Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-06 Planning and Zoning Board Special Meeting Minutes MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF DANIA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WEDNESDAY MAY 6, 1998 7:00 P.M. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING OR HEARING WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT,PERSONS NEEDING ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD CONTACT MARIE JABALEE,CITY CLERK, 100 W.DANIA BEACH BLVD,DANIA, FL 33004,(954)921-8700 EXT.202,AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO MEETING. Roll Call: Present: Others Present: Bob Adams Terry L. Virta, AICP — Growth Management Director Pat Janowski Thomas Ansbro - City Attorney Victor Lohmann Lou Ann Cunningham — Board Clerk Jason Dubow Kevin Pierson 1. TX-23-98 —An administrative ordinance making certain revisions to the City of Dania's Sign regulations. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DANIA, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 28, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DANIA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2, ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS" TO ADD CERTAIN DEFINITIONS RELATING TO SIGNS; BY AMENDING ARTICLE 6 TO ADD SECTION 6.65 ENTITLED "SIGN REGULATIONS" TO INCLUDE CERTAIN PROVISIONS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO SIGNS; PROHIBITING CERTAIN TYPES OF SIGNS; PROVIDING AMORTIZATION PERIODS FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS; PROVIDING A VARIANCE PROCEDURE; PROVIDING INTENT, APPLICABILITY, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning and Zoning Board 1 The Chairman opened the public hearing taking public comment on the proposed sign ordinance. Chairman Lohmann asked that public comment remain brief and to the point of the proposed sign ordinance. At this time, Terry Virta, AICP, Growth Management Director addressed the board with his summation of the proposed sign ordinance. Mr. Virta gave a history of events relating to the Downtown Sign Regulations which were codified back in 1988. He described the current downtown sign regulations and the 5 year period in which the downtown businesses had to phase out their old signage and come into compliance with the new regulations. Mr. aggressively enforced until that the ordinance was not a p Virta stated t 99 Y October 1, 1997, wherein the Commission gave direction to be in 9 regulations.enforcing the He further stated that staff was given direction to revise the current city-wide advertising code so that it is brought in line with the regulations prescribed for the downtown district signs. Mr. Virta described various places where sign regulations are addressed throughout the city's code of ordinances. He then presented a comparison chart of the current regulations for signs and the proposed sign code, and described the major areas of concern. Mr. Virta stated that the proposed sign ordinance would have an amortization period of 5 years, at which time all signage would have to come into compliance. He recommended some modifications to the proposal which have come about after meeting with the downtown business groups. Some of the recommendations discussed were: whatever standards are employed for signage throughout the City, be included in the section covering the downtown regulations; provisions for the "OPEN" sign to be displayed; and the type of business be allowed on wall signs in addition to the name of the business. Currently, these provisions are not allowed under the Chapter 3 of the sign regulations or the proposed sign regulations being reviewed tonight. Another area of concern is that currently, the maximum area of signage allowed is 40 sq. ft., but after review, it was found that this is a conflict in that the ordinance gives sign dimensions of 2'h feet by 15 ft. which calculates to a maximum of 37 'h sq. ft., and corrections to these dimensions have been addressed in the new ordinance. Mr. Virta staffed that the Downtown Redevelopment board had concerns with the size of the building (length and height) and the size of the sign being allowed to fit proportionately. Mr. Virta concluded his summation by answering questions by the board. At this time Chairman Lohmann opened this item to the public for comment. Jay Luck, business owner on State Road 84, was sworn in and addressed the board commenting on the size of signs in proportion to set backs of a building, he also commented on the time period allowed to comply with the proposed ordinance. Mr. Michael Abrams of Captain Mike's Seafood, was sworn in to address the board. Mr. Abrams questioned flat wall signage and the prohibition of roof signage, stating that his building does not have a place for a wall sign due to the Planning and Zoning Board 2 • construction of his roof over hang. Ben Genet, owner of the Hi-Li Motel, was sworn in and addressed the board concerning his current sign, the upgrades made to his property and his present violation concerning the downtown sign ordinance. Mr. Ron Baer, of Baer's Furniture, was sworn in and addressed the board concerning their sign and the proposed regulations. Mr. Baer's concern is with the City permitting the construction / renovation of their current signage and the prohibitions in the current ordinance. He also felt that the proposed amortization period of 10 years for outdoor advertising "billboards" and 5 years for the business owners was unfair. The time limit provision for billboards to come into compliance was discussed by board members and staff. Mr. Virta stated that the proposed ordinance was prepared with the help of special counsel, and he believed that the 10 year period was recommended as the result of case law that has resulted over the years, regarding sign regulations versus billboards. C.K. 