Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #15 - Discussion ItemINITIATION: R EQUE ST BACKGROUND: PLANNING; _F AC I' SHEET Dearing as directed by City Commission Motion 6 dated December 15, 1976, to receive comments on the roof sign provisions of Ordinance 47338, (Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance ARTICLE XXIV SIGNS, Section 1, subsections (7) and (13) and ARTICLE XXVIII NON - CONFORMING BUILDING 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 Wometco Enterprises Inc. for one of its divisions, Outdoor Media, a general advertising company. It was requested of the City Commission that the City of Miami 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, 1963 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 prerrises not later than twelve years from the effective day of the adopting ordinance, or October 19, 1977. In late 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 fi:•e 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. ■ ANALYSIS: R ECOMMENDATION PLA NNING AD VISOR Y BOARD PD 5/11/77 PD 5/20/77 r 7/5/77 Proposed legislation was submitted to the City Commission extending this 5 year amortization period for these signs, however, the City Commission by Resolution x42058. dated December 10, 1970 denied "the request for extension of time for rerno'-al of non - conforming outdoor advertising signs and expressing the policy of the City Commission that such signs be removed immediately upon the expiration of the amortization period provided in the City's Comprehensive. Zoning Ordinance.'' Commencing in 1971, City Departments responsible for enforcement of the amortization of non - conforming detached outdoor advertising signs have proceeded based on the City Commission'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 ha,-e 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 hut 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 in . jeopardy. Resolution recommending that the sign amortization provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be enforced by 6 -1 vote May 18. COMMUNITY At the PAB hearing, a representative of the Sign Industry COMMENT spoke against the amortization provisions; two proponents voiced support. CITY COMMISSION Deferred June 6, 1977, to give Mr. Wolfson the opportunity to make a personal appearance regarding this item. situ Oiuiui, Honorable City Corrunission Attention: Mr. Joseph R. Grassie City of Miami, Florida 10 M 1 .97 ariba -t : ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - RECOMMENDED NO EXTENSIONS - Ordinance 6871, ARTICLE XXIV, Section 1 (7) & (13) ARTICLE XXVI I I, Section 3 (3) which require removal of roof signs by October 10, 1077. Gentlemen: The Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of May 18, 1977, Item 42, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 31 -77 by a 6 to 1 vote recommending that roof sign provisions of Ordinance 47336, (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 pia- 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. jn cc: Planning Department Tentative City Commission date: June 16 Sincerely, a g L.� • L D / Uav1s, ll � r Zibr Department of %dministration Planning and Zoning Boards