Search and Categories

Here’s The Scoop … The September 15, 2010 Lauderdale-By-The-Sea Planning & Zoning Board Meeting…. All “Hands” On Deck ….

September 19, 2010 by Barbara

“IT’S REALLY MORE REARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS THAN IT IS CREATING A WHOLE NEW DECK”…

quote above from TAtty. Trevarthen concerning item #4  9/15/10…

Dear Readers ..This writer, short on time …and dealing with a freeze problem with the live-stream of the 9/15/2010 P & Z monthly meeting did not get to view it until yesterday ….Due to time constraints still, I skipped over items 1-3 ..(and was informed all 3 items passed 4-0 with a few additional recommendations that were made for item 2…accessory buildings & structures such as the height [1-story]/placed property line [instead of 5 ft. from prop. line-removable sheds]/ hurricane warning for removal of sheds [instead of hurricane watch]…some of which I did actually pick up in drips and drabs between the constant freeze-ups to item…

Item #4 which I was informed became somewhat of a “hot-potato” after Vice- Chair Yann Brandt made a motion asking to defer the 27 pg. ordinance for a month in order to allow for more research and input from the business community…who were not present in the hall  …

This came about after Chair Buz Oldaker stated item #4 was”quite extensive” and asked the TAtty. “to introduce us to the scope of it because if we tear it line by line that could be all evening”…

The TAtty. responded and stated “The impetus behind this ordinance although it is a longer ordinance is exactly the same which is we saw some things that could have been improved in the wording of your sign regulations. Some things that were of concern from a legal perspective and so we started from that standpoint and taking into account the guidance that we’ve gotten from various commission comments that if we touch a piece of code they want us to look at it more thoroughly and make sure it’s ok going forward. We also consulted with Mr Bowman (Dir. of Development) and dealt with some issues that have arisen in the implementation of the sign code. So a lot of the changes you’ll see here and I’ve tried to have them summarized in this memo so that you can easily see what has changed. The goal here was not really to change policy despite all the things that are being taken out and put back, it’s really more rearranging the deck chairs than it is creating a whole new deck.” Some of the stuff that’s brand new new almost all of it that I can recall is purely because I feel that it’s legally appropriate and necessary for us to have those changes. Other things like the reference to let me find an example of this on page 2 there’s a reference to the regulations for pole and pylon signs over time we discovered talking to your staff that there had been a significant amount of confusion in the community about those regulations and so what we have done here is simply try and make it clear what was already in the code. We have not changed the policy with regard to those signs. So, that’s why this is before you. Although it is more elaborate in detail it’s in the nature of making the sign code more defensible and fixing technical problems and implementation it is not, it has not been looked at from the framework of rethinking the way the Town looks or rethinking the way the Town approaches sign regulation.”…

BC- That said it in a nutshell… especially the last sentence of her introduction to the “scope”…”it has not been looked at from the framework of rethinking the way the Town looks or rethinking the way the Town approaches sign regulation.”… The only member of the P & Z who picked up on it…. in this writer’s opinion…. was Vice- Chair Brandt who asked the TAtty. “if there was a sense of urgency on this or do they have some time?”….. The TAtty. responded she “wouldn’t say it was necessarily urgent”…going on to add her 1st version was drafted 10 months ago going on to speak of some of the “deficiencies” she found …but she “was not aware of a particular circumstance that is triggering a problem like a particular applicant or situation.”… Yann went on to describe a situation that happened while in high school (“a long, long time ago”) that involved his father and the entire Hospitality District having a tough time getting signs when there was no signage code in place …He went on to state he had gone through the ordinance and while he believed the TAtty. was “rearranging the decks” he felt in reviewing the language it would make sense to defer the item for another month… He wanted the opportunity to take the ordinance and actually go through the Town and understand which signs would be affected as new “non-conforming signs, what would have to change if something happened to those buildings”… He went on to make the recommendation and the motion to defer it until the next meeting scheduled in October…He further added he would “hate to do something that places a new standard that a business might have to deal with potentially without any purposeful action on this board, at least from my perspective.”…The TAtty. replied ans stated she understood and again stated she did not know of any reason why it has to move forward this month …She asked Mr. Bowman if he and any input and he shook his head no… Jeff Bowman did come to the podium to speak of the Notice of Intent dates for public hearings that might be in need of changing… (BC-They might still need changing with the Comm. change of one Comm.mtg. per month beginning in Oct…..which was not brought up)… After some discussion about the NOI regulations and the TAtty. stating it was just procedural and certainly doable…Yann stated that was his motion and received no second!…

BC- as a matter of courtesy…especially to a Vice- Chair…. Mr. Brandt’s fellow board members should have agreed…After what transpired following their decision not to offer up a second …I sincerely hope they wish they did so, after they had time to clear their heads following the meeting..Because, from what I saw…in the end …. it would have been absolutely the right thing to do!…

