Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-081873 4 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 ORDINANCE NO. 8187 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY DELETING SECTION 3(2) OF ARTICLE XXIV, AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADDING A NEW SECTION 3(2); AND BY DELETING SECTION 3-1(2) OF ARTICLE XXIV IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADDING A NEW SECTION 3-1(2), AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH; PERTAINING TO THE ALLOWABLE SIZES OF FLAT SIGNS FACING THE STREET FRONTAGE; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Miami, at its meeting held on July 9, 1973, passed and adopted by a 9 to 0 vote its Resolution No. 73-154, recommending granting amendments to Ordinance No. 6871, as hereinafter set forth, pertaining to the allowable sizes of flat signs facing the street frontage; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 6871, be and the same is hereby amended by deleting Section 3(2) of Article XXIV in its entirety and in lieu thereof adding a new Section 3(2), to read as follows: "(2) Flat sign, one (1) facing each street frontage. The sign area shall be limited to forty (40) square feet, provided however, that the permitted area of the flat sign may be increased by 211 \percent for each foot above the first ten (10) feet of building height above grade that the lowest point of the sign is placed upon the building." Section 2. That Ordinance No. 6871, be and the same is hereby amended by deleting Section 3-1(2) of Article XXIV in its r2ntirr -.y, and in lieu thereof providing 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 a new section 3-1(2) to read as follows: "(2) Flat sign, one (1) facing each street frontage. The sign area shall be limited to forty (40) square feet, provided however, that the permitted area of the flat sign may be increased by two and one-half (2 2) percent for each foot above the first ten (10) feet of building height above grade that the lowest point of the sign is placed on the building." Section 3. That all laws, or parts of laws, in conflict herewith, be and the same are hereby repealed insofar as they are in conflict. Section 4. It is declared to be the legislative intent of this body that if any section, subsection, sentence, phrase or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance shall not be affected. PASSED on first reading by title only this 13th day of September 1973. PASSED AND ADOPTED on second and final reading by title only this 26th day of September , 1973. DAVID T. KENNEDY Attest: MAYOR H.U. SOUTHERN -2- City Clerk MIAMI IIEVIEW AND DAILY RECORD Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Dade County, Florida. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally op - peered Ruth Wetter, who on oath says that She Is Assistant to the Publisher of the Miami Review and Daily Record, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday end Legal Holidays) newspaper published at Miami In Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of adver- tisement, being a Legal Advertisement or Notice In the matter of • in the Court. was published in said newspaper In the Issues of Affiant further says that the said Miami Review and Daily Record is a newspaper published et Miami, In said Dade County, Florida, and that the said news- paper has heretofore been continuously published in said Dade County Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Miami, in said Dade County. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and a(flant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. .. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day `Of ......ti . -A.D. 19 • Janet Leo, Notary Public, State of Florida/at Large. (SEAL) My Commission expires April 1#, 1917. (ITT f1> "tnA1ti, DADE ('O)'NTY. *FLORIDA LEGAIL NOTICE All inter''ied take notice tuat rit a meeting held nn the 26th day nt Sent>mher, 1971 the ( —mmlesin of the City of Mit+mi. F' .ri9a ad.gpted nn --'rdinance entitled — AN ORDINANCE AMEND- ING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY DELETING SECTION 3(2) OF ARTICLE NSIV, AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADDING A NEW SECTION :112i; AND BY DELETING SECTION 3-1(2) OF ARTI- CLE XXIV IN ITS EN- TIRETY AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADDING A NEW SECTION 3-1(2) AS HERE- INAFTER SET FORTI-I; PERTAINING TO THE AL- LOWABLE SIZES OF FLAT SIGNS F ACING THE STREET FRONTAGE; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH which is designated Ordinanc, Nn. 8187. H D SOUTHERN CITY CLERK CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA Publication of this notice the 1st day of October. 1973. Ad. No. 10011 nn 2 3 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 RHT/cc 7/16/73 ORDINANCE NO. eis9 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 6871, BY DELETING SECTION 3(2) OF ARTICLE XXIV, AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADDING A NEW SECTION 3(2); AND BY DELETING SECTION 3-1 (2) OF ARTICLE XXIV IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN LIEU THEREOF ADDING A NEW SECTION 3-1(2), AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH; PERTAINING TO THE ALLOWABLE SIZES OF FLAT SIGNS FACING THE STREET FRONTAGE; AND BY REPEALING ALL LAWS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Miami, at its meeting held on July 9, 1973, passed and adopted by a 9 to 0 vote its Resolution No. 73-154, recommending granting amendments to Ordinance No. 6871, as hereinafter set forth, pertaining to the allowable sizes of flat signs facing the street frontage; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. That Ordinance No. 6871, be and the same is hereby amended by deleting Section 3(2) of Article XXIV in its entirety and in lieu thereof adding a new Section 3(2), to read as follows: "(2) Flat sign, one (1) facing each street frontage. The sign area shall be limited to forty (40) square feet, provided however, that the permitted area of the flat sign may be increased by 21/2 percent for each foot above the first ten (10) feet of building height above grade that the lowest point of the sign is placed upon the building." Section 2. That Ordinance No. 6871, be and the same is hereby amended by deleting Section 3-1(2) of Article XXIV in its entirety, and in lieu thereof providing 1 CITY Cr' MEETING OF j S E P i 197.