Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/08/1996 S (LDC Amendments) SPECIAL MEETING OF HAY 8, 1996, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:11 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ABSENT: Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney Item #3A ORDINANCE 96-21 AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102 AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call the public hearing to order, Hay the 8th, 1996. Mr. Hulhere, take it away. MR. HULHERE: Good evening. For the record, Bob Hulhere with the current planning staff. This is the second of two required public hearings for the January 1996 LDC amendment cycle. I suppose we should make an announcement that if anybody is here relative to the restrictions on commercial vehicles, that change has been pulled to be workshopped by staff and reviewed at a future cycle. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick question on that -- or a comment on that. I met with probably 50 people out in Golden Gate last night on that issue, and when we do the workshop thing, I know we talked about Horseshoe Drive, but I wondered if we might do one in the Golden Gate area. And as a matter of fact, somebody mentioned the Naples Park area, too, because those are generally the areas most heavily affected. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. I think we can -- we have a list of all the associations, and we can communicate with them and find out, you know, what time would be best and maybe get some of the smaller ones together into a larger group and then go into a workshop. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great, thank you. MR. HULHERE: Generally, what we've done in the past, and if it's acceptable to the board, is that I've highlighted -- I attempted to highlight in your packets the changes between -- the directed changes by you at our last meeting. I don't know if all of your packets were revised to reflect those highlighted changes. So if we start -- the first one appears on page 14 of your agenda packet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure we give both members of the public the opportunity to speak. MR. HULHERE: And on page 14 that is the changes that we made to the boat dock section, and the board voted to reduce the 30-day time period to 14 days in which an aggrieved party could go before the board, so we've made that change. The next change appears on page 18 of your packet, and we clarified the exception for -- to be in accordance with the specifications set forth in section 4 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That language did not appear in there before, so it really narrows the exception down to those people who have a disability consistent with section 4 of the ADA. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: The next change, I believe you have to go to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Page 19 of our agenda packet? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Eighteen. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Nineteen. MR. HULHERE: That was page 18. Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, page 19 has got some highlighted stuff. Is this something new? MR. HULHERE: Oh. Page 19 is not new, but thank you. Page 19 is the -- one of the changes that we made relative to the environmental section. The board directed staff to remove all of the changes that would provide for the EAB as a final authority but also allowed us to leave in these exemptions in that process. So these are strictly the exemptions, which are removal and control of exotic vegetation, prescribed fires and associated firebreaks as approved by the Department of Forestry, and removal of non-native vegetation. So if we've removed any -- in the review process -- for all others we'll still go to the board. The next change is on page -- I believe page 54. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I like that jump. MR. MULHERE: We now get into the sign -- the revised sign code. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on the sign code? Not now, but at some point we will be taking that comment. MR. MULHERE: And actually it's page 55. As you recall, the board directed that the height -- maximum height be changed from 25 feet for pole signs to 20 feet, and that change occurs in two places: On page fifty-five and on page fifty -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask you on that one, is that -- what's that do to existing signs that are 25 feet? MR. MULHERE: That's a good question. There's language in the code which I have highlighted -- we'll get to it -- that talks about nonconforming signs that were permitted and approved, they could remain in existence with impunity, unless at some point, if they want to structurally alter that sign -- and they can structurally alter the sign, but they have to bring the sign into -- one of the nonconforming aspects into conformance whether it's height or setback. One of the aspects of the nonconformity has to be brought into conformance before we will allow them to structurally alter the sign. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if vandals or something did their little damage, you could go out and replace your sign? MR. MULHERE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It changes the face, so to speak. MR. MULHERE: Yes. The other change is on page 57 at the bottom of the page. 2.5.5.2.3.7 is signs within planned unit developments. As directed by the board, we've revised this language. I'll go ahead and read it for you. It says pursuant to the purpose and intent of this division, creative, flexible, and uniform comprehensive sign plans providing for size, location, type, and common architectural design standards are encouraged within all PUD zoning districts and specifically required for PUDs containing a commercial component. And I believe that the board's direction was for commercial PUDs we would require a comprehensive sign plan. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If it's a purely commercial -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- PUD. Okay. MR. MULHERE: Next change is on page 64. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Let me make a clarification on that. Commissioner Norris said "purely a commercial PUD." Let's take Carillon, for example, where they have a residential component in the PUD along with commercial. MR. MULHERE: Then -- I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Purely commercial or a commercial component, that does not mean they would have to have a uniform sign plan for the residential component, but for the commercial component we would want to see a uniform sign plan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they have a PUD and there's commercial in the PUD, the commercial component must have a uniform signage plan. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Correct. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Page 64 is just -- the language was -- was not changed, but it was numbered incorrectly in the April 17th version, so those are now sub subsections. And the next change is the one that I referred to which deals with Commissioner Norris's question on nonconforming signs on page 67, section 2.5.10.6. It's about in the middle of the page. And that language reads that in the case of a sign which would be permitted by and conform to the regulations of this code except that such sign violates either height, setback, property lines, sign area, and other such similar development standards, the sign can be structurally altered. However, they do have to apply for permission through the planning director, and we want to see that they're going to bring some aspect of that sign into compliance. The vice versa of this would be to say that all those signs out there that were legally permitted are now nonconforming, and they would be subject to the amortization schedule and have to be removed over -- based on the value of the sign in a certain period of time. We think that this is going to accomplish the same thing over a period of time but be less -- less of a burden on the property owner and still accomplish the same thing over some period of time. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- just so that the record reflects, I oppose the 2.5.7.24. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask why? I'm curious. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wait a minute. Which one? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On page 65. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Why would you oppose that? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just think it's onerous and it's overkill and I think perhaps cause some hardship for folks that might utilize that kind of signage. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's too much excessive overkill? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There you go. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It's redundantly -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Repetitive. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- repetitive. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Department of redundancy department, how may I help you or be of service? MR. MULHERE: The next change is on page -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope you'll all join me in opposing 2.5.7.24. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Not likely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Headline: Commissioner Constantine wants more signs. MR. MULHERE: That was 2.5.7.24; right? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Okay. And for the record -- COMMISIONER CONSTANTINE: Just go ahead and remove that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait a minute. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I don't think so. MR. MULHERE: For the record, I just want to say that is intended to prohibit signs that are attached to the roof of the vehicle which could be very, very high or very, very large. You may have seen some -- we've seen some -- as a matter of fact, the one that comes to mind was a political sign, but there have been other kinds attached to the roof of vehicles. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Like in the back of a pickup truck or something. MR. MULHERE: Right. Exactly. And I'm sorry, I think the next change is -- well, we've removed, as we've said -- on pages 73 and 74 is the commercial vehicle language which is coming out, and we're going to workshop that. On page 75 Commissioner Mac'Kie picked up that there was permissive language in the last sentence, and so we've revised that to say "shall," and I believe -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was it too much permissiveness? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. We're against it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now we're getting back to that sexually offensive stuff. MR. MULHERE: That is the extent of the changes if you have any questions or if any members of the public wish to speak. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I might be able to nearly eliminate any discussion by making two suggestions. Under "signs" I had some discussions regarding that particular section, and what came to mind, in some of these shopping centers where you have -- the regional shopping centers where you have some 30 different shops, when you bring the height of the sign down to 20 feet and it starts going this way (indicating), it -- it got a little uglier than intended because I went out to like Carillon and said, okay, if we had to bring that sign down but still got the same square footage, which you know they're going to cover the maximum square footage anyway, what are we ending up with? And I thought for regional shopping centers that are larger in size, maintaining the 25-foot height is not a problem. What I was focusing on are those out-parcels that -- bringing those down to 20 is where the real problem was. So the regional shopping center signs I'd like to see remain at 25 and everything else go to 20. And the reason again is when you bring that 5 feet down and it goes wider this way (indicating), I wasn't -- I'm not so sure we were creating a better animal just in that aspect. We do have a section for regional shopping centers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, is it okay to create different classifications that way? MR. WEIGEL: I think so. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. We already do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The only comment I have is I'm not real strong on that change in the first place. I don't -- a 25-foot or a 20-foot sign really doesn't make a lot of difference. I know if you look at a lot of the signs that are out there today that are 25 feet, they don't look very tall to me. I don't know that we're really addressing a problem that needs to be addressed with that one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Disagree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- and I like it better with the modification that you just described. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem I have is the out-parcel development. It's something that we -- that hasn't gone on in this county in the past until about the last 10 years. Out-parcel development -- everything is going that way. And if we don't reduce either height or size altogether, it's going to be more of a proliferation than we've seen elsewhere. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let me ask you, are you -- are you referring simply to a sign for an out-parcel within a shopping center of some -- COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what brought the change to mind, yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, what about, let's say, just a small piece of commercial property with a pole sign? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, this would apply to that also, but -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, and that -- there -- getting back to my comment that, really, a 25-foot sign doesn't look very tall to me, and if you get them too low, then you block the view from the street of what you're trying to display out there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, if you put a hoop up on a 25-foot sign and try to do a jump shot, you'll realize just how high it is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Perhaps we should go to the public speakers at this point, and maybe we can get some input from the public. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I need some professional advice on that, too, because I'm not very good at visualizing 20 versus 25. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know. That's why I'm listening to you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Davis is registered on this and Ms. Watts is registered, I believe, on height limitations. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Maybe this will restore professionalism. MR. DAVIS: I don't know about the professionalism, but Mike Davis for the record representing Signcraft. I've spoken with Commissioner Hancock. What occurred to me with the idea of the reduction to 20 foot in height -- which I don't really have problem with. The way the code currently reads, that 20 feet is measured to the centerline of the road, so if it's in a water-retention area, a lower area or something, you don't measure from grade. You measure it to the centerline of the road. And very few signs in our community -- we rarely put one in our company over 20 feet just for good visibility. When you're driving along and your visual line of sight to the sign -- to tell you the truth, they read better lower. Some of the signs in the city you see where they allow 30 feet, they're way up there. They don't read very well. They don't do an effective job. On the situation of the signs being -- some of them being left at 25 feet, my concern is the signs of 250 square feet or larger allowed in the code, which would certainly be regional shopping centers, but at a regular shopping center where it's over 25,000 gross leaseable square footage where they're allowed a directory sign per entrance. And I agree with you, Commissioner Hancock, if you drop it down to 20, it really starts to limit your design ability, and I think we're going to end up with a lot of longer signs as opposed to the ones we see now, as demonstrated by Carillon. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll be quite honest. Twenty feet to me is a step in the right direction. I personally like the more tailored approach that a lot of communities have taken to, you know, that is much, much stricter than what we have. But I didn't think I was going to get anywhere with that. I mean, we talked about the communities that bring them down to 8 and 10 feet to where they don't block the front of the building at all. They're allowed a little closer to the roadway, but they're smaller and so forth. So 20 feet is not excessive for any community, but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it be fair to assume then for those properties bordering the interstate you oppose that 80-foot suggestion that's been put foward? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I think you could say that, yeah. MR. DAVIS: And if I might, just by closing, if you're thinking about going down to 6 or 8 feet, I'm going to retire in about four to six years, for whatever it's worth. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It has to be tailored for neighborhoods more than a whole community, but for one of the reasons Hike cited, that it's not 20 feet from grade where you put the sign in, it's 20 feet from the centerline of the road, and most of the times when you look at 41 versus the lots off of them, you drop off of 41 as you go to the commercial site. So the actual height of the sign many times is 26, 27 feet if you measure it by itself. And I don't think it creates a visual problem, so I would like to see us stick with the 20 feet with the exception of regional centers. MR. HULHERE: We can accommodate that. There is a section that discusses -- talks about office complexes, business parks, or industrial parks containing 25,000 square feet or more of grossly square -- recommended directory sign, maximum 250 square feet, and we can make an exception that that could be 25 feet in height if that's the board's desire. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, I concur, I think, with Commissioner Norris. I don't see a big problem right now. I don't feel real passionate about it one way or another so, I mean, if three of you all want to make it 20 feet, I'm not going to argue that case, but I don't see a real big -- I fail to see a big problem right now, and so I'm -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm under the premise a little better is better than no better. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Well, let's bring it to closure here and take a vote. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to have to think about that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Should we modify it? I need a motion on it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to make a motion that we modify the regional centers to 25 feet and leave the balance the same. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understanding if that motions fails that what is currently in front of us will exist. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good point. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Since we have some discord on another item, 2.5.7.24, I need a motion on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move we accept it as proposed by staff. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So we have a motion and a second. All those -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, this one I feel passionate about. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Passionately was covered under 2.5.7.17. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? MS. WATTS: Susan Watts with WCI Communities. One request to the board. Originally on a definition under division 6.3, that was included in the batch amendments, as I understand from your staff, as a clarification that they requested. During the -- and that definition, I'm sorry, covers issues that relate to equipment on top of buildings such as mechanical rooms, fire equipment, air conditioning, elevator, et cetera. It was strictly a clarification. As I understand, there were never any problems with that. During the review at the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission requested to put a restriction on that of a certain number of feet. I would request that the board consider approving what staff had originally recommended to you, because I don't think that they've had any problems with that as is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you show us where that is? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. That's on the second-to-the-last page, page 94. It's the most recent stamp, page 94, the underlying portion there that talks about infrastructure in support of the building such as mechanical rooms, et cetera. The language at the end of the first sentence which indicates "providing the height of said structure does not exceed 20 feet" was added at the Planning Commission. And the next sentence, "rooftop recreational space and accessory facilities are also exempted from the limitations established for measuring the height of buildings where said facilities do not exceed one story," I don't know if that's -- if that portion of it is a problem or if it's just the height. But staff did not -- did not include any height restrictions because we have not really had any problems with height. I mean, these are mechanical rooms, and whatever the height that was necessary, we haven't counted it -- this is a past interpretation. We have not counted that towards the height of the building. That's always been habitable. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You haven't had any 35-foot AC units coming in, huh? MR. MULHERE: We haven't. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel wants to jump in here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who did that? MR. WEIGEL: For the record, in regard to 2.5.7.2.4 about signs mounted on a vehicle, the record should reflect that passion rules, because it takes a four or -- a four-majority vote to approve it going in, and since it did not receive that vote, it does not go into the changes, in case you were not understanding the result. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, we thought we shot him right down. MR. MULHERE: Now, may I add that -- one other issue relative to that? I believe that that is the section that in part helps us to enforce vehicles parked next to the right-of-way with signage. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there anything in there that you do agree with? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. I didn't hear Mr. Mulhere's comment there. MR. MULHERE: I believe that that section is in part what helps us regulate vehicles parked next to the right-of-way with sign -- you know, the big -- big box van right next to the right-of-way so that you can bring -- attract attention to your business. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And also those signs on trailers and -- and the board signs that they put up in the back of a pickup or something like that. MR. MULHERE: That may have been my -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we talking about two point five -- MR. MULHERE: My language. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was on what; page 74? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sixty-five. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sixty-five? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless another motion is made and approved, the language in that section -- the entire section will be stricken. Mr. Weigel, is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: I believe that was the direction of the motion. I mean, excuse me, that was -- by virtue of the vote to include it or approve it, and it having failed, it is -- the result is that it is stricken. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was there a 2.5.7.24? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what did it say before today, because if we don't pass this one, we'll go back to what we had? MR. WEIGEL: You will go back to what you had. MR. MULHERE: Let me find that for you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask -- under Robert's Rules is there the ability to go back and reconsider a vote if one of the member wishes to do so? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Only a member of the prevailing -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Prevailing side. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Which is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I think he really does because -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm playing with -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A little chess game going on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me just a moment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Quit it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in essence, Commissioner Constantine has stricken -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we're going to see what we have if we go back -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to get this correct. Commissioner Constantine has stricken an entire section that would allow folks to mount signs on their vehicles, on the roof, on the hood, on the trunk, basically exceeding 2 square feet whenever they want, wherever they want, however they want. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I prefer to look at it as asking us to revisit this cumbersome new regulation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you have new language you'd like to propose then? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: While they're looking for -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure I will in the next cycle. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: While they're looking for what the existing language is if we don't make this change, can I ask if anybody else on the board has an interest in that 20-foot height or -- I just don't know where that came from, and if we don't have problems with the way it presently is, why -- you know, why should we be adding a regulation? That's just switching back to what Ms. Watts was talking about while they're looking for that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Adding a regulation would be 25 feet, and it must be painted blue. We are changing the height, which is not making it any more cumbersome. All it's doing is saying all future signs must conform -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. I'm sorry. I was switching back to Susan's comment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, that one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm so sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was switching back while they were looking -- doing their -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. You can park a truck up there with a sign on it, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, I just -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will make an effort here to come up with some -- MR. MULHERE: I don't -- I do not see that language in the old code. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm in favor of striking -- just striking the 20 feet, if it's not been problematic. I mean, does it have the ability to maybe restrict the type of equipment that would be used or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It just kind of came out of nowhere at the Planning Commission, huh? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I think they were just concerned that -- they put some limitation on it that it not be abused. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's leave it -- I'd like to leave it back -- put it back the way staff proposed it before Planning Commission monkeyed with it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it has no material effect, I would say getting rid of it doesn't cause me any problems. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So can I make a motion on that section, Mr. Chairman, while they're still researching the other one? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If you would like. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion that we strike the words "providing the height of said structure does not exceed 20 feet, paten, 20 feet, close paten" on page 94 of our agenda packet in the definition section 6.3, second paragraph. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Somebody needs to explain the issue to me again. Why is 20 feet not enough? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it's just that there hasn't been any problems with leaving it open for interpretation, letting the staff do what is appropriate as it comes in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How was the change initiated and why? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Planning Commission just stuck it in. Staff recommended it without the 20 foot, and Planning Commission stuck it in. We don't know exactly why. MS. WATTS: I think -- for the board, my understanding is that this is the way it's been implemented all along. It's just that those components on top of a roof have not been included in the building height. And because staff felt that that should be clarified that that was permissible, that these kinds of mechanical activities could be included on top of the building height, they wanted to clarify it. I think the issue is that there have never been any problems relating to this. On some occasions elevator equipment, mechanical equipment is 10 feet, 15 feet, 20. Sometimes it's 21. I think the issue was that it hasn't been a problem in the past, and it would be better if we could leave it the same way it has been being interpreted which is what, I think, staff initiated. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As I understand it, Commissioner Norris, all that happened is that we were adding this language to make it perfectly clear that the mechanical room on the top of the building didn't count when you were measuring the height of the building. And Planning Commission said, yeah, that's a good idea, but what if somebody puts a hundred-foot mechanical room, and it's just not going to happen. But it could happen that it's 20 feet point 6 inches or something. So putting the 20-foot limitation is probably not a good idea. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How about a 21-foot limitation? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about a 50 foot? I mean, I just don't think it's necessary. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the problem I can envision is I can see somebody coming up with a 50-foot equipment room that somehow is used as an observatory or something or as an observation platform or some other recreational use. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that be picked up in the STP process that there's wasted space not allocated to mechanical equipment? MR. MULHERE: Well, we could certainly require the applicant to justify the height of the mechanical room and to provide us with some -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: See, I'm trying to remember. I was up on the roof of the Claridge, and I'm trying to remember the equipment up there. I don't know how high it was. I don't think it was 20 feet. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The what? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The Claridge. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I will not be joining the welcome. MS. WATTS: I see your point, Commissioner Norris, that someone could try to stretch that, but I think that the definition is clear, and it talks about mechanical rooms and mechanical equipment, and you have to show the County exactly what's going in that space, so it's -- it's pretty clear. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's fine. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? MR. HULHERE: To get back to the sign, 2.5.7.24. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question on that. MR. HULHERE: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's say somebody has a -- has a pickup truck and they kind of build their own enclosure. You know, they don't have one of the plastic manufactured caps. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That cover the cap. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, they make a cap, but it's personally manufactured, and they paint on there whatever their business is. I'm just reading on here -- I mean, if it's a van -- MR. HULHERE: That's fine. But that was the intent of banning the last section where it says "this section shall not apply to magnetic-type signs affixed to or signs painted on a vehicle which are not otherwise prohibited by the code." And I put otherwise not prohibited because they could have a sign that violated, by its appearance, some community standard. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if it's like a lumber truck, it's a glass truck, it's whatever, and they have built that thing themselves, and in between the outside and the inside where they slide their glass, they actually have a sign painted on the physical part of the structure, that's fine. MR. HULHERE: That is fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But if they have a '74 Gremlin that is painted pink with the purple letters "eat at Hartha's" and it's parked outside Hartha's right by the right-of-way, that's not okay. MR. HULHERE: Well, my intent was -- is always -- unfortunately, it's always the extreme that we're looking at with these things, and I have seen some extremes that -- I didn't want to prohibit the average person from being able to place a sign on their vehicle by writing this language, but there are some examples, and I think yours is a good one, and there was one with a flamingo attached to the roof where they were driving around with that, and they may distract or could distract the motoring public. It's the safety of the motoring public that you're looking for besides the community standards in terms of having -- you know, looking at signs. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think the important point here is that people with the name of their business painted on their vehicle are not going to be affected by this change. MR. HULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And what we're really trying to do is clarify the prohibition of someone with these pickup bed-mounted signs or a sign on top of their vehicle or whatever they may want to do that's used for other advertising purposes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only question is in the pickup-mounted sign thing what -- where we're defining that, only because I can see an argument brewing there, is that if they claim that's part of the structural -- you know, they've built their framework on the side and paint their logo, their whatever on that framework -- MR. HULHERE: I think if it's affixed to something -- it's affixed to the vehicle and it's on the side, I don't see it as a problem, but some structure that's protruding -- or protruding from the vehicle or protruding from the roof or something like that is what it was -- the intent of it. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they -- and that's where my concern is, I guess. If they've got their pickup and -- for the purposes of being able to carry things or take whatever materials they have around, they've built the sides up and built kind of a homemade cap or something on there, they could not have a message on the side of that where they've built the addition on? MR. HULHERE: I think they could. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think they could, too, because I don't think that our code is going to discriminate between a store-bought cap and a homemade cap. I don't think we're going to make that distinction. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, with that in mind -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Or a custom cap, I should say. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There you go. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that in mind, I'll make a motion to reconsider the earlier vote on 2.5.7.24. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do we have to vote on the motion to reconsider? Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion to reconsider. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm opposed to it. No, I'm -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We are reconsidering it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We need a motion to approve two point five -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't need the motion. That's what -- we're reconsidering it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. Then we are done, Mr. Mulhere? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You need to call a vote on that, but you just don't need a four vote. It's the old motion, your motion from before. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, so Hancock's motion is on the floor then. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was a motion to reconsider. Now we are reconsidering. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: We just need to call a vote. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: It gives you a lot of confidence in government, doesn't it? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We are reconsidering our former motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. No, I'm kidding. I'm sorry. I get myself confused there. I'm in favor of it, so that's four. MR. HULHERE: Then we will make the change to the building height. That was the only -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: See what happens when they remove the TV. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Excuse me. We're not quite finished, Ms. Hac'kie. If you could wait just a second -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry, Dad. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we need -- what are our motions here? What do we need to do now, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Well, we've got, I think, a resolution. MR. HULHERE: Ordinance. MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney. You need to take a motion on the whole ordinance, and it needs to be a super-majority vote. Four -- you need four votes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anybody can hold this one up today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will make a motion to approve Ordinance 91-102 as amended. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? We're adjourned. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 5:43 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara Drescher