The meeting proceeded with former Chair Peanuts Wick, back after returning for season going line by line and asking questions that ranged from concern over any “hardship” inflicted on staff (BC- Yep, Peanuts was concerned with any adverse conflict or hardship for staff!)….from the days required for applicant complying …(BC- both the TAtty/Bowman responded there was no conflict/hardship)…He brought up the pole/pylon signs and the Pier sign located at the intersection on Commercial Blvd & A1A being within the ROW (see below) …Mr. Bowman answered when asked “Well I think you’re talking about an existing sign compared to a sign that would be installed, a new sign, right?” …Mr Wick went on to correctly ask about in the aftermath of a hurricane if it would fall under “grandfather rulings or what would be the procedure?”..Mr. Bowman took another lengthy pause …

BC-this is when the TAtty. chimed in this remark…that should have given the P & Z Board pause as well as the owners of the Pier sign..”If I could also address this question our effort in drafting this , this way was to simply gather together all of the different references to pole and pylon signs and just reproduce them here. So the implication that’s raised by Mr. Wick unless we have made an error which is always possible we welcome the input, it in the current code but it’s something we could certainly look at.”

Peanuts Wick answered ..”ok”…

BC- not ok…

The TAtty continued on stating she was having trouble finding the 5 ft. elsewhere in the ordinance and found it around lines 639 & following/line 595 & following with the source at line 144…

Peanuts went on to ask about the sandwich signs at line 249 being eliminated relating 2 different businesses in town that were not allowed the signs…The TAtty. responded the current code was “unclear” or “even conflicting” on this issue again stating they were clearing up the confusion…She stated in one it seemed you could have them and in another portion they were prohibited…Peanuts responded “ok, that answers that”…

BC- not for this writer…

Peanuts went on to ask about the “strip of stringing lighting and or around windows and then you’ve taken ouyt other then temporary holiday lighting.” …He asked about Village Grille and Aruba’s lights both around trees for the holdiays and on their establishments….The TAtty. stated she could address this as well and stated “It’s simply been relocated because it’s a form of temporary signage. Now it’s listed under temporary signs where it belongs.”..

Peanuts responded “ok, that answers that question.”…

BC- No it does not … This reads to this writer to conflict with the failed code change desired this year with the previous Commission …It was proposed to make holiday lights temporary with a code violation for keeping them up after a certain number of days…The Commission voted that down and stated emphatically that it is the norm for holiday lighting to remain around palm trees etc… It appears under the P + Z passed recommendation that would be a conflict to the prior Comm. vote…

Peanuts followed up by giving a compliment to new Chair Oldaker by stating the reason he (Peanuts) went line by line was due to Buz (not naming him until he was finished ) making sure to do it while both were serving in the prior board…They had a good chuckle…But this writer remembers that then-member Oldaker would not back down on answers that did not answer the question… Peanuts had a few other clarifications but did a “Cristie Furth” when he was reminded by the TAtty. that only the items underlined meaning ADDITIONS/ crossed out meaning DELETIONS were to be addressed because the TAtty. stated “that’s existing code. We are not making any changes to that”…as they are only amending the code…. He went on to ask about canopies line 441 and eliminating the insurance …The TAtty. stated it was already in an ordinance and would be a duplication …It is in ordinance that deal with encroachments…Wick answered “That’s wonderful, thank you” and went to pole signs and line 595 again asking permitted or not …

The TAtty. stated they “got confused as well which is why they made the changes.”…She added the new text what the “code intended and accomplished in 2001which was that they were made prohibitive going forward but made provisions for people who already had them and so if we flip back to line 144 pg 5 through line 193 pg 6 there’s a whole regulatory scheme that applies if you have a non-conforming pole and pylon sign and it talks about the conditions under which it either has to be removed or can be replaced and all of that was already there. It was just kind of scattered around. So we pulled it together.”…Peanuts thanked he…looked for one more question ..concerning flags.. the changes made in number allowed…The TAtty. answered they now have addressed flags overall and spoke of where it was revised line 859 and line 219 …

Peanuts stated again “ok, thank you”…

BC- not ok to this writer…Last summer we had a little brouhaha over flags after a dive shop asked about additional flags and then it is said Code went on to do a sweep of businesses including some that have had American Flags up for some time…The new Commission made it clear they were for assisting in allowing the American Flag while observing public safety…Some of that should have been addressed in the below code changes to see if any forthcoming allowance were desired in allowing all kinds of flags…

Chair Oldaker asked for any other questions…Mr Brandt stated his further concerns over the prohibited pole signage stating it was still hard to locate…The TAtty. had a brief problem locating it as well…Yann threw in some hypotheticals stating he is a former board member of the Chamber of Commerce and they were not being represented at the meeting …He felt that some drastically significant changes on what signage will be allowed on businesses was taking place with no input from them…The TAtty. stated she was sorry to interrupt but “before you go any further we are not drastically changing anything. We are simply re-codifying what is already in the code.”… Yann tried to go on and the TAtty. asked Jeff Bowman if her statement was correct …”This is the way it’s been interpreted over time because I know we consulted with staff as we developed what we hoped was a clearer way of describing what the code is currently.”… Yann  stated that’s why he wanted to go through a hypothetical ..The TAtty. could be heard to say “Uh hum”…He went on to speak of the Rainbow Inn and their pole signs and what would happen to whomever buys the hotel under line 148 could not replace the sign in the redevelopment of it…Jeff Bowman cleared his throat and stated it was under a section that was new development/re-development with the TAtty. agreeing that would allow other signage not pole signs…After some more back and forth of what is a pole sign…one pole/double poles and the impact of not having them for businesses such as those on El Mar Drive .. we ended up back where we started …what was stated prohibited before (pole/pylon signs in any new building…redevelopment and more than 50% destruction) is still prohibited in this new ordinance!..