`3 Jti( tt;huGE td().. ...... gist EEADI a-,.S 2nd kCi LINr3 SE r, r : lr ff �J - CITY COMMISSION 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 a new section 3-1(2) to read as follows: "(2) Flat sign, one (1) facing each street frontage. The sign area shall be limited to forty (40) square feet, provided however, that the permitted area of the flat sign may be increased by two and one-half (2 z) percent for each foot above the first ten (10) feet of building height above grade that the lowest point of the sign is placed on the building." Section 3. That all laws, or parts of laws, in conflict herewith, be and the same are hereby repealed insofar as they are in conflict. Section 4. It is declared to be the legislative intent of this body that if any section, subsection, sentence, phrase or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance shall not be affected. PASSED on first reading by title only this 4.3 day of J2,p1701'e'F'S; 1973. PASSED AND ADOPTED on second and final reading by title only this 24 day of JEIPTrc d g 4Q/ , 1973. At s PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: MAYOR r� ,,? ;ty Clerk .'Harlris T e Assistant City Attorney REVIEWED BY: ,-4 f:`:.. John S. Lloyd Assistant Director/Of Law APPRO pAS TO/ FORM AND,.,CQRRECTNE ‘ : • Alan H. Rofthstein City Attorney n THOMAS H. WAKEFIELD ROBERT O. HEWITT GARTH A. WEBSTER WILLIAM W. MUIR or COUNSEL LAW OFFICES WAHEFIELD, HEW ITT & WEE3STER SUITE 211 ISO SOUTHEAST SECOND STREET MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE 373-6526 AREA CODE 3O5 July 11, 1973 Executive Director, Miami Planning Board MIAMI City of Miami C!?Y PLANNING BOARD City Hall OFFICE 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida Attention: Mr. David Simpson Re: Proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 6871 Article XXIV .h1lt. ' 2 1973 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Simpson: This firm has previously appeared on behalf of the Civic Center Holiday Inn Motel located at 1170 N. W. llth Street, in connection with the Public Bearings before the Miami Planning Board on the above captioned matter. It is our understanding that following the Board recommendation the matter will come on the agenda before the next meeting of the City of Miami Commission on July 26, 1973. We would like to appear before the Commission in support of the proposed Ordinance with the feature, however, that the percentage of increase in the per- mitted size of the sign for each foot above the first ten feet be'five percent rather than three as adopted by the Planning Board. We would also request an opportunity to make a brief presentation in support of this position. As we've expressed before the Planning Board and to your staff the rather small sign as permitted under the existing Ordinance upon the Civic Center Holiday Inn has caused an identity problem and a re- sulting adverse impact economically upon the operation of the Motel. As you know the City has initiated this amendment to the Ordinance through its Planning Department and at two Public • Executive Director, Miami Planning Board July 11, 1973 Page 2 Hearings on the subject there were no written or verbal objections to the consideration of a proposed amendment which would have in- creased the percentage of increase to five percent for each lineal foot above ten feet above grade as advertised. We think the amend- ment to the Ordinance is critical and we would request that the same be handled as an emergency item before the City in order to expedite the implementation of the Ordinance as and when the same is adopted by the Commission. We appreciate your attention to our request and trust we will be advised upon the scheduling of the item on the agenda before the City of Miami Commission. GAW:ams Very truly yours,' WAKEFIELD. NEWITT & WEBSTER BY A-440 r tani , Itirib 3 du` July 11, 1973 Honorable City Commission Attention: Mr. M. L. Reese City of Miami, Florida Re: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - RECOMMENDED ARTICLE XXIV - SIGNS Gentlemen: The Miami Planning Board, at its meeting of July 9, 1973, Item 43, following an advertised Hearing, adopted Resolution No. 73-154 by a 9 to 0 vote recommending an amendment to Ordinance No. 6871, ARTICLE XXIV - SIGNS, as follows: Delete Section 3 (2) in its entirety and add a new Section 3 (2) as follows: (2) Flat sign, one (1) facing each street frontage. The sign area shall be limited fo forty (40) square feet, provided however, that the per- mitted area of the flat sign may be increased by three (3) percent for each foot above the first ten (10) feet of building height above grade that the lowest point of the sign is placed upon the building. Delete Section 3-1 (2) in its entirety and add a new Section 3-1 (2) as follows: (2) Flat sign, one (1) facing each street frontage. The sign area shall be limited to forty (40) square feet, provided however, that the per- mitted area of the flat sign may be increased by three (3) percent for each foot above the first ten (10) feet of building height above grade that the lowest point of the sign is placed on the building. No objections were received in the mail. (Page 1 of 2) An ORDINANCE to provide for this Ordinance Amendment has been prepared by the City Attorney's office and submitted for con- sideration of the City Commission. CSjncere, /�� c David Simpson;'dr. Executive Secretary Miami Planning and Zoning Board mm Attached: Minutes cc: Law Department NOTE: Planning Department recommended two and one-half (21) percent. (Page 2 of 2) CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TOI FROM: Gorge ;j. 