'Mac' Mc Elyea, was sworn in and addressed the board, speaking against the proposed ordinance, stating that cleaning up the City and downtown is a good idea but feels this ordinance will drive businesses out. Richard (Mark) Mogerman, Attorney and co-principal of Grand Prix Race-O-Rama, addressed the board speaking against the proposed ordinance. He stated that their 2 signs are worth over $200,000 and that it would be a tremendous hardship to remove or replace them. Mr. Mogerman was concerned that the proposed ordinance does not allow a variance procedure for certain hardship exceptions where signage would be prohibited. He concluded stating that, as presented, he feels this ordinance does not work for every business in the city. Mr. Virta staffed that the proposed ordinance would be made a part of the City's current zoning chapter which has a variance provision. Mr. Ron Baer again addressed the board regarding the flat wall signage provisions, and regulations placing wall signs on 2 story buildings. He further discussed the diversity of the businesses in Dania and that the proposed ordinance should take into account that diversity. Mr. Richard Abrams, Captain Mikes Seafood, was sworn in and addressed the board regarding the proposed sign provisions, the success of the businesses in Dania and felt that the City should work with these businesses instead of enforcing stricter codes upon them. Attorney Roger Pomerance, representing Chevron, addressed the board regarding Chevron's code violation order which was imposed on them for violation of the downtown district sign regulations. Mr. Pomerance addressed the provisions for obtaining a variance. He further stated that code would provide that no signs would be allowed which are not expressly permitted by the sign code, and was unclear on how this affects gas station signage and county regulations concerning gas price signs. Mr. Ted Adreozzi, of the Casa Bella Restaurant, was sworn in and addressed the board. Mr. Andreozzi Planning and Zoning Board 3 i discussed the violation currently imposed upon him for violation of the downtown districts sign code, and his disagreement with same. He also disagreed with having to pay to obtain a variance from the code so that his sign may remain. Mr. Andreozzi expressed that he would just like to be able to keep his sign there until his property is sold , because he is moving out of Dania. Mrs. Carol Grampa, of Grampa's Restaurant, addressed the board objecting to the proposed ordinance. She stated that the proposed ordinance is an extreme hardship on the small businesses of Dania, and that the sign ordinance effectively prohibits all the signage along Federal Highway. Mr. George Garcia, of Rose Auto Stores, addressed the board for clarification on some of the proposed regulations. Mr. Fred Cox, co-owner of the Asker Inn, was sworn in and addressed the board. Mr. Cox discussed other areas of concern, besides signage, that needed to be addressed in the order to make the City more attractive, i.e. landscaping and sidewalk repair. He felt that monument signs would be vandalized along arterials like Dixie Hwy. which would just pose an additional hardship to business owners. Mr. Vito Mancino, was sworn in and addressed the board concerning pole signs in the Downtown area stating that the businesses along Federal are set in too far, so that this signage is necessary. Mr. Mancino was concerned that two committees (Downtown Redevelopment and Planning and Zoning) were handling the sign ordinance and that there wasn't any coordination between the two. Mr. Virta stated that the Downtown group is handling the downtown district's regulations and that the hearing tonight concerned the city wide regulations. Mr. Virta further explained that the downtown regulations are stricter than the proposed regulations for citywide signage. He explained that the comments and recommendations made at the Downtown Redevelopment meeting were made a part of his summation this evening as a recommendation to the board. Mr. Mancino questioned the limits of the downtown redevelopment district, and why the remainder of South U.S. 1 was not included. Chairman Lohmann clarified for Mr. Mancino that this was the issue being discussed here tonight. Chairman Lohmann called for any further public comment. Hearing no one and seeing no one further, the public hearing was closed. Attorney Thomas Ansbro, addressed the audience, commenting on the positiveness of the proposed ordinance. He relayed that the purpose of this meeting is to obtain feedback from the public so that the Planning and Zoning board and staff. may address public concerns. He confirmed that staff mailed notices to approximately 350 businesses notifying them of this meeting. He referenced the Downtown Redevelopment District's sign ordinance which has been in effect for 8 years, which is now being enforced. He also described the efforts of the Main Street program and the City's efforts to revitalize downtown. Planning and Zoning Board 4 Growthg Terry Management Director, Ter Virta, AICP, addressed the audience. He commented on the City's efforts to aggressively notify the public and the City Commissions' instructions to expand the downtown redevelopment districts sign regulations, city wide. He further stated that possibly part of this process may be to liberalize the downtown sign regulations somewhat. He closed, commenting on effects and examples of signage and regulations which work positively for communities. Chairman Lohmann addressed the board requesting questions and comments for staff. Comments which were heard by the board included favoritism of increasing signage area in accordance with building size and whether it should be made apart of the code or to review each case as a variance process. Mr. Virta responded, stating that he would research this provision. Further comments included the problem where there are multiple tenants in a large building and the effects of the wall signage in that situation. Attorney Ansbro commented on some of the suggested provisions and how they might work. Staff was also questioned about providing a system to calculate size of a sign in proportion to the buildings' set back from the road. Further discussion concerning the length of time allotted to billboard signs versus business owners, with the board's consensus being that it currently this time frame was unfair to the business