Yann pointed out once again it was his concern that it is unfair and wrong to pass on another ordinance that contains portions that have such an impact without the businesses being aware they are in and will remain in it…

The TAtty.then answered the locations of the provisions and stated the board could recommend a change to the Commission again stating “but we wee trying very hard not to change what was currently part of the law.”…

Some additional back and forth ensued on what was done …stated throughout above…and what could have been done as the TAtty. stated “I don’t mean to come across minimizing these concern (Mr. Brandt’s) at all . They’re obviously relevant to concerns, policy issues for the community and if it’s the desire of the board to look at the sign code from the perspective of whether it’s right, whether we want to have more signage in our community or a different color or different kind of signage that is definitely something that could be done. It’s just not part of this ordinance.”

Buz compared it to cleaning your hard drive and reorganizing it ..the TAtty. apparently grateful to the Chair laughed and said “kind of”… Buz went on to state reorganizing what is already written cannot provide any potential damage to business because it’s already “on the books”… The TAtty. laughed and said “unless we missed something. We’re open to people telling us we missed something but we did work on this with staff and our understanding as the enforcement after the fact is gonna be the same as it was before the fact. It’s just going to be easier. They’re gonna get fewer phone calls cause people are so confused”…. about the code…Buz replied if they missed something it wasn’t “written in concrete and they could re-visit it…

Yann tried once more for the board to defer another month unsuccessfully as he offered up the new ordinance being produced without the strikeouts (deletions) and then looking at the content as well for the total impact and then being able to offer up full recommendations for the ordinance to the Commission in one shot… The TAtty. stated that could be done..but it was not part of this ordinance… Buz continued that they were talking about two different things …Eric Yankwitt concurred with the Chair and while he understood Yann’s frustration with signage and spoke of his own and that of his clients he too felt it could come back and then they could “attack” the content of the ordinance…He equated passing this item to what was passed in items 1-3… wanting to move on… Buz reiterated they have every opportunity to revisit it…and request the Commission to revisit it… The TAtty. stated they are not mutually exclusive and thanked Mr. Yankwitt stating making the code clearer can be an incentive to business …relating some instance her other clients have faced… Yann asked why do it twice… and Mr Yankwitt stated “for speed and accuracy” …”It makes sense to do it twice”..He compared it to cleaning your house “first you organize and see what you have , then make a decision, throw this away, add this, re-arrange that.”…

BC- not this writer I organize and get rid of stuff as I clean up…ONCE!…

Yann asked if all we are really doing is cleaning up…and Mr. Yankwitt stated the TAtty. assure them that she spent time with enough time with staff re-visiting it and they could see their changes there and make their recommendations to the Commission and have another shot at it later… Buz replied “this isn’t a death sentence. We can re-visit it.”…The TAtty. stated they were not trying to “slip anything through” …stating that was not their intention.. Yann replied “not on purpose”…The TAtty. replied she understood that “but that is a concern that I understand but exists with every single ordinance that’s ever written.”…going on to say “it’s always possible that people will overlook something no matter how many times it is reviewed”…She went on to state it will take “additional time to come back and fix itbut all I can do is explain the process which was we were not authorized to go change the look of signage in this town. That wasn’t our purpose. That we took pains to make sure that what we were doing was basically neutral in its policy impact.”…

With that Peanuts Wick made a motion to move this through and send it to the Commission…Eric Yankwitt seconded it… Chair Oldaker asked for any discussion…seeing none he added while he agreed with Yann he also agreed with the motion and that he “believed if they separated into two components moving this on and then revisiting it they remove the effect of being overwhelmed with trying to handle this ordinance.”… The roll was called and it passed 3-1 (Yann Brandt making an emphatic no to moving it forward to the Commission)…

BC- All in all this writer states once again…look at the Commission’s desire (VM Dodd has made this point numerous times in his first term as a Comm.)….for the Town Atty. to be proactive on codes and ordinances…along with costs we have endured in the past 2 years with codes and ordinances going back and forth multiple times … With the many such code/ordinances that will be coming for revisions to the P & Z and the Commission over the next 2 years…the content for policy should be addressed at the same time it is being cleaned up ..It makes sense to tie into the Vision for the Town /New 5 yr. Master Plan that will be front and center…We have a new Administration and a new Commission…the TAtty. and especially staff need to operate differently than when they were under the prev. Administration/Commission….

