regulations that are created for the SD-6 district by
incorporating the prior existing sign regulations of the C-1 District, combined with
discussions of the C-2 District logically requires three things in order to be understood and to
effect a fair, and reasonable analysis and decision:
1. A full understanding of the subject matter and issues;
2. Close attention to the written, related documents; and the Applicant's arguments;
3. Asking questions of the Applicant to be sure that the Applicant's position and arguments
(which was provided to the Board as a written Exhibit) are fully understood
The Applicant asserts and emphasizes that nothing presented here in meant to hurt anyone's
feelings but is based upon the observations of the applicant. It is noted that there were only
six (6) members of the Zoning Board present.
The reasons for this Appeal to the City Commission are as follow:
1. During the period of time that should have been used to focus on and to ask questions
about the Applicant's position and presentation,__ one Zoning Board Member was
permitted to create a very distracting, unrelated line of discussion relating to non -
NORTH STAR MEDIA, INC.
25 1 MAITLAND AVENUE SUITE 206 + ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FL 3270 1
(407) 659-9 1 1 9 + FAX (407) 659-9 1 2 1
EM
conforming signs which should have been stopped by the Chair. This Tine of discussion
not only distracted other members of the board from concentrating and focusing on the
Applicants presentation and valid arguments, it also demonstrated a highly prejudicial
attitude and mindset on the part of the member who did this. This discussion lasted
several minutes. The Chair failed to intervene to bring the distraction under control.
2. The Chair, in my opinion, should (and typically does) take a lead role to question,
pertinent elements of an applicant's arguments and to encourage this type of dialogue by
all Board Members if an applicant is io.be provided a full, .unbiased; fair and.complete
hearing. The Chair failed to ask any questions of the Applicant and did not evidence any
degree of effort in understanding the Data Exhibit provided to the Board Members by the
Applicant.
3. Two of the Zoning Board members as observed by the Applicant and by another person
present, seemed not to fully understand the issues. These two gentlemen showed little
interest in the subject matter, asked no questionsandseemed to behaving difficulty
reading or understanding the data sheets provided by the Applicant
4. The Chair looked to one of these gentlemen to make the motion to deny the Applicant's
Appeal, and, in the opinion. of the Applicant, seemed to apply verbal pressure to achieve
that purpose. While pondering the Chair's request for a motion, this gentleman was
observed flipping back and forth rapidly.. between the pages of the Data Exhibit.provided
by the Applicant. It appeared that this gentleman did not understand what he was looking
at for he never focused on any one data sheet to be able to do so nor. did he. ask a single
question of the Applicant or Staff. It is the: opinion of the Applicant that this person who
made the Motion to deny the Appeal did.so as a matter of expediency in.deference to the!
Chair's request.
5. It is important to note that the Chair never asked for a Motion to approve the Applicant's
Appeal. To the contrary, the Chair sought a motion to deny the appeal without first
asking if there was a motion to approve:. Due'to the shortage of Board Members present,
a motion to approve would have required 5 yes votes_ out of 6. " While difficult to achieve,
at least this would have provided a fairer and more equitable expression on the part of the
voting members. Due to the voting rules under these. circumstances, the Applicant was
placed at a further disadvantage because.a motion to deny did not require 5 out of 6 yes
votes. .
6. In support of the foregoing -(that questioning of the Applicant and/or the Applicant's
arguments was appropriate and important), two of the Board Members did ask questions..
As a result of their questions they obviously came to understand the Applicant's position`,
and arguments and agreed with the Applicant. In the Applicant's opinion, they were the
only two Board Members who' made an effort to understand the subject matter, the issues
involved, and the Applicant's position. As a result of their questions and ,discussions,
these two Board Members voted against'denial- i.e: in favor of approving the Applicant's
position. .
2+
In summary, the Applicant did not receive a fair and complete hearing of his Appeal. In
addition, the Chair in asking and insisting only for a motion to deny is seen by the Applicant
as taking advantage of a procedure to the disadvantage of the Applicant.
Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests to appeal the decision of the Zoning Board
to the City of Miami Commission.
Respectfully,
Enclosure:
Check # /3"9 In the amount of $500.00, Hearing Fee.
Being sent via Federal Express.
CO. 1139
NS Media 0
C.
September 28, 2000
City of Miami
This is a duplicate of the original letter sent via fax on 9-29-00
And by Express Mail to arrive 10-2-00.
