HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-76-1093REM/EST
E1PLANATION
or t Eau ST
.,,i?tt S 1AI:,,APPtAtkANCt
Warietco enterprises, inc+ , in behalf of one of its divisions,
'Outdoor Media, an outdoor advertising company.
To consider amending the Zoning ordinance as it pertains
to the amortization requirement of 12 years for general
advertising roof signs (billboards).
The sign regulation section of the zoning ordinance requires
that non -conforming roof signs "shall be completely removed
from the premises not later than 12 years from the date
which they became non -conforming." Since roof signs were
prohibited by Miami in October 1965, existing non -conforming
roof signs such as are owned, operated and/or leased by
Outdoor Media would have to be removed by October 1977.
Outdoor Media contends "that the effect of this ordinance
is to place an undue hardship on us".
Most of the existing sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
(Article XXIV) are the result of the adoption of Ordinance
#7338 on July 20, 1965, with an effective date of October
1, 1965. This ordinance eliminated roof signs as permitted
type of sign in the City of Miami and established amortization
periods for non -conforming signs including general advertising
signs. The ordinance states that non -conforming signs,
except for roof signs, shall be completely removed from
the premises or altered to conform not later than five years
from the date which said use becomes non -conforming:
roof signs and their supporting members shall be completely
removed from the premises not later than 12 years from
the date which they became non -conforming.
The elimination of roof signs came about at the first reading
of Ordinance #7338. The City Commission specifically
requested that no new roof signs be permitted after the
effective date of the proposed ordinance.
In 1968, one of the outdoor advertising companies made an
appearance before the Planning and Zoning Board requesting
consideration of allowing general advertising signs as a
permitted use in the C-2 zoning district.
In a subsequent study by the Planning Department, one of
their recommendations suggested that the five year
amortization period could be extended to ten years for
signs in the C-1 and C-2 districts. When this and the other
7r- /els
e torritn.eridatioft s reached the City Commission, the City
enttittliSsion by 'Resolution No, 42058, December 10,19/0
denied "the request for extension of time for removal of
non -conforming outdoor advertising signs and expressing
the policy of the City Commission that such signs should
be removed immediately upon the expiration of the
amortization period provided in the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance of the City".
Since this resolution clearly states City policy, no
amendments to the sign ordinance amortization schedule
can be initiated by the administration unless so directed
by the City Commission.