Furthermore, it will be most unfortunate if we see more of the same…when this brought to the Commission and Dir. of Development Bowman stands at the podium only to read the cover page of this ordinance and offer up only that staff and the P & Z recommends this ordinance and the Commission passes it…. on just the cleanup!…

Below is the item #4 agenda item/memo/excerpts of the ordinance (full text link below)…and some follow-up on the remainder of the meeting…

IV. NEW BUSINESS
Request: The Planning and Zoning Board to provide recommendations to the Town Commission to the proposed
amendments to the Towns’ Code of Ordinances.
Item #1: Permitted uses in the B-1 and B-1A Zoning District
At the July 14, 2010 Commission Roundtable meeting, direction was given to staff to broaden the code to become more business
friendly. Consultant Walter Keller reviewed the existing business uses and commonly accepted business uses in the B1 and B1-A
zoning districts. Walter has provided a suggested listing of uses for your review and recommendations. ( Walter Keller, Consultant)
Item #2: Amendments to Section 30-313 (31) Accessory Buildings and Structures.
At the June 9, 2010 Commission Roundtable meeting, direction was given to staff to move forward with drafting an ordinance
amending the code to address sheds and storage containers that do not require a permit. ( Jeff Bowman, Director of Development
Services )
Item #3: Amendments to Chapter 30-22 Adopting Zoning Relief Procedures ( Town Attorney Susan
Trevarthen )
At the Town Commission meeting of July 27, 2010, the Commission authorized moving forward with amending Chapter 30 “Unified
Land Development Regulations” of the Town Code of Ordinances by creating Section 30-22 “Zoning Relief Procedures” to provide for
a zoning relief procedure to address possible unintended violations of federal and state laws in the application of the Code or its
related rules, policies, and procedures. This proposed amendment provides a preventative procedure to protect the Town from legal
challenges, and facilitates the resolution of disputes.
Item #4: Amendments to Chapter 30-501 Adopting Severability Provisions to the Sign Code. ( Town Attorney Susan
Trevarthen )
At its meeting of July 27, 2010, the Commission approved the Notice of Intent to move forward with amending Chapter 30, Article
VIII, Sign Regulations, of the Town’s Code of Ordinances. These revisions to the sign code enhance severability provisions, resolve
internal conflicts, and enhance defensibility in light of recent case law. Several minor changes have also been made to address
inconsistencies and implementation issues identified by Town staff.

…………
ITEM 4 MEMO …

Memo
To: Planning and Zoning Board Members
From: Susan Trevarthen, Town Attorney
Kathryn M. Mehaffey, Assistant Town Attorney
Cc: Jeff Bowman, Director of Development Services
Date: September I, 2010
Re: Proposed Amendments To Article VIll, Sign Regulations
At its July 27,2010 meeting, the Town Commission approved the Notice of Intent to move forward with
amending Chapter 30, Article VIII, Sign Regulations, of the Town’s Code of Ordinances. These revisions
to the sign code enhance severability provisions, resolve internal conflicts, and enhance defensibility in
light of recent case law. Several minor changes have also been made to address inconsistencies and
implementation issues identified by Town staff.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
A number of changes have been implemented in the proposed Ordinance in order to enhance the
defensibility of the Code. Most of these changes are technical in nature, and many alter the format or
presentation of the regulation in ways that make the Code less susceptible to challenge without major
changes to the impact of the regulation. All changes are noted in the Ordinance in strike-through and
underline font. The following changes are highlighted for the Board’s review:
• Permit review procedures and timeframes were added to protect against constitutional challenges.
• Working with staff, we identified several types of signs which present legal concerns, are not utilized
in the Town, are addressed inconsistently, or appear in multiple areas of the Town’s Code. Defunct,
unused sign types, color palette and other requirements were deleted, and inconsistencies and
duplications were resolved.
• Severability provisions were added, and the substitution clause was updated to enhance defensibility.
• Protections were added for protected non-commercial speech.
• Flag regulations have been revised to eliminate constitutional concerns and, based on the concerns
and direction of staff, to implement standards which reflect the current usage, size and development
of flags in the Town.
• The regulations for pole and pylon signs were conflicting. The regulations made them legal nonconforming
signs, though they were not labeled as such. These signs have now been addressed
separately according to their legal, non-conforming status. At staff s direction, the removal and
replacement criteria were expanded to provide for removal and replacement upon damage greater
than 50% of the replacement value, or upon abandonment of the legal, non-conforming pole or pylon
sign for a period of six months or more.
• The definition of canopy and awning signs was amended to clarify procedures to enhance
defensibility and at the direction of staff, to reflect recent right-of-way encroachment legislation
approved by the Town Commission.
• A number of other technical changes were made which help create a more consistent and defensible
Code with clearer implementation procedures and a reduction in interpretation issues.

……………….

BC- Excerpts from Ordinance …

ORDINANCE 2010-_
Line 73 SECTION 2. Amendment. Sections 30-501 through 30-509 of Article VIII of
Chapter 30 are hereby amended! as follows:

Line 129 (f)
No right to appeal. Except when Commission approval is required pursuant to the
provisions of this article of the Code, the decision of the Development Services Building

Department for the issuance or denial of a sign permit shall be final. There shall be no

right of appeal to the Town Board of Adjustment or Town Commission of a finding of

the Development Services Building Department….. ADDITION of…The appellant may seek relief in the
Circuit Court for Broward County, as provided by law.