C/O Mr. Juan Gonzalez, Zoning Administrator
Planning & Zoning Department
444 S.W. 2°d Avenue, 3rd Floor
Miami, FL 33130
SUBJECT: North Star Media Application for an Outdoor Advertising (Offsite) Advertising
Sign permit, Notice of Appeal
Ref: a) Your letter of September 19, 2000, received September 23, 2000
Dear Mr. Gonzales,
In keeping with your letter, reference (a), above, this letter serves to advise you of our request
to appeal the decision as set forth in your letter. The details or specific requirements for
preparing documents for the appeal were not provided. If you require any specific forms or
other data to be submitted, we will of course be glad to provide this as soon as you so advise.
The sign regulations for the SD-6 zoning district rely upon the sign regulations of the C-1
district which are incorporated by reference with modifications and exceptions.
Our disagreement reverts to the fact that Ground or Freestanding signs that you rely upon for
denying our application are defined under the C-1 sign regulations as being onsite signs only.
In effecting the incorporation of the C-1 regulations by reference with specific modifications
and exceptions, nothing was written to modify or convert ground or freestanding signs to be or
to inclue offsite signs. They remain onsite signs only as clearly defined by the C-1 regulations.
The ability to erect offsite, outdoor advertising signs, in the SD-6 District is made possible by a
very specific exception to the C-1 Sign regulations. The exception, as written, is quite
elaborate and well defined and does not, in any way, place a limitation on the method for
erecting these signs- other than as provided for under Section 606.15- i.e —they must be of
unipod construction. There is nothing written in the SD-6 code that modifies Ground or Free
Standing sips (clearly defined as onsite signs only in the C-1 regulations) to be, or to include,
offsite or outdoor advertising signs. Therefore they, being onsite signs only, can not, by the
City code, be construed to be offsite signs, and, most specifically, they can not be construed to
be nor to include outdoor advertising signs.
We regret to have to disagree with you on this matter and trust that we can proceed with the
Appeal process with an open and objective mind for resolving this matter amicably.
Sincerely,
Cc: Rosario Kennedy & Associates, Inc.
NORTH STAR MEDIA, INC.
25 1 MAITLAND AVENUE SUITE 208 ♦ ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FL 3270 1 (1 r ,q
(407) 659-9 1 1 9 ♦ FAX (407) 659-9 1 2 1 0 g�
ANA GELABERT-SANCHEZ
Director
September 19, 2000
NS, Media
C/o Paul J. Warren
251 Maitland Avenue, Suite 208
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Re: Outdoor Advertising
Freestanding Sign
SD-6 Zoning Designation
Dear Mr. Warren:
itV 0f ffliamT
G�qV opt
t�
r r
DONALD H. WARSHAW
City Manager
Pursuant to our meeting of August 31, 2000 concerning placement of freestanding billboards in the
SD-6 (Central Commercial -Residential Districts) zoning designation, please be advised of the
following.
The SD-6 zoning designation regulates signage under Section 606.11 and particular to offsite signs
number (2) which states:
"Offsite signs shall be permitted, subject to the following conditions:
Maximum one (1) per street frontage, maximum four hundred (400) square feet
of surface area per sign and all such offsite signs shall be designed to exhibit
continuously changing displays of figures, words or graphics through the use of
lights, projected images or luminous character generators. Temporary civic
and political campaign signs limited to four hundred (400) square feet of
surface area are allowed. Offsite signs above a height of fifty (50) feet above
grade shall be subject to the provisions of section 926.16, as appropriate and
where those provisions are more limiting."
Further related to signage regulations in the SD-6 designation is number (4), which, is also a part of
Section 606.11 which states the following;
"Ground or freestanding signs shall be limited to directional signs and
temporary civic and political campaign signs."
Therefore, while offsite signs are permitted in the SD-6 zoning designation, subject to mentioned .
limitations, the offsite sign cannot be freestanding. Permitted offsite signs in the SD-6 zoning
designation must consist only of wall signs.
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 0 -113 9
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor/Miami, Florida 33130/(305) 41.6-1400/Telecopier: (305) 416-2156
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 330708/Miami, Florida 33233-070
Paul J. Warren'
September 19, 2000
Page 2 of 2
In conclusion, freestanding offsite signs are not allowed in the SD-6 zoning designation. As
provided in Section 1801, decisions of the Zoning Administrator shall be deemed final, unless a
notice of appeal is filed within notmore than fifteen (1S) days from the date of decision.
If further information is required on this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (305) 416-1178.
ry truly your
uan don le
Acting Zoning Admi str o
JCG: er
Cc: Ana Gelabert-Sanchez, Director
Planning and Zoning Department
Zoning file
00-1139