Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #04 - Discussion ItemINITIAT1 i to REQUEST: $ACI<GI OUND: 1LANNtNG VACt 5: 1EET ubll 1-Ie .ring as directed by City cottitriissioii Motiofi 76=lies dated December 15, 1976, to receive cottirrietits WI the roof sign provisions of Ordinance #7338, (Colti)ireas hensive Zoning Ordinance ARTICLE XXIV SIGNS, Section ly subsections (7) and (13) and ARTICLE XXVttt NoN. CONrORMINCI 13t1ILDING AND USES, Section 3, subsection (3) which provisions require the removal of roof signs by October 19, 1977, This request is prompted by the personal appearance of a representative of Wonletco Enterprises Inc, for one of its divisions, Outdoor Media, s general advertising company, It was requested of the City Commission that the City of lvliatni not require the removal of roof signs as required by the Zoning Ordinance in October of 1977. This provision, although covering both owner identification and general advertising roof signs was specifically requested by a general advertising company. During the adoption of the new Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance #6871, in 1961, it was determined that the sign regulations as set forth in the Ordinance were not appro- priate and that new sign legislation would be required. The Planning Department proceeded to undertake studies concerning sign regulations and ultimately provided draft, legislation to the City Commission in 1964. The majority of sign regulations contained in the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance were the result of Ordinance No. 7338 adopted on July 20, 1965 to become effective October 1, 1965. The adoption of this ordinance eliminated roof signs as a permitted use in the City of Miami and established a reasonable amortization period for non- conforming roof signs including general advertising signs. The Ordinance required that roof signs and their supporting members be completely removed from the premises not later than twelve years from the effective day of the adopting ordinance, or October 19, 1977. In tate 1969 and 1970, the Department was asked to meet with the sign industry, particularly the general advertising sign industry. The industry, faced with removal of their detached (ground signs) general advertising structures in certain zoning districts were appealing to the City to extend the five year amortization period for this type of sign as they felt it imposed a hardship upon the industry if those signs had to be removed, /,7• vlt/e9 ladeedi a ° ' • are.. Proposed tegista.tibtt was stiiitiiitted trt the City Cott t is§lotl t tentting this 5 year athortihatiott period for these signs, however the City Commission by Resolution ll42O58, dated December lt), 1970 denied "the request for e�ctensiowi of time for removal of ►ionconfortiiing outdoor advertising signs and expressing the policy of the City Conitiiissioti that such signs he removed imMediately upon the expira'tioti of the amortization period provided iti the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance," Conitnencing in 1971, City Deliarttiients responsible for - 'cnforcetiient of the amortization of non_conforming detached '''outdoor advertising signs have proceeded based oh the City .Corrttnission's policy and the provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. However, enforcement of this legislation has led to many lawsuits, all of which have been successfully defended by the City although additional litigation is in process. A lawsuit brought by Webster Outdoor Advertising was successfully defended by the City and suits by the Donnelly Advertising Company have also been successfully defended, to date: As each lawsuit has been successfully defended by the City, additional litigation has been forthcoming. The Law Department was asked to provide the status of current litigation and to comment upon the impact upon this litigation if the City of Miami were to extend the twelve year amortization period for roof signs, In essence the Law ,Department indicated that the City could legally amend the amortization period but in doing so it would only be proper to amend the ,five year amortization period for non -conforming ,detached outdoor advertising signs (previously discussed) and should that be done, current litigation in progress and previous litigation successfully defended by the City would be placed jeopa rdy. RECOMMENDATION PLANNING ADVISORY Resolution recommending that the sign amortization provisions BOARD of. the Comprehensive Zoning' Ordinance be enforced by 6-1 vote May 18. COMMUNITY COMMENT PD 5/11/77, PD 5/20/77 'At the PAB hearing, a representative of, the. Sign'Industry' spoke' against the amortization provisions; two proponents voiced support.:.. 16Orable City COMMitSiOn AttentiOn t Mt, Joseph R. C City, of Mis, 'larida Gentlemen The Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of May 18, 1977, Item #2, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution. No. PAB 31-77 by a 6 to 1 vote recommending that roof sign provisions of Ordinance #7338, (Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance ARTICLE XXIV SIGNS) Section 1, Subsections (7) and (13) and ARTICLE XXVIII NON- CONFORMING BUILDING AND USES, Section 3, Subsection (3) which pro- visions require the removal of roof signs by October 19, 1977 stay in its present state with no extensions of amortization periods. :There was one objector present at the meeting. re: O tD iNANCS AMENDMENT tICOMMEND ED NO, „_.EXTENSIONS - Ordinance 6871, A RTICLE XXIV, Section 1 (7) & (13) ARTICLE XXVIII, Section 3 (3) which require removal of roof signs by October 19, 1977. Sincerely, Rob . Davis, Direr Department of :administration Planning and Zoning Boards 7n cc : Planning'' Department Tentative City Commission date: June '16, 1977 /tip` DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1616 ONE BISCAYNE tOWER / MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 / tEl. (305) 377-5085 TO! lion. Maurice A. Fevre s Mayor Rose Gordons Vice Mayor Rev. Theodore R. Gibsoni Commissioner' J. L► Plummers Commissioner Manolo Rebosos Commissioner FROM: Roy F. Kenzie, Executive Director DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SUBJECT! Roof Top Provisions of the City of Miami: Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance DATEt June 165 1977 Twelve years ago, the Miami City Commission adopted a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance containing a provision eliminating roof signs as a permissible use in the City of Miami and established a reasonable amortization period for nonconforming roof signs. Today, a Public Hearing is being held before the City Commission to hear arguments concerning the City's imposed deadline for roof top signs. These arguments, however, must be put in perspective in light of the past record and policy of the City Commission and the Planning Advisory Board. In a similar case in 1970 proposed legislation was submitted to the City Commission to extend the five year amortization period for nonconforming outdoor advertising signs. The City Commission by Resolution No. 42058, dated December 10, 1970, denied the request for extension of time and expressed the policy of the City Commission that such signs be removed immediately upon expiration of the amortization period provided in the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. This action was consistent with the intent of the ordinance passed by the City Commission in 1965. Further, at the direction of the City Commission, the Planning Advisory Board conducted a Public Hearing to receive comments on the roof sign provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. On May 18, 1977, the Planning Advisory Board in Public Hearing, recommended by Resolution PAB 31-77 that the amortization provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be enforced. After consideration of the various issues involved in the roof sign question, the Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority at its June loth Board Meeting, voted unanimously to support the City of Miami and the City Commission in its efforts to remove roof signs as required by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of 1965. The Board also pointed out that the twelve year amortization period for removal of such signs was reasonable and should not be extended. ..ztc ef.o.eu eiteezeiia4eie, Iioi4b, Ii�tiit^'zce As�rtn The Board of IJY.�+eetot s cat' the Downtown ieVelopttetit Ati±hoi'ity. .stt'otigly t.it tes' that the Ca.t,y Cci iris i�>a� s�oii i itie its effb t th erifot'c the rao sigh t)rovf the CoiItt tehetisive i.,otilltt g : 'Ot'dinatice es .appt'ovecl 1.9654 Roy F► 1Settziey .Lecutive,Director DOWNTOWN DEVFLOi'MEW1 AUTHORITY Rol; t dd cc t Do tito�tti Development Authority.,.board. Jbseph,Grasie Richard Eoincien AiM,ah' Chapman Letter. Ereett ari