ADDITION of ALL that follows….
Line 144-193 Non-conforming signs. Any previously permitted, existing sign that does not conform to
the provisions of these regulations shall be removed or brought into conformance with
these regulations upon new development or redevelopment as defined in section 30-507
or the when the Town has determined that the sign (except a pole or pylon sign meeting
the criteria and conditions of subsection (e) below) has been destroyed or damaged such
that the cost of alteration, repair or replacement of such sign exceeds 50 percent of the
replacement cost thereof.
Non-conforming pole and pylon signs. Any previously permitted pole or pylon sign
legally existing as of March 27, 2001, and in existence for the two (2)years prior to that
date, shall be considered a legal, non-conforming pole or pylon sign.
(1) Upon new development or redevelopment of a site, any existing pole or pylon
signs must be removed and may not be replaced under subsections (2) or (3)
below.
(2) If any legal non-conforming pole or pylon sign is removed by the sign owner or
property owner, or the sign is damaged by any cause such that the cost of
alteration, repair or replacement of such sign exceeds 50 percent of the
replacement cost thereof, the sign must be replaced within six months of the
removal or date of damage in compliance with this section (t), or removed in its
entirety.
(3) Legal, non-conforming pole or pylon signs meeting the criteria of this section
may be replaced only under the following conditions:
(i) The sign box or panel of a pole or pylon sign shall not exceed 32 square
feet in size.
(ii) There shall be no more than one pole or pylon sign per street frontage per
property.
(iii) All pole and pylon signs shall be setback at least five feet from any
property line or right-of-way.
(iv) Any pole sign located within 30 feet of a street intersection or within 15
feet of the intersection of a parking space and a driveway or street shall
maintain seven feet of clearance between the ground and the bottom of the
sign box or panel.
(v) No pylon sign may be placed within 30 feet of a street intersection or in
any location that would obstruct cross-visibility at a driveway intersection
or would obstruct cross-visibility for back-out parking.
(vi) The support poles of pole signs shall not exceed a width or diameter of 18
inches.
(vii) Pylon signs shall be limited to one pylon with a width or diameter not to
exceed four feet.
(viii) The height of the top of a pole or pylon sign shall not exceed 15 feet above
the crown of the nearest street.
(ix) Replacement pole signs and pylon signs require site plan review and
approval by the Town Commission prior to issuance of a sign permit. The
following additional requirements and conditions must be met in order for
a proposed pole sign to receive site plan approval:
a. The proposed pole or pylon sign is replacing an existing pole or
pylon sign.
b. The design and colors of the proposed sign shall be coordinated
with the design and colors of any buildings on the premises.
c. The pole(s) of the proposed pole sign and the pylon of the
proposed pylon sign shall have architectural treatment or be
screened by lattice-work and/or landscaping that will, to the
satisfaction of the Town Commission, ensure that the proposed
sign is aesthetically compatible with adjoining development.

………………..

BC- see comments from this writer above concerning previous holiday light vote not being “temporary”…. (prev. posts)…

Excerpts….with ….ADDITION of/DELETIONS of/ REMAINS the same…
Sec. 30-504. – Temporary signs.
The following types of signs may be permitted within the Town as temporary signs, only in
conformance with these regulations and, except for political signs ….ADDITION of….and real estate signs, after
issuance of a temporary sign permit by the …..ADDITION of…… Development Services…..DELETION of …..(Building)Department:
Line 266-(5) ADDITION of….Holiday lighting (no permit required);
Line 268-(6) Political signs …..ADDITION of …(no permit required)…. DELETION of ….(Note: Unlike other temporary signs, political signs do
not require the issuance of a permit, however, the persona in charge of the campaign or the
company erecting the sign shall be responsible for removing the signs within seven days
after the date of the election.);
Line 273-(8) Real estate signs …. ADDITION of… (no permit required);
Line 275-…… ADDITION of …..(10) Valet signs;

……….

Sec. 30-505. – Prohibited signs.
The following types of signs are expressly prohibited within the Town:
(1) Animated or flashing signs;
(2) Any sign not listed elsewhere in these regulations as an exempt, permitted or temporary
Sign;
(3) Balloon signs;
Line 286(4)…. ADDITION of ….Permanent banner….. DELETION of….and pennant signs, except specifically permitted flags or temporary
Sign;
Line 288-(5) Billboards/….DELETION of ….off-premises signs;
Line 289 -(6)…. DELETION of….Paper signs, except as a window,,” or interior sign, menu board sign or as a specifically
permitted temporary sign; ….ADDITION of….Pole signs;
(7) Private signs of any type placed upon Town property or upon public right-of-way;
Line 292- (8)…. ADDITION of….Pylon signs;
Line 293-(8) Sandwich sign;
(10) Signs placed upon benches, trash receptacles or newsracks;
(11) Signs placed on any beach or part thereof, except regulatory or warning signs;
(12) Signs with unshielded lighting elements, except neon signs;
(13) Snipe signs;
(14) Stationary vehicle or trailer signs;
Line 299-(15) Strip of string lighting in or around windows, ….DELETION of….other than temporary holiday lighting;
(16) Signs which no longer advertise or identify a business conducted, a service rendered or
product sold; and
Line 302-…. DELETION of…..any other type of sign not listed as a permitted sign or temporary sign;.
Line 303 -….ADDITION of….(17) Signs that produce or emit any type of sound or odor.
Line 302 -…. ADDITION of….(18) Signs that do not meet the design, material and fabrication requirements of this Article

…………

Sec. 30-507. – Definitions and restrictions by sign type.

