COMMON VARIANCES SIGNAGE

AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 138, ENTITLED “SIGNS,” ARTICLE I, ENTITLED “IN GENERAL,” AT SECTION 138-9, ENTITLED “YARD REQUIREMENTS,” TO CLARIFY SIGN REQUIREMENTS; ARTICLE II, ENTITLED “DESIGN STANDARDS, WINDOW, AWNING, WALL, PROJECTION, AND DETACHED (MONUMENT) SIGNS,” AT SECTION 138-16, ENTITLED “WALL SIGN,” TO MODIFY LOCATION REQUIREMENTS AND INCORPORATE AND MODIFY SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR WALL SIGNS; BY AMENDING SECTION 138-18, ENTITLED “PROJECTING SIGN,” TO MODIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTING SIGNS; BY AMENDING SECTION 138-19, ENTITLED “DETACHED SIGN,” TO MODIFY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR DETACHED SIGNS; AND BY AMENDING SECTION 138-22, ENTITLED “SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS,” TO MODIFY SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS; BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, ENTITLED “SPECIFIC DISTRICT SIGN REGULATIONS,” DIVISION 1, ENTITLED “SPECIAL SIGN REGULATIONS,” AT SECTION 138-58, ENTITLED “VERTICAL RETAIL CENTER SIGNS,” TO MODIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNAGE AT VERTICAL RETAIL CENTERS; AND BY AMENDING THE AFORESTATED SECTIONS TO ADDRESS THE FREQUENCY OF APPLICATIONS FOR COMMONLY SOUGHT VARIANCES RELATED TO SIGNAGE; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

PLANNING ANALYSIS
This ordinance is a companion to two other items on the agenda related to common variances for “allowable encroachments” and “rooftop additions, setbacks (including mixed-use), and room sizes.” Per Section 118-353 (d) of the land development regulations of the city code, in order to authorize any variance from the terms of the land development regulations, the applicable land use board must determine that there are “special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district.” There are certain variances which are regularly requested and granted by the board of adjustment, design review board, and historic preservation board. Rather than being the exception to the rule, variance requests accompany most development proposals that are presented before the boards. Several of the requests are quite common and usually granted by the applicable board.

The attached ordinance addresses the following commonly issued variances related to the location of signage. Variances are often sought for the relocation of signage due to the strict limitations of sign code that do not adequately address built conditions and the reality of modern commercial structures. Since a building may be approved without tenants, the variances for signage are often sought after a building has been approved and built. Locally, some buildings have had to seek 50 or more variances related to signage. As a result, the proposed ordinance includes the following modifications in order to streamline the approval of signage within the City:

• Allow for wall signs on the second floor. For some commercial buildings, it is appropriate to have wall signs on the second floor, provided that signage does not exceed the allowances for signage on the ground floor. Today, authorizing such signage would require obtaining a variance. The proposed ordinance would allow for the placement of signage on the second floor of a multistory building, with limitations, subject to the review and approval of the DRB or HPB, as applicable.

• Modify requirements for the location of building identification signs so that they are not required to be located on a parapet. The current signage regulations require that a building identification sign be located above the roofline, on a parapet. Modern commercial buildings may not have a parapet, or there may be a more appropriate location for building ID signs. In such cases, a variance must be obtained. The proposed ordinance removes the requirement that building identification signs be located above the roofline. Approval of the building identification sign continues to be subject to the design review process.

Additionally, there are occasions when it is appropriate for a building identification sign to be a projecting sign as opposed to a wall sign. As a result, the proposed ordinance allows for building identification signs to utilize projecting signs.

• Modify requirements for projecting signs when located on a horizontal architectural projection. Existing regulations limit the size of projecting signs to 15 square feet. A common feature of buildings in Miami Beach is an eyebrow with a projecting sign above the edge of an eyebrow. The size limitation is often too small for business. The regulations for wall signs allow for larger signs than the regulations for projecting signs that are more useful to commercial establishments. If certain minimum standards are met, it may be appropriate for projecting signs to be larger when they are located above a horizontal architectural projection. The proposed ordinance allows for projecting signs above a horizontal architectural projection to utilize the size calculations for wall signs, provided certain design requirements are met and subject to the design review approval process.

• Modify setback requirements for monument signs. The existing regulations require setbacks for monument signs that are often larger than the setbacks for buildings. As a result, variances are often sought to locate monument signs closer to the property line. The proposed ordinance reduces setbacks for monument signs to five feet.

• Modify requirements for vertical retail center signage. The vertical retail center signage regulations is a tool that is utilized for large retail centers that provides for flexibility in terms of the placement of signage. However, this tool is currently limited to buildings that are over 150,000 square feet. The City has recently approved some buildings for which this tool would have been useful. The proposed ordinance reduces that limit for “vertical retail centers” from 150,000 square feet to 50,000 square feet of retail/restaurant uses. This square footage is consistent for the threshold at which conditional use approval is required in most commercial districts.

Additionally, this section includes a no-variance provision. As a result, a project which might be able to utilize this section and need only one or two variances instead chooses to utilize the traditional signage options which may necessitate many more variances. As a result, removal of the no-variance provision for vertical retail centers may in fact reduce the need for variances overall. The proposed ordinance removes the no-variance provision for “vertical retail center signage.”

Additionally, the proposed ordinance relocates certain regulations for improved usability and internal consistency.

PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
On September 24, 2019, the Planning Board held a public hearing and transmitted the ordinance to the City Commission with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 6-0.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD REVIEW

On October 8, 2019 the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) reviewed the subject ordinance and recommended approval with no changes by a vote of 6-0.

UPDATE
The subject ordinance was approved at first reading on October 16, 2019, with no changes.