'on, Jr. Director, - arming Department Mr. David Simpson, Jr. Executive Secretary Planning and Zoning Board n DATE: May 31, 1973 FILE: 6USJECTI Amendment to Sign Ordinance REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the Planning and Zoning Board initiate the necessary public hearings by which to consider the following amendment: Amend ARTICLE XXIV - SIGNS, Section 3. , (2), and Section 3-1. , to read as follows: (2) Flat sign, one (1) facing each street frontage. The sign area shall be limited to forty (40) square feet, provided however, that the permitted area of the flat sign may be increased by two and one- half (21) percent for each foot above the first ten (10) feet of building height above grade, that the lowest point of the sign is placed upon the building. The underlined words indicate the changed portion of the regulation (i. e. , existing wording is one (1) percent). DESCRIPTION: A request was made of the Department to study the apparent inequity that existed regarding the size of signs when elevated on a building in the multi -family and residential office districts of R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-C, R-CA, R-CB and R-C1. Our study of this matter resulted in the recommendations contained herein. ANALYSIS: The investigation and study included considerations of 1) increasing the base size (40 square feet) of the flat sign permitted in the aforementioned districts; Page 1 of 2 Mr. David Simpson, Jr. May 31, 1973 2) allowing a greater base sign size, based upon the amount of street frontage; 3) providing for larger signs for specific uses allowed in the district such as hotels and motels; and 4) allowing a greater increase in the area of the sign as it is elevated on the building. It has been determined that the flat sign size as presently permitted (40 square feet) is appropriate and that larger signs based upon the amount of street frontage would not be appropriate. This is because all districts concerned are residential in character and larger signs would be disturbing to this character; larger signs would commercialize and attract attention to, and emphasize, the commercial activities permitted in these residential districts; and lastly, forty square feet does allow reasonable identification of the restrictive type uses permitted by the district. To suggest that one use within a district should have a larger sign than another use in the same district would not stand the test of equitable sign legislation. If a use, by the nature of its activity requires larger signs, then another district, which would allow larger signs, should be selected for the location of the business, and not a restrictive residential district. Identification of a use is primarily for ground level pedestrian and automotive viewing, within a one or two block area. Commer- cial areas necessitate, in some instances, larger signs due to the number of busines- ses vying for the identification of the passing motorist and in part provide for a limited form of general advertising for their place of business. It was determined, however, that the rate of increase presently allowed for sign area as it is placed higher on a building is not fulfilling the objectives of the existing regulations. The increase of the sign area, as it is placed higher on a building, should be visually the same size as if it were viewed at ground level, consequently, to achieve this effect above ground level, it is necessary to increase the percentage of sign area over what is contained in the existing ordinance. GJA:ROW:vb Page 2 of 2 3. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Consideration of. an Amendment to 3rdinance No. 6371, ARTICLE XXIV - SIGNS, as follows: Delete Section 3 (2) in its entirety, and add a new Section 3 (2), as follows: (2) Flat sign, one (1) facing each street frontage. The sign area shall be limited to forty (40) square feet, provided however, that the permitted area of the flat sign may be increased by five (5) per cent for each foot above the first tern (10) feet of building height above grade that the lowest point of the sign is placed upon the building. Delete Section 3-1 (2) in its entirety, and add a new Section 3--1 (2) , as follows: (2) Flat sign, one (1) facing each street frontage. The sign area shall be limited to forty (40) square feet, provided however., that the permitted area of the flat sign may he increased by five () per cent for each foot above the first ten (10) feet of build- ing height above grade that the lowest point of the sign is placed on the building. NOTE: Item *11, deferred from Planning Board 'Meeting of 6/25/73. Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of Hearing, and administered oath to all persons testifying at this hearing. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: "DENIAL" With reference to the Department's memorandum of May 31, 1973, it was calculated that a two and one-half (21) per cent increase in the area of a flat sign for each foot above the first ten (10) feet of building height, would visually maintain the standard criterion of forty (40) square feet of sign area regardi.es;e of how high the sign is placid on a building. The proposed increase of five (5) per cent would result in visually exceeding the established sign to building -mass ratio currently in practice. The criteria of forty (40) square feet is an appropriate standard for signs placed in residential districts of the City; the purpose is to reasonably identify buildings to pedestrians and motorists traveling on local and arterial streets to be compatible with adjacent residential buildings. Mr. Simpson: Mr. Chairman, this is as stated on the agenda. If you will recall, this came to the Board as a recommendation from the Planning Department, for an increase of 21 per cent for each foot above the first ten. At the last public hearing, persons appeared before this Board requesting that they defer, as they wanted to present facts that where- by they could consider, or have this Board to consider, the five per cent. So, it has been legally readvert.ised, and it is before this Board, tonight. Mr. Martinez: Let me - Mr. Turner: Mr. Simpson, it is presently one per cent. Mr. Simpson: Yes, it is presently one per cent increase, the staff recommended 21 per cent, and these gentlemen are requesting con- sideration up to five. Mr. Turner: For your consideration, you can recommend anything from