Line 383-Pole sign: A sign mounted upon one or two vertical poles, either free-standing or extending

above another structure. …..DELETION of….Pole signs are permitted but are not encouraged….. REMAINS the same….Properties that do not
have pole signs at time of adoption of these regulations (March 27,2001) and have not had them
within the two years preceding adoption shall not be permitted to erect or maintain pole signs.
New development and redevelopment shall not be permitted to erect or maintain pole signs.
Traffic control and directional signs mounted on poles are not considered to be pole signs.

DELETION of ALL that follows…..

The sign box or panel of a pole sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size. There shall be no more
than one pole or pylon sign per street frontage per property. All pole signs shall be setback at
least five feet from any property line or right -of- way ). Any pole sign located within 30 feet of a
street intersection or within 15 feet of the intersection of a parking space and a driveway or street
shall maintain seven feet of clearance between the ground and the bottom of the sign box or
panel. The support poles of pole signs shall not exceed a width or diameter of 18 inches. The
height of the top of a pole sign shall not exceed 15 feet above the crown of the nearest street.
Pole signs require site plan review and approval by the Town Commission prior to issuance of a
sign permit. The following additional requirements and conditions must be met in order for a
proposed pole sign to receive site plan approval:
(1) The proposed pole sign is replacing an existing pole or pylon sign.
(2) The design and colors of the proposed pole sign shall be coordinated with the
design and colors of any buildings on the premises.
(3) The pole(s) of the proposed pole sign shall have architectural treatment or be
screened by lattice work and/or landscaping that will, to the satisfaction of the
Town Commission, ensure that the proposed sign is aesthetically compatible with
adjoining development.

…………..

Line 639-Pylon sign: A sign, mounted upon or on top of a vertical wall or pylon, that exceeds six feet in
height, either free-standing or extending above another structure….. DELETION of……Pylon signs are permitted but
are not encouraged. New development and redevelopment shall not be permitted to erect or
maintain pylon signs. ….ADDITION of…..Properties that do not have pylon signs at time of adoption of these
regulations (March 27, 2001) and have not had them within the two years preceding adoption
shall not be permitted to erect or maintain pylon signs. New development and redevelopment
shall not be permitted to erect or maintain pylon signs.

DELETION of ALL of the following….

The sign box or panel of a pylon sign
shall not exceed 32 square feet in size. There shall be no more than one pylon or pole sign per
street frontage per property. All pylon signs shall be setback at least five feet from any property
line or right of way. Pylon signs shall be limited to one pylon with a width or diameter not to
exceed four feet. The height of the top of a pylon sign shall not exceed 15 feet above the Crown
of the nearest street. No pylon sign may be placed within 30 feet of a street intersection or in any
location that would obstruct cross visibility at a driveway intersection or would obstruct cross
visibility for back out parking. Pylon signs require site plan review and approval by the Town
Commission prior to issuance of a sign permit. The following additional requirements and
conditions must be met in order for a proposed pylon sign to receive site plan approval:
(1) The proposed pylon sign is replacing an existing pole or pylon sign.
(2) The design and colors of the proposed pylon sign shall be coordinated with the
design and colors of any buildings on the premises.
(3) The pylon(s) of the proposed pylon sign shall have architectural treatment or be
screened by lattice work and/or landscaping that will, to the satisfaction of the
Town Commission, ensure that the proposed sign is aesthetically compatible with
adjoining development.

…………..

Line 694-Sandwich sign: A movable, portable, free-standing sign not secured or attached to the ground
that can be folded and carried by an individual. …….ADDITION of…….Sandwich signs are prohibited.

DELETION of ALL of the following…..

The sign panels of a sandwich sign shall exceed not 16 square feet in size and shall be no taller than four feet in
height. The sandwich sign may only be utilized for a licensed valet establishment and for no
other purpose. A sandwich sign shall not be placed in a right of way, but may be placed on
private property. A sandwich sign may be erected only during hours of operation of the
establishment.

Line 764- Temporary sign: A temporary sign is anyone of the types of signs specifically listed within these
regulations as an allowed temporary sign and which may be displayed for a limited, specified
amount of time. Temporary signs may be constructed of wood, metal and/or plastic, and may use
flat, painted or printed text and designs. Window neon signs shall be considered temporary signs,
regardless of the material used in their construction….. ADDITION of…….Unless otherwise addressed by this Article,
temporary signs shall be removed within seven days after the event to which they relate.

Line 776-ADDITION of ALL of the following….

Valet sign: A temporary two paneled, A-frame sign with panels not exceeding 16 square feet in
size and no taller than four feet in height. The valet sign may only be utilized for properties
offering valet service and only during the hours of operation of the valet service. A valet sign
shall not be placed in a right-of-way, except in conjunction with a use authorized by a right-of-
way license granted by the Town Commission, but may be placed on private property.

………………..

