03-13-1986 Public Hearing and Regular MeetingMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
PLANNING & ZONING .BOARD MEETING &
PUBLIC HEARING
MARCH 13, 1986
A regular meeting of the Miami Shores Village Planning 0 Zoning Board,
Public Hearing, was held on March 13, 1986, at the Miami Shores Village Hall.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Stobs, at 7:30 P.M., with the
following members present:
J. Robert Stobs, II, Chairman
Patrick Duffy
Thomas Laubenthal
Larry T. McClure
Absent: Robert J. Rossi
Also present: Frank J. LuBien
1. MINUTES
The minutes of the Workshop Meeting of March 6, 1986 were approved as
written, by a motion made by Mr. Laubenthal, seconded by Mr. Duffy
and passed unanimously.
Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve, as written, the minutes of the meeting
of February 27, 1986, seconded by Mr. Duffy, and passed unanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERING AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE CONCERNING COMMERCIAL
REAL ESTATE SIGNS.
Mr. Stobs read the Notice for Public Hearing, as it appeared in the Miami
Herald Neighbors, Sunday, March 9, 1986. The Public Hearing is the result
of Council override of a Planning & Zoning Board decision.
The meeting was then opened for in -put from the Village residents, who
were present. They had no comments concerning the Commercial Real Estate
signs.
Mr. Edgar C. Bundy, 269 N. E. 100th St., congraulated the Planning and
Zoning Board for resisting pressure to change the character of Miami Shores
Village from the traditional residential community that it has maintained
throughout the years.
Questions for discussion, outlined by Mr. Stobs: Consider the nature of
commercial districts, which is primarily B-1 and B-2 zoned, should
commercial real estate signs be different than for residential? Should
it have relationship to frontage, set back from street? Should size be
different? What type of sign do you want to see in B-1, B-2 district?
Mr. Laubenthal noted that, the nature of the B-2 district, signs would
be difficult to spot limited to the 120 sq. in. format. The allowable
advertising graphics for business would be lost. Further, considering
the motorist passing through the business district, with its' sign
clutter, would warrant a larger sign. Mr. Laubenthal felt a 3 sq ft. sign
within reason. Also a window sign matted or backgrounded is inappropriate.
Planning & Zoning Board
-2- 3/13/86
Mr. Duffy stated that, from a pratticlejpoint of view commercial real
estate sign must be larger than 120 sq. in.. Commercial real Estate
has many varibles compared to residential property, where only the
broker or owner, telephone number, and maybe number of rooms might be
listed. In commercial real estate there is a need to convey the type
of real estate, retail or office, sale or lease, sq. ft. of space.
In determining size, other variables need to be considered: zero set
backs on N. E. 2nd Ave. as opposed to vacant lots on Biscayne Blvd.,
so that a compromise between the 32 sq. ft., which is too large and
garish, and the 120 sq. in. provided for residential real estate.
Further, Mr. Duffy noted, orientation should be considered, and should
the sign be single or double faced? Mounting? These are expected to
fall into place, once the size is determined. Also lease signs should
be considered in a separate issue, and be a bit more liberal than
'for sale' signs.
Mr. Stobs,feels, there should be a difference in the sign allowed on
N. E. 2nd Ave, and the sign allowed on Biscayne Blvd, in B-1 & B-2
districts. He is more in favor of the store front sign and restrict-
ing size.
Much discussion continued regarding, the pylon sign, what constitutes
a commercial property, signs for building with suites, and apartment
buildings.
Mr. McClure is not opposed to one lease sign on pylon and one store
front sign, with size limitation. He requested further clarification
of the number of lease signs,allowed, placement and size. Detached
signs should be specifically stated. Construction. signs as well as
sale and lease signs could be considered.
Mr. LuBien noted, he cannot see that anyone needs a sign larger than
3 sq. ft..
The concensus of the Board was that, the commercial real estate sign be
3 sq. ft. maximum, only one 'for sale' sign, or 'for lease' sign for
individual address or license, no more than one sign per store front
building.
For the record, Mr. Duffy noted, he wants to see more than one 'for
sale' sign, for a full block, he would like to see a sign on each
corner. Mr. Stobs noted, this would come under orientation, and if a
whole block is for sale, three signs could be allowed.
Mr. Stobs stated, he will schedule a meeting with the Village Attorney,
to relay the Boards desire, for the purpose of drafting a proposed
ordinance, to present back to the Planning & Zoning Board for final
approval, then to the Council if the Board desires.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Andr4fAhei ete,tels
cre,/ ry