five per cent on down, to what is now one per cent. Mr. Martinez: The recommendation of the staff has stayed the same as it was the last time? -11- July 9, 1973 Item a Record. All right. Will you state your name and aadress for the Mr. Webster: Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir, my name is Garth Webster, I am an Attorney, here specifically representing the owners of the Holiday Inn, which is located in the Civic Center Area, at 1170 N. W. llth Street. They are vitally interested in this. As I stated last time. Because, they are in the R-C area, and they have what they feel is a critical problem, with the size of the signs they now have. We met with your staff, and they have been extremely cooperative with us. We have done an extensive work up, in a way to demonstrate what we feel would be a proper sized sign in this area, to be - which will be consistent with the surrounding environs, and consistent with the philosophy of your present ordinance. That is, to treat this as residential commercial, which it is, and not turn it into commercial, by reason of the size of the sign. I don't know how well it is going to come through - we have taken the building specifically in question, that is, the Civic Center Motel, Holiday Inn, and we have taken a photograph, as you see it there on the projector. And the first upper left picture represents the size of the sign now, of 72 square feet. These figures may be rounded, but I believe that is pretty accurate. And, the - under the present ordinance, which is the one per cent bonus above ten per cent - above ten feet above grade - the top right hand represents a sized sign on the same building - 120 square feet, which is as it would be, if the amendment to the ordinance were two and a half per cent per foot bonus. Down in the left hand corner, you will see the building there projected, trying to be projected, which considers a four per cent bonus, per foot above ten feet above grade. And that, of course, is to a point at the bottom of the sign. And the reason I emphasize this, is, as you go up in size, the size of the sign increases at a decreasing rate, it doesn't double for example, from two and a half to five per cent, just because they are those two figures. Because, as the sign gets larger, it gets closer to the bottom of the grade, the ground - I mean, ten feet above grade and the bottom of the sign is less. Then, on the right lower hand corner of the projection, is the five per cent, which was advertised in connection with this hearing, and which we have posed - as much as we were able to do so, as interested parties - be considered as the amendment to the ordinance. Now, we think, and we submit this size, we have done a study. We've worked with one of the neon companies very active in the area, as to what is good advertising, yet consistent with the R-C area, and what will achieve the purpose of this building a proper identifi- cation, yet, at the same time, we are trying to maintain something that is consistent with what you are trying to achieve. That is, it's not going to be - create a commercial atmosphere, per se. Now, I bring that point out, because last - two weeks ago Monday night, and we have a chart here we will hold up for you, it is not projectible. But, the same building in a C-1 zone, which would permit the same use, would permit a sign of 288 square feet. What we have here, on this structure is still considerably less, than what you would have in a commercial structure. And, accordingly, we think we have kept within the aesthetics of the area, and yet, at the same time, we believe that we have presented something here, that on an overall use, and I am not referring in my comments as to this building alone, realizing that this ordinance has general application, but an overall use, is is.sometning that is consistent with good design, and I think the staff will be inclined to agree with that. It is consistent with good design, and at the same time, pre- -12- July 9, 1973 Item #3 serves the general character of the area. So, that's basically our presentation, for a different demonstrative presentation, we've got another blow up of the same building, taken closer. Move that down, Ross - all right, now, this was indicated before, because we go from a size sign from two and a half, to five, or for that matter, from a size that's one per cent to two and a half, which is even a percentage greater increase, it increases at a decreasing rate, so therefore it isn't a double or a triple sort of proposition. Now, as you will note, the inside square, or rectangle, the inside rectangle is the seventy-two square feet, as projected in the drawing there. That is the present sized sign. Now, the next line is the two and a half - with the two and a half per cent bonus. The next line is with the four per cent, and the outside line is the proposal we are making here, tonight. To consider the five per cent. So, that's our presentation. We - you can re -review, we have many photographs, I'd like to say that we have worked with your staff on this, that is to say, that everything you see here, tonight, your staff has had an opportunity to see. And I believe that they have recommended against the five per cent, quite frankly. And at least at our last meeting today, when we first gave them this new evidence, that - let me say that, before they saw these pictures, that was their recommendation, I understand. They may have receded from that, I don't know. I hope we have been able to prove our point. But we feel somewhere, in due respect for your staff, they are professionals, and we feel that they have a good handle on this thing, too. And we think that somewhere, a compromise can be reached, between what we think - in the business - that is, in this case, the Holiday Inn, and the people in the neon business, that have to work with this, have to make projections on what is good identification, we think a compromise, somewhere, can be reached, between that and what your staff has come up with, thus far. And, with the object here, a two -fold object, we're trying to be consistent with the area, without changing