Line 851-RM-25 and RM-50 districts. Single-family and duplex residences and plots located in the
RM-25 district shall be subject to the sign regulations as listed for the RS-5 and RD-10
districts listed above.
Only the following types of signs are permitted within the RM-25 and RM-50 districts,
subject to the limitations and requirements contained in the definitions and restrictions by
sign type and the general design standards sections of these regulations, and subject to the
additional limitations stated below:
Line 859-…. DELETION of…..(1) No more than four bona fide flags at a hotel or motel, not exceeding 15 square
feet in size each.
(1) Private informational, directional and traffic control signs.
(2) Name and address signs: One resident name sign per dwelling unit, including any
exempt name sign, to be placed on the dwelling unit and not to exceed two square
feet in sign area. One occupant address sign per address, including any exempt
address sign, to be placed on the building or mail box and not to exceed two
square feet in sign area. One building address sign per building to be placed on
the building and not to exceed a total of six square feet of sign area. Every
building shall display an address sign that is clearly visible from the street.
Buildings that have rear door access to an alley or parking lot shall also display an
address sign that is clearly visible from the alley or parking lot.
Line 871…. DELETION of….(4) Public service signs: Only if approved by the Town Commission.
(3) Subdivision and residential development identification signs: Only if approved by
the Town Commission ….ADDITION of…..pursuant to site plan approval procedures.
(4) Vacancy/no vacancy signs: one sign per licensed motel or hotel, not exceeding
two square feet of sign area.
(5) Temporary political signs: to be set back at least five feet from any right-of-way
or property line.
(6) In addition, each …ADDITION of….multifamily… DELETION of……or hotel, motel, apartment building, condominium,
group home, church, school or other …REMAINS the same……non-residential use may display no more than
two of the following permanent signs, with a combined total sign area of not more
than 32 square feet, per street frontage, and the total sign area of all signs attached
to the wall, canopy and/or awnings of a building face shall not exceed 15 percent
of the area of the building facade. In the case of a building with a flat roof, the
area of the building face shall be measured from the elevation of the nearest
sidewalk or crown of the road to either the deck of a flat roof or top of the parapet
wall, whichever is higher. In the case of a building with a sloped roof, the area of
the building face shall be measured from elevation of the nearest sidewalk or
crown of the road to the midpoint of a sloped roof. If a hotel or motel takes over
an adjoining hotel or motel, then the combined hotel or motel is entitled to 16
additional square feet of separate wall or awning sign area; the existing signs shall
not be increased in size by this additional footage.
a. Building or development identification signs: one sign per building per
street frontage, with a sign height no greater than 35 feet.
b. Canopy or awning signs: With a sign height no greater than 18 feet.
c. Hanging sign: one sign per building per street frontage, with a sign height
no greater than 18 feet.
d. Changeable copy signs: one sign per street frontage, with a sign height no
greater than 18 feet.
e. Monument signs: one sign with one or two faces per street frontage, only
on a plot with 200 or more feet of continuous frontage on the same street.
Line 902….. DELETION of……..f. Pole or pylon signs: Limited to hotels, motels, apartment buildings and
condominiums only and to one sign per street frontage per property.