community. Attorney Ansbro stated he would research this provision. He further stressed that the input and ideas received from the community and the board are essential to the process of providing an ordinance that works for everyone. Further discussion regarding billboards was held, staff reported current actions taken by the Code Enforcement division to control what is happening with unmaintained billboards. Discussion then entailed over proposing a new ordinance while the attempt to enforce the old ordinance is still meeting adversity; possibly waiting until the outcome of the downtown redevelopment districts sign ordinance is resolved versus having to do some type of modification. The economic impact posed to the business owners was discussed as well as pole signs versus monument signs. The board proceeded to review each section of the proposed ordinance for changes or revisions. Comments were made as follows: 4. Exempt Signs. To provide for possibly neon 'OPEN' signs; and address numbers / letters. 5. Prohibited Signs. (i) (Wind signs, balloons etc.) The board suggested a provision for temporary allowance of these types of signs, with a provision for staff approval. For example, the grand Planning and Zoning Board 5 opening of a business, a frequency limitation, removal procedures and time allotment could also be added. (d) Possibly add 'vessels' to this item. Comment was made to the construction/renovation of the Billboards on the east and west side of 1-95, how were they allowed and by who. 6. Indecent or obscene displays. Review what is meant by indecent or obscene. The board questioned why Pole Signs while not permitted, are not specifically prohibited. Mr. Virta related that under the existing "Commercial Design Guidelines" pole signs are not permitted. He further stated that new pole signs are not allowed and existing ones, will become non-conforming if this proposed ordinance is passed. Existing pole signs which do not meet current area standards are also currently non- conforming. Reference to the display of house numbers was found in section (q) of item 5. Prohibited Signs. Mr. Virta stated that projecting signs are not prohibited, they are just not permitted. The board questioned the difference between prohibited and not permitted. It was questioned whether a variance can be obtained for something that is clearly prohibited as opposed to not being permitted. Mr. Virta stated that he felt that if it is prohibited, you cannot receive a variance from it. Attorney Ansbro coincided with Mr. Virta stating you can not accept a ban without amending the law. Mr. Virta stated that the raised an issue earlier where an allowance can be made for pole signs for businesses within a certain distance along 1-95. The current definition of roof signs was then discussed, it was mentioned that it should be defined in the code. Also mentioned was the Thomasville Furniture Sign which was located above the St. Vincent DePaul store and removed. The board discussed "Projecting pedestrian signs" outside of the downtown area and whether they are prohibited or not permitted. It was noted that since the "Prohibition" section, clause (cc) states that "all other signs that are not specifically permitted or exempted by this chapter", prohibits them, that projecting signs are prohibited as well as any other sign not specifically permitted in this ordinance. The board further noted that this clause would ultimately forbid a variance from being obtained for anything that is not specifically permitted in this ordinance. Planning and Zoning Board 6 I The City Attorney stated that anyone wishing to seek relief from the ordinance would have to go through the court system to have it resolved, or institute a text change. The board would like to see a definition of the clause (t) Abandoned signs, and how the City would determine abandonment of a sign. Mr. Virta stated he would look at this more closely. 10. Restrictions in areas zoned for one- and two-family addresses. (d)'to add 'other than the street address". The allowed size for street address signs was also addressed. 12. Restrictions in areas zoned commercial. It was noted that item (b) flat wall signage was being reviewed for revision allowing for proportional signage with the size and setback of the building. (c) roof signs, definitions to be stated. (d) painted signs, may be revised on recommendation of counsel for the downtown board. It was noted that art as opposed to advertisement would have to be specifically defined. (e) ground sign, it was noted that the definition of ground (pole) signs needs to be made more consistent as there are references to ground signs, monument signs, ground (pole) signs, pole signs and pylon signs and it becomes confusing as to which relates to which. Either way, the board suggested making the wording more consistent. 14. Political Signs. Suggestion was made to amend (b) to require that the signs be removed once a candidate is either eliminated as a candidate or elected to office. It was agreed that no changes would be suggested to the current Downtown Redevelopment District Sign regulations. 16. Non conforming signs. It was suggested that billboards be removed as soon as possible, but as for the businesses the same or longer period of time should be proposed. Further discussion regarding billboards was heard, and it was decided that special counsel should report on this. 17. A typographical error was noted after... 'outdoor advertising signs, (billboards) roof signs ". It was also suggested to ask special counsel why different terms for pole, ground, pylon.. signs are used throughout the ordinance, the board felt that this is inconsistent language and could be used adversely during litigation. At this point the Chairman closed discussion and suggested that this proposed ordinance be brought back at the June 17th Planning and Planning and Zoning Board 7 Zoning Board meeting with revisions and/or a report. It was noted that notice for this meeting should be listed on the water bills. Hearing no further discussion on the matter, this Special Meeting was adjourned. Planning and Zoning Board 8