the characteristics of it. On the other hand, make this building identifiable. Not just this building, but buildings of similar - a similar type building, not just necessarily just similar use. Mr. Ed Catale is nere. Mr. Catale is one of the major owners of the building. He can answer questions with respect to what the impact has been, as a result of the present ordinance, and the general lack of good identification. And, if you wish to direct any questions to him. Thank you. Mr. Martinez: Okay, anyone else who wants on this item? You may, Mrs., Alexander. Mrs. Alexander: Mrs. Alexander, 2323 South to say something Miami Avenue. I would like to ask a question, please. This ordinance, how ever it is adopted, is this retroactive in any way? I beg your pardon? Mr. Silverman: If this ordinance is approved, anybody that has a sign could take down their sign and put up a new sign. Mrs. Alexander: I know, but I am thinking in terms of the Holiday Inn on 26th Road, that probably grossly exceeds this minimum. Mr. Silverman: That wouldn't apply, -13- July 9, 1973 Item #3 Mr. Martinez: That wouldn't apply. Mrs. Alexander: It wouldn't apply. Mr. Martinez: No, they have a different zoning, than what We are talking about. Mr. Simpson: They have a similar zoning, but we're talking only about wall signs, in this particular instance. What they have is a pylon sign. Mrs. Alexander: 1 was asking for some clarification. Thank Mr. Webster: I might point out, for Mrs. Alexander, - and I think that the staff, Mr. Williams will support me, in this. That the sign that we propose could be permitted under the amended ordi- nance, would be substantially smaller than this sign, that he's making reference to. And, be flatter, wall sign, or otherwise. Mr. Martinez: Okay, we will close the public hearing, and have questions from the Board Members. Mrs. Callahan: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martinez: Yes, Mrs. Callahan. Mrs. Callahan: I would like to speak to the staff, on this. You have recommended a two and a half per cent increase, and these people would like to see it amended to five per cent. Regardless of your recommendation, I would like to have your comments on this, please. Mr. McLean: The Planning Staff re-evaluated their memorandum and stand on this item. And it was - it is still maintained that the two and a half per cent increase, is both reasonable, and more than reasonable, to allow the same visual size - to allow the same visual building to sign mass ratio, when viewed from a pedestrian standpoint, and when reviewed by a motorist's standpoint. Our recommendation tried to boil this essence down, that if we're talking about a greater percentage increase than two and a half per cent increase, then, perhaps what we're saying is that we don't have any faith and confidence in the forty - basic forty square feet. of sign area, that we presently desire - or, presently have for a building under ten feet. If I may quote from our memorandum of May 31st, 1973: On Page Two, the Second Paragrcph: "It has been determined in the flat sign size as presently permitted, forty square feet is appropriate, and that larger signs based upon the amount of street frontage would not be appropriate. This is because all districts concerned are residential in character, and larger signs would be disturbing to this character. Larger signs would commercialize and attract atten- tion to, and emphasize the commercial activity permitted in these residential districts." And lastly, forty square feet does allow reasonable identifi- cation of the restrictive type uses permitted by the district. I would also suggest perhaps, that the Building Department might be asked to comment on this item, as they work with this in a much closer basis, on a day to day basis. Mrs. Callahan: May we hear from the Building Department? Mr. Martinez; Building Department? Mr. Williams: What do you want to hear? Mrs. Callahan: Well, as I said before, we're considering five per cent over two and a half per cent,. and I am wondering what your comments are, Mr. McLean said you might have some comments on it. -14- July 9, 1973 Item #3 Mr. Williams: Well, in 1967, when I started to - I have been enforcing this - these laws, I found thirteen inequities in the law, and this was one of them. There's an inequity on another type of building in an R-C zone, there we've got a six hundred foot only twenty foot high, they're allowed a forty square foot sign. A sixty foot building would be allowed a forty square foot sign. So, there's an inequity. I believe this recommendation is going to help the situation. I don't believe five is correct. I like round figures, three, four, something like that. Two and a half is cumbersome. So, that would be my recommendation. Mr. Martinez: Thank you. Any further questions from the Board Members? No? Okay. Mr. Webster: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. Martinez: Yes, sir. Mr. Webster: I would like to alude in the report, for the recommendation as read to you by Mr. McLean, that in the last para- graph, and I think what brings this up, and makes this pertinent, is that it was recognized in the last paragraph of their report on Page Two, that a need for increase in the size of the sign was neces- sary, in relation to the height of the building. You know, there are no height limitations, per se, of buildings in the R-C area, so you have to give due consideration to that fact. Now, that's probably, what pointed this up, so dramatically. But, I think that we still - I don't - I personally feel, and it seems to be the opinion of those that I've worked with, certainly not the Planning Department or the Staff, but it seems to be the - it seems to be the opinion, that whereas the Staff is approaching the problem, and a resolution of the problem, it hasn't arrived. Mr. Martinez: Thank you, Mr. Webster. Okay, what is the pleasure of this Board on Item #3. Mr. Silverman: Well - Mr. Martinez: Jerry, I guess you will be - have to he either the bad guy or the good guy, Jerry, nobody wants to speak up. Mr. Silverman: I would move three per cent. Mr. Martinez: Okay, we have a motion