……………

Line 927-Bl, BIA and B2 districts. Only the following types of signs are permitted within the Bl,
BIA and B2 districts, subject to the limitations and requirements contained in the
definitions and restrictions by sign type and the general design standards sections of these
regulations, and subject to the additional limitations stated below:
Line 932- ……DELETION of……..(1) One dive flag at a bona fide dive shop and three bona fide flags at a travel agency
or foreign cuisine restaurant, not exceeding 15 square feet in size each.
(1) Building or development identification signs: one sign per building per street
frontage with a sign area of no more than 32 square feet and with a sign height no
greater than 35 feet.
(2) Private informational, directional and traffic control signs.
(3) Menu board sign: one sign per licensed restaurant per street frontage.
Name and address signs: One occupant name sign per dwelling unit or business,
excluding any exempt rear door name sign, to be placed on the dwelling unit or
business and not to exceed two square feet in sign area; one occupant address sign
per address, excluding any exempt rear door address sign, to be placed on the
building or mail box and not to exceed two square feet in sign area; one building
address sign per building to be placed on the building and not to exceed a total of
six square feet of sign area. Every building, and every business with a separate,
ground floor, street-side entrance, shall display an address sign that is clearly
visible from the street. Buildings that have rear door access to an alley or parking
lot shall also display an address sign that is clearly visible from the alley or
parking lot.
Line 950-…..DELETION of……..Public service signs: Only if approved by the Town Commission.
(5)Window signs: No more than three window signs per window, placed in first floor
windows; in second floor windows, only one window sign for each business
which has its entrance from the second floor or a stairway only.
(6)Temporary political signs.
Line 955-(7) In addition, each office building, separate storefront business,… ADDITION of….or other nonresidential
use ….DELETION of….restaurant, church, assembly hall, school or other building …REMAINS the same….may
display no more than two of the following permanent signs, with a combined total
sign area of not more than 32 square feet per street frontage, and the total sign
area of all signs attached to a building shall not exceed 15 percent of the area of
the building facade. In the case of a building with a flat roof, the area of the
building face shall be measured from the elevation of the nearest sidewalk or
crown of the road to either the deck of a flat roof or top of the parapet wall,
whichever is higher. In the case of a building with a sloped roof, the area of the
building face shall be measured from elevation of the nearest sidewalk or crown
of the road to the midpoint of a sloped roof. (Multiple businesses occupying a
single storefront bay must share the permitted total number and sign area of
signs.) If a store front business takes over the entire adjoining store front space
vacated by another business, then that new business is entitled to either 16
additional square feet of wall or awning sign area, or if the store front business is
taking over an entire adjoining store front space vacated by another business, the
new business may use the existing roof signage that the old business used
provided that the structure of the roof sign is not altered:
a. Canopy or awning signs: With a sign height no greater than 18 feet.
b. Directory signs: one sign per street frontage for a multi-tenant office,
ADDITION of…multi-tenant…. retail or governmental building only.
c. Hanging: With a sign height no greater than 18 feet.
d. Changeable copy signs: With a sign height no greater than 18 feet.
e. Monument signs: one sign with one or two faces per street frontage, only
on a plot with 200 or more feet of continuous frontage on the same street.
Line 981-f. Pole or pylon signs ….ADDITION of….(if legal non-conforming signs): No…. ADDITION of…new …pole or pylon
sign may be erected after the effective date of this article …..ADDITION of…(March 27, 2001)
unless it is a replacement sign meeting the requirements of this article.
g. Roof signs: Only when wall or awning signs are not feasible, and not if a
ADDITION of…legal non-conforming pole or pylon sign…. ADDITION of…exists …..DELETION of…is placed ….REMAINS the same…on the same
property.
h. Wall signs: With a sign height no greater than 35 feet. A single tenant
building may combine a permitted wall sign and building identification
sign into a single wall sign not exceeding 48 square feet in sign area.
(~R) In addition, no more than two of the following temporary signs, including any
exempt temporary signs, shall be permitted on any single business or plot at the
same time:
a. Temporary announcing signs: one sign per plot;
b. Temporary contractor signs: one sign per plot;
c. Temporary portable advertising signs for businesses adjoining a roadway
under construction: one sign per frontage of a street under construction,
not exceeding 16 square feet in sign size, allowed in the business and
motel districts, to be posted adjacent to the road right-of-way during the
period of road construction;
d. Temporary real estate signs;
e. Temporary special event signs: two signs per block;
f. Temporary banner….. DELETION of…and pennant sign;
Line 1005 …..DELETION of….g. Temporary off premises signs;

………………..

Line 1064…ADDITION of All that follows…

Sec. 30-510. Severability
(a) The sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this Article are severable, and
if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Article shall be declared
unconstitutional or void or unenforceable by the valid judgment or decree of a court of
competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect any of the
remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this Article.

Remainder and Full text is now available (was not online until this weekend….after the meeting took place) on the Town Website … http://www.lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov/town/backup2010PZ.htm

VI. UPDATES/BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

BC- an overview of the comments……Mr Brandt commented on the minutes which were changed a few months ago (prev. posts) when the new Admin. hired an outside company to do the minutes for board ($5,000 per budget item FY 2010-11)…He wanted them to be done as the Commission’s are and not verbatim..Colleen the Devel. Clerk was obviously miffed and stated (incorrectly) that it was the consensus of the board and preferred and that the Commission prefers them this way as well… Not so!…Later Peanuts Wick also incorrectly stated they have been the same in all his time serving…Not so!…They were recently changed and that change caught everyone by surprise when it took place… While some may prefer it…the expense and the verbatim…are not required in this writer’s opinion…What was required was that board/Committee meetings are archived on video as was not the case prior with backup being available in a timely manner to the public… The previous minutes certainly sufficed… There was some more discussion on that evenings scenario and the TAtty. offered up the possibility of asking the Comm. to look into the policy as well as the clean up…Talk of the lack of business owners being in the hall was met with lack of community apathy…to watching from home rather than in the hall ….as well as Eric Yankwitt’s excellent and long overdue suggestion of an e-blast to business/homeowners or effected parties on an item up for discussion…The TAtty. stated it might be an issue of administrative burden… It will be passed on by Dir. Bowman to the Commission as it was seconded and voted on 4-0…The Tatty. reiterated what took place at the Comm. meeting the evening before concerning what could be done at board level and how to introduce items to the board and to the Comm. (prev. post..TAtty. Report 9/14/10 Comm. Mtg.)… Peanuts Wick wanted to have Jeff Bowman look into the “heighth” on both sides of El Mar Drive…(former Comm.Jim Silverstone-ism) and was informed of the correct path to address it …by vote of the board to bring to Comm./going to a Comm. on his own to introduce…(will Clottey, who appointed him put it on the agenda?)…. after being informed it was addressed in a power point by the TAtty. last fall prior to the election (Peanuts said it was not..BC-it was…prev. post..video online Town website) …He tried for it despite the TAtty. stating it was a charter issue that required a referendum vote of the people…He received no second…(Thank GOD!)…

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Town website archived video of the meeting link…. http://lbts.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2

more to come….

Post Division