Loading...
CCPC Minutes 06/02/2009 S June 2, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 2, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron (Absent) Karen Homiak Tor Kolf1at (Absent) Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. W olf1ey ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CD ES Administrator Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager Susan Istenes, Zoning Manager Page 1 June 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the June 2nd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a special meeting, one item on the agenda only, and that's for the review of the rewritten sign ordinance with the intention of free speech issues to be addressed. Before we start, would you all please rise to -- not sworn in by the court reporter, but to pledge allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we need to do the roll call. Mr. Vigliotti, you've -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. Mr. Eastman is absent. Commissioner Kolf1at is absent. Commissioner Schiffer is here. Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron is absent. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti, present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's me. I said present. I'm sorry, Commissioner Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You actually said I was here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I said you were here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was waiting for him to say here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak? Page 2 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bob. Okay. The one issue on today's agenda is the sign ordinance, and it's not a rewrite of a development standards as much as it is a -- trying to address the constitutionality issues that were raised a long time ago in a lawsuit. And it's my understanding that one of the legal experts of highest regard in the country helped us rewrite these. And Susan, is that correct? MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, Zoning Director. Yes. Dan Mandelker, you met him previously, he is a professor at the School of Law, Washington University in St. Louis, and has very highly regarded credentials in that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I believe the county attorney's office worked with him hand-in-hand to get to where we are today? MR. WRIGHT: That's correct. For the record, Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney. We worked hand-in-hand, and also with Catherine and Diana to get through this. And he was real helpful, but we were there to support him in any way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And out of that we've got the rewrite with us today. But in the back we have a matrix, and there's two pages on the -- towards the end of the matrix that I believe are where you guys still differ in what the Doctor recommends and what the county attorney's office or staff believe we can probably still leave in the code or write in a way that both of you just aren't in complete agreement. Is that a fair statement? MR. WRIGHT: That is correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I went over that all is because the intent for today's meeting is not so much to get into the distances, the setbacks and all those kind of issues, but it's purely a freedom of speech issue, which is more of a legal issue than any of us Page 3 June 2, 2009 are probably versed in. And I wanted to make it right off the get-go that we should be heading in that direction in our discussions today. And with that, I'll turn everything over to Susan, who I -- and Susan is going to probably moderate the questions. We'll take -- we'll do what we've done in the past, we'll go through the working document, and we go through those a few pages at a time and ask questions. Then when we get done with that, I would like us to address the matrix page. There's two pages at the very end that there's still disagreement on. And then after that, if there's anything else, we'll just bring it on the table. But that's kind of the direction I saw today. And if that doesn't have any objections from this panel, then we'll just move down that path. And I want to start out also by thanking staff for the layout and the presentation they provided us with today. It's much better to follow than the last one that we had. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: True. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And working from a working document makes us all understand where we should be and how the pages are turned. So that's a real good format and we thank you for putting it back in order like that. So with that Susan, it's all yours. MS. ISTENES: Okay, thank you. Good morning. As Commissioner Strain noted, I think my role is going to be more of an emcee. In other words, I'll take your questions, field your questions. If I can answer them, I will. But more than likely, I'll be turning it over to this team here who has worked very hard and very closely for a long time with our consultant, Dan Mandelker. And our responsibilities today really, as you outlined, Mr. Chairman, is to ensure that the provisions of the code that are content based are removed and establish a content neutral code. We want to ensure that commercial and noncommercial speech is lawfully treated Page 4 June 2, 2009 and doesn't infringe upon First Amendment rights. This was as a result of a lawsuit that was filed against the county that was included in your packet, so I won't go into that there, but that is essentially why we are here. Weare not here to modify the code in terms of number of signs, square footage area, height, the development standards provisions. We are really here to talk about the language of the code and to achieve those objectives of making it more First Amendment and 14th Amendment friendly. There are -- I think you understand how the packet is organized. I appreciate you recognizing that. I know the team worked a long time and worked hard on trying to get that more understandable. Because as you recognize, we are striking out the entire sign code and readopting it. And so the working document you have is the document that we are recommending to the Board of County Commissioners and to you as well. And that's the document we will be reviewing today. There are a couple of instances where the First Amendment issues aren't addressed, and that we are looking to you for some guidance and we have put in there for some clarification. And I'll explain those right now real briefly before we get into it, because I just don't want you to be surprised because it's different than, like I said, the First Amendment issues that we're dealing with. The first is on hand-held signs on Pages 2 and 20. This is currently not addressed in the code. We've had these occurring in our community. We have discussed them with our consultant and with the county attorney's office. There's some freedom of expression issues expressed by our consultant. Weare at somewhat of an -- I don't want to sayan impasse, but not sure exactly how to handle these, so we thought we would bring this up for you for your input, along with the county attorney's input as a discussion item today. The second is on Page 16, Item 4.D. It has to do with wall signs that are internal to shopping centers, like, for example, a mall. A few months ago that issue was brought to my attention as an interpretive Page 5 June 2, 2009 issue. Rather than rendering an interpretation, I went ahead and just put my decision into the code, because otherwise we would be living under my interpretation versus -- until the code was amended, so I went ahead and put that in. I want to call it to your attention because it is different than the First Amendment issues. But it has to do with the difference between a wall sign internal and to a mall, for example, versus visible to the street. And when we get there, we can talk about it. I'm not prepared to talk about it at the moment. But I just want to call it to your attention. That's Page 16, Item 4.D, if you'll note that. A correction I need to make on Page 13, little letter f should be 12 square feet and not 16 square feet. That got -- that was in a previous version and that never got corrected. So if you would correct that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, I'm sorry, what page was that again? MS. ISTENES: That is Page 13, little letter f. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Got it. MS. ISTENES: And it should be 12 square feet. And last, Diana just brought this to my attention this morning, it was 5.06.10 on Page 24, C.1. This is -- I'll call it kind of an economic proposed amendment. Code enforcement -- and the reason I'm calling it that is because under the current code, if you have an abandoned sign that's conforming for 90 days or more, then by law after 90 days it has to be removed. And what we're finding in the community is that with a lot of vacancies in these shopping centers and things like that, that is becoming more common. And as long as the sign's conforming, at this point in time we don't see any reason why it needs to be removed after 90 days, so that's kind of what I'll call my economic relief amendment. And it also makes it a little bit easier for code enforcement to enforce. So it's to the benefit of the sign owner and the property owner and not Page 6 June 2, 2009 really to anybody else from a cost perspective. So those are the only differences. Other than that, I would just request if you would, just direct your questions to me and I will farm them out. And I'm ready to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, A couple quick announcements. Members of the public that are here, we're going to move through the documents a few pages at a time. The most relevant way for us to understand your concerns is if you have comments on the pages as we go through them. So I'd rather operate a little informally today. Ifwe ask for any comments from Pages 1 through 5, for example, and you've got comments, raise your hand and let me know by doing that. And then after the panel speaks, 1'11 ask you to come up and use the microphone and express your concern about the section. That way your timing and your discussion's relevant to the area we're discussing and we don't get lost in it. And second of all, I'd like to thank those wonderful ladies up on the fourth floor who have provided us with a mug of coffee here today. It sure does help us talk faster so Cherie' can type faster. But thank you, ladies, that was very nice. Okay, Susan, with that, we'll just move to the tab called working document. And it starts on Page 1, and there's definitions that go to Page 4. So let's work through those first. Anybody have any questions on the definition sections, Page 1 through 4? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Susan, on animated signs, we're kind of expanding that definition. And one small concern I have is that level four notes that -- the video displays. But wouldn't essentially all four of those have the potential of having like an LCD display? But is the intent of level four that there's actually movement in the picture on that? Is -- MS. ISTENES: Yes, that's my understanding. Page 7 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, you could have an LCD showing a static -- MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- and it can be a level one. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. Well, I've got more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad, keep at it, and we'll just move down the line. Pages 1 through 4 is where we're at. MS. ISTENES: Can I expand on that a little bit? We actually -- electronic signs, since we're here, and 1'11 just bring it to your attention, I meant to do it in the intro, there's going to be some issues with that. And we've been talking with the county attorney's office. And I think at this point what we're proposing, or at least our last discussions are, with these electronic signs is to look at grandfathering in existing time and temperature signs. Because we are removing the phrase time and temperature signs, because that's dictating speech and we can't do that. But the question of electronic signs has come up both in our discussions with the outside sign folks and with our consultant. And I think at this point, correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff, we're inclined to recommend to you that we just grandfather in existing time and temperature signs and deal with electronic signs at a future amendment cycle when we have what I would call a -- whenever you get into amending the sign code, it's always a very critical thing for the community and you always want community involvement to the extent that I would recommend that the board propose a working committee consisting of residents, business owners, folks in the sign industry and that sort of thing. And so if we're going to look at changing our electronic signs in the future, that's how I'd recommend we go. So I think at this point we're looking at simply grandfathering in existing time and temperature signs and leaving the -- taking out the Page 8 June 2, 2009 level one animated sign reference that we have in this current draft. So 1'11 just throw that out on the table for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then -- for example, the time and temperature, you would try to make it a level one, but the 15 seconds would be an issue. So you couldn't have a secondhand on it, so to speak. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Changeable copy. Why does that have to be done manually? In other words, we do live in a world where -- and why would we encourage essentially a pretty ugly sign when there's a lot of good-looking signs available that are electronic? MS. ISTENES: Again, this is what we have currently. And I think that again goes back to my last comment that if we're looking to deviate from the standards that we have now, that I think needs to be fleshed out through what I would call a regular sign amendment cycle with a working interest group to contemplate that and bring forward a recommendation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what we're saying is that essentially the typical gas station price sign, which is obviously changing, probably 15 seconds is going to be a problem with them. It has to be done manually still. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Next question is on Page 2, the directory sign. Obviously we know what those are, that's a list of businesses that are within a thing. But we don't really say that. And I guess that's your context issue. But, I mean, when you look at the definition of it, it's actually based upon where it's located. It doesn't really state what's allowed on it or what's not allowed on it, does it? Or would that be assumed -- MS. ISTENES: That's what we're trying to get away from in Page 9 June 2, 2009 addressing these constitutional issues is -- do you want to add to that, Catherine or Diana? Am I accurate on that? MS. FABACHER: Yes, ma'am, that's it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So essentially I could say I have a directory sign, it's at the beginning, but I could put the logo of -- I could put whatever I want on that sign. MS. ISTENES: That is pretty much how this whole code is going. We are not dictating the types of speech or the types of information you can put on a sign for the most part. Obviously obscene wording and issues like that are a different story. But correct, in the past we've had -- for example, we've dictated what you can put on a sign. In other words, you can put the business name, the shopping center name, that sort of thing. We're getting away from that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the intent of this sign is to be a directory of the businesses that are in there, obviously hence the directory sign. But that's not the requirement anymore. You could put the -- I could call it a directory sign and put whatever I want on it. There's no limitation as to what I can put on it. MS. ISTENES: I'll let -- Jeff, if you don't mind. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, thanks. Again, Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney. One overarching theme for this revision effort has been get rid of content. We had problems with content in the lawsuit. And the problem with the content was we had prohibitions in our sign code and exemptions in our sign code based on content. So when we met with this professor, everything he said was get rid of content-based distinctions. And the reason that you want to stay away from content-based distinctions is because if you get in court and you're before a judge, there's a higher level of scrutiny. You have to have a compelling government interest for making that distinction. Page 10 June 2, 2009 And in this case we can't make that argument that we have a compelling justification for making the content-based distinction. You'll see that throughout this. And a lot of our disagreements with the Professor are where we said well, we realize, for example, permit numbers on the bottom of the sign, that's a content-based regulation. But we looked at that and we thought, well, risk-wise it's probably not going to be challenged. Second of all, I don't believe that speech. It's not a form of expression, it's a government label to identify the signs. So there's certain areas where we differed from the Doctor, but there's reasons for differing from the Doctor when it came to those content-based questions. So I just want to highlight that this is going to come up a lot and the content is what we focused on getting rid of, content-based distinctions in this whole effort. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think like in this case this is a directory sign. So by that logic, if we were going to put a stop sign, we don't have to use the word "stop" on it. Because that would-- MS. ISTENES: Traffic control signs are treated differently under the law, that's my understanding -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I wasn't serious, so I don't need a senous response. Okay, let's go to sign -- the definition of sign on four. In some of the past things there was actually some verbiage put at the end. And in going through the history of it, I've been following along, that actually starts to limit signs in terms of -- and I guess it goes back to the interior of outside malls and stuff. Why was all that taken off? Or would that be a good place to start to, you know, discuss whether signs in courtyards of malls and stuff are actually governed by this regulation? MS. ISTENES: I guess I'm not clear on your question what -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in the past some of the Page 11 June 2, 2009 drafts of this have had some verbiage. I think -- let me just -- I'm not sure which one came first. But it would say it was added which is visible from any street, right-of-way, sidewalk, alley or public property . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's still language like that in other sections of the code, by the way. The working document. I highlighted some of that myself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the intent was there in the past that that would not be considered a sign. In other words -- MS. ISTENES: I think Catherine understands what you're getting at, so 1'11 direct it to her. MS. F ABACHER: For the record, Catherine Fabacher, Zoning Department. What you saw, Commissioner, was an earlier attempt by the consultant because he wanted to take out menu signs, and then there was another kind of sign that we wanted to take out, and he said originally that if we put in the definition of sign that it had to be from a public road or a public right-of-way, otherwise it wasn't a sign. But staff and the attorney's office talked about that and we thought there were too many unintended consequences. And we open too much up by saying if you can't be seen, you're not a sign. So staff has backed off on that. We have put it in that one section for courtyards or interiors of commercial developments, but other than that we did not want to open up the definition to unintended consequences. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But it did seem -- and obviously if the consultant felt that way, I kind of agree with him that it is not fair to regulate signs within the courtyards. But I never saw in -- where in here does it show that the courtyard signs aren't regulated by you? MS. ISTENES: That was on what I referenced in my opening remarks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That says you can get one Page 12 June 2, 2009 additional sign. MS. ISTENES: That was on Page 16, Item 4.D. MS. FABACHER: Thank you, Susan. MS. ISTENES: Did you want to discuss that now or did you want to stick with -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, but I think, you know, the concern I had is that made a lot of sense, that the sign -- I mean, when you look at the general intent of what the sign code does, signs within somebody's property, not visible from a street or an adjacent property. I wonder why we're controlling that. And, you know, and Diane and I have had some conversation about this. And in the conversation it's, for example, if you have a Coastland Mall -- MS. ISTENES: I'm listening. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you have a situation like Coastland Mall, you don't regulate the signs within that mall area. You take the roof off of it you do. And because you've interpreted exterior signs to mean inside/outside. MS. ISTENES: Right. And the change here is to allow the -- not have the signs interior to a mall, for example, count towards the sign allotment. Did I restate that correctly , Diana? She says -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, where is that shown? MS. ISTENES: That is 16.D on-- MS. FABACHER: Page 16. MS. ISTENES: Sorry, Page 16. MS. FABACHER: 4.D. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I've read that. What that states is that you're allowed one additional wall sign. Doesn't state that you're not controlling courtyards. Anyway, we're in the definition section. This topic will come up throughout it. Page 13 June 2, 2009 MS. ISTENES: Understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point was is that looking at the consultant's draft, looking at some of our drafts, it's dropped off. And to me it made sense that we stopped regulating signs that are totally within private property. MR. WRIGHT: Well, it was one of those policy issues that, you know, we didn't feel comfortable making a call on. But practically speaking, I think there was a concern that just because a sign is not visible from the right-of-way, we were concerned that let's say a big sign that was flapping in the wind posing a danger would not go through any sort of permitting just because it's not visible from the right-of-way. In addition, there would be questions of proof as to whether or not it's visible. You know, if a tree's covering it somebody could argue, well, you can't see it from the right-of-way and what angle do you look from. And so we figured rather than regulate it within the definition, we'd go within the code and try to address it there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, both of those are easy to overcome. First of all, any structure in Florida is going to get a building permit. So the waving in the breeze is not something that the sign code even has to address. And then we could obviously regulate it where buildings are what's blocking it, not landscape. Okay, that's my directory questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Some of these questions are obviously going to come up as Commissioner Schiffer said later, but I had an issue with directional signs. For instance, where -- and it also has to do with -- well, I did a poor job of marking up today. But if a shopping center runs vertical to a major street, for instance off of 951, that Doug's Buy-Right, there's most of facility, most of the stores there run vertically and you can't see them from the street. And I of course was in there eating breakfast and I got hit up Page 14 June 2, 2009 about why can't I have a sign that shows my restaurant that's down at the end of, you know, a number of different stores, and they're constantly getting zoning coming in and hitting them up. And I was looking through here trying to locate why they couldn't put a little directional sign up. I'm not trying to be a zoning person, but trying to direct them to the right people. Simply the name of the establishment with an arrow that says they are down at the end. MS. ISTENES: I'm probably not going to address it because it's not part of what we're doing here. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I understand. MS. ISTENES: But I would be happy to talk with you off-line about that and we could go over what the code allows and doesn't allow. And then if that's something that you want to recommend to the board to consider for a future amendment, we're going to take notes to that effect too. And then we would -- we can note that in the executive summary to the board. We would just do that in the separate section so that they understand that those were issues that were brought up outside of the scope of what we're doing today. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's right. And that's why I couldn't find them here in the directional end of it. And also, I -- the -- where there are cars that are parked all over town with names of a company on it. Great looking cars, that kind of thing. That's not coming up here either; is that correct? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no. That's not likely. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So, I mean, I'm just saying that -- I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I just -- something came to mind with that. Is that under the freedom of speech kind of thing? MS. IS TENES: That -- Diana, I'm going to look to you to address. Not necessarily for the freedom of speech issue, but I think from the -- for mobile billboards. Are you in agreement with me, Catherine, or are you -- Page 15 June 2, 2009 MS. FABACHER: I wanted to ask -- I'd like to ask the County Attorney, because I believe before my time there was a big problem with this. And there's some history behind it. Am I correct, Jeff Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: If we're talking about Strictly Nolan (sic)? MS. F ABACHER: Yes -- Truly Nolan. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not False Nolan. MR. KLATZKOW: I guess it's not so effective since I got their name wrong. And they have their antique cars with their name on it they park different places. Look, it's my position as County Attorney, why pick a fight-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I know. MR. KLATZKOW: -- it just doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm leading into something, and that is where people have then trucks with (sic) the back of the pickup is loaded with a sign on it that may be an A-frame type of sign, they may want to fall under the same issue. And that's what I've seen those sitting around, and those now start causing damage in -- or danger in a storm situation where the cars do not. And again, I started going back and forth reading this trying to figure out -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dave, in the definitions, is there a section in the definitions that address the issue so we can focus the point you're trying to make on some specific language in this ordinance? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I guess possibly not in the definition. But it just moves on, I'm trying to move forward to a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then when we" get to that page -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let's do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- will you be able to -- because if you can show us where the language in this ordinance is concerning based on the comment you're making, we can probably figure out a way to Page 16 June 2, 2009 fix it. I think that would help. MS. ISTENES: The definition for mobile billboard is along the lines I think of the issue you're bringing up, that's on Page 2. You might want to take a look at that. That is actually the whole crux of the lawsuit as well. So I know the county attorney's office has been working really closely with Dan Mandelker on that, just to make sure our language is -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Dave's question then relating to that definition, mobile billboard, if he were to ask you can that be a car that's permanently parked somewhere with the signage on the side of it, is that considered a mobile billboard sign, or does the car actually have to be moving? So I think that may get his question relevant to the definitional page that we're on. MR. WRIGHT: I'd say yes, it does fall under the definition of mobile billboard on Page 2. There's nothing in there that says it specifically has to be moving. In fact, we've been in touch with City of Naples Attorney Bob Pritt, and he's mentioned that this is something that they've had problems with. And I think I'm comfortable with this definition covering that specific concern. But in the event we need to look at this further, we could probably hash it out and work with the City of Naples and make sure that we got it right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I think where we refer in the document -- there's 32 pages of this document. Where we refer in the document to mobile billboard, if that reference doesn't -- has the concerns that you're expressing, then that's when we should -- that would be a good point to bring up at that time and then we can see if we can resolve it. Because that's where it now lies. So if there's a semi-truck parked in the field where the side of the whole truck says Eat at Joe's, even though Joe's isn't inside that semi-truck and he's in the middle offield nowhere, this definition will Page 1 7 June 2, 2009 take care of that. And then where that definition is addressed in the body of the document is the language on how to regulate it. Is that -- MR. WRIGHT: Absolutely. I think it's on Page 20. And it's a very clear, concise regulation. Those are prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then before you go -- okay, let's wait till we get there. Anymore questions on definitions from anybody? David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- just a small one. And it's back on side. And it just -- JeffW., the use of the word representation, it says any visual representation. Shouldn't that just be presentation? The third word in. I mean, what's it representing? I mean, what is -- MS. F ABACHER: Page 4, Jeff, the definition of signs. MR. WRIGHT: I think that whether we have representation or presentation probably won't have a lot of substantive difference in it's over in a courtroom. But I'm happy to remove the R - E and make it a presentation. I see what you're saying, there's a difference in the definition of those two words, representation and presentation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, representation has the illusion of something else not there, so, I mean, which doesn't make sense to me. Small point. MS. ISTENES: I don't have any objection changing it. I don't think the consultant will either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any comments from the public on the first four pages of definition? Sir, come on up, state your name for the record and see what you've got to say. MR. BOYD: Good morning. My name is Michael Boyd. I'm the license holder and president of Signs And Things. Page 18 June 2, 2009 The only question I have is -- it's referred to on Page 17 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it about a definition? MR. BOYD: -- but it's not in the definitions. And it's under canopy, quote blade sign. We have a number of these in some new developments, Mercato, the Collection at Vanderbilt. I'd like to have it put in the definition. Because some of those projects do not have a, quote, canopy, but they require a blade sign projecting from the building, which clients can see from either direction as they're walking down a sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One of staff want to comment? MS. ISTENES: Sure. I think to remain content neutral we could certainly put in the definition under canopy sign essentially defining it as a sign located underneath the canopy, or similar. I'll look to Diana for wording later, but I don't have a problem defining that. And that's essentially how we would do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, great, thank you. Okay, we're -- let's go to the next -- we'll begin the actual text of the document. And let's just try to take a couple pages at a time. Pages 5 and 6, does anybody have any questions on Pages 5 and 6? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is the purpose of intent. And again, I'm going to go back to the concern about the courtyards. Where in this purpose do we get the reason why we're controlling signs within private courtyards that certainly aren't visible to the street? In other words, this is definitely a definition discussing the aesthetic appeal of the county, minimum control. It just seems that this is kind of the D.N.A. what we should be doing through this whole chapter. And it's surprising me that we're in public property not essentially affecting the county. MS. ISTENES: This -- I'll just comment to say this is a general Page 19 June 2, 2009 statement so -- regarding the sign code as a whole, the intent of the sign code. Where we get into the details are later in the document. I would not recommend that we start referencing details in here. This is just essentially a statement that says what the sign code is intended to do in general. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And that's exactly my point. There's no detail I'm looking at, I'm just wondering where from this do we get the impression that we can control these private courtyards? Because this is essentially discussing the county, it wants MS. ISTENES: Well, aesthetics is not just something that's visible from the road. But, I mean, that's a philosophical discussion I think we probably don't want to get into here. So I'm just -- my comment is essentially this is just a general statement. I'd be happy to address courtyards when we get here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, why don't we-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, but we'll come back to the statement when we get there. I'm fine. MS. ISTENES: Let me just call your attention, because we're getting into the areas where you see red. And where you see red, we're referring then back to your matrix two. And these are areas -- and I wanted to preface just so you have a little bit of background. For example, some of the issues like permit numbers and open house signs and official address numbers are actually things that the Board of County Commissioners had directed us to do. So we just didn't want to kind of blow them off and remove them, even though the reason they're in red is because our consultant didn't necessarily agree with their inclusion in the document as he's concerned over again the constitutional free speech issues. So that's why they're highlighted in red, so you can easily refer back to matrix two, and then we'll need to have some discussion with Page 20 June 2, 2009 you on those issues as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do is get through the document and then we'll just go to the matrix and we can flip back and solve the matrix one item at a time then, if that works. MS. ISTENES: Sounds good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have any more questions on the first two -- pages -- or Pages 5 and 6? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just one more thing. Up at D, double-face signs, there's a definition. I think someone's going to have to go through here and boldface definitions. That's one thing that's missing. Should we point out the ones we catch or just-- MS. ISTENES: No, I wrote there we'll boldface the definitions and then we'll go back and do a search and do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know I raised this question the last time, but I just can't remember whether -- I don't feel as though we got a satisfactory answer. In the bottom of Page 6, open-ended signs. Signs may only be displayed on supervised open house days. I questioned that and I'm still not sure what that really means, supervised. Who supervises it? Does it infer that realtors are involved or that there must be a person in the unit? MS. ISTENES: Catherine will answer that for you. MS. FABACHER: Yes, sir, I think we worked for a year and a half, I know Joe will tell you, with Mr. Bill Poteet and Ellie Krier, because we had such a proliferation of these open house signs. So in this case what it means is you can't have a lock box on a house and then put open house signs around, you had to actually have realtors showing the house to use the sign is what the intent of that was. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Does a person who does not use a realtor and still puts an open house sign up, that's considered Page 21 June 2, 2009 supervised? In other words, the owner of the home. MS. FABACHER: Yeah, he's-- MS. ISTENES: If it was-- MS. FABACHER: -- showing it. MS. ISTENES: -- for sale by owner, certainly, I would certainly consider that supervised. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the idea here is to make sure someone's in the unit? MS. FABACHER: Right. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm comfortable. Thank you. As long as we understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Pages 5 and 6. Do we have any other questions on those two pages? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything from the audience? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 7 and 8, there's a lot of red on 7 and 8. It introduces the open house signs. Are there any questions on Pages 7 and 8? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 9 and 10. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, on Page 9, number nine, so just to get this straight, anybody with a residentially zoned lot, assuming there's no homeowners association with further restrictions, would be allowed to put a two-foot by three-foot sign on their property and write whatever they want, as long as it isn't commercial? MS. ISTENES: That is correct. That's a free speech issue. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is that in our code now or is that something -- MS. ISTENES: No, it's not. Page 22 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we're adding that to give anybody -- and the intent of that wasn't for holiday decorations or anything. What if I go out and buy a bigger than that blow-up globe with Santa in it, am I violating that? MS. ISTENES: No, you wouldn't be violating that provision. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is holiday decorations and stuff protected? Is it in -- MS. ISTENES: Catherine? MS. FABACHER: No, it's been removed because it was content based. And I don't know if they're actually signs, blow-up Santas. MS. ISTENES: I don't think-- MS. FABACHER: I think it's free speech. It's noncommercial, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we're adding -- MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not taking that case. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But wait -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we're adding this sign. So what is the -- I mean, since this doesn't exist, what is the reason we're doing that, is because the consultant felt everybody with a residentially zoned lot needs the ability to -- MS. ISTENES: I'm going to ask the Jeffs to explain that, because it does go to constitutional free speech issue. And I think it's a matter of discriminating between -- but 1'11 let them -- MR. WRIGHT: This is based on a specific case, a Supreme Court case called the Ladue case. And it's kind of evolved into where these are called Ladue signs, and you're allowed one per property. And we went through this decision with the Doctor and he came up with this language. We're comfortable with it comporting with the Supreme Court decision; that's why we came up with it. MS. ISTENES: It is actually common in other municipality sign ordinances. I think it was definitely lacking in ours. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But this is allowed as a Page 23 June 2, 2009 permanent sign, so go down to the county, get a structural permit, build it and -- MS. ISTENES: If one's required. In a lot of the signs you'll see -- I mean, an example that comes to mind for me is when people get the little cardboard signs and they stick watch out for motorcycles, you know, it's motorcycle season. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Deaf child. MS. ISTENES: Deaf child or -- yeah. Or some people have Scripture written on small signs in their yard. I've seen that as well. MR. KLATZKOW: Or if you put a sign in your window, Stop The War-- MS. ISTENES: Stop The War, yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: -- which is really what this comes from. I mean, government shouldn't be regulating that, that's free speech. MS. ISTENES: Free speech. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a sign in my driveway that says, Never Mind the Dog, Beware of Owner. So-- MS. ISTENES: It's your free speech sign. Congratulations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good, finally legal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We did see pictures of that dog, Mark, so I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got more hair than the dog has. Brad, do you have anymore? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm still going. Okay, I'm past that point. The mobile billboard thing, if some kids are putting together a float in their driveway, does that govern that? I mean, it could have noncommercial-- MR. KLATZKOW: There needs to be prosecutorial discretion. It's like you don't cite the little girl selling lemonade. Technically they might be in violation, but it's a silly thing to do. When code enforcement actually prosecutes somebody, it's Page 24 June 2, 2009 because there's a compelling reason to do so. We don't prosecute people off of what I would call silly things. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then the other one is 11 down at the bottom. You're allowed three flags. And then the next statement it says a flag pole not to exceed 30 feet. Is that eliminated to one flag pole or is that just saying that any of those three flag poles can't be higher than 30 feet? MS. ISTENES: My understanding is any of them can't be higher than 30 feet. Am I correct on that? MS. FABACHER: Well, in residential. MS. ISTENES: In residential, right. Yeah, that's what we're referring to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, getting back to that issue about Santa, did you take into consideration that a commercial property may actually also use that as a sign, so to speak, to seek people to come and purchase things? So does that create an issue for us in any way? MS. ISTENES: Jeff? MR. WRIGHT: Well, again, I'd like to think that there would be some discretion. I don't think it creates an issue for us. I mean, the commercial sign regulations that we have, they would have to comply with those. And if they put something up there that didn't comply with those, then theoretically we'd have a code case against them. I'm not sure specifically what the dimensions of this sign that you're talking about are, but if they ran afoul of our ordinance, they would be in violation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's fine, because I have no problem as long as the commercial entity doesn't cause the residential entity to lose something because of its decision. That's the premise of my question. Page 25 June 2, 2009 So fine, I'm good with that then. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: This is going to come up again on Page 20, but I just want to be clear of this mobile billboard thing. People have cars for sale, like I'm going to go back into the Estates. There are a lot of construction workers that work in the Estates, they bought lots of toys, and they're obviously selling their toys these days. That is not legal? For, in other words, an air boat or a car, a truck, whatever it may be, is that not a legal -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's not a mobile -- I think the Chairman gave the example where you get yourself a truck and you put on Eat at Joe's and you put it out at the side of the road and Joe's is like two miles down the road. That's what we're getting at with the mobile billboards. You want to put a for sale sign on your pickup truck, that's not a mobile billboard. MS. ISTENES: Right. That wouldn't be considered a mobile billboard under this ordinance. Now, that may be addressed in other county ordinances, you know, right-of-way issues and things like that, but -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right. Well, maybe I should wait until Page 20, but I'm going to ask it again, even on Page 20, if you've got a truck sitting there and it says Eat at Joe's and there's an arrow pointing down to the commercial establishment, that it's at the end of that and it's a magnetic sign on the side of a truck, is that legal or not legal? They drive it home every day. MR. WRIGHT: Under the definition of mobile billboard, I think in that example, the purpose of the truck is as a truck for transportation, not the display of the sign itself. What we're trying to get at is those trucks that exist solely for the purpose of advertisement. In the example that you used, that truck doesn't exist solely for advertisement. You could probably get in it and drive. So it wouldn't fit the definition of mobile billboard under this Page 26 June 2, 2009 ordinance. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So it is allowed. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, I'm just trying to get clear on it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Still on Pages 9 and 10. Anybody have any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have just one. And Jeff and Jeff, either one of you, the mobile billboard reference on Page 10, would that now allow us to stop these mobile billboards that caused this whole mess to our sign code in the first place? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions from the public through Page 10? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on Page 11 and 12. Questions on 11 and 12? Brad I look to you first because you always have questions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and actually it is the bottom of 10 because that's the start of this new section, the small sentence. I'm not kind of sure what that means. What that means is in a nonresidential district I can have all the noncommercial signs I want. Do they substitute for an allowable sign? In other words, if I'm allowed a wall sign but in lieu of that I put up my favorite quote, does that remove the ability to do the -- is that what that's saying here, that you can -- you don't have to have only commercial signs in nonresidential districts; is that what that's saying? MS. ISTENES: What section are you-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at the bottom of 10 Page 27 June 2, 2009 MS. ISTENES: Okay, 5.066.04.A? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 04.A, correct. MS. ISTENES: Noncommercial signs are allowed in all districts and may be substituted for any sign expressly allowed under this ordinance. And any sign permitted by this ordinance may display a noncommercial message. Is that what your concern is? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: And then your specific concern is they can put anything on there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it does take away from a wall. In other words, in lieu of a wall sign I chiseled in, you know, no good deed goes unpunished over my doorway -- MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- that that would remove some of my capabilities of the wall sign. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Page 11, the -- first of all I think, you know, we're back to some bolding. But number two, the intent is not to have moving floodlights, correct? So what you're saying is non-revolving, yet would I be able to come in and play Philadelphia lawyer and have my sign going -- my lighting going side to side or up and down, and essentially I'm non-revolving? MS. ISTENES: As long as there's no motion associated with it, that's my understanding of the intent. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why don't we say that? Because revolving is a circular motion. And I can think of other motions. MS. ISTENES: Motionless or something to that effect? Page 28 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Static is the word I'm thinking. MS. ISTENES: Static? Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number three, the use of accent lighting. First of all, accent lighting's defined in the code, which you say in the following language. So what -- can we just bold it and take out as defined by the Land Development Code? MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Once you bold it, you're telling us that. MS. ISTENES: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number five, isn't that information that would have been required in a building permit anyway? In other words, someone's coming in, he's going to have to have information from the property owner authorizing him to do that. MS. ISTENES: Yes, I looked at that myself, thinking that was duplicitous, and I -- no, go ahead, Diana. Thanks. MS. COMPAGNONE: Diana Compagnone, Sign Plan Review for the Building Department. What that's doing is where the property owner of say a strip center or the mall, he is basically approving the signage for the tenants, and instead of a unified sign plan that we had previously that did not work. So basically he's policing his own centers. And this way he's aware of what signs are going up. And if he has color restrictions or something that he doesn't want to allow on his center, then he won't sign the authorization letter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in other words, this -- in lieu of the permitting process, you have a process where there's an affidavit that the owner signs stating that this sign's okay. And when would that come into the process, at the time of permit, or what? MS. COMPAGNONE: At the time of permit. It's just part of the application. Page 29 June 2, 2009 MS. ISTENES: What we're trying to avoid is somebody coming in and putting up a sign where the property owner may have further restrictions, for a shopping center, for example, and somebody comes in independently and pulls a sign that's in conflict with that, then we kind of get in the middle of that. So it's just putting people on notice that that's required. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm good. How many pages did you say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just two, 11 through 12 right now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the public? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait a minute, I'm sorry. I just saw one little line. On number eight you're actually kind of just redefining double- faced signs. In the definition of it it states what you're stating there; is that right? MS. ISTENES: Page 11, double-faced sign shall be measured by one side only, if both sides display the same graphics. What's your question on that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is that's also the definition of a double-faced sign. So what I'm saying, why is that there, just out of -- if you go back to Page 2 and look at double-faced . . , SIgn, It s -- MS. ISTENES: Generally what we're trying to do is not regulate through the definitions. And if we've done that we ought to take that out of the definition and put that just in the regulations themselves where they are now, in number eight. We strive not to regulate through the definitions. It's not always possible, but that's -- but I agree with you, that is a duplicate. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, a double-faced sign, I Page 30 June 2, 2009 mean, you're not really regulating it, you're defining it that it's a sign with the same thing on both sides. MS. ISTENES: Well, we're putting a definition -- or we're putting a development standard in the definition and we don't want to do that. It really should stay on Page 11. So I would just take your suggestion a step further and perhaps remove it from the definition, and that would remove the duplication. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: If that's your concern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it's the opposite of my concern, but it solves the same problem, so okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Next two pages will be Pages 13 and 14. Anybody have any questions on those pages. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew. Why did I know? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess the thing is down on Page 13.A, the heights measured from the nearest public or the private right-of-way -- I'll tell you what, forget that, that makes sense. I questioned it when I read this, but it's making sense. Down at G, some of the ways these things are described, where for lots of frontage no less than 100 feet but no more than 149.9. I mean, I know what you're trying to say, it's less than 150 feet. So why don't you use that? Because that does leave a little no man's land of .95 which -- so in other words, in all of these cases where you're using this fraction, I would just recommend, you know, but less than 150 feet down below it, but less than 220 feet. Because that's what you're trying to say. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how far do we go on this one, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two pages. We take them two at a time. Page 31 June 2, 2009 So it would be 13 and 14. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Let me come back for 14, let's see if anybody else has a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Brad, looks like you're the man. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, the ii. I guess what my question was is, is the ii additional -- you're saying in addition. So essentially you could cancel out what single i is by what happens in ii? MS. ISTENES: I'd have to contemplate that one a little bit. Diana, is that something that's jumping off the page for you? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know what I'm saying, Diana? In other words, we're saying that a ground sign can do this. And then you define a lot size for i. And then you define a lot size for 11. And I don't think the intent is to build these up, because if that's the case some of them will overlap in their parameter and you could actually start adding signs. MS. COMPAGNONE: We didn't change any of that, just for your information. But the first A through G there are like the overall restrictions for these smaller signs. And then when we go into two ii and three iii, those are the size limitations for the different lots. MS. ISTENES: So in other words, the regulations are categorized under each sign, based on the frontage of the lot, so -- MS. COMPAGNONE: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the phrase in addition means you also have the requirement of; is that right? MS. ISTENES: I think if we took out the word in addition, I think that might -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That might help. MS. ISTENES: It sounds like you get additional-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Additional signs. That's -- when Page 32 June 2, 2009 I read it, I could justify it. MS. ISTENES: Okay. That makes sense. MS. FABACHER: But the point is is the in addition meant that those things have to refer back and follow the development standards ahead under A through -- MS. ISTENES: Okay, I think Catherine's commenting that in addition means you have to go -- that refers back to the A through G development standards. Maybe there's a better word that we could just refer back to that rather than -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can just circle it and then read it at a different time and just see if there is a problem there. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else, questions through Page 14? Members of the public? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 15 and 16. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me see. Let's start with 15, number four. Is a -- a tenant that has more than one unit, is he allowed more than one sign? MS. ISTENES: Diana? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is four. MS. COMP AGNONE: If the units are interconnected, then it's really, whether you've got two units, three units, you've really become -- you've combined it and become one unit. So we do treat it that way, as one combined unit. And obviously your square footage has increased so your signage size would increase along with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And your wall length, all that other stuff? MS. COMPAGNONE: Right, right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But I am only allowed Page 33 June 2, 2009 one sign. In other words, I can't come back and say I want -- I take three units in a shopping center, I want three smaller signs. Could I break it up into three anyway? MS. COMP AGNONE: You can break it up into three as long as you combined it. I'm going to say we use like an imaginary box that we put in there. And yes, we do count the dead area in between. But it's where a lot of people will get the three smaller signs and space them out on the unit if they want to that way. The code only allows for larger buildings to split their signs up if you have over 25,000 square feet and a front wall length of200 lineal feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying, if I did get three units, I did put three signs, I would be measured from the outside facing the three signs. MS. COMPAGNONE: Uh-hum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I would be wasting a lot of sign space with dead space. Okay, on Page 16, I guess let's go to D. This is -- what you said is you've added this. This is new. But what you're allowing is one more wall sign, if it's not visible from the street right-of-way and everything. And again, it goes back to the concern is that why you have control over signs in there? For example, let's just take the two shopping centers, Coastal, a mall with a roof, I guess a good example is Waterside, a mall without a roof. One you control the signs, one you don't. I mean, I don't think the intent of the sign code is for the view from the air. So in other words, if the sign is not visible in an outdoor courtyard, why are they still considered a sign? MS. ISTENES: This was essentially our recommendation to address the issue, but it's open for discussion as far as I'm concerned. Because this is something -- like I said, this was an interpretive -- an Page 34 June 2, 2009 interpretive issue came to me saying do you regulate the walls internal to the shopping center, similar to what you pointed out. And the code really just didn't address it. My feeling, my recommendation, is similar to what you have, to the opinion you've expressed. And I guess this was kind of our way just to put in an allowance, because based on feedback we've been getting from the tenants of those buildings -- am I stating that correctly, essentially? But I'd open it up to the board for discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think from my research in the thing, in the code it says exterior; I mean, in other words you're controlling the signs that are on the exterior of the building. Isn't that right, Diane? I mean, the -- MS. ISTENES: Well, it's not clear. That's why in this case we brought this forward. And we had -- again, not wanting to open up this huge can of worms and come into this big discussion, this was sort of our way to try to address the immediate problem and then look at it kind of in the future. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well -- MS. ISTENES: So that's where we are with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason I think we have a problem is that staff interpretation of the word exterior means inside or outside, not visible on the outside of a building, the exterior of a building. In other words, a courtyard, I mean, there could be a V-shaped courtyard you look into. So obviously I think courtyard isn't the absolute word. But there are a lot of courtyards that are concealed what's going on on the inside. And yet you're still controlling the sign because it's on the exterior -- it's an exterior space, no roof. And I think we're going to see a lot more exterior court buildings designed in the future. Yet if you put the roof over it, you don't control the sign. So the -- you know, neither of which are visible from the right-of-way or adjacent properties. Page 35 June 2, 2009 The fact that the consultant started fixing the definition of sign, that direction is what kind of makes me think there might be something we should be doing with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, as a suggestion, why don't we just exempt signs not visible from the public right-of-way or from adjoining properties? And that way if someone wants to gaudy up and make the inside of their property look like crap, then let them do it, what do we care? No one can see it. And that might resolve the whole issue and it's not an issue anymore. MS. ISTENES: Would you be satisfied if we culled out courtyards? And I don't want to try it on any constitutional issues, so please stop me if you think I'm going there. Things like courtyards or malls or internal malls. I only say that because that's really broad. And without some time to contemplate that, I just -- I'd rather be a little bit more conservative. And I think that will still address the problems that we've had or the issues that were brought up, and it broadens what we have here now, if I'm understanding correctly. In other words -- in other words, say we're not going to regulate it but then cull out those areas that we wouldn't regulate it, like a mall. MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just see if we can get direction from the Planning Commission. Is it your direction that signs that are not visible to the public, we should not be regulating? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Visible to the public, exterior to the property they're in. I mean, the public's -- I mean, for example, Coastland Mall, all the signs within the mall are visible to the public. But it's only the public that decides to go in there. That's the distinction. And I think if you want to go into a place where there's a lot of signs, so what? You have a right to do it. And then if they want to go into that mall, they want to make solid signs, wall-to-wall, so you walk down and you're engaged by signs on both sides, who cares? As long as you drive by only Golden Page 36 June 2, 2009 Gate Parkway and 41 and you don't see those signs, what do we care if the public -- I mean, at that point who cares? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, is that the consensus of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And here's what I think the best solutions for it is exactly what the consultant was sending us down. He had words in the definition of signs that exempted. And here's what he said. He said, and I'd like to -- MS. FABACHER: Apologize, Commissioner. We-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here's what he said. He said, you know, which is visible from any street, right-of-way, sidewalk, alley, public property. What I think would be better is, which is visible from any public property, (i.e. street, right-of-way, sidewalk, alley, et cetera), or adjacent private property. In other words, it's not just running down the street, it's if I live next door to something I don't particularly want a courtyard opening up towards my property with essentially the signage of Tokyo in it. So -- and if we put that in the definition of sign, the reason that's important is because that means you don't read further, you don't get mixed up in whether you have to follow these regulations or not. MS. ISTENES: Is that the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a problem with that? MS. ISTENES: -- consensus of the board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says the same thing that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MS. ISTENES: I may talk to you later about the exact language you suggested. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can give it. I wrote it for the Page 37 June 2, 2009 last meeting. MS. ISTENES: Okay, great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions on Pages 15 and 16? Ifnot -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wait, wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? If it wasn't the fact we needed a quorum, this could have been held by Brad by himself. MR. KLATZKOW: He's doing a fine job. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sorry about that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, you're doing a fine job. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess that's my main focus. I had something on ei, adding a b that, you know, where does the time and temperature sign show up again? Is that what we're trying to describe in -- MS. ISTENES: Let me -- hang on a second. And I don't mean to jump back, but I just want to clarify one thing on our last discussion. Your suggestion is to remove d at the top of Page 16 and address it in the definition? Before we leave that, I just want to make sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think my -- yeah, if you did put it in the sign definition, D would not be necessary. MS. ISTENES: Okay. That's my understanding, I just want to clarify that. Okay, the next question was -- hang on a second -- time and temperature signs. Diana, can you answer that? MS. COMPAGNONE: The time and temperature we were trying to address on Page 13, f. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MS. COMPAGNONE: The -- and on 16 ei, that's where we were trying to address the open signs without culling them out as open signs, because that was content based. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Say that again, what page? I'm Page 38 June 2, 2009 sorry . MS. COMPAGNONE: 16. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sixteen, okay. MS. COMPAGNONE: You asked about ei. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, yeah, that's -- so -- but we're not allowed any animated activated signs. So wouldn't that be an animated activated level one? Assuming they don't want a secondhand. So shouldn't we note that? MS. COMPAGNONE: It's actually a window sign is ei. It's an illuminated window sign. That's where we tried to compensate for the fact that the open sign was in the exempt section of the sign code that we currently have. But that's content based. So the consultant said we needed to take the content out of it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I guess the other question, five -- and sorry it takes so long, but I have to remember what these scribbles are up to. Number five, the menu board. Is the intent there to have only one sign per lane, or could I have two signs on one lane? MS. COMP AGNONE: The intent is to have one menu board per lane, per drive-through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Per lane. And I could have two lanes and both of those could have menu boards. If I have three lanes you're going to have to turn up the volume on the menu board of the adjoining lane. And then fi, it goes back to the authorization. But I guess here the logic really makes sense, because this is where the owner limits which tenant in a multi -story building gets the sign rights to the building. Okay, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else through 16? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 17 and 18. Brad? Page 39 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 17, 8.C. The permit to get a flag pole has to be put up with a permit. It's a structure. So it would cover all of those things in C. So shouldn't we just state that the flag pole has to be permitted? Which maybe we don't even need to state that. MS. ISTENES: Are you comfortable with that, Diana, or is there some compelling reason that -- all the details in there? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, here's the thing is you're kind of regulating trade. You're doing a lot of things in there that the permit really is responsible for, at least the building code requiring who does what where. MS. COMPAGNONE: Maybe we can word it differently. The only thing that I'm getting out of that is that any -- a flag pole that's under 15 foot in height would -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would have to be permitted. MS. COMPAGNONE: -- not need to be permitted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it would by the building code. Any structure has to be permitted. Any structure -- I mean, I don't want a 15- foot flag pole flying through my house during a hurricane, you know. I don't want a 10-foot one. I mean, in other words, I don't -- here's the concern, is that you're actually doing a requirement that the other code is going to trump anyway. MS. COMP AGNONE: That's just the way -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's going to require -- MS. COMPAGNONE: -- current code -- I'm sorry. That's the way the current code is written, so we left it that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is the -- but again, you're discussing construction here. So what you're saying here is that any flag pole less than 15 feet does not have to have a structural permit. And you don't really have the right to say that. So I just think it should be permitted per applicable governing Page 40 June 2, 2009 codes and get it over with and let somebody else worry about that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question regarding that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Brad, does that also relate to the maximum flag area that the pole can handle, that part of that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Part of the structural analysis will be the wind resistance of the flag. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's all in that permit? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Remember, the building code doesn't want it to fall down. So you can be assured that it's -- a lot of people spend a lot of time trying to figure out how that happened. Ten on 18, it says we're in the -- and the concern is we're in the nonresidential -- forget it, I can't figure out what it is I'm saying there. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else through Page 18? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the audience through Page 18? Yes, sir. Gentleman in the back, you want to come up first, then the other gentleman. Just have to identify yourself for the record. MR. STEPHENSON: Steve Stephenson with Lykins Sign Tech. I have a question. On the flag poles in your residential, a permit is not required on a 15-foot or under. That was also in the residential flag poles. So if you're going to change it in commercial, you're going to change it in both? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my point is I think we should just reference the governing codes. Because the illusion here is that you could read this and say I don't have to get a permit for my 14-foot flag pole. Page 41 June 2, 2009 MR. STEPHENSON: Right. There's an awful lot of flag poles in homeowners that are 15 foot and under that are not permitted. MS. ISTENES: We could simply reference where required by Florida Building Code or other applicable statute, a permit shall be obtained. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would just say governing code. MS. ISTENES: Governing code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You might have to have a fire plan review in this county. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all, sir? MR. STEPHENSON: I just want to make sure it's all the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it, thank you. Next gentleman? MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd. And if I could briefly go back to Page 16.F, multi-story buildings. I'd ask the commissioners to please consider, multi-story buildings are being penalized. They can only have a sign on the top of the building and the ground floor. And the ground floor is then required to -- can't exceed 64 square feet. Where typically they could do up to 150 square feet. And under the present economic conditions, multi-story owners are having difficulty attracting tenants because they can't do tenant signage on any floor above the first or the top of the building. So I'd like to request that you consider allowing them to do the full 150 square feet on the bottom ground floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, do you want to-- MS. ISTENES: We're not addressing that in this code revision, we're just simply addressing the constitutional issues. So we will certainly note it, if the board wants us to note it as a potential for a Page 42 June 2, 2009 future amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you're going to be coming back with other rewrites, you made that comment earlier. And when you do, that would be one to consider. If you form that committee in which you participate with the public, this gentleman's comments should be included at that time. Sir, I hope you understand that the purpose of to day's meeting, some of those items we cannot get into. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's really on form. Notice, that's one of the other phrases it uses, in addition. So the point he's missing is that what that really allows is an additional sign on the ground floor of 64 square feet. It's not reducing the sign, it's allowing him in addition another sign, correct? MS. COMPAGNONE: The in addition refers to the sign that's at the top of the building. So each tenant on the first floor units can have a 64 square foot sign and then -- over their unit. And then the big sign at the top of the building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point I'm making is that the big sign at the top of the building, and then this is in addition to that you can have this. So again, you know, remember the phrasing we discussed earlier. I mean here it's clear and I agree -- MS. ISTENES: Understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- with what it's doing. But if you take that back to that other chapter, it starts to confuse. MS. ISTENES: Understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move to Pages 19 and 20. Does anybody have any questions on Pages 19 and 20? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, number 14, hand-held signs. So this is essentially the banana sign spinning around for the Page 43 June 2, 2009 yogurt shop, which was a talent we haven't seen in Naples yet. But do we want it? MS. ISTENES: It is, and that is on the matrix two. Did you want to, Mr. Chairman, wait, you had indicated earlier, or do you want to talk about that now? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in order to kind of keep order in regards to how we follow everything that's happening, Brad, what I was -- and if we have that kind of question with this, when we get to that matrix, the last two pages, we'll go back, focus on those items and turn back if we need to in the document. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then at least just let's get through the first 32 pages of the document first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing in there. Since you're saying that a sign can't -- you can only have two, they can't be bigger than 16 feet. Do you need the aggregate sign area cannot exceed 32 feet? Because just doing the Boolean logic, if I can't have a sign greater than 16 feet and I'm allowed two of them, how would I ever cause confusion with the 32 in parenthesis? It's not like I could make one 10 feet and the other one 22 feet. Because that would violate the 16 feet. I just think you could remove the aggregate sign area sentence. And then -- does that make sense, Susan? I mean, you know what I'm saying? MS. ISTENES: Yeah, I'm going to contemplate it a little bit while you're going, in preparation for future discussion on that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I promise, no trick there. It's just Boolean logic. Okay, the mobile billboard. It's unlawful for any person to display or construct. Since this is noncommercial, could not we have a factory that builds mobile billboards? Would this limit the ability for that to exist? So I end up -- I open up a shop, I sell them to Miami and I make Page 44 June 2, 2009 them in Collier County. You've essentially made it illegal for me to construct them. MS. ISTENES: I don't read it that way. Jeff, are you-- MR. WRIGHT: Well, I had some concerns with construct, too. And this came directly from our consultant. I suppose one way of viewing it is mobile billboards are defined as those that are displayed on a vehicle; principal purpose of the vehicle is the sign itself. So if you're talking about it in a manufacturing context, you're not really dealing with a sign that's displayed upon a vehicle until it's on the vehicle. So if you're -- if they're stocked up in a factory, you know, that's -- the construction of them is not necessarily fitting the definition of a mobile billboard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why would there be a concern on -- you know, I can see in the -- and again, we use the float. And Jeff is an attorney with common sense. That's not common. But the concern is somebody -- for example, we could have a company that makes floats and somebody saying the floats have commercial information on them and you can't have a float company in Collier County. But the point is why is construct in there, I guess to sum it up. What is the concern there, you can't create these things that will ultimately violate the county, or -- MR. WRIGHT: The more I look at it, the more I think there's really not a context where that word construct is going to help us regulate at all, so I'd say strike "or construct" . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Agreed. MR. WRIGHT: Unless there's some opposition from the staff. I think it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could we please go over again -- and I don't want to keep bringing up the name of the company that's Page 45 June 2, 2009 on the cars, the antique cars, but what is our issue? Is it grandfathered? Is it a -- I know we don't want to get into an issue with the company, but what is our stance on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why not? The name of the company you're talking about is Truly Nolan, right? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Truly Nolan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the issue with Truly Nolan? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: There is none. I think it's fine. But I just want to make sure, they are able to do that. And any other company can put an antique car out there, Dave's Car Wash, that's-- that is not permitted? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or Dave's Jatropha Sales. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Dave's Tree Sales, yeah. That gives me an allergy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you already answer the question earlier, or -- MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know what to tell you. I mean, I've got people in technical violation of our code every single day. It doesn't mean we start code enforcement actions on them. If something is truly a public safety/health issue or truly offensive to the code, it's one thing. But -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm leading into something else here too. MR. KLATZKOW: Now, you know, if I'm asked to prosecute, would I? Yes. I just -- it just doesn't strike me as something that the county should be spending resources on. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, okay. So there's a vehicle, a pickup truck -- he mumbles. There's a pickup truck that has let's say two portable flags out of each one of the holes of a pickup truck that has a directional Joe's Cafe with arrows on it. Is that a mobile sign -- they drive it home every day, it's got a Florida flag on it, a u.S. flag on it and it has Cafe Down There. Is that permitted or not? And they Page 46 June 2, 2009 drive it home. MR. KLATZKOW: Is he parking at his place of business? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Then I'm not so sure I care. Because I can have another guy that has a van, Joe's Plumbing-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: -- and he parks it right by his store, and I don't have an issue with that. The issue I have, and I think the Chairman, you know, gave a good example, is somebody gets a big truck, Eat At Joe's, big sign, Joe's is two miles down the road. That's now more of a multi-billboard COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On premise is not a problem. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I've seen many of them. And I didn't have a problem with it, I just -- I read this and it sounded as though it was not permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, so it's fine. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Dave, I think what happened with Truly Nolan is that's his real name, Truly Nolan. It's not so much the name of the company he's promoting. And I think that they had a problem stopping him from using his name. MR. KLATZKOW: You know, it's part of the character of the community, as far as I'm concerned. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'm okay with it. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's all over the country. It's everywhere. I mean, it's not in Collier County, it's everywhere. MR. KLATZKOW: Look, cars present the problem. I mean, I've got bumper stickers on cars. I don't know where you can differentiate COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly. Page 47 June 2, 2009 MR. KLATZKOW: -- between free speech and commercial speech. Then you have people who are decorating their cars with their company logos to the point that they're really moving signs. I don't know, it's just not something that we've been prosecuting. MS. ISTENES: I think one of the issues may be if they're parking their car or displaying a sign on a car in front of their business on their business site, potentially that could just be a violation of having signage in excess of code required. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Four square feet. MS. ISTENES: You know, unless they were using the vehicle for -- with respect to operation of the business, versus just parking there. But then that gets into are you actually using the vehicle for your business versus just parking there. So it gets pretty complicated pretty fast. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, now Jeff just said you are prosecuting. You said you are or are not? MR. KLATZKOW: No, we're not. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, you're not. MR. KLATZKOW: But if asked by the board, yes, we could prosecute. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, no, no, that wasn't my point. I don't have issue with it. I just read this as it was not permitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sometimes, though, the more you bring things up the more other people watching this show might have issues with it and then we have a prose -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Then 1'11 shut up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've been beating Truly Nolan to death this morning. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I'm not, I'm just saying I enjoy them. I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then don't point them out. Page 48 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: But it didn't have anything to do with Truly Nolan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? We're still up to Page 20. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me wait. Susan's in conference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, Joe? We need to move on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Susan, before we go into enforcement, what -- where does the political sign fall? MS. ISTENES: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before we go into the enforcement, where does the political sign fall in this thing? MS. ISTENES: Catherine will answer that. MS. FABACHER: Thank, you, Susan. Commissioner, that is going to go under issuing a special temporary use permit, which we have in Section 5.04.05. We're going to put a lot of the things -- it already talks about temporary sales permits for coming soon, grand opening. All of those sort of things were too content based to stay in the sign code. So we hope to cover them and put that information into another section outside of that chapter to hopefully -- no, it's in that chapter. But hopefully to avoid -- that was one of our consultant's suggestions, recommendations, is that we do kind of -- we did that with the model home signs too now. It's under the standards for model homes. And if they want to attack the whole model home section, I guess we're vulnerable, but -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, Catherine, that's good. That's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move on to Pages 21 and 22. Anybody have any questions on Page 21 and 22? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't. I don't show up again till 30 so-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 49 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- you guys got a break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Moving right along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- between 22 and 30? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 30. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The question is that there's requirements for signs for the automobile service station in the architectural standards. Should we not pull them out of there and maybe in that standard just reference the section in the sign code? I kind of like a code where all the sign requirements are in it, obviously except for the one Catherine just mentioned, but -- MS. ISTENES: If you notice, on the bottom of Page 26, if you haven't already, that sort of ends the sign code. And then Catherine has pulled out -- what did we call it, the skirt? All of the various sections of the Land Development Code that have references to sign ordinances, that's -- or signage. That's why you see the different numbers, 2.03.06 and 3.05.10, 4.02.26. The automobile service station location was at a recommendation from our consultant to relocate it there. He did have some concerns over the wording in there and felt that it was safer, in other words wouldn't jeopardize the remaining portion of the sign code if it was located under all the other development standards for automobile service stations. My thought is perhaps we could make a cross reference in the sign code itself, but I'd like to discuss that with the consultant a little bit further. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me -- so the question -- so in other words you've moved this from the sign into the architectural standards. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It wasn't in the architectural Page 50 June 2, 2009 standards before? I think it was. MS. ISTENES: It's under the development standards for automobile service stations, it's not under the architectural standards. There's a whole section in our code -- there's a whole separate section in our code dealing with development standards for automobile service stations. Back in '98, I believe, the -- actually earlier than '98 -- '94 the Board of County Commissioners directed a study on automobile service stations, and gateways to the community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So anybody who's going to be building a sign for the -- they would go to, you know, .05.05.05 and in there they would have to honor -- I mean, maybe -- I do think we should reference somewhere in the -- MS. ISTENES: In the sign code? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. To make sure that somebody doesn't read the sign code and say, hey, there's nothing different about an automobile station. MS. ISTENES: 1'11 speak to the consultant on that. I don't think it will be a problem, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that your only question, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: While we're on Page 30, C, Item D, under the automobile service stations. Signage is prohibited above gas pumps. You know that's impossible? I mean, I can -- anywhere you go to get gas there's signs above the gas pumps. So I don't know if that -- what you mean by that. But I know that's not probably an object to change today, but I just thought it was interesting that that's there. I'm going to go stop at BP and they have come in and eat and buy food right up in that little placard on top of the gas pumps. I think everybody has them. MS. ISTENES: Well, this is older. This -- but that is -- the commercial message is what's being restricted. Essentially you may have directions on how to operate the pump. I've been asked that Page 51 June 2, 2009 question. And honestly, I haven't -- I've counted -- I've not counted that as signage, because it's directional operations to operate the pump. But when it gets to the commercial signage, you know, hot dogs, two for 50 cents and things like that, that's considered additional commercial signage over and above, and that's why it's targeted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's not an issue for today-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Well, can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I just was curious. Go ahead, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's also now I've seen it where they have little TV tubes with advertising on them. So this is going to expand. I mean, so you'd probably need to look at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 31, questions, anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the most intense page we have is Page 32. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a -- no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have a question? Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Why is it blank? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Why was this blank? What are you guys covering up? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be going to the matrix when we get back from break. But before we go on break, for the 32 pages, I see there's a question from the audience. Sir, come on up. MR. STEPHENSON: Steve Stephenson, Lykins Sign Tech. On Page 26, in the permitting process, in the review, the application taking 60 days to get an answer. It seems like an awfully long time to get an answer for a sign. MS. ISTENES: That is referring to an appeal. MR. STEPHENSON: It's in B. MS. ISTENES: In B. I'm not -- MR. STEPHENSON: It's actually the review. Page 52 June 2, 2009 MS. ISTENES: Is that Page 25 then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It starts on 25 and continues on 26. MS. ISTENES: The permit application review and time lengths. The -- do you want to -- Catherine, do you want to explain why this is added? This -- essentially the advice from our consultant is that permit applications have to be processed expeditiously or somebody could make a claim for -- MR. WRIGHT: Prior restraint. MS. ISTENES: Thank you, prior restraint. And so this is not currently in our code. And honestly, by policy we -- I don't know what your policy is for time frames, but this is essentially to address that legal concern. Do I think it's going to take 60 days to get a sign permit? In 99 percent of the time, no. MR. SCHMIDT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. Florida Building Code, under any type of permitted activity, specifies 30 days. We have to provide an answer within 30 days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just say 30 here then? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. MR. STEPHENSON: Amen. MR. SCHMITT: Now, that means we provide an answer. It doesn't mean you get your permit. And that -- again, that's the Florida Building Code. You can then take action per the code. And Brad knows what I'm talking about, under the code. However, that level of service standard is strictly dependent on the staff providing the service. If the staff isn't there, you may not get an answer in 30 days, so -- I mean, but the Florida Building Code is clear, it's 30 days we have to provide some kind of an answer. Whether we turn the applicant down or we provide some kind of a sufficiency review or we issue the permit. And in most cases, Diane, it's certainly less than 30 days. Page 53 June 2, 2009 MR. STEPHENSON: Much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you change this paragraph then to be consistent with the building code, and that would probably make it all easier for everybody. Is that okay with this panel? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, 30 makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. With that, let's take a break till 10: 15. When we come back, we'll address the last two pages of the matrices that are in disagreement with our professional. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Okay, thank you for the break. We're going to go on to the matrix. In the back of the matrix tab that says decision matrices there are two pages. The very last two pages that have a series of references that are somewhat in disagreement between staff and! or county attorney and! or the professional Doctor -- whatever his name is. MS. FABACHER: Van Mandelker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Doctor Van. MS. FABACHER: DoctorM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that 1'11 ask Susan to kind of walk us through each one of those so that she can get a nod from this commission as to where we would stand on each and any of these at that point. MS. ISTENES: Okay, we're working from matrix two, issues for discussion. And at the top of the page, Page 8 and Page 13 deals with address numbers on residential signs and nonresidential signs. Our recommendation is to leave this section as is, because staff believes this could be argued as a life, safety and welfare provision. This essentially allows -- the code requires that the address numbers appear on the signs currently. And the consultant is suggesting it Page 54 June 2, 2009 should be removed because it is content based. Our attorneys looked at it. Their recommendation is consistent with our staff recommendation, and so we need some feedback from you on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consensus from the board. Do we keep it as staff recommendation? And the word keep in the right-hand column, would that -- this is what that would mean. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would agree with County Attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody disagree? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 8 and 13 are -- wait a minute. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just had a concern with the reference. You're talking about Section 5 .06.02(B)(I), right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (B)(I)(d). COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (B)(I)(d). That's a double-faced sign. So that's what I'm -- in other words, we're not referencing that -- MS. ISTENES: Is that a wrong reference; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what we've just said is that where you have references to address numbers on residential signs and nonresidential signs, we're recommending you keep that. So wherever it does appear-- MS. ISTENES: We'll take a look and make sure that reference gets fixed up in the matrix. But yes, you're correct, Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just the wrong ref -- but Page 55 June 2, 2009 the intent is that you want addresses on signs. If building and fire codes require them on buildings I think this to me is a good idea, so -- MS. ISTENES: I know this was endorsed by the Board of County Commissioners. In fact, I think they may have even directed us to do that at some past LDC codes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next one, Susan? MS. ISTENES: Okay. That Section 5.06.02(B)(3), open house signs. This again was actually something that was worked out in a public forum with the Board of County Commissioners and the board of realtors. It essentially solved the problem with illegal signs in the right-of-way. The consultant's recommendation is it's content based. We've reviewed it with the county attorney and it's both staffs consensus that we keep this provision in the new code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that is one that came before this board not too long ago that we debated with the realtors expressing their concerns and we ended up with what we've got today, which is the recommendation to keep. Does anybody have any disagreement with that recommendation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like that one's good to go, Susan. MS. ISTENES: Okay. The next one on the matrix two, Page 9, Section 5.06.02(B)(6), directional signs within residential developments. I'm not sure, I think this has sort of been overcome by events, meaning the staff has discussed it. And we do have a recommendation. And the issue is that we -- that staff felt a need to clarify the maximum number of signs allowed within a residential development. The current code is silent on the issue. Our recommendation now is we don't care to regulate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's smart. Because Page 56 June 2, 2009 developments can be split up in so many different ways internally. How would you ever give each development a fair shake? So basically the reference where it says board decision, you're just going to recommend that -- continue as we are with no recommendation. MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody on the panel object to that as a solution? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: The next one is Page 6 and 11, Section 5.06.04(C)(5), permit numbers on signs. The consultant felt -- currently you're required to post the permit number, and I believe it's a little sticky thing that gets plastered on the back, usually on the back of a sign. The consultant felt it was content based. Regardless of that, that's actually a huge administrative nightmare if that information isn't on signs when code enforcement is going out, trying to figure out if a sign is lawfully permitted or not. It doesn't count towards the sign area, the permit number, and so we felt no reason really to remove it. And we've consulted with the county attorneys and their recommendation is as well to keep this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? MS. ISTENES: -- as-is in the current code. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. You have a minimum height of the lettering of a half-inch, right? Should we set up a maximum height? I mean, what if some idiot got designs at -- and I get in that idiot mood myself. So what if -- should there be a maximum height? I mean, we don't have that high assign that the code enforcement couldn't read it if it's -- I mean -- MS. ISTENES: For permit numbers? We're referring to permit Page 57 June 2, 2009 numbers here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MS. ISTENES: You want a maximum? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, there is no maximum. You're saying a half-inch minimum, but I wouldn't want somebody to make this huge either. I mean, that would be -- MS. ISTENES: We don't see the need. Do you, Diana, or any comments on that? MS. COMPAGNONE: I've seen a couple where they've maybe had them an inch. Probably the tallest I've seen is two. But when you do have a multi -story building and they run them underneath the channel letter to hide them, because it doesn't need to be visible for the general public, just when we're looking for it. Sometimes you need to go with a bigger number so that it's seen. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're saying a multi-story building up on the top floor, that sign has a number on it visible from the ground where somebody with binoculars trying to pick it up? MS. COMPAGNONE: That's how I do the inspection, with binoculars. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. You know. I fold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is everybody satisfied with keeping it as we have? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's a good -- Susan, next one? MS. ISTENES: The electronic signs, I --let me just back up a second here, because I don't have the notes I thought I had. I believe at this time, and we've discussed this with the attorney since this was published, I believe, what we're looking at doing is grandfathering in existing time and temperature signs with a recommendation to look at electronic signs during a regular sign evaluation code cycle, like I talked about earlier, and keep what -- the static electronic signs that are permitted now. Page 58 June 2, 2009 Did I restate that correctly? So that is our recommendation at this point. I think electronic signs open up a whole plethora of issues and regulatory concerns and requirements. And at this point we're just attempting to address the constitutional issues and not get into that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if I'm not mistaken, the consultant's recommending basically they be wide open. But that decision will come through further input on this subcommittee that you talked about possibly forming with, you know, interaction of the community. MS. ISTENES: Right. And that's at direction of the board. I don't want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MS. ISTENES: --leave you with the impression that I'm -- you know, there's this committee forming somewhere and sometime we're going to amend the sign code. That obviously is up to the board to direct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, but when we do amend the sign code, and that seems inevitable, the best way to do it is through a method where we can have interaction with the stakeholders that are involved in the business as well as the public. First in the sub-committee and then that coming forward as a recommend -- I think that would be a good move. MS. ISTENES: Correct. And another reason to kind of promote that too is as a -- you know, when this sign code is implemented, assuming it passes, there may be things that you notice or the public notices that they don't care for anymore as a result of this sign code or something that changes. I know we got into the -- we discussed earlier they can put anything on a sign as far as wording goes, as far as content goes. So maybe that's not a great example, because that's speech based. But I think the point I'm trying to make is every time you adopt a new ordinance there's changes in the community that people maybe Page 59 June 2, 2009 decide they don't care for anymore. And so give this -- my point is give this ordinance an opportunity to work and see what the results are of it, and then come back later and look at amending the sign code, based on that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any comments on this one? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: First of all, the code reference I think is incorrect. So is actually the one before that. What are you actually referencing? Which code section? The one you did reference is the one in -- MS. ISTENES: How about if I describe it this way: Anywhere the code requires permit numbers to be on signs -- MS. FABACHER: There's one in-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at -- MS. ISTENES: -- that's what we're after. Is that -- MS. FABACHER: We cited the commercial, not the residential. Page 6 is -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, 5.06.04(C)(7) is the one-half inch lettering, not the electronic sign. So I want to make sure, what section is that you're actually talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but I think by what we're -- our consensus is the issue, not the section. So you can -- MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whenever sections fall that have to be corrected based on the consensus on the issue, that's where it falls. That's how I was perceiving these. That's why I'm not paying too much attention to the section reference. MS. ISTENES: I would agree with that. And I apologize if these are misstated. MS. FABACHER: And excuse me, if I might also. You know, this was an evolving process. After we worked so hard on the matrices Page 60 June 2, 2009 we met again with the county attorney's office and moved things a little bit more. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the point now is that are electronic signs allowed, which range from LCD panels to I guess the time and temperature -- MS. ISTENES: Right now under the current code, time and temperature and the open signs. Am I missing anything, Diana? MS. COMP AGNONE: No, just the time and temperature. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, time and temperature. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With this passing, what would -- would you not -- remember the activated signs, the levels and all that? I mean -- MS. ISTENES: Correct, the suggestion is to grandfather in time and temperature. The open signs have been addressed already. And then we can leave the definitions for activated signs in, but we just won't have any text to implement them until the bigger issue of electronic signs is potentially addressed in a future sign code amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So the answer is they're not -- even though we have a definition, all the regulations are silent on activated. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I guess I have to understand something, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does that mean these people are now still prevented or precluded from coming and using their equipment here? MS. ISTENES: Any time and temperature sign that exists now would be -- lawfully permitted time and temperature sign that exists now would be, quote, grandfathered in. So it could stay until it was Page 61 June 2, 2009 removed or otherwise required to be removed by the code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe I didn't ask the question correctly. I was referring to the cause of the change of this code, that particular company. That since this was struck, are they precluded from coming here and -- MS. ISTENES: Are you -- I think you're asking a different question other than electronic. You're talking about the mobile billboards, which is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, except that I see in my mind's eye that there are electronic as well as those. We're going to see this plethora of variation. That's a little redundant, I think. But we're going to see variation in type and style and so forth and you're going to see mixture. So I think that has to be considered. And that's why I'm asking. Right now you're saying we're going to look at it in the future. We're going to take that up, right? MS. ISTENES: Right now I'm suggesting that's what be done. Because again, when it comes to sign codes and expanding the size, area, location, how you display a message, type, that gets in -- that really should be considered -- my professional recommendation is that really should be considered by a wide variety of stakeholders, including the general public, businesses. Realtors are typically interested, sign companies are obviously interested, attorneys are obviously interested. And that's essentially what I'm advocating as to how you address substantive holistic changes to the development standards of your sign code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I heard every word you said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff may have some help with this, Bob, if you want. MR. KLATZKOW: One approach we could take is simply at this point in time prohibit all electronic signs, grandfather the ones that are currently existing and then take the issue to the board and have the Page 62 June 2, 2009 public hearings and -- with the thought that down the road we would make the amendment. That's one approach we could take. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess it's for you to deal with. But I'm just curious then, if they won a case in the first instance, wouldn't they have the right to be able to run here, or is there some hiatus that there's -- MR. KLATZKOW: The issue that we had on the case has been taken care of in this code, the mobile electronic sign. The question now is the static electronic signs, what are we going to do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I hear what you're saying. It's just that it's been stated as electronic signs and that's where I was going with this. In the matrix it says electronic signs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and actually what I wouldn't mind, if somebody could actually give me the section, it really -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, we're going -- yeah, you guys are going to have to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Catherine, what is the section that should have referenced? Because I'm -- so essentially what we're saying is that after this gets adopted you cannot have electronic signs when -- MS. FABACHER: It's 5.06.04, large F.l, small f. And also, Commissioner, if you look on Page 20, Jeff -- the county attorneys helped us craft this language under prohibited signs. And it says, prohibited: Any sign not specifically permitted by this code shall be prohibited. So if we take any reference out -- I'm going to ask the county attorneys, but it would seem as though if we took any reference out it would be prohibited under this -- am I right, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: If the intent --let's just get it -- and I'm asking for direction from the Planning Commission, okay? My understanding is you'd like us to get together with the stakeholders and Page 63 June 2, 2009 sit through and hammer this out. That's going to take time. That might take a half a year by the time we're done with this. The issue is do we want to expressly prohibit electronic signs, grandfather the ones that are there until we actually get to that point? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That seems to be the safest way to approach it until we understand through a more study (sic) what the best way to implement electronic signs would be. I mean, if we leave it for a free-for-all, we could get things that we now are forced to grandfather in when we finally do adopt the ordinance. So maybe the safest cause is not to allow them, except those that are already existing as grandfathered. And then I think the staff suggestion is fine. I mean, I don't know if anybody has a concern over it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I don't have a concern. And I understand what you're saying. I'm just wondering, my unfortunate mind the way it works, but if I'm that company and I'm thinking okay, I went to court, they struck the ordinance and now they're prohibiting me once again from coming in and doing what I should lawfully be able to do. If you're comfortable that that's possible while we work this out, then I'm fine. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm comfortable. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I'm fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm still-- Catherine, what page is the reference you have on? You said it was 5.06.14, which -- MS. ISTENES: I think she said -- MS. FABACHER: Flf. MS. ISTENES: Flfunder 5.06.04. MS. COMPAGNONE: Page 13. Page 64 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Page 13? And it is Flf. MS. COMPAGNONE: Should be in red. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're saying is that on a pole or ground sign you can have a level one animated sign; is that right? MS. ISTENES: We're going to strike that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, what if somebody wanted to do a time and temperature tomorrow? He wouldn't be able to? MS. ISTENES: Correct. Well, tomorrow, yes, but if the board adopts this, we're suggesting, and it sounds like what you're endorsing as well, then they wouldn't afterwards, until further study. And I -- Jeff, correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, under legal issues I think that's usually pretty reasonable. If a court sees that a county or municipality is undertaking further study to address an issue, that seems to go a long way with leniency towards -- MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I think we're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, are you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, I think there's -- somewhere there's a consequence. But if I'm the only one that feels that way, it's not going to matter, is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a holding pattern is all we're suggesting now until more research gets done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We don't want to let this out of the gate without control, because we'll end up like International Drive in Orlando with these huge, bright -- MR. KLATZKOW: You can see that from an -- from the industry standpoint they're going to want to move towards electronic SIgns. From a county standpoint, it's an aesthetic issue. Do you want to look like, you know, Blade Runner, where everything's electronic and flashing and everything else. Or do you want to look more, I'll call it historical, where everything is just -- you know, looks like it was done Page 65 June 2, 2009 by hand. That's an aesthetic issue that's ultimately an issue for the community to decide what they want to look at. I'm just saying just put a stay on the issue for now until the community tells us this is what we want to do and get board direction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One final thought. Ifwe had -- if the Board of County Commissioners had approved PUDs or commercial enterprises such as banks and so forth that already had within their plans to put in time and temperature, they're typically the ones that do that, would they be precluded now from doing that? MS. ISTENES: I don't believe they would be. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would consider it under grandfather, myself, but I don't know. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the existing signage is obviously grandfathered. The question is if you have a vested right to put it up, would you be grandfathered? Probably. I don't know that we want to fight them on it at that point in time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to cover the bases so that we're open on it, we're not trying to do anything inappropriate. I see it as they would be entitled if it's already been in there, but I'm not the one that makes the decision. MS. ISTENES: You'd have to look at each case individually. But I would concur with Jeff, more than likely they would be vested. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the advice we've received from the County Attorney's Office and staff is to put this on hold until further research is available, with the exceptions that they've so noted in time and temperature and the open house signs are addressed in another area. Is everybody on this panel now accepting that consensus? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good with me. Page 66 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ISTENES: Okay, the next is Page 18. It's menu boards. The consultant's recommendation was to delete from the ordinance again referring to something as menu board use essentially are dictating what goes on the sign. The -- our recommendation is to keep them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: There are menu boards that are outside of restaurants and then there are menu boards at Burger King or whatever. They're all treated the same, correct? MS. ISTENES: This is referring to the menu boards on a drive-through. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which is -- okay, which is I see it can get wild. If the others are not included, that's by absolute definition here, or is that by our understanding of it? MS. ISTENES: Our understanding is my first gut response. But Diana deals more with that. I think what you're referring to is if somebody posts a menu in their window outside their entry door for a restaurant, you know, before you come in you can decide whether you want to come in based on their menu? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Some of them are even outside. MS. ISTENES: Oh, on a board, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And I just -- I wouldn't want to see those people, if they've already been authorized, to have a problem. I wondered, with the statement that is made here, these signs can be eliminated from code coverage by defining signs to include only those visible from streets and highways. Page 67 June 2, 2009 And yet those can be visible from streets and highways. They may not be obtrusive, but they can be visible. I just want to add that to the mix of thought. I agree with you on the gaud, you know, that can be there. It can become ridiculous. MS. ISTENES: I don't know that you're regulating people that post a menu on their window. But there's -- the board signs, typically called a sandwich board, would be allowed in this case. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That's where I was going. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on the menu boards? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we want to -- 1'11 just ask the question, is it the consensus of the board to keep staffs recommendation? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Susan, we're going to keep-- MS. ISTENES: Okay, the next is on Page 19, it's temporary signs. And 1'11 expand upon your matrix here, because we've discussed it since this was published, and 1'11 just offer a suggestion. I think the bigger issue here or the bigger -- the issue we were largely concerned with was political signs and the potential plethora of political signs that could come about in the community if they're not regulated. The issue that the consultant had with political signs was largely one of free speech. In other words, calling a political sign a political sign is essentially dictating what can go on the sign, you know, either the candidate or the issue. And that was my understanding. Page 68 June 2, 2009 What we'd like to do, and our suggestion is, and in conjunction with the discussions with Jeff Wright on this, obviously we can regulate the time, the place, the size and the number and the manner of the sign. But what we'd like to do is take the whole political sign section, put it in the special events or temporary use section. Keep all the standards, because like I said, we're not changing any of the standards. And then we're going to refer to the sign as one that refers to -- or one that refers to an election or a referendum and just sort of eliminate the words political sign and references to wording on political signs. And chime in if I'm missing anything, but that seemed to be adequate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, there is a question beyond the referenda and the actual election and so forth. There can be like these tea parties and things that come about, people wanting to have an issue addressed outside of a normal cycle of political activity. Are we going to impede that? MS. ISTENES: Well, they could still use their rights as a resident to post their own little sign on an issue, like if they supported the tea party issue or whatever. But this is geared mostly to those scheduled elections and referenda and any decision made by -- essentially by a voter. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now this applies-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's predicated on decision-making -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you were finished, I'm sorry. So this applies to political signs not on residential properties. Because on residential properties, you're allowed to have any sign you want that's noncommercial. MS. ISTENES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what this would control is Page 69 June 2, 2009 political signs at all the street corners, basically. MS. ISTENES: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or areas like that. And ironically those are put up by people who generally are looking for some future favor from the political candidates. Because I'm not -- very few of them are refused. And if you go to some corners, they're very prolific. Why don't we just ban them altogether? MS. ISTENES: Political signs? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't think that would fly in -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's -- going to a political season, to see all those signs it's just -- they're ridiculous. But I guess we can't get there, huh? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probably not. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Since they're voted on by politicians. MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's going a little beyond-- MS. ISTENES: Essentially all we're trying to do is just eliminate our reference to content-based signage and keep all the standards the same and just relocate them into the temporary use provisions. Because they are essentially temporary signs anyway. They're special events temporary use type of -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would -- if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would the -- because they're temporary use and that would suggest that there's a temporary period of time that's allocated to it. Those don't comport -- actually, a grand opening or a coming soon wouldn't necessarily have the same time frame or perhaps no time frame than a political or shall we sayan election might have. So how -- if we lump them together, then we'd have to break them apart again to define them. Page 70 June 2, 2009 MS. ISTENES: I will within the category. Because we've broken them -- we've broken various temporary events down within the overall umbrella of temporary events anyway. But the point is to try to avoid a content-based regulation. And so we're trying to keep what we have and not refer to them based on content. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that change seems reasonable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: To expand on that, and I forget, I remember reading it, but what is the length of time let's say after an election that the sign must come down? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Three days. MS. ISTENES: Seven days? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Was it seven? MS. ISTENES: Seven calendar days. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, because certainly the-- and I don't want to say -- the loser usually leaves them up forever, or for months. And what do you do? Does the county have to come and pick them up and do they charge the candidate then? MS. FABACHER: (Shakes head negatively.) COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so -- oh, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, just a question. Is there -- how do you control people allowing people to put temporary signs on your property and stuff? MS. COMPAGNONE: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, in other words, can anybody put a sign on your property? Specifically campaign signs are the -- how is that controlled? Because you couldn't get the permit or-- MS. ISTENES: Well, are you concerned about residentially, Page 71 June 2, 2009 your private property? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. MS. ISTENES: Currently the code says political campaign signs or posters within residentially zoned or used property shall not exceed four square feet in size. And then it gives a setback. Political signs within residential districts shall require written permission from the property owner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what section are you reading from? Because this again is -- MS. ISTENES: This is the old code section, 5.06.04(C)(12)(a). COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is the new code the same? MS. ISTENES: Well, that was why this is on the matrix, because we -- it was somewhat unresolved before we came here and published the matrix. And so everything would remain the same, we would just attempt to try to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the matrix doesn't reference the right section. What section should the matrix be referencing then? Is it 5.06.04(F)(9)? MS. COMPAGNONE: It's not in there at all. It's not in the working document at all, because we were going to move it to a separate section of the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get the speaker a little closer to you, Diane. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just looking at the temporary -- okay. MS. ISTENES: Yeah, the reference in there is for temporary sIgns. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it's actually for off-premises. But anyway -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the intent is to not remove the section for political signs from the code but just to replace it -- resection it and put it under a section of the temporary signs; is that Page 72 June 2, 2009 correct? MS. ISTENES: Yes, except as I'm telling you that, I'm reading that it's already under temporary signs. So I'm not sure what your intent was, Diana. What your -- you had suggested special events or temporary use? I'm not sure why-- MS. COMPAGNONE: It's actually in the sign code now. And then -- and we described some temporary signs where we have a section for temporary uses, and it described it. So we were just going to take these different events out of the sign code and put them back in the section and combine the section. MS. ISTENES: Okay. MS. COMPAGNONE: Where it should have been. MS. ISTENES: And so we're kind of focusing our discussion on political. But under our matrix, we're also identifying all the other sign type that comes under the temporary sign section, (C)(12). 5.06.04(C)(12). And your thoughts are to take -- do the same with all of these signs and put under a special events type section, is that correct, outside of the sign code? MS. FABACHER: (Nods head affirmatively.) MS. COMPAGNONE: The main-- MS. ISTENES: Catherine says yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But you guys are looking for a consensus from us today. MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- I'm confused as to what it is you're all asking for now, so -- you have a resolution collectively? MS. ISTENES: Honestly, I think it's more just of an internal organization issue that if you don't -- it doesn't sound like you have an objection to. We're just trying to make sure we aren't calling signage -- referring to it as content-based type of signage. That's all we're trying Page 73 June 2, 2009 to avoid. So if you're satisfied with us showing you the proposal, I assume we're going to come back on consent with this. I know we haven't discussed that yet, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: God, I was hoping you wouldn't. But anyway -- MS. ISTENES: Well, we don't have to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- too late. You opened a can of worms now. MS. ISTENES: Well, it's up for discussion. I did need to ask anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Dave goes on and starts up with Truly Nolan, I wanted -- my only concern on this was that you're not eliminating regulation for political signs. MS. ISTENES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was a big issue. Because they should be more regulated and not less regulated. David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Did I hear you say that you were going to move the political signs to another section other than the sign code? I would have an issue with that. I think it's got to certainly stay in the sign area. If someone's looking for it. I mean, whether it's double mentioned or something. MS. ISTENES: We could cross-reference. Would that be acceptable? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Something. I mean, it's a sign. And if someone has an issue with a political sign, where are they going to look? In the sign code. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: When you're finished. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm probably just as frustrated, Page 74 June 2, 2009 seemingly, as my contemporary is here. Temporary signs seem to belong in the sign code. So what was the basis for your not wanting to put them in the sign code? MS. ISTENES: Catherine will answer that. MS. FABACHER: Because they're content based. I think Jeff Wright mentioned that earlier, you can't really regulate something by content base unless there's a real compelling reason. And obviously we don't have that compelling reason. We're using the same language, and we're putting it in the section where you get the permit. MS. ISTENES: And I think the objective was to avoid possible litigation against the sign code in and of itself -- MS. FABACHER: Exactly. MS. ISTENES: -- by relocating it to a different section of the code. MS. FABACHER: Exactly. Because that was the law of the case. We were content-based. So our consultant advised us to move the content to other places where we could. And of course we would cross- reference. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you'd have to, actually, I would think. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Because of the temporary nature. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I guess -- I don't know, I'm confused, to be honest with you. I understand where I think you're going. But you were saying content-based. But an awful lot of the signage we discussed here is in fact content-based. It's -- I guess -- all right, the term we're using it, content-based. MS. ISTENES: It's hard to do, isn't it? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's hard to get your brain around it. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand it clearer Page 75 June 2, 2009 now. And it cannot be -- you feel it cannot be in the sign code because it then is -- it could be argued that it was some form of limitation on free speech. MS. ISTENES: That is what we were told. I'll look to Jeff ifhe has any comments different from that. MR. WRIGHT: I think what needs to be done is these various categories that we're going to spell out need to be presented to you. Let's say there's four of them, grand opening, political signs, coming soon and special events. We're not going to clump them all together. Because signs relating to an election are going to be treated differently from a time frame perspective than opening. But the trick is crafting language. For example, signs relating to an election is less content-based than political signs. So we would need to craft those categories in the language. And I would suggest, I think that we've gotten through most of this, but maybe the next time we bring this back we'll say all right, here is the temporary signs component of this effort. We have four categories and here's what we've come up with. We don't have that before you today, but I think that's what we need to have in order for you to actually make an informed decision. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just want to make sure that this last -- I'm focused on the right thing. The page that we're referring to is actually Page 17, number nine at the bottom. Is that what we're discussing? Not what's referenced. MS. FABACHER: Uh-hum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that's all we're dealing with here is just these temporary signs. Which can be for any reason they're limited in size. I mean, somebody could have a temporary sign just for the heck of it if they want, just to say happy birthday mom or Page 76 June 2, 2009 something and get a -- come in, isn't that right? Again, I'm looking at it in the nonresidential. I'm sure it shows up somewhere in the -- MS. ISTENES: Again, we're not regulating the content. So if somebody honestly wanted to put up their business sign and say happy birthday mom on it instead of their business name, they could do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there temporary signs in the residential? MS. ISTENES: Yes. Diana, you want to -- yes is the answer to that. But I'm not sure what the question is going to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, where is the question. MS. ISTENES: Where is what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the section in there that MS. ISTENES: The whole section that deals with temporary signs is 5.06.04(C)(12) in the old code. MS. FABACHER: That's in commercial. MS. COMP AGNONE: For the residential, it's on Page 9, number nine. Those signs that we gave them, the residentials, parcels six square feet and three foot in height to express their freedom of speech. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where do I get the impression that that's temporary, that I can't make a permanent one? MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure. I don't think it -- well, I know for a fact it doesn't require a temporary use permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. And it's not for a temporary sign, I mean. So what you're saying is I could go in, get that sign and take it down whenever I want, and thus I make it temporary. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't permit it as -- I mean, as far as you're concerned -- MS. ISTENES: We don't permit it as a temporary sign. I mean, Page 77 June 2, 2009 we don't issue a permit as a temporary sign. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For perpetuity, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a suggestion. Since this one is certainly not ready for the consensus of any kind, why don't we bring -- Susan, you alluded to the consent agenda, and I'm not sure we are in disagreement so far on anything -- on all the pages we went through and through all this matrix. So why don't we look at a consent agenda format and specify which items, and this being so far the only one I think that needs further clarification before we could sign off on it. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that -- Jeff, does that work? MR. WRIGHT: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that's okay with the panel, we'll just defer this temporary use for further clarification on a consent format. Go ahead, Catherine. MS. FABACHER: I think unless we say when we will continue it to, Mr. Strain, that we'll have to run another ad, unless you pick a board meeting -- a commission meeting date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's pick it for two days from now, because we've got absolutely nothing to do on Thursday. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can we do it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so the board members know, all the rest of the proj ects have been continued on Thursday, or they need to be at our meeting. So we're going to show up, continue everything and go home. MS. ISTENES: I just would hesitate that we may not have it done by then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just -- if you can't, that's fine. But I think that -- MS. ISTENES: Actually, I'm kind of confident we can, but I don't -- Page 78 June 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before this meeting's-- MS. ISTENES: I say that and then we run into difficulty. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before this meeting's over we'll get some dates from Susan and Joe and we'll peg another general meeting. Obviously it won't be the next one we have, because everything that was going to be on Thursday is continued until then, so we certainly don't want to do it on that Thursday. MS. ISTENES: Do you want me just to put it on consent and then you can pull it if you have discussions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For this coming Thursday? MS. ISTENES: For the next meeting date you decide. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that would be safer. Because I don't know how many of the items are going to come back on the second Thursday in June. Because the first Thursday in June is -- apparently there's been a substantial advertising error that's affected every one of the previously agenda'd (sic) topics. So this week we will have to meet to reconvene. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question is if you didn't have a quorum on that Thursday, this Thursday coming, you couldn't even continue it, could you? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's going to be -- it has to be continued. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It would be moot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's moot, probably. But I think we need to show up and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would show up. But I'm just thinking about what a shame that is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one thing, could we on Thursday's meeting discuss the dates? That way -- I don't have my calendar with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we've got to discuss them before we close today, unfortunately, because today's the advertised date. We Page 79 June 2, 2009 have to defer another date too, so -- but we could look at it on a regular Thursday, and then if we haven't got it together by then we can move it forward again, Brad. Let's move on to the barber poles. MS. ISTENES: Barber poles. Our recommendation is to pull this out of the sign code and put this in -- I believe it was the architectural provisions; is that correct, Catherine? MS. FABACHER: Yes, ma'am. MS. ISTENES: In other words, we're not going to call it a sign. This was a board directed item that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a good idea. Does anybody else have a problem with it? Mr. -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You're talking about the revolving -- okay. And are you going to cross-reference it so if someone thinks it's a sign? MS. ISTENES: I don't think so. We're just not going to call it a sIgn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everybody okay with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yep. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you got the consensus on that one. Then we're on to the back of the page, starting up on top with hand-held signs. MS. ISTENES: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Dancing hot dogs, tacos and -- MS. ISTENES: This is something we did introduce. Only because I felt compelled to recognize it as a professional, knowing that they are out there, they're becoming very prolific and we've gotten a lot of comments and concerns about them. Did I come to you with a solution? Yes, but it's open for discussion. Page 80 June 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your solution? MS. ISTENES: Page 22. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's your solution. Okay. I thought you had something else. MS. ISTENES: No. Is that the correct reference, Diana. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's a misnomer to call it a hand-held sign if you're inside a hot dog costume, but hey, what do I know? MS. ISTENES: Yeah, it's actually Page 20. I apologize. Under number 14. It's highlighted in red, hand-held signs. So that's where we are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a stab at it. I don't know if there's any suggestions here to do any better. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, Susan, isn't the danger is that the guy spinning the hot dog is one thing, but also that's the same as a protester with a sign on a pole. Isn't that the same creature? Is that a hand-held sign? So if you start regulating one without discussing content, you regulate the other. MS. ISTENES: Go ahead, Catherine, why don't you add your comment to the record. MS. F ABACHER: I'm sorry. It was our plan not to permit noncommercial signs, like support our troops or, you know, don't bail out GM. You know, it's personal freedom of speech. Now, when you're advertising, I think we can issue you a temporary use permit fairly, because it's a commercial endeavor. But when it's these other -- according to our consultant, when it's these other issues it's totally freedom of speech and freedom of expression. We're not going to go out and bust somebody for save our troops. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But in the definition of sign, are Page 81 June 2, 2009 they excluded? Or how would somebody know I don't have to get a permit to carry a protest sign? MS. ISTENES: Diana? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you're making the guy get a permit to carry a hot dog sign. MS. COMPAGNONE: We would be specifying it's just for noncommercial speech -- I mean for commercial speech. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So this is in commercial, therefore -- MS. COMP AGNONE: Save our troops would be noncommercial. They're not -- they are supporting the troops, but they're not trying to advertise a business or anything. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Now, remember, this is in noncon1ll1ercial zones. So in other words you say it's a commercial sign, but essentially it's restricted by what kind of a district it's in, zoning district. It's not restricted by what it's doing, right? It's development standards for signs in nonresidential districts. So why would I -- you know, carrying a protest sign around a residential street's different than carrying it in a nonresidential district. So isn't that what you're -- wouldn't that be a hand-held sign? You see what I'm saying, is I think we really should be clear that the noncommercial sign in the definition of signs is the best place to stop people from going any further. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could I add to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It just occurs, Joe's Restaurant says save our troops or whatever -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Buy a hot dog. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's making a free speech item a commercial, okay, if you want to construe it as such. I wouldn't necessarily. But in fact I think the perfect example Joe Schmitt has used, and I agree with him completely, is Perkins with the flag. I Page 82 June 2, 2009 mean, that's advertising. It's certainly the American flag and we should respect that, but it's advertising. So you've got kind of a quandary there, too, I think possibly. I don't know how significant this is as an issue. You folks do. Does it happen a lot? You said it's increasing, Susan. MS. ISTENES: Yeah. I mean, we're seeing both commercial and noncommercial messages. You'll see the advertisements for restaurants, for example, but you'll also see people holding out signs, apartments for rent, you know. And then the question is, is that commercial or noncommercial? Likely noncommercial. The law does, you know, provide different levels of protection for commercial versus noncommercial speech. So I think -- and I'm not speaking as a lawyer, but I think there's some protection there and we can distinguish between the two. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is a tough one because in our economic times a lot of people are driven to do things that are a little off the wall type of stuff for us. Maybe common in other areas. But they're just desperately trying to find a way to get some income. And of course our code has not -- you can't really relate to that period of time, it has to relate beyond that fact, right? MS. ISTENES: No, I -- yes and no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm glad you're clear on that. I was just as clear. MS. ISTENES: The point is, I mean, all of your land development codes are not static. They're always evolving, because the community is always evolving. And the priorities of the community are always changing as well. So yes, you always -- you have to look what's going on today and you definitely have to look what's going on tomorrow. So maybe 10 years from now people don't want to have hand-held signs, but for now they're out there and we thought we would just bring it up and see what you all thought about it and what your recommendation is. Page 83 June 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the question that staffs trying to ask is we don't have a lot of regulation on hand-held signs right now. They're offering some minimal regulation as a starting point. Do we want to go with that for now, or do we want to leave it like it is and do nothing? What's the consensus? Did you have anymore input, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, my concern was is regulating the protest sign. Your answer was it's not part of the code. But remember the code, because it's in a -- this is a noncommercial part of the code, but it's a noncommercial zoning district. In other words, it has to do with the zoning of the ground they're standing on, not the sign. So essentially they would have to get a permit to have a hand-held sign in a commercial district, the way this is written. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And how would you -- you know, how would you justify otherwise? And I don't think we want to permit that type of sign. MS. COMP AGNONE: Maybe we can put something in there that noncommercial messages don't require a permit, or fix that a little bit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you're back to the content, which is -- you know, you've had that in there and that's why we're taking it out, because you let somebody do something noncommercially that they can do commercially. So anyway, I think the way this is written in the commercial district you would have to have -- and is it prohibited in residential? MS. ISTENES: It's not addressed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the hot dog guy can go walking in and out of the streets in a residential neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Every Halloween they do, so -- Page 84 June 2, 2009 MR. KLATZKOW: This is a very problematic issue. I mean, if somebody wants to -- to get back to the tea party issue, if somebody wants to hold up a sign on the corner of Airport and 41, you know, with supporting this or not supporting that, we're not going to regulate that. And I think this really is a problem with the times. I mean, people are in desperate straits right now, and I don't know that you really want to look at an issue when you're in unique circumstances such as we are right now. I don't know that these hand-held signs are going to be an issue two, three years from now. I mean, I'm hoping that these unsold condos are sold two, three years from now and we won't have people holding these signs, and the apartments are rented and, you know, the stores are filled with customers. And with the economic prosperity that will hopefully come back, the issue will be addressed. I don't know if you want to be punitive on this issue. MS. ISTENES: I mean, your recommendation could be just don't address it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then if the code's silent on it, what does that give us? That means there's no control at all for it. And one thing, you know, there's the protest guy on one side, but then there's the guy like you see in California who's on the corner spinning the sign. I mean, he's not regulated either then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just continuing on that, where I was going with my thinking when you responded to me, when you first made the statement that they are becoming more prolific, I saw that as a longer term trend than what we have as a current economic condition. Was I in error in interpreting your statement? MS. ISTENES: I think it's subjective. I think, you know -- well, no, not necessarily. Page 85 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I would certainly-- given our economic times, and if you have a minimal amount of control over it, and I agree with Jeff, we're not going to likely see this two years from now, Lord willing, that we don't have to make more of it than it needs to be. I would be okay with a minimal, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As recommended by staff so far, you mean? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I think so. I think that works for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see what it hurts. I agree with you, Mr. Murray. It's better than nothing. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the question then becomes is do we really need to permit it? I mean, do you need to come into CDS to get a permit for a dancing hot dog for a day? Is that something we want to go -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we need a permit for it, but I think if we have a regulation that restricts the quantity of them in any particular time, that's useable. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the rest of you? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm -- see, because they say 72 square foot is too big for two hand-held signs. But I don't know how that's interpretable relative to a dancing hot dog. And this is very difficult to really try to see where it can be. I don't know that it needs to be per se regulated, but if it's not to be regulated, then why have it in the code? That's where my confusion IS. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, could staff -- you've witnessed the discussion here today. Could you come back on the consent -- this would be another item to add to it with a little bit firmer suggestion based on more input from the County Attorney's Office as to how to resolve this? Because if we're confused and we send it on to them upn Page 86 June 2, 2009 ahead of us, it's still going to get more discussion there, so it might be better to have a better language than what we're looking at. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Susan, this is on the silent issue. If you look at prohibited signs, number five says that any sign not in conformance with the requirements, and then states the sections in which we have requirements, and then the nonconforming. So essentially the thought that if it's silent on it it's not in conformance with the requirements, thus it's prohibited. MS. ISTENES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the hot dog guy is prohibited in a residential, because it is silent. In other words, they can't meet the requirements. MS. ISTENES: If you're going to remove any reference to hand-held signs in the code, then if it's not in there it's prohibited, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so you'll bring that back to us? MS. ISTENES: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next one is the exemption from these regulations. MS. ISTENES: Okay, sorry, I was just taking notes. Catherine, are you on that page? MS. FABACHER: Yes, ma'am. It's on Page 20, Section 5.06.05, exemptions from these regulations. I believe Jeff Wright had pointed out earlier that the major problems with our sign code that we got struck down were that we had all these exemptions by content and all of these prohibitions by content. So that's why we tried to get rid of all of the names. And the exemptions are only signs that are authorized to be displayed by law, Page 87 June 2, 2009 by governmental order, rule or regulation. Anything that a law requires you to, you know, post. If they require you to post a no trespassing, if it's a federal-- state statute or something. And the only other thing is reasonable repairs and maintenance, which we've defined. MS. ISTENES: What is our concern with that? Why is it in this matrix? I want to be sure the board understands. MS. FABACHER: Matrix. MS. ISTENES: Diana, do you want to jump in? MS. COMPAGNONE: Some of the things listed in the current sign code under exempt we can't -- we're having a very hard time addressing because they're so content based. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're only talking about what you're proposing in the current code, right? And you're only proposing two things. MS. COMPAGNONE: Well, there were concerns that came up. Today we consider religious displays, like crosses at churches and whatnot, exempt from the code and they're not considered signage. According to this code you can't say religious displays, because that's content based. So it's something that we have currently but can't necessarily fit it into this working draft in such a way without the content to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Being discovered. MS. COMPAGNONE: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're in a circle on that one for sure. MS. COMPAGNONE: That's why we brought it to your attention. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what is it you're trying to ask us? If you've written the new code that we have in front of us today with the exemptions that are there, you're simply explaining to us how they Page 88 June 2, 2009 mayor may not apply, depending on what comes down in the future. You really can't regulate religious based items. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if you don't state -- MS. COMPAGNONE: Like unintending consequences. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if you don't state something, as I interpret it, if you don't state something in a prescriptive code, it's not allowed. MS. ISTENES: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would cause basically a real problem, I suspect. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why would you consider it a sign? In other words, if somebody puts a manger scene in front of the church, where does (sic) the concept that this might be a sign? Maybe that's a good example, Jeff, to get rid of the word representation and say with presentation. Because somebody would argue you're representing the birth. But why does it get drawn into the sign? Because if it does get drawn into the sign and it's not mentioned there it is prohibited. So why would it wind up there to begin with? MS. COMPAGNONE: Well, you could still do it on the sign, but it would then count as part of their sign copy. I mean, it really is -- that's why in today's code it's considered exempt. Where if we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Specific. MS. COMPAGNONE: Specifically, correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And we're not allowed to be specific on an issue, because that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we exempt those issues provided by the United States Constitution? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thanks, Mark. Appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, well, that just falls back on case law and that's what the attorneys thrive on. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Give us another two -- Page 89 June 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How's that, Jeff? MS. FABACHER: I won't have that in two days. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm going to tell you, it's going to be different five years from now, that I can guarantee you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Brad, if I may, you could have a sign, a commercial property owner might put out a sign John 3:16. Now, that's on a commercial property and it's in addition to their signage. No? Well, that's religious in nature to those who understand that. And then if a code enforcement officer were to come along or yourself and you say well, wait a minute, you already have all your sign allocation, now what do you do? I guess that's why you're here. MS. ISTENES: The difficult -- yes. And you've hit on the difficulty we're having. I put up there just a sampling of some of the ones that are exempt so you have an idea. And I think honestly they've sort of evolved over time, based on what people do. They put up memorial plaques, they put up historical tablets, they put up no trespassing signs, they put up no dumping signs. And so over the years this list has kind of been added to as those signs that are exempt from the requirements. N ow calling them a no trespassing sign or calling them a no dumping sign is content-based and is discriminatory and we can't include them. So we're in a bit of a pickle ourselves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Susan, you may have already resolved it. Under exemptions you have A, signs authorized to be displayed by law or by governmental order, rule or regulation. That covers religious signs. They're authorized by our constitution. So what do we need to expand on that anymore for? MS. ISTENES: Are you suggesting that maybe staff could use that provision to look at a sign that might fall under that category and then make an administrative determination that -- Page 90 June 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ISTENES: -- it would apply under that case? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And if you had a law question, you'd turn to the County Attorney's Office and it all gets handled that way. MS. ISTENES: I'd be willing to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says by law or governmental order, rule or regulation. And I think the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all the other things we have in the country are covered by one of those. MS. ISTENES: I'd be willing to start doing that and we'll see how it goes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would -- although well intended, I'm certain, I would -- my recollection of it is the government shall make no law concerning -- I'm using concerning, it's not the right word -- the establishment of religion or therefore the maintenance of religion, so I think it's silent then, intentionally silent on the matters of religion. So -- MS. ISTENES: Jeff, are you comfortable with an administration decision under that provision? MR. KLATZKOW: Nobody cares about a reasonable crucifix. If somebody wants to put up a 100- foot crucifix on their property, that might be an issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That happened. MR. KLATZKOW: I know that happens. I know that happens. So in the everyday world this is not an issue. In the extraordinary situation, we're going to have to sit down and figure out what we're going to do. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm a practical person, I'd go along with you on that. Let's not worry about it then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd just as soon we leave the exemptions as staff has recommended them and let's see how it flies. Everybody Page 91 June 2, 2009 okay with that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, fine. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on to the second to the last one. It's prohibited -- well, exemptions and prohibited. I guess we're now under prohibited signs. Is there any -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Neon, beacon. MS. ISTENES: Page -- oh, boy, let's see. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Principal there is spelled A-L. MS. ISTENES: Catherine, do you want to jump in on that and explain that? MS. FABACHER: Okay. MS. ISTENES: I think you can better than me. MS. FABACHER: Sure. MS. ISTENES: Or Diana. MS. FABACHER: We're not really prohibiting them by their content, we're prohibiting them by their sign type. A snipe sign is defined up front, and it doesn't have anything to do with the content, it simply has to do with something that we call that's illegally placed there. Also you can put permanent signs in the county right-of-ways, but not without a right-of-way permit. So we feel pretty safe on that one. Portable signs, that's a type, not content based. And then roof SIgns. And then the last one was anything that's not in conformance with the major sections of the sign code there. You see 5.06.00 to 5.06.05, that's the regular code. And then 5.06.09 is where we're adding the nonconforming provisions. Is that what you needed, or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's a human directional sign? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I was wondering. Page 92 June 2, 2009 MS. COMPAGNONE: Your dancing hot dog. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only ifhe points, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, when he points. MS. COMP AGNONE: Depends on what kind of dog he is. No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You'd have to defer to the attorneys on that one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, wouldn't this be smart to maybe pull some of this stuff into the architectural standards? I mean, if we don't allow neon, beacon lights. MS. ISTENES: We talked about that yesterday. That is a possibility, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be the smartest thing is to take it out as a prohibitive element. It has nothing to do with signs, has nothing to do with speech. It has to do with pure aesthetics. MS. ISTENES: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you look at that and come back to us -- MS. ISTENES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- on that one? MS. ISTENES: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: That's a good approach. MS. ISTENES: Okay. And the last one, actually we've resolved this. I'm not sure why this is in here. If you go to Page 25, the purpose of this was again to recommend -- on recommendation of our consultant to comply with the timely requirement to consider permits or variances to the sign code in a timely manner. And we believe we've done that by implementing the 60-day requirement to have a decision 60 days after you all recommend your recommendation -- or give your recommendation. Page 93 June 2, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you're going to modify that now to be consistent with the Florida Building Code that Joe -- MS. ISTENES: That was on the issuance ofa permit. Yes, this is for a variance. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you resolved it. Anybody have any problem with the resolution? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: None. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Susan, I think what this boils down to is there's three areas that are going to come back on a future date. One will be a discussion of temporary use permits, the other was hand-held, and the other is a look at the prohibition signs and moving those to the architectural criteria. MS. ISTENES: That's what my notes say as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that in agreement with everybody on this panel? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fine for me. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One other thing that hasn't been mentioned, or at least I'd like to know where in the sign ordinance it falls, is this allowance that I feel is dangerous and wrong is in the median sales that we have popping up sporadically in the county. Why do we allow median sales and public right-of-ways these people are -- first of all, they're dangering themselves. I think it's real difficult for the public and the traffic to move forward when you've got people banging on your windshield wanting to sell you something or asking you to donate. Why do we allow that and how is that fitting in the sign ordinance? MS. ISTENES: I think that's in the codes of laws and ordinances. Are you talking about like the collection of money? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's one of them. I've seen different Page 94 June 2, 2009 types. MS. ISTENES: Roadside sales in and of themselves, like if a vendor pulls off -- are not permitted in the county. But now I think that I'm listening to your question, I think that has to do -- and I think that's in the code of laws and ordinances. It's not addressed-- MR. KLATZKOW: It's not in the sign code. MS. ISTENES: -- in the sign code. MR. KLATZKOW: Susan's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when they go around carrying a sign for this donation, it's not a sign issue? MS. ISTENES: Right. I believe that -- my rec -- I'd have to look into it, but my recollection is that's all part of the -- MR. KLATZKOW: We had a special-- I don't remember it, Commissioner, but we did a special ordinance. I know like the boot drive would fall under it that the firemen do for Memorial Day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I thought I'd find out. And this isn't the forum for it. Now, before we move into any future dates, I'd like to ask, are there any comments from the audience before we start looking at a date to discuss the three issues remaining? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Susan, I would suggest that we add it to a consent agenda format the second Thursday in June, pending how many issues we have that day. And the reason I'm saying that is because we've had this entire week postponed till possibly then, plus whatever would have been on that date regularly. So I'm not sure that we can fit that day in. How do we do that at this meeting, knowing that we've got to have a date certain to continue to? MS. ISTENES: Catherine has a-- MS. FABACHER: Yeah. I suggest that we do. And if we need to continue it again, Mr. Chair, we have five weeks on the ad which ran Page 95 June 2, 2009 on the 17th of May, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, does that work for everybody? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What was the date again? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing is that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second Thursday. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second meeting. MS. F ABACHER: 18th, June 18th. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: June 18th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. It would be June 18th would be our second meeting in June. Mr. Schiffer had the floor. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure the consent agenda is the appropriate thing. Because essentially the consent agenda doesn't give us room to change, debate things. It's just a matter to recollect whether our wording is what we meant in the actual hearing. So I would rather have another hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just continue it -- let's continue further discussion of this till the 18th. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? Then we'll add it to the -- now, do we have to have a time certain? Okay, time certain for 8:30 in the morning on June 18th. It will be the first thing up on the agenda. With the caveat that if the agenda is overly packed we'll have to announce a further continuance and a new date at that time. And Joe, I guess we'll have to see what happens with all the continuances. Now, back to that other issue of the continuances. I was informed this morning that the three items that we have on today's agenda had an advertising glitch. We apparently used a new company. Something got messed up in the way the notifications were sent out. And that to be safe, those three items need to be continued. So in essence this Thursday we do not have any hearings that Page 96 June 2, 2009 will actually be heard. But we have to convene because it was advertised so that we can announce the continuances and then close the meeting. So we still need a quorum, everybody needs to show up, but it will be a very, very short meeting. Is there any -- Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I would just suggest to make sure that our commissioner from Immokalee is notified about that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Susan or Joe, that would be a good point. Can you call up Paul Midney and let him notice this circumstance so that -- I hate to see him drive in for just that one thing. MR. KLATZKOW: I hate to see you guys drive in just to drive away. That sounds kind of silly. I mean, at the end of the day if you didn't have a quorum, we'd have to continue it anyway. Mark, if you just show up just to make the public announcement CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd be glad to do that. MR. SCHMITT: I was going to ask the same thing, do we need a quorum? And I-- MR. KLATZKOW: You know what? Let's-- MR. SCHMITT: It is a meeting. Even if we don't have a quorum, it would be continued. So it's just a matter of formally announcIng -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then 1'11 show up and-- MR. SCHMITT: -- going on the air, announcing a continuance and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, it's on my agenda. 1'11 show up at 8:30 in the morning. And then actually what I'll do is 1'11 vote on all the subjects myself and say, we're done. MR. SCHMITT: Is there anything we can debate while you're the only one here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. Page 97 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just for edification here, we're here now. It may be a special meeting, but we're aware of that fact. Could we not do that now? MR. KLA TZKOW: You can agree right now to continue to a date certain, and then Mark can make that announcement Thursday. MR. SCHMITT: But I think we still have to meet Thursday because it was advertised in the paper correctly and there was a public notice. It was the notices that went to the surrounding residences that were not sent out in a timely manner. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we know we're going to continue it. MR. SCHMITT: Right. But I still have to have someone here. We still have to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To do it officially. MR. SCHMITT: -- publicly officially continue the meeting on Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a problem. I go right by here every day anyway. MR. SCHMITT: So it's a matter of yes, you can do that. Those who are listening now certainly are now aware of it. But I think the legal issue -- MR. KLATZKOW: Why don't we just -- you can make a motion now to continue to a date certain, whenever date you think is appropriate. And then Mark, Thursday you can make the announcement. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That makes sense. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we're primarily dealing with the items that were advertised for Thursday, which is for the conditional uses. Margood -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have three cases on Thursday. One will be the -- the two are involving the Margood Park on Goodlette and one is involving St. Monica's Church on Immokalee Road. Page 98 June 2, 2009 I guess then we're looking for a motion that we will allow these items to be continued at the -- to the next time -- next date convenient for the advertising -- meeting the advertising needs for staff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And 1'11 announce that motion on Thursday's meeting when I get there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And then please get an e-mail out so that Paul sees it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think everybody on the Planning Commission, especially those that aren't here, need to be notified not to come in on Thursday. And we'll take care of it that way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, my question was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- how about the general public, is there any way we can notify them to prevent them from coming in? MR. KLATZKOW: We'll put it on the website. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the two issues we had weren't very controversial. In fact, just the opposite. Although there were a lot Page 99 June 2, 2009 of questions on them from this panel, I would assume. But I know that they weren't -- they didn't seem to have that much of a neighborhood informational meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Susan, if anybody wrote a letter in or objected, I think make sure they're notified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You could also put it on the TV, the county TV. MR. KLATZKOW: What channel is it on these days? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 97. MR. KLATZKOW: 97. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: If you can see it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They could put a crawler on there and that would provide information to folks that the Planning Commission meeting has been continued. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: That's I.T.'s deal. You can't read the screen, never mind crawler. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For today -- I think we finished our business for today? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- made the motion. Seconded by Commissioner W oltley. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. Page 100 June 2, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're out of here -- actually we're continued. MS. FABACHER: We're continued to the 18th. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But we're out of here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're adjourned for today and continued to the 18th. ***** Page 101 June 2, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:27 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 102