for recommendation, instead of two and a half per cent it be three per cent. Is there a second to that motion? Mrs. Fernandez: Second. Mr. Martinez: Mrs. McGraner seconde, also, Mrs. McGraner seconds the motion. Discussion on the motion? None. Call the roll, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson: The motion is with a three per cent increase for No objections were received (Continued on Next Page) to recommend the ordinance amendment each foot above the first ten. in the mail. -15- July 9, 1973 Item #3 o Mr. Silverman offered the following resolution, and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 73-154 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XXIV, SIGNS, AS FOLLOWS: DELETE SECTION 3 (2) IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADD A NEW SECTION 3 (2), AS FOLLOWS (2) FLAT SIGN, ONE (1) FACING EACH STREET FRONTAGE. THE SIGN AREA SHALL BE LIMITED TO FORTY (40) SQUARE FEET, PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT THE PERMITTED AREA OF THE FLAT SIGN MAY BE INCREASED BY THREE (3) PER CENT FOR EACH FOOT ABOVE THE FIRST TEN (10) FEET OF BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE THAT THE LOWEST POINT OF THE SIGN IS PLACED UPON THE BUILDING. DELETE SECTION 3-1 (2) IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADD A NEW SECTION 3-1 (2), AS FOLLOWS: (2) FLAT SIGN, ONE (1) FACING EACH STREET FRONTAGE. THE SIGN AREA SHALL BE LIMITED TO FORTY (40) SQUARE FEET, PROVIDED HOWEVER, THAT THE PERMITTED AREA OF THE FLAT SIGN MAY BE INCREASED BY THREE (3) PER CENT FOR EACH FOOT ABOVE THE FIRST TEN (10) FEET OF BUILDING HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE THAT THE LOWEST POINT OF THE SIGN IS PLACED ON THE BUILDING. Upon being seconded by Mrs. McGraner, this resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Alfonso, Dean, Gort, Johnson, Silverman, Martinez. Mmes. Callahan, Fernandez, McGraner. NAYES: None. Mr. Simpson: Unanimous. Mr. Webster: Thank you, gentlemen and ladies. Mr. Martinez: At least, you got a little something more. -16- July 9, 1973 Item #3 11. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Consideration of an Amendment to Ordinance No. 6871, v&! ARTICLE XXIV - SIGNS:, as follows: Delete Section 3 (2) in its entirety and add a new Section (2) as follows: (2) Flat sign, one (1) facing each street frontage. The sign area shall be limited to forty (40) square feet, provided, however, that the per- mitted area of the flat sign may be increased by two and one-half (21) per cent for each foot above the first ten (10) feet of building height above grade, that the lowest point of the sign is placed upon the building. Delete Section 3-1 (2) in its entirety and add a new Section 3-1 (2) as follows: (2) Flat sign, one (1) facing each street frontage. The sign area shall be limited to forty (40) square feet, provided, however, that the per- mitted area of the flat sign may be increased by two and one-half (21) per cent for each foot above the first ten (10) feet of building height above grade, that the Iowest point of the sign is placed upon the building Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of hearing, and administered oath to all persons testifying at this hearing. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: See memorandum to Planning Board, dated May 31st, 1973. Mr. Simpson: Both of these are the same, Mr. Chairman, the same changes, deleting Section 3 (2) in its entirety, and also Section 3-1 (2) in its entirety, and substituting the paragraph as written on the agenda. This was a Staff proposal, if you wish to hear the report from the Staff. Mr. Martinez: Ali right. Let us swear in whoever wishes to speak. All of those who wish to speak on this item, please stand up and be sworn. • All right, will Staff - Mr. Whipple. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Chairman, I believe our memorandum on this subject is fairly well understood. It does allow a increase in sign area, as the sign is placed on the upper limits of a building, on a percentage rate. Our existing rate of increase is one per cent per foot, and we propose that the rate be two and a half per cent per foot. Now, the basis of increasing the sign area as the height of the sign is increased above grade, is a matter of providing a sign of equivalent size, at a high level, that would read, basically the same size at a low level. There is a mathmatical means by which you can determine this, and of course, this is based upon some variables, which we felt were reasonable in making this determina- tion. For instance, we chose a distance that was fairly close, which you would associate pedestrian identification, as opposed to vehicular identification, which may occur a number of feet away. Actually, it's the increas is based on a fairly close prox- imity to the project, it actually allows more sign area on this basis than it would if you were to approach it from a vehicular distance. We - this was brought to our attention through a particu- lar problem that existed, concerning the consideration of a owner identification sign on a building. We recognize the limitations that were submitted, or were suggested to us, and we recognize cer- tain inadequacies of our law, but we feel this did have to be tem- pered with the same rationale which established these percentages -- -52- June 25, 1973 Item #la. percentage increases - in the beginning. I believe we do have some people here, tonight, that would like to comment on that. If there is any question, we will be glad to answer them. Mr. Martinez: All right, come forward, sir. State your name and address. Mr. Webster: Mr. Chairman, my name is Garth Webster, I am an Attorney. I represent the owners of the Holiday Inn, which is located at 1170 5. W. llth Street, which is in the Civic Center Area, it is a reasonably new structure, built in 1971. Completed, I believe the latter part of that year. We are not here objecting to the recommendation of your Department, insofar as they have gone. The size of the sign on this motel site, we realize, is a singular use, and that your - the Ordi- nance, or the Amendment to the Ordinance which you have under consider- ation here, tonight, will apply across the board, to all structures located within this zoned area. Now, as I say, we are not objecting to the Department, as far as they have gone. Because, we think that the Department has agreed with our observation, and I am sure, that of others, that the present law does not adequately serve the use of the - of this site, and of similar uses in this zoned area, and a need for a change has been made aware to them, and they have acted accordingly. I am prepared, tonight, to make a - some demonstration, in effect, of what we think would be adequate to serve the purpose, and yet, be consistent with the recommendation of the Department, and the analyzis that they have presented to you, in connection with this recommendation. And, in order to preface what we would like to show you, I would say this. I think that we have concluded, although I am open, certainly, to your Legal Staff's suggestion. We would like to propose, that rather tonight, than to consider what has been recom- mended to the Board, that the matter possibly be deferred, if neces- sary to a later public hearing, for republication, in order that the recommended amendment be made, or at least that they- you consider an amendment which would enlarge, even greater, than is recommended by your Department, tonight. • In other words, that the legal door will be open for the con- sideration of even yet a larger sign, which we think would be adequate, and more economically and efficiently, serve the use of this structure, and other like structures. There is no height limitation, as I understand it, in your R-C zone classification area. Now, before I ask that the Board move on my suggestion, or thought, that is, if it is necessary to defer action tonight, that you might do so. I would like to show you - I have Mr. Ross Robarts, here, to work with me, and we worked with an engineer, to do some size signs on a hypothetical basis, on different sized buildings. And we have three categories. We will also go into more detail, if you'll per- mit. The first, is under your existing ordinance, that is, we will call that the one per cent ordinance, which is the premium, as you go up in elevation, you enlarge the square footage by one per cent. The second classification is using the recommendation that you have before you. That is, as you go up, the premium to offset the disadvantage of height is to enlarge it by two and a half per cent, as recommended. Now, our suggestion, what we would like to have the Board con- sider, if it can legally do so, tonight, and that's not at another -53- June 25, 1973 Item 1111 hearing, is a five per cent premium, that is, as !au go up per foot in height, there's a five per cent increase in the basic square foot of the sign permitted. Now, Ross, if you will come up here, I think we can graphically demonstrate what we have come up with, and we think it's consistent with sound advertising value, and yet consistent with the aesthetics in an R-C Area, and doesn't approach what is now permitted in a C-1 Area, as it would be indicated. Mr. Robarts: This represents a twenty -story building, a twelve -story building, eight -story building, and a four-story building. ' These signs represent the size one per cent bonus ings. - these little red spots - if you can see them, of the sign that is_ permitted under the present - in these various buildings, various height build - This line represents the recommended two and a half per cent bonus, according to the height. This one is what we would like to see, again, on an overall feature - we have to identify part of our discussion to the Holiday Inn, because that's - that's the thing - the basis that we've used, on these structures. The Holiday Inn presently, is an eight -story building. It permits a sign, according to this classification, of a hundred and twenty square feet. The present sign that's. up there, is seventy square feet. This sign is extremely inadequate. This is the size that was recommended by the Board. We believe that this one, also, will be inadequate, on_a building this high. Now, these are projected on here, to scale. A building sixty- four feet wide, which the Holiday Inn wall is, and a hundred and twenty feet high. These sizes over here are the five per cent - desired size. This is zoned R-C. These signs are permitted in R-C, if the zone were changed, if it was in a C-1, which permits the same build- ing, the same operation, the size of the sign permitted, under the present ordinance, would be two hundred and eighty-eight square feet. Instead of the seventy feet, that is the size of the sign that is permitted now. Mr. Webster: I think what is being graphically displayed here - and I am sorry if I ommitted to say that Mr. Gene Hertel, one of the owners of the Holiday Inn, is here, tonight. I know, as I said, I prefaced my remarks, I know that the ordinance has general appli- cation, and although we do have reference, because it has been pressed upon this one use, the effect of a small sign, nevertheless, I - we have tried to demonstrate the across the board application. And Mr. Hertel is here. And if there are any quedtions, feel free, he is here, to answer them. Because the size of the sign, as it presently is, under existing Code, has, we think, and the people that operate that particular establishment, think, has adversely affected the property. It simply cannot be identified. Now, we are going to show a picture, and we go back to Holiday Inn, but this is only for demonstrative purposes, we'll show a picture of the building, which as taken across the street, with the present sign. And then, what we've done, is blown this up, to show what it would have been under C-1. And mind you, we're not asking for a size of sign as it would have been, under C-1, which doesn't seem to be really too inconsistent. But what we have suggested, which would be more apealable, in terms of the area, and in terms of seeing it, and making the sign functional, and make it worthwhile, for these people to put these structures up, you know, and spend the money on - some- thing on the property - advertising, would be to have an ordinance that would permit five per cent bonus as you go up in elevation. And instead of a hundred and twenty feet sign, square foot sign, -54- June 25, 1973 Item ill which is twelve by ten say, we're only talking as ,ut a two hundred foot sign, ten by twenty, which would be opposed to something in the neighborhood of three hundred square feet in a C-1 area, permitting the same use. Now, here are the pictures. This is the sign as it presently is, now. If the Board Members would like to pass it along. • This is about two hundred and eighty square feet, this is four times, and this is to scale, as to what it would be in a C-1 area. Now, this is larger than what we would suggest, in our recom- mendation of five per cent. And I think you may agree with me that it's still isn't - it's not a monster, by any means. And it seems to be almost consistent with the size of the building. Mrs. McGraner: What size would it be in R-C? Mr. Webster: In R-C, as it presently is, ma'am? It's now seventy square feet, or, I think, seventy-two square feet, as depicted on this first photograph, which is an actual photograph. Now, this is taken - this is not consistent with our presenta- tion, altogether, but this is photographed for demonstrative purposes, which was taken from the expressway, and we realize that - I think it more graphically displays what we are up against, but I also understand it is in a residential -commercial area, and we built it there, and we have to recognize that fact, as well. The spots that you see on here, and it's pretty late, you probably see more than just the one on the building - the red dots, are taken as if you were standing, however within - they are drawn to scale, of five hundred feet away from the building. So, that, we are trying to depict something as it would appear to you in the local area. Because, for example, this particular building is built in the Civic Center Area,near the hospitals, the State Building, the Orange Bowl, and it's really trying to advertise to the local community. It's not really just trying to advertise to automotive traffic on these expressways. That's not the design of this thing. But even up close, this sign has not carried the message. This building is not identified in the public in the area, by the public in the area, as a Holiday Inn, because of the advertising deficiencies now. And as I say, it's designed to accommodate the people in this area. So, we'd like to have proposed, if I may summarize our pre- sentation, - we would like to have proposed, that if the Board cannot undertake to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance, by giving a bonus, if that is the correct terminology, of five per cent, rather than the two per cent, as recommended, that possibly the matter can be repub- lished, readvertised, if it cannot undertake it, for legal reasons, according to counsel, then, the matter be deferred until it is. Mr. Martinez: Okay, thank you, Mr. Webster. Anyone else here to speak on this item. Okay. Under discussion. Mr. Silverman? Mr. Silverman: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the situation, you cannot give more than the proposed two and a half per cent that the Staff recommends, without readvertising it. So, my suggestion would be that we readvertise it, and during the period of time that we have between this hearing, and the next hearing, let the Staff consider their proposal. And perhaps, they would want to modify it, in view of the demonstration, this evening. And, if not, we could still pass the Staff's recommendation, at that time, but the way it is right now, we can't give them more than what has been advertised. So, if you are ready, I would make a motion to that effect. Mr. Martinez: Okay. If nobody else wants to say anything else, go ahead and make a motion. Mr. Silverman: I move that we readvertise it, the Amendment to Article XXIV, SIGNS, instead of the two and a half percent, the five per cent. Of course, we can grant less than five at the time of our hearing. You understand, Mr. Webster, all we are doing is readvertising -55- June 25, 1973 Item 111 . 4 we are not . . . this evening. Mr. Webster: T. understand. Mr. Martinez: All right, is there a second to that motion? Mr. Gort: I will second it. Mrs. McGraner: Second. Mr. Martinez: Mrs. McGraner seconds it. Discussion on the motion? Yes, Mrs. Fernandez. Mrs. Fernandez: This list that we have here in this file, does this refer that the Department has sent public notice to all of these people? Mr. Simpson: Yes, ma'am. Mrs. Fernandez: And they have not - Mr. Simpson: Yes, ma'am is that the Sign File, that you have? Mrs. Fernandez: Yes. Mr. Simpson: Yes, ma'am, that's our mailing list for the change that is proposed here, tonight. Mrs. Fernandez: And you have not received any answer? Mr. Simpson: No, ma'am, and these folks are the only ones that have appeared here. Mr. Martinez: It was public advertised. The only folks that have come are the Holiday Inn people. Mrs. Fernandez: They are the only ones? Mr. Martinez: They are making a recommendation to us to consider that. Okay. Call the roll, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson: The motion is to defer. We can put this on July 9th, because our legal ad will be prepared tomorrow morning. July 9th, to readvertise for a five per cent, rather than two and a half. No objections were received in the mail. Mr. Silverman offered the following resolution, and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.73-149 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DEFERMENT OF ITEM #11 UNTIL JULY 9TH, 1973, TO READVERTISE FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 6871, ARTICLE XXIV - SIGNS. Upon being seconded by Mrs. McGraner, this resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Alfonso, Dean, Gort, Johnson, Silverman, Martinez. Mmes. Callahan, Fernandez, McGraner. NAYES: None. Mrs. Fernandez: (On Roll Call) "Yes", and I want to be sure that all of the people get this public notice. Mr. Simpson; Yes, ma'am, we will. Unanimous. Mr. Webster: Thank you, very much. -56- June 25, 1973 Item #il