Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/05/2000 S (LDC Amendments)January 5, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 5:05 LDC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, January 5, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter Michael McNees, Acting County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Wednesday, January 5, 2000 5:05 p.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA 1TEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO' BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRWOMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS: SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT: SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: ARTICLE 2, ZONING, DMSION 2.1. GENERAL; DIVISION 2.2. ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, DIVISION 2.3. OFF-STREET PARKING AND 1 December 15, 1999 DIVISION 3.9. VEGETATION REMoVAL~ PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION; ARTICLE 6, DMSION 6.3. DEFINmoNs, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS OF MONUMENT SIGN, BEACON LIGHT, ROADSIDE SALES AND RIPARIAN LINE; APPENDIX B, TYPICAL ROAD CROSS-SECTIONS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE 3. ADJOURN LOADING; DIVISION 2.4. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING; DIVISION 2.5. SIGNS; DIVISION 2.6. SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 3, DMSION 3.2. SUBDIVISION, S; DMSION 3.4. EXPLOSIVES; DIVISION 3.9. VEGETATION REMOVAL, PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION; ARTICLE 6, DMSION 6.3. DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS OF MONUMENT SIGN, BEACON LIGHT, ROADSIDE SALES AND RIPARIAN LINE; APPENDIX B, TYPICAL ROAD CROSS-SECTIONS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE 3. ADJOURN 2 December 15, 1999 January 5, 2000 Item #2 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - CONTINUED TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2000 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I will call the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to order for Wednesday, January 5th, 2000. It's 5:05. If you will stand for the pledge of allegiance, we'll get started thereafter. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we get started, I've got a question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know when the President does the State of the Union address, they leave one guy back at the White House in case something were to happen. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You want to volunteer for that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am thinking about leaving. No. I just want to know who is going to run the banking industry COMMISSIONER BERRY: When they are all here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE -- if anything happens here tonight. MR. RICHTER: After five o'clock, we close. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bankers' hours. Your favorite, right? If it's acceptable to the rest of the Board -- first of all, let me apologize for the way I sound. It's the married voice, I guess. I understand from Mr. Nino that we have several other very, very quick items that we could go through and then he would be able to release a great number of staff people who are here. If we could spend five minutes doing that, then we'll move to the item that's everybody concern, which I think is the sign ordinance. Can you get us through that, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. The suggestion was that -- inasmuch as staff, over the last three months of this process, including your first public hearing, have had no expressions of concern on other elements that are proposed for change, with the exception of the sign ordinance, that the meeting be open to see if there is anyone in the audience who has a concern with respect to an item other than signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would say that a lot shorter. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on an item, other than signage changes? If so, raise your hand and come forward now so we can find out what that item is. Every single soul in the room here to talk about signage. Okay. Thanks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that on the agenda for tonight? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. I am afraid so. MR. NINO: As a result of your last meeting, you instructed staff to make certain modifications to the sign provisions. And -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ron, let me just pause you for a second Page 2 January 5, 2000 though. Are there any other items that you have staff people in the room that need to talk about or have we taken care of those now? MR. NINO: We have taken care of those. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right. I just needed to be sure we didn't make anybody sit around on the payroll. MR. NINO: Thank you. Chahram Badamtchian, of course, has been diligently working on those modifications since your last meeting. And I'm going to ask Chahram to lead us in the discussion of what amendments have transpired since the last meeting. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Lead us in prayer, Chahram. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By the way, is it true that the top answer for the renaming of 951 was Badamtchian Parkway? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It was Max Hasse Memorial Parkway. Good evening, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. As you recall, three weeks ago we were here proposing to amend our sign code. And this was due to the efforts of the committee chaired by Commissioner Carter which, over several months, decided to come up with some kind of sign code that would better reflect Collier County's character. And we were here last time -- and I'm not -- I don't want to go over what we did last time because you all know. We spent three hours talking about it. At the last hearing you had some suggestions and we decided to amend the code to reflect those suggestions. One from Commissioner Berry -- the first one -- was to limit the number of signs on construction sites to a real estate sign and a construction sign and not to allow 10 or 15 or 20 signs -- one for the bank, one for electrical contractor, et cetera, et cetera. So what we did -- I took what we had done a few years for the City of Marco Island when it wasn't an incorporated city. They had their own sign code and basically I copied that verbatim, except the size was really small in the City of Marco Island. I kept the size that we have here. And that's why you had this letter to the editor today in the paper from subcontractors saying let's work together to come up with a better sign code. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did they have input, Chahram, when you went through the Marco process? With the Marco process. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: With the Marco process Bob Mulhere was the head man on that. I don't know if contractor had any input. I met with several subcontractors, but basically they didn't want to give up what they had. They had the four square feet sign and they were installing larger sign than that and they were not happy about giving that up. We suggested maybe they should share the sign with the general contractor, but the question was how they are going to do that. And I don't think staff or the Board should sit and decide who is going to get how many square feet of what sign. There is a construction site, there is a sign, and they decide what they want to do with it and not the County staff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that what's in the draft? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically the draft is saying the copy on the Page 3 January 5, 2000 construction sign shall be limited to the name and phone number of the developer, architect, plannin9 and engineerin9 firm, financial institution, contractor and subcontractors. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Subcontractors. All of them? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Ail of them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the maximum size of that sign is what? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: For projects larger than ten acres, 64 square feet. And for between one acre and ten acres is 32 square feet. In projects -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. You've got to say that again for me. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Property between one and ten acres the size is 32 square feet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And expect to get this a lot tonight, guys. I'm sorry. How big is that -- how many square feet is that? COMMISSIONER BERRY: We're all familiar with political signs. What is the -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Political sign is 40 square feet. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Forty? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So 32 and 64? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's pretty darn big. Those political signs are pretty darn big. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, a sheet of plywood is four feet by eight feet. So that is 32. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: A sheet of plywood is 32 square feet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I just need a frame of reference. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that consistent with Marco Island now? Bob, you worked on that issue down there. Are we -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Theirs is smaller. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Marco Island the size -- the maximum size, I believe, was 12 square feet. MR. MULHERE. For the record, Bob Mulhere, Planning Director. Two things. To answer your question, Commissioner Mac'Kie, we did work with the construction development industry on Marco, but, of course, it's a much smaller scale. There are relatively few large parcels left for development on Marco and there were at the time, as well. And at that point the community was very much in favor of reducing those signs. And so we had accord with the development community and construction community, I guess, as much as you could say. There was really no opposition. And, yes, it is -- Chahram is correct. The size is restricted. It's 12 square feet as a maximum down there. Again, there are very few larger parcels vacant and open to development at this point in time down there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the proposal from staff is 32 or 64, depending on the size of the construction project, but that everybody's name is to be included on that sign. It is up to them to Page 4 January 5, 2000 decide among them whose name goes where. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Where and how much space it takes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How would the Board feel about hearing from the subcontractor industry on that issue first? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would hope that -- I would hope that, first off, when this is decided, whatever is decided, that they would get input from the subcontractors. I believe that was the direction that was given. Ms. Curatolo stood up here before and, I believe, that was the assurance that we gave them the last time that they were here. MS. CURATOLO: We did meet with you guys. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. So there was a meeting. Did they support or object to the proposal? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. They are objecting to that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Shall we hear from their representative at this point to at least frame the issue for us? Because I don't know what the objection is. Would you, please. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I want it made perfectly clear the idea was not to take away the idea of advertising, but it was some way to neaten up a construction site so we don't have signs -- little itty-bitty signs, great big huge signs, one in front of the other, all over the place. When you drive down Pine Ridge Road currently where this is taking place, you're driving down a corridor of signage. It just -- it doesn't look real good. So if you all can solve the problem for us. MS. CURATOLO: I don't know that I can solve it, but I can certainly give you some input from -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For the record. MS. CURATOLO: -- numerous specialty contractors in this community. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For the record, your name. MS. CURATOLO: For the record, Kathy Curatolo, American Specialty Contractors of Florida. What I did after the last meeting was to sit down with several groups of specialty contractors who are members of our association. Electricians, plumbers, masons, on and on and on. We held several focus group sessions specifically relating to signs and why signs are needed at sites. So let me share with you what their response was. First and foremost, they believe that individual signs have to do with a safety issue. That is, should an accident occur the individual company sign is critically important to EMS when determining location, as a construction site has no address. What specialty contractors felt that if there was a serious accident and a call was placed to EMS, that the individual would give the name of the company that they're working for, not necessarily the name of the general contractor, the architect, or the developer. So there were great concerns about safety issues, particularly among those companies who have employees that speak very little English. They may only know to give the name of their own company to EMS. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chahram, did you get any input from EMS? Page 5 January 5, 2000 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, I did not. But the question was if there is an accident and they are calling EMS, are they going to say, "I'm working for such and such a company," or are they going to say, "I am on Pine Ridge Road on development called Carlton Lakes"? I don't know. Just give a name. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, point received. Thank you. MS. CURATOLO: Okay. The second issue that came up is supply trucks for specialty contractors use company signs to identify a correct location. They were concerned that they have individual signs, particularly companies in the masonry industry who have large trucks delivering blocks. Again, they may be given a corner address or a location, but they are looking for the name of the masonry company. And that driver may not have the name, again, of the developer or the general contractor. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did your people understand that they were talking about including their names on the sign? MS. CURATOLO: I will get to that. Specialty contractors also stated that signs are used by employees to identify construction sites on their first day. Now, what you must understand is there could be 40 to 50 specialty contractors at a given site. These specialty contractors do not begin on day one and end their work on day 70, for example. So that during a period of 70 days there may be 50 different specialty contractors; some on the job for two days, some on the job for 30 days, some on the job for 60 days. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I am going to get to that point. I am going to ask you -- we didn't turn the timer on because you're speaking for a great group, but I would ask you -- we understand that point. Again, that seems to be something that could be addressed by additions and deletions to the sign. MS. CURATOLO: Okay. If there is one sign and that sign is being taken down and put back up every time a specialty contractor comes on the job, what happens when that sign is down and EMS comes or there is a truck delivery or there are specialty contractor employees who come to a job site and don't see any sign on that site? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you have other points? So far I think those are all -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question though. What happens when you have -- if you have -- you said 40 to 50 specialty contractors. Do they all police all these individuals signs? If they leave after two days, do they go out and pull up their sign and take it with them? MS. CURATOLO: Yes. MR. HAYES: The general contractor does. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The general contractor does? So it could be there on Monday and if he's only there Monday and Tuesday, on Wednesday the GC goes out and pulls that up so they know they're gone. MR. HAYES: For the record, I'm Gary Hayes. I'm the president of the American Specialty Contractors Association. No, not necessarily so. That specialty contractor that is on that job may be on that job Page 6 January 5, 2000 in the very beginnin9. For example, in my business I'm a plumbing contractor. I'm not on the job through a lot after the first few weeks on the job. I'm gone. I've done a rough. My sign stays on the site. So the contractor will allow me to leave that sign there, even though I'm not present on the site until the next phase of construction. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand, Gary. I know exactly what you're saying. But you're not making a good case then for the fact of deliveries and using this as a reason to keep that sign there. MR. HAYES: Let me try. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I know what you're doing. Let's face it. The reason you're leaving that sign there is for people to see that Gary Hayes -- whatever your company is -- did the plumbing work here. I'm not opposed to that kind of thing, but you can't use these other things as excuses. I mean, let's face it. The thing you want -- I don't blame you. This is your business. You want the public to know that this is what you do and that you had a part in this particular project. There is nothing bad about that. MS. CURATOLO: Not at all. COMMISSIONER BERRY: All I'm asking is that we have some kind of a way -- kind of a uniform way to display this so it's just -- if we get a wind storm through here -- and all of us have driven down the roadways after we've had these little whirly-gigs wheel through and you guys have to come back out there and you have to put those signs up. And many times you don't get out there and get it done. It looks like a mess. MR. HAYES: Well, I agree. But we have the same problem when we have a local election. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I know. MR. HAYES: The signs get blown around regularly. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And these ordinances -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: They apply to us, too. They apply to us, too. (Applause.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me. We added that. Just so you know, we added that. At the same time we added the discussion of contractors, we added that this will all apply to political signs and limit them, as well. MR. HAYES: Yeah. But you didn't say that you all had to be on the same sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How about we prohibit political signs? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Why don't we just prohibit them? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I will do that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It would save me a lot of money. MR. HAYES: To be real honest, what I'm trying to get at here is -- the suggestion you're perhaps looking for. If you're looking at a directory downstairs when you come in this building and you've got enough time to stand out in the hallway traffic and stare at it, you Page 7 January 5, 2000 can find out what floor this meetin9 is on. Because it's kind of small and it's all cramped onto one sign. Now, you're riding down the road and you're looking for something, you don't have enough time to sit there in that traffic and watch that -- read that directory. And that's exactly what these four by eight signs are going to be is a directory. CEAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other communities have dealt with this. Other communities have dealt with this problem. MR. HAYES: That have had not near the construction volume that we have today. Later down the road when our construction volume settles down, we might be able to comply with some of these other people. Now, if we take a specific site -- spot on the site and designate that for signage, wouldn't that, in effect, basically keep it all in one at least policed area? COMMISSIONER BERRY: It would be better. MR. HAYES: As opposed to -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Madam Chair, this is the exact point. This is ought to be being worked out. And that's the reason I really hesitate to get any further into this because you all need to sit down and work on it. You know what our desires our. I would rather you all go work on it, get your heads together and figure out a way to come up with this. Because this represents your industry, as well. MR. HAYES: Coincidentally, Commissioner Berry, that was exactly my recommendation to you today before I finished up was allow us some time to study this a little bit. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Go do it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gary, can I ask one just practical question? And I'm generally asking this of you. When I stop and look at the little menu downstairs to figure out who is on what page, it's one thing. Who is it that's stopping at a construction site or driving by a construction site to see who is doing the plumbing? MR. HAYES: Suppliers are the big ones. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You missed that at the beginning. MR. HAYES: That will be your biggest one. There are others I'm sure, but the suppliers will be the biggest one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As far as I'm concerned, this was -- is a really good catch that I wish had been worked through the process that Commissioner Carter has been so diligently pursuing. But, in fact, it is something we added on a couple of weeks ago. If you all will commit to work hard and come up with a good proposal, I'll support delaying it until the next round. MR. HAYES: Count me in. MS. CURATOLO: We would be happy to engage our members in that process. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree with that. This was not part of the original commercial sign issues that we were dealing with. And I know you need some time to work through this. Maybe in the interim, if we go back and look at what the LDC currently says you need to do Page 8 January 5, 2000 on these sites. If you all as an industry will help us police that, we may find that we may not have a great deal of things that we need to change here. But whatever it is, in the next cycle we can take that piece and work it because it does not affect everything else we are trying to do. It's a piece. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry, do you support that? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that's three. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I raised the issue, but my thought on the whole thing was that you all would work it out. I would rather see you do that. You come tell us what you think will work for you and make it -- at the same time, make the construction site look as neat as possible. MR. HAYES: We'll be eager to do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, three Board members have indicated their desire to continue this item to the next cycle. Is that sufficient for the discussion of it at this meeting? MR. WEIGEL: That is. You're not adopting that as part of this amendment process tonight and the staff has received your direction. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So if you're here to speak about specialty contractor signs, sign up for the committee. We are going to do a lot of work on it, but we're not going to do it tonight. MR. HAYES: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate your work. MS. CURATOLO: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Our code today allows four square feet sign for subcontractors. Four square feet. And if they adhere to that and not install 40 square feet or 32 square feet that they are doing today, we wouldn't be having this problem. Especially banks are guilty of that. They all have large signs, 30 square feet, financed by this institution, that institution. Instead of four square feet. Bank's are the biggest law breakers when it comes to construction signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, guys. Maybe you didn't know the size of sign that is appropriate. MR. RICHTER: What size of sign is appropriate? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The size is four by four. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The size is four square feet. Two by two. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Two by two for banks. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That has been four square feet since 1991. MR. RICHTER: Why does the County -- why do we get permits? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No permit is required for those signs. That's why you install larger signs. MR. RICHTER: We have code enforcement. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, they know. We have code enforcement and that is the issue, isn't it? Okay. But for today the subcontractor construction signs is off tonight's agenda and it is on though for the next cycle. Page 9 January 5, 2000 Okay. Take us to the next issue, Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. Monument signs. I took upon myself to add that on the monument sign they have to write the street number -- the address number letters no smaller than six inches in height. That will make life easier for people who are trying to find an address and driving up and down the street. At least that will give them an idea of where they are. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chair, I don't have a problem with that. I think that's been one of the issues that has always been brought to me through this whole discussion, "Why don't we have the street numbers on the signs?" And I think it needs to be there. And that's part of the comments that I hear of, "Well, people have to slow down. They don't know where to find it. They're looking for a street address. If it's there, they will see it." CEAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that is an addition -- that is a change from our last meeting two weeks ago. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is a change because at the last meeting several people -- they said they are having problems finding place because there are no street numbers. We figured if we have the number on the signs, people -- at least they know where they are. So it's easier for them to find their way around. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And how large will that be? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Six inches in height. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it will be -- on the sign itself will be the street number? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: On the sign itself. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Take us to the next item, unless somebody has questions on that particular one. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. You may recall we talked about logos being 20 percent. That's out. Now we are saying logos can be in the sign. It doesn't matter how large they are as long as they don't protrude or they are not on top of the sign. Basically we have a sign. Logo can be anywhere on the sign and can occupy as large of an area as they wish to. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So that would remove the argument that John R. Wood had that we would interfere with the logo on their sign. The same thing with Shell or Burger King. And if you watched the football game last night, Burger King is kind of changing the logo. So I suspect we will see that on their new sign in the not too distance future. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that makes sense. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It stays within the sign. That was our issue. Stay within the sign. We don't care how many -- how big it is, but it has to stay within the sign. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's kind of boring, personally. I looked at the McDonald's sign. In fact, Mr. Adams was nice enough to bring me some pictures of a sign. And the difference between the gold arches out over the top of it and the one that is set in the sign, pretty blah. I'm sorry. Page 10 January 5, 2000 I just -- as long as it's within a certain -- as long as it's within a certain signage size, that's one thing. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that's what they're saying though. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's what we said. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, they're not. No, they're not. You're saying -- you're saying if it's within that, "Okay." But he can show you a picture of another one that would be perhaps almost that same size, but it's just the arches protrude. I don't know. I don't find that offensive. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we requiring them to be square? COMMISSIONER CARTER: They don't have to be square. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we requiring them to be square? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, we are not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then we're not saying it can't protrude as long as it's still within the square footage; your total surface area? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: What we are saying -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's on the visualizer. That's a good example. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We don't want a square sign and th~n an "M" or golden arches on top of that sign. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if you had the golden arch and no square, then it's -- and the surface area of that arch was still within the appropriate -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Then you're okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you're okay? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's not what they said though. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, but that's what's in tonight's draft. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I remember three weeks ago that it was not. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that is what's in the -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: In other words, it can be protruding if you can have an imaginary line that went up and over and it's still -- even though it wasn't filled in? MR. MULHERE: Commissioner, that's exactly how we measure sign area. If a sign is not words, if it's a symbol, we draw a geometric shape around the sign and measure that. That's how we determine the area. So, yes, you could do that exactly as long as it's within -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: And still let those protrude? MR. MULHERE. Correct. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We could take away three that says, "Logo shall not protrude from the sign." As long as it's within the sign, it's fine. If you want to, we can delete the language all together. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't want to. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't want to. I don't care what the shape of the sign is as long as it stays within the maximum square footage. Page 11 January 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Bingo. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So, Chahram, you've just heard three at least -- are there four who agree with that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You just heard four. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So there are four who agree. We don't care what the shape of the sign is. And you guys -- your job tonight is to leave here and draft an ordinance that says what four of us agree to. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So I don't really care too much about what's in the draft we got, but I want you to be clear that -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I think that's very important for the audience tonight. We're not going to sit here and draft it word for word, but we're going to have the framework. So that if you want to sit down and look at it and say, "Well, I'm not sure how that is," you can come back and we'll be able to say, "Well, listen. This is what we meant." It stays within this framework. So everybody has a clear understanding -- and perhaps we can have some pictures to support this. So it will make it easier for those when they come to get a sign permit to know exactly what we're talking about. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just like every other time we adopt a law. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aren't we in the final -- isn't this the final hearing? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the final hearing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This is the final hearing. We will adopt the law tonight, but their job is to draft it. David, you want to comment on that? MR. WEIGEL: Sure. The Board will give direction as to what the law shall be and then the staff from the County Attorney's Office will draft the exact language implementing what the Board has decreed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If anybody disagrees -- once the ordinance is published, if we read it and say, "That's not what we meant," or if you read it and say, "That's not what the County Commission meant," then that's what public petitions are for. That's how you bring that back to the Board or you appeal that in an application. But that's normal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just by way of clarification though, when we say this is the final hearing, if the Board decided we wanted to have a third hearing and we thought we were 90 percent of the way there and wanted to have a hearing three weeks from now, there is nothing that prohibits that, is there, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We can meet 100 times on this subject if we'd like. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Shall we? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I hope not. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have something -- this is really bothering me. About two weeks ago, three weeks ago, maybe a month, the meeting before last maybe -- when did we allow the money to Dover Cole; last Page 12 January 5, 2000 meeting of the commissioners? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What is -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Dover Cole is the consultant for the focus -- the community of character. What is the official name? Community of character -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Community of character. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Selective committee. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Selective committee on community character. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. We spent $100,000 to pay this consultant. This was agreed upon by several committees in this community. They all decided that this is what they wanted. We all -- everybody bought into it. Everybody's heads nodding up and down, that's right. That's what we did. And they're going to look at Collier County is my understanding and they're going to come back and tell us what they think some changes that we ought to make, whether -- I suppose it's even going to be improving architectural standards, all sorts of things. I just think it behooves this commission -- you've allocated this dollar. Why are we jumping out in front? I think what Jim has proposed -- I think this is admirable, but I think the timing is just bad. Because we can make all these suggestions tonight, our staff can continue to go back to work on this, and then, bingo, they come back in 18 months and they tell us, "Well, that's fine, but you also need to meet -- do all these other changes." In the meantime, all of these people who are going to think about buying signs or who may be in the business and pursuing this are going out and buying signs for today's code. In 18 months we come back and tell them, "Whoops. Sorry, guys. We goofed. We jumped the gun. We've set into place a new ordinance. You know what, you've got to go out and spend some more money." Well, it's not general taxpayer dollars. It's your money that's coming out of your business. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER BERRY: I am not going to be part of that. I can't do it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Excuse me, Commissioner Berry. At the last meeting we said very definitively, if I remember, that -- and I heard Mr. Chahram tell us the same thing. That we could remove from the RFP commercial signage study because we have already done this. We are ahead of the curve. We are ahead of the consultants in what we're proposing. Municipal signage is another issue which was slightly addressed in the editorial commentary this morning in the paper, but there's confusion here. I think the RFP should say we look at municipal signage, yes. Should it look at commercial signage? No. I think that's where we are tonight. We have been able through the committees and through that same committee that approved the RFP agreed that the commercial signage -- the changes that we're proposing will take us where we need to be. We don't need to come back in 18 Page 13 January 5, 2000 months and make any changes. I don't want the business community to be forced at that. But we do need to get these other amortization schedules in place so that we can get corrective action taken. Because if we don't, all we do is continue to proliferate that which we don't want in the community. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER BERRY: But which standard are you going to go with, Jim? Which standard -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's why we're here tonight. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's why we're here tonight to take a look at what we have proposed in the outline and the changes. Those are the standards that we want to put in place. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But I think we're ahead -- I think we're ahead. I think, again, it appears that this Board is micromanaging and I think that's the wrong approach to take. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't think so. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I disagree. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I take umbrage at saying we're micromanaging by trying to set in place a policy for County-wide. That's our job. Second, sending something to study seems to be the habit we've taken for the last two years. "Let's send the landfill to study. Let's send transportation to study. Let's send everything to study for 18 months. Let's send what we're going to do with density to study." Now, let's send signs to study. It's the great no decision commission. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's do something for a change, instead of sitting and sending it off to some consultant. The public didn't pick a consultant to do this job. They picked the five of us. And we may disagree on whatever that topic is -- and that's fine. That's why there is five of us. But let's not make no decision over and over and over. Let's do our job. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not micromanaging. That's doing the job that we're selected to do. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER BERRY: We can make decisions and we do make decisions every Tuesday when we have Board meetings. But if this was -- I understood that this select committee was to be looking at the -- part of the pretty things around Collier County, what's going to make us a desirable community to live in. We are not going to be, quote, "A Lee County." We're not going to be a Dade County or a Broward County or somebody else with the signage. And I understand that. And I'm not afraid to sit up here and make a decision. I just don't understand when we put out $100,000 that we are sitting up here setting these things into place when he may well come back with a better idea. And, you know, it just may appear a whole lot better than what we're sitting up here trying to Page 14 January 5, 2000 do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My thought on that -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: The whole thing about it is, you look -- look at our commercial areas. And I'm talking about in the industrial parks. Frankly, in my district -- let's get down to this. In my district I'm probably the least affected as a commissioner because I have mostly new development up in my area. And they're meeting the new sign standards. A lot of them are putting in new sign standards. But I will tell you, I am concerned about the folks that are in these commercial -- the commerce parks and these kinds of places that we may come back and come up with a different kind of plan for them. You know, they are your constituents. They're my constituents. Every one of us that sit on this Board. And, again, I think Mr. -- the gentleman, Marone, that was here from Little Italy. He made a valid point at the last meeting. We're not spending -- we're not spending tax dollars, guys. We're going to these people and we're telling them -- it's not the big guys. You know, I see Colleen and all you guys with the banks. You've got a lot of power behind you. But I'm thinking about the guy out here that's the mom and pop operation that's out in the commerce park that a sign to them is a very expensive proposition. And, yes, I will tell you -- and I've told everybody that I've spoken to today this -- I do believe there is going to be a change in some of the signage. I mean, get in line because I think that's what's going to happen. But I really would rather that the business community -- instead of pitting you against homeowners' groups, that you sit down and you help us draft this because it's going to be your dollars that are going to be spent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry, Commissioner Carter brought this issue to us six months ago -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- the first time he was here for an LDC cycle. And we said, "Go away and take this through the process. Get it through -- have a zillion meetings. Meet with all the business community." COMMISSIONER BERRY: It didn't happen, Pam. It didn't happen. UNKNOWN VOICES: It didn't happen. It didn't happen with us. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's not true. We went to the Chamber of Commerce. They had a chance to look at this. They had another time -- a number of opportunities to input on this. If you think the people that were sitting on the committee weren't from business communities, they were. And the point is -- excuse me. I have the microphone, sir. UNKNOWN VOICE: Who were they? COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you want to get up here, you will have your time to speak. We went to communities where this is -- it's already been done. The same consultants that we've put the RFP out have studied this. Those same consultants are going to come back and tell you exactly what we're telling you tonight. These are the things Page 15 January 5, 2000 that need to be changed. All we're sayin9 is through amortization schedules -- many of you will not be affected as much as you think you are because sometimes you'll find a lot of what you already have is salvageable. The second part is we're trying to get all of this into compliance. I agree there's a lot of stuff out of compliance. But if we don't start now, when are we going to start? Do you want to wait 18 months, two years, three years and you come back and do the same thing over again? I don't think so. I think some people have worked very hard to try to bring a reasonable process to the community with a lot of input from the community and a lot of input from other communities who have more restrictive, if you please, sign ordinances than we do. But they are good looking communities. And we all want to look good. I don't think anybody in the room says, "We don't want to look good." If some of you have to pay a little bit more to look better, right, you will. But the people who shop in your establishments are also saying to you, "We want you to look better." And if you're going to throw that in their face and tell them, "No. We don't care about that," then that's a decision that this Board will make tonight. But to say that we haven't done due diligence, I take personal offense to that. We have done due diligence. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I need some information about that because I don't know who was on the committee and with whom they meet. I'm shocked to hear the room yell out, "No. It didn't happen." So could you tell us a little bit about the process or would it be appropriate for staff to do that? What has the process been for the last -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can comment on the people who have been there. I can comment on the groups that we have been to. If you look at all the people who were appointed to community character, Commissioner Mac'Kie, that will tell you people who have been through the process. People like Mike Davis were in the room. People like Mark Morton were in the room. People like George Botner were in the room. There's a lot of them that are not here tonight. Joe McHarris. Joe McHarris who drove the architectural standards process sat on this committee and worked with us. Those are some of the people. We had architectural landscapers that sat on the committee. We had input from staff. All the staff departments came in and participated in this process. Some we have set aside. The municipal areas. And I agree with Commissioner Berry on that to look at the bigger picture. That's what we did. We took it to I don't know how many different associations and presented it. And when it came down to the LDC meeting -- the first one -- there was a few people here. Much of the information, frankly, I think that has been put out has been disinformation -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- if you look at what we're trying to get Page 16 January 5, 2000 done here tonight. There is a lot of emotionalism in it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't know if Mike Davis is in the room yet tonight. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He is back there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: But Mike has had many calls and Mike and I have talked about many situations. Some people call and find out it doesn't affect them at all. Others will find, yeah, it's going to affect me a little bit. And some will have to make some changes. I had a doctor call me and say, "I think my sign is beautiful. Are you going to change it?" I said, "No. It's not going to change it at all because you're in compliance." He said, "Well, the information I got is everybody's sign was out of compliance." I said, "That's not true." CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That I have to chime in on. More than half of the E-mails that I got were in response to what, I guess, was the article in the paper written by the Chamber that scared everybody to death. What we have proposed here is not such a shocking thing. And we need to stop our pontificating, I guess, and get to the public speakers because I would like to hear from the speakers which sections are objectionable. If it's bright colors, if it's primary colors, then let's talk about that. If it's pole signs, I'm not too excited about talking about that. You know, but what is so shocking about what's proposed here? It's not -- we're not inventing a wheel. COMMISSIONER CARTER: In fact, I just want to say one other thing about -- MR. HAYES: I want a clarification of something you said. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I need you to register. MR. HAYES: I am registered. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I will have to call you just like everybody. MR. HAYES: That's fine. I can do that. From your previous instructions, I just needed some clarification. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A final thought. That is, human nature is if you haven't personally been contacted, you assume nobody has or that nobody knows about this. And that's not the case. Commissioner Carter has spent six or eight months on this thing with a ton of people going over this in great detail. And so if you personally weren't contacted, that's why these public hearings happen. Don't assume that nobody did anything and this is all happened in the last three weeks. That's a discredit to Jim and the work he has done. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris and then we'll go back to Chahram. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I have to say that I agree with Commissioner Constantine, as far as consultants go. I was not thrilled about having to go through another round of consulting and Page 17 January 5, 2000 all of that business in the first place, but Commissioner Berry's point at the same time is very valid. If we're going to do the work for the consultant, why have the consultant? My personal opinion would be if we're going to enact the sign code ourselves, let's forget the consultant. We don't need it. Let's just do away with it. What's the point? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's not all he's going to do though. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's the bulk of it though. It's the most important thing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not even close. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I think this is -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My turn. My turn. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it might be helpful to the people in the audience right now if perhaps we stake out our positions before they speak. Because it may help a lot of them decide they really don't need to speak after all. I'm going to tell you that the signs that are legal and compliant, that have been built since our sign code was enacted, plus -- then you have to look again that we redid the sign code when we did the commercial architectural standards just a couple of years ago. All of those signs that are legal and in compliance with all of those codes, I am not going to vote to make those be changed, period. It ain't going to happen. I don't care if it's a 50-year amortization. We told those people, "This is the way we want you to build your sign." And I am not going to come back and say, "You've got to take them down because I've changed my mind and we're going to make you build another sign." COMMISSIONER BERRY: Was that '96, John? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Huh? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Was that in 19967 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Whenever it was. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: '96. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not going to do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're speaking strictly of those since that code went into effect and not every sign ever before and ever? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, our original sign code was -- '917 1991. If they're in compliance with that, then they're in compliance, as far as I'm concerned. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well -- (Applause.) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I respectfully disagree because -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine, but I've got the floor and I'm staking out my position. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. There was a long pause. I foolishly thought you were done. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I'm not done. I have no objection whatsoever to the pre-'91 signs -- the pre-sign code signs and those that are illegal, those that are not in Page 18 January 5, 2000 compliance. I have no objection whatsoever to having code enforcement people to go get those taken down and removed and replaced. I have no objection to that whatsoever. Primary colors. I'm not going to support the banishment of primary colors on signs. What other points are we missing? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Pole signs. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Pole signs. Now, let me say at the same time I have no objection whatsoever to modifying and strengthening our sign code for the future. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My point is I'm not going to tell somebody who has a legal sign that we told them, "You can build that sign" -- I'm not going to say, "You have to go back now and change it because we've changed our sign code." CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me ask you a question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Except those that put up a sign what was then legal before '91; you don't mind saying that to them? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's my question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If it doesn't meet the sign code from '91, that's great. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if somebody put up a sign in 1990 you would be willing to tell them that their code -- their sign has to comply with the '99 or year 2000 code? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's my position. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, we're going to need four votes to take any action; true or false? MR. WEIGEL: True. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So anybody else want to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You want to stake a position? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. My position is -- John said it very well. I'm in the same situation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you -- UNKNOWN VOICE: Don't you want to listen to the public first before you make a decision? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Apparently not. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We've pretty much heard a lot from the public. We have -- UNKNOWN VOICE: What's the purpose of a public hearing? COMMISSIONER CARTER: The amortization schedule that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me. One person at a time. We're in a public hearing. Commissioner Carter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Norris, what you're saying is any amortization schedule would not be acceptable to you to bring people into compliance? MR. MULHERE: For post-'91. Page 19 January 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What I said -- let's clarify it one more time. Those people who are in compliance, as far as I'm concerned, stay in compliance. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: You mean those who are in compliance with today's code, not previous codes; with today's code after the architectural standards were adopted? If they are in compliance -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. That's not exactly what I said. If they comply with the '91 sign code, I say they are in compliance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So their sign that was built in 1991 can stay up until it falls down, regardless of what we adopt today? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if it was legal, non-conforming, meaning 1989 it went up -- it's legal because it went up in 1989, but COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not what I said at all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm asking. I'm just asking the question. If it went up in '89, was legal then because there was no code -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Because there was no code. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was still legal after '91, but non-conforming, you would say they have to catch up? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. MR. MULHERE: For purposes of -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: What about new businesses coming on stream if we have a more restrictive code? Would you have any interest in saying if it was prior to -- if you start today -- what I'm trying to do is stop the proliferation, for example, of the pole signs. We are trying to get a period to bring everybody into a compliance into a new ordinance. That's where we were trying to go with this. So is there any room here to find some workable solutions to this or are you just adamant to say that there is no -- there's nothing you want to do differently? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I assume Commissioner Berry will have an opinion, too. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If I understood your question, you started out by saying a new business coming on line. Obviously if we change the sign code and strengthen it, they will be compelled to comply with that as they bring on a new sign. COMMISSIONER CARTER: True. But some of the things that we would like to change, they will continue to be able to proliferate. And Mike Davis is probably -- is more of an expert or staff is than I am. But it seemed to me they could continue to do the things -- some of the things that we don't want to do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think I understand what John is saying to be this. See if I've got it. There are probably some exceptions, but generally you would agree to amend the sign code starting upon its adoption that these changes proposed by Commissioner Carter and his group -- you would agree to most of them. I'm not tying you -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll look at them individually, but, yes. Generally, yes. Page 20 January 5, 2000 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that going forward he would agree that that would be the new sign code for Collier County. I think the point of disagreement is at what point, if ever, does somebody who got a valid building permit for a sign have to take it down even though it's still a good sign. And John is saying never. Some of us are saying three or five or seven years. That's the issue here we're discussing, not whether or not to change the code at all. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER CARTER: But if they never got a permit -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is different. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- and if they are not in compliance, then you're in agreement that they have to get into compliance? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One more question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're getting there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. If someone put their sign up in 1991 and it complied with what was then the new code, it complies with the sign code, we pass a new code, more restricted, they want to make some improvements or changes to their existing sign -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think that scenario would be covered under our land development code. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They would then be required to upgrade to this? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: To whatever the current code is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My worry there is: Do you then discourage someone from improving their sign? They've got kind of a rag-tag 1991 -- I suspect that's older than 1991 on the visualizer. But kind of a rag-tag 1991 sign and you discourage them from improving the appearance because they would have to have more restrictions. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the assumption would be that any sign that complies with the 1991 sign code would not be rag-tag. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But five years from now it may. After a 15 year life on a sign, it may be. And it would discourage them I would think -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would discourage. I think you can always -- you can look at signs around here that are more than 15 or 20 years old that are still good signs. They may not comply with the code, but they're still good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Humor me for the moment and let's say it's 20 or 25 years, whatever the life of a sign is. We talked three weeks ago about -- Good Times Lounge. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There is one right there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We talked three weeks ago about the submarine that's up over the industrial park. That type thing at some point, whether that's after 10 years or 30 years -- at some point that may start to look a little rag-tag. Do you discourage them from putting up something improving by not having an amortization period? Page 21 January 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, now you've mixed metaphors here because that was certainly a non-conforming sign in the first place. The answer is you might, but in most cases if somebody wants to upgrade their sign, they'll -- why would they be discouraged from complying with the sign code? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you look at what was happening on Davis and the East Trail as we've been working on redevelopment -- remember the Pet Supermarket that came in. They had a really crummy sign there, but it was grandfathered in. And, therefore, it was legal. And we finally gave them some kind of a variance to allow them to do some kind of different kind of Pet Supermarket sign. But right down from it there's maybe like Pancho's or something. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It used to be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four and a half stars. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Four and a half stars. Pancho's Mexican Villas. That sign is grandfathered in and legal. And, you know, they may turn that into Little Italy or the nicest restaurant in town, but they're not going to mess with that sign because that is their -- they've got that sign. They will never be able to get that sign again. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That sign was there before 1991. I'll guarantee you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I thought I had gotten an example that might -- but you understand the point. Assume it were there -- it went up in 1991. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then it would have met the 1991 code. Or if it doesn't, then it comes down because it's illegal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the answer to my question and apparently Commissioner Mac'Kie's question, that doesn't bother you? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It bothers me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That possible disincentive to improve it does not bother you enough to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're answering my question for me and you're answering it erroneously. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're not answering it clearly and that's what I'm trying to do. Sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The answer is that that is a risk that's inherent in my position. But I think it's a small risk and will be limited to a very small number of cases County-wide. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there any amount of time that you would be willing to consider that -- even if you had a permit for your sign in 1991, in ten years it's got to be changed, in 15 or 20 or 50 years? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think I've already said that, no, I wouldn't. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question for staff. Do you have any idea how many sign permits have been pulled since 1991; would it be 500, 5,000? MR. MULHERE: It's well in excess of 5,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 50,000? MR. MULHERE: I will make an educated guess. Since 1991 it's at Page 22 January 5, 2000 least, say, 1,500 a year. So we're talking somewhere probably between 1,500 and 2,000 sign permits, maybe more. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Times ten. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So maybe 12,000, 15,000. That's the point. Even if it's 15 years from now, 15,000 signs are going to be 25 years old. 15,000 signs are going to start looking aging. I don't think it's just, "Well, we run a small risk of having a few." That's a very real concern 25 years from now or 15 years from now. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But there is a standard, Tim, already. I mean, what is being built today is -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not an aesthetic standard is what I mean. My concern -- I am sorry. It's just not the size and shape. It's just that it becomes, in Commissioner Norris' scenario, a disincentive for them when that sign becomes worn to improve it or change it because they could -- what they would, I am sure as a business, interpret to be penalized into having to meet the '99 or 2000 code. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question here. If a property is sold, don't they have to then -- if they're going to use the sign, don't they have to then recomply? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. But maybe that's a place where we could MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Suppose this property is sold and somebody comes and buys it. If they kept the name Bennett's Grocery, the sign stays. What we are proposing is not that drastic. We are saying to do this. This is what they have and this is what we are proposing to do. We are not asking them to change the sign completely. Probably you receive this Edwin Watts letter saying that they spent that much money in 1996 building those signs. And I went through the file. They have a wall sign which would comply with today's -- with the proposed code. Pole sign. Today we allow 20 feet. They built 16 feet high. So it would comply with the proposed code since we are saying 15 feet with ten percent, you know, give or take. But then total area, they have 96 square feet. We are proposing 80. So it comes down to reducing the size of the copy by 16 square feet in the year 2010. I don't think that's going to make this business to go bankrupt. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And this is a critical distinction here. And we may or may not go forward, but I'm obviously going to talk to you guys. When the code was adopted in '91 and no amortization schedule was adopted, we -- the Board significantly contributed to the problem we have today. Because we have this great sign code supposedly and we have junk out there because nobody is ever going to give up their old signs. They're never going to give them up because they're bigger. They get more attention. They're tackier, but they're never going to give them up. And if we don't put in some kind of an amortization schedule all we're doing is creating this problem for the Board ten years from now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Look at that. That's illegal. Page 23 January 5, 2000 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. When it was built our code did not say how many businesses you need to have a directory sign. And it said if you have 20 -- I believe more than 40,000 square feet of business, you can have a directory sign. And this business they have that square footage. And the permit was pulled in 19 -- I believe in '94 or five for this permit or for this sign. And it's legal. It's legal, non-conforming today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And under Commissioner Norris' suggestion it would stay in perpetuity? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Forever; is that right, Chahram? I mean, we would have -- until it blew down with a hurricane? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. I believe, yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or the property was sold. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Or the property changed names. If they sell the property -- for example, I don't even think the Hadinger's own this carpet store anymore. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sure they do. Sure they do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Maybe they do. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I drive by it every day. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What I'm saying is I could go buy that carpet store and operate it as Hadinger's Carpet and never change the sign. And my children could operate it as Hadinger's Carpet and never change the sign. MR. MULHERE: I think it's also important -- again, Bob Mulhere. Currently the sign code would only require them to reduce one of the non-conformities. If a new owner came in and wished to change the copy on the sign or alter the sign physically and it was non-conforming -- if it was non-conforming in one or more ways, they simply have to address one of the non-conformities. It was thought of as a carrot to allow people exactly what Commissioner Constantine raised, which was to offer them some incentive to come in and actually be able to change the sign, but not be so -- so strict, I guess, with them that they wouldn't -- that they would do everything they could to maintain the existing sign forever and ever and ever. So we allow them to keep some of the non-conformities and then each time the sign copy -- the sign material there physically changed, they would reduce one of the non-conformities to bring it into compliance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In my opinion, as important as -- as positive as the sign changes are that are proposed for tonight, the most important thing we have to consider is the amortization schedule. Otherwise, we're just pushing off the problem. Well -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's your opinion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's my opinion and I stated it. But I want to modify it. The most important thing that we have to do is beef up code enforcement. The second most important thing we have to do is adopt an amortization schedule or we're just pushing the problem off to the future. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question. That is -- I understand your point, Commissioner Norris, particularly if we're Page 24 January 5, 2000 talking a three year amortization. There is a tremendous expense there times 15,000 signs. That is part of the reason I asked the question. But you under no circumstances -- you're not comfortable with a 20 year amortization; you're not comfortable with anything? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. Because I think -- I think we can put language in the LDC that if it changes names or changes ownership that it will then have to conform to the current code. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: the business is sold? COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mow would we know that? Huh? How would we know if a business sells -- Well, it's recorded, isn't it? If it's going to be Joe Blow's Furniture if Store, instead of Hadinger's Carpet, he's not going to keep Hadinger's Carpet up on the sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. They would come in for a sign application. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, I assume your -- with your statements earlier you don't really have any interest with an amortization period or without. You don't have any interest in that either. My point just being we need four. We don't have four. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's move on. We're not going to convince either one of you of that. It boils down to: Do we want to make some changes without an amortization period? I don't know if there is four of us that have an interest in that. From this point forward, there are new things in compliance. But we don't have four, so let's not keep debating that. MR. MULHERE: Might I just add one other comment. That is, one thing that I did understand though -- just keep in mind that was from 1991. That was for signs that were legally permitted after 1991. No one objects to an amortization schedule for legally permitted signs approved prior to 1991. I just wanted to clarify that for the staff's information. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that correct? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This sign has been up since 1970s. I think it's about time to change it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So what will the period be for that if it's prior 1990 -- 19917 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Three years. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you've got a couple of situations. You've got legal signs that have an actual permit. Those people should get a lot more leeway than someone who does not have a permit or has an illegal sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Illegal gets zero. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There is no permits before 1991. Page 25 January 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Illegal gets until they get caught. MR. MULHERE: Correct. I don't know if Marjorie Student is in the room, but there is a -- there is a legal test with respect to amortization. I'm not going to practice attorney, but I think depending on the value of the sign, even if it was erected prior to 1991, there has to be a sufficient period of time. And that's probably somewhere between three and five years and it may be closer to five. I don't know. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Seven to ten years if you're going to depreciate it. MS. STUDENT: Courts like vestings and takings, they don't draw a bright line and say, "You're okay with five, but you're not with three." They take a number of factors into account, including the salvage value, the return on investment, the income produced by the sign, the amount of time that the sign has been depreciated for Federal tax purposes. And they look at them case by case and they look at those factors. So we can't draw a bright line and say, "Three years is fine." I would think for those signs that existed prior to 1991 three years would be reasonable because we're nine years out. And nine and three is 12. And, you know, I would think that's certainly reasonable. Courts have upheld five years. They've upheld seven. They've upheld ten. Again, depending on the precise factors of a particular sign situation that they were looking at. So I would be, as your legal counsel, entirely comfortable with three years for those signs prior to 1991. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why don't we so something radical and go to public speakers? Any other comments from the Board members before we do that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a couple thoughts. I don't want people to be upset about issues that I don't care about. The primary colors issue -- I don't know about the rest of the Board, but I don't care if somebody has got red on their sign or yellow on their sign. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Non-issue for me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was one other point. I was trying to remember. I think Commissioner Norris had mentioned very early in the process another one similar to that. I just -- it was a no brainer and I don't recall what it was. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Neon? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We didn't touch on the neon. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We didn't touch on neon. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think neon should be required. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The wall signage. There's a formulation that is put in here that makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps that would not affect a lot of people in the room. It may or may not. We said that buildings up to 25,000 square feet would have a 150 square foot sign. Buildings from 25,000 to 60,000 a 200 square foot sign and buildings over 60,000 square feet would have a 250 square foot sign. And I -- to my knowledge, that would not affect any current signages out there that meets that criteria on those Page 26 January 5, 2000 buildings. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That probably makes a lot more sense than having the strict 150 limitation because if you have a building like some of the bank buildings or like a Cleveland Clinic, 250 square feet is not a lot of -- MR. RICHTER: It says 200 in here, not 250. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chahram, would you -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Excuse me. What we're trying to do is to move this forward into some guidelines. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second. What Jim just read is actually a new suggestion. I know it doesn't say that it in there. What we're suggesting is a stack of three. If you're below a certain size at 150. But it's not that hard of a -- not that much of a stretch of imagination that if your building is larger, you may require -- I tell you what made me think of this. I was getting on Exit 16 and you drive by the Cleveland Clinic and that does not look out of place. It's a huge building and you have a sign that -- I don't know if that's all of 250 or not, but it's close to it. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't look out of place at all. So having some sort of staggering and recognize a bigger building may need that. I think that was the other one. But let's go to the public and -- just with those in mind. I'd hate to have somebody get up and be all worked up about primary colors if none of us cared about it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, there's a couple other suggestions I might make. I don't know if it's an issue for people, but we were saying reduction of directory signs to 180 square foot and 20-foot high with a minimum of four tenants and a maximum of eight tenants displayed on the 16-foot setback. I think this was put in before. I was hopeful that those suggestions and those guidelines would give us four Commissioners who would say we could go forward with the process, but we'll see what happens. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many speakers do we have? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know. I received -- I did get a call in regard to that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: On the directory sign? COMMISSIONER BERRY: On the directory signs because of tenants and the fact that some of them would not be able to be listed on the signage. MR. MULHERE: That's a fairly common occurrence because a lot of buildings there's many tenants. If you list them all, you can't read the sign anyway. You have to draw the line somewhere. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Call that the Gary Hayes rule. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Size by itself doesn't mean much. Bed, Bath and Beyond Plaza, they have a 250 square foot sign and they only have Bed, Bath and Beyond Plaza name and two other names. So the larger sign doesn't mean they are going to have more names and the smaller Page 27 January 5, 2000 sign. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think what they were -- in this case what they were referring to was more of the strip mall situation where they do have a directory sign and listing some of the tenants in the building. MR. BADA~TCHIAN: What we are proposing in this code is to have one directory sign 150 square feet, 20 feet high with a minimum of five and a maximum of nine names on them. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What if you're the tenth guy? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There is always the tenth guy. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is always 10th guy, llth guy, 12th guy. At one point the sign is not legible. MR. MULHERE: They get wall signs. COMMISSIONER BERRY: They get wall signs. MR. MULHERE: They get wall signs. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other question just on the formula there. You were talking about the height and width and how many square feet that could be. One gentleman brought in a sketch. And I was never that good at geometry, but maybe somebody can help me draw of how you can get 150 square feet with those restrictions and requirements. It almost appears -- it certainly appeared from the drawing he had that to meet all the criteria there that we've laid out that your maximum would be 135. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Let me see if I find it. MR. MULHERE: I have to leave that one up to Chahram. I did just want to also mention to the Board that at your last meeting Commissioner Constantine asked if we could, we look at creating a videotape and then altering that videotape to show the existing signage and the new signage. We didn't do that. We weren't able to do that in the time period in a videotape, but we did take still photos and we did use a computer program to alter those with current signs. And we have those if you would like to look at those. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would like to see that. And also -- I apologize. But before we go to public speakers, we also should hear from Michelle Arnold about what is the proposal for beefing up code enforcement or from Mr. Nino. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we really need to hear that tonight? That's on Tuesday's agenda. It's not germane to how we change the sign code. Either we're going to enforce stuff or we're not, but that's not part of tonight's agenda. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I was hoping that -- you're right. It was to be part of Tuesday. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've got 30 speakers. Let's not make them sit through that either. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My only thought is that if we aren't going to have, frankly, the guts to do an amortization schedule, I hope we're going to at least have the guts to really be tough on code enforcement. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not a matter of guts. It's a matter Page 28 January 5, 2000 of reasonableness. I mean, I'm not going to tell somebody who built his sign two weeks ago that he's got to tear it down. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly, me neither. It's a matter of opinion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not reasonable and I'm not going to do it. It's not a matter of guts. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I would say 99 percent of the wall signs they will not be affected with this amendment. We are keeping 20 percent. With the new formula that Commissioner Carter is proposing, almost none of the wall signs are going to be affected. Mostly we are talking about pole signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a wall sign that may be affected and we drew this. Basically the same sign, lowering it a little bit and getting it up to form on the top. Golden Gate Parkway. Basically before and after pictures. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What happened to ABC Liquor? COMMISSIONER CARTER: The point is it doesn't make that big of a difference, but it does bring it down and bring an aesthetic look. I think that's what Chahram is trying to demonstrate. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Same place. COMMISSIONER CARTER: A lot of the signs are salvageable. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you going to get Bank One to move in where Bad Boys is? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I think we have enough banks, but since this was a nice sign -- MR. MULHERE: He's looking to re-establish his interest rate with the banks after that previous comment. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That was a joke. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For the record, that was a joke. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. Basically the same place -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've got to say this. That sure looks out of place. I'm sorry. It just doesn't -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It looks out of place because of the angle. I'm technology challenged and couldn't move the sign to fit correctly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think she meant it looks out of place because there's about a dozen pickup trucks around it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Somehow it just doesn't fit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it makes the point though. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's an improvement in visual there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That will really send a message to the bank industry. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We just lowered this one a little bit. It looks kind of odd shaped, yes, because I had no way of -- MR. RICHTER: That is eight-foot high? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, sir. The building is at least 14 feet high and this is in the same line of the building. That's what I tried to Page 29 January 5, 2000 do. MR. RICHTER: Doesn't this say eight-foot? MR. BADAMTCMIAN: It says eight-foot for shopping center out parcels. This is not an out parcel. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know what, that is exactly the point. I'm sorry, but the Chamber has gotten everybody excited about something incorrectly. These are not issues. This is not as shocking as the community has gotten incited to believe. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: See, my tree looks like it escalated or something, but that's the best we could do. Basically the same thing. We lowered it a little bit. You know, before and after. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Don't worry. They'll find it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question as you go to those last two? How come the big burger on the Burger King was still on a pole, but came down about halfway and McDonald's -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Disappeared. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is just -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If everything -- if everything in the County was going to be consistent, I don't mind bringing Tom's sign down if everybody is playing on the same. But the Burger King one did not look the same. And I am wondering, are different rules applying for different -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. I tried to not have a bank sign in front of the Burger King and I couldn't find any Burger King signs with the base and you know -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just wanted to make sure what I was looking at. MR. MULHERE: That sign may also have been smaller than the maximum that he could have been allowed. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That one was smaller. I got this from a book. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that was happening County-wide, I wouldn't have any opposition to it. I just don't want to penalize somebody. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. Again, same bank sign. You're moving this. You should bear in mind that this sign is smaller than what we propose. This is probably 10 or 12 feet high. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I think we've probably seen enough iljustrations and we can go on now to the public speakers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think so. MR. MCNEES: Okay. I'll call two speakers at a time. If the next one would be prepared to come forward. The first speaker will be Dawn Jantsch, who will be followed by Garrett Richter. MS. JANTSCH: For the record, Dawn Jantsch, Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. And I haven't decided if I have been called a liar yet or not tonight. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. MS. JANTSCH: If my job as president of the Chamber is to get businesses in this community excited, then I hope I did. I would like to invite all of those who are against the draft changes in this Page 30 January 5, 2000 language tonight to stand. Perhaps we could shorten this hearing this evening. If all of you would stand that is against this ordinance, please. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Fortunately, that's not how we make decisions. MS. JANTSCH: The Naples Area Chamber of Commerce was pleased to invite -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I just ask that we try to maintain some decorum here? I realize it's an issue many of you are passionate about, but it doesn't help you or us to make wise comments from the crowd. And it doesn't make -- it doesn't help to have mumbling and talking the whole time. It's very helpful for me to hear what the speakers say. Ail of you will have an opportunity if you want to share something with us to do that from the podium. But this hollering and commenting and joking is not helpful to the process at all and it's going to keep us here longer and end up with a less effective result. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And, Dawn, just having -- and we won't take this off your time. But I absolutely don't for a second suggest that you have intentionally misled a soul. MS. JANTSCH: I haven't. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not a soul. And so thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. It would never occur to me that you particularly or anybody at the Chamber would ever intentionally mislead anybody. My point is this is such a complicated, intricate, detailed ordinance that people have taken little bits without understanding the whole picture and overreacted, not that you have in any way misled anyone. MS. JANTSCH: Thank you, Madam Chair. What I would like to say, however, is -- and I will respond to that comment. I had other things I was going to continue with. The Naples Chamber was pleased to invite Commissioner Jim Carter to come speak with us in November. Mr. Carter and I had discussed this ordinance in the beginning of November. He spoke to us -- I believe it was somewhere around November 23rd at our standard Board of Directors meeting. At that time we, within two weeks, sent the draft language to this ordinance to a sign task force made up of Board members representative of many businesses in this community. We then sent it to our issues advisory committee again made up of many representatives of businesses in this community. We then immediately sent it to -- and mind you, this is within two weeks of presidents and owners of companies who are working people. And, unfortunately, none of us work 40 hours a week these days. We then sent it to our past chairman or past president of the Naples Chamber. We then sent it back to the Board of Directors. Each of these organizations -- each of these groups within the Chamber voted against this ordinance change. Each one of them within two weeks. Within two weeks of Mr. Carter speaking to the Chamber of Commerce, we then began systematically and publicly opposing the draft changes to this language. We have not hidden our reasoning behind it. Page 31 January 5, 2000 I will also say that the reason that my back is beginning to ache is because enclosed in this is not only some letters of support from businesses for the Chamber's stance against this ordinance, but also a number of these are the different drafts that I have received on this ordinance. And tonight I have to say that I try not to keep laughing as we go through the different processes myself because I feel I have to be professional and maintain some calm, however, I have so many copies of this ordinance that may I suggest to you that in the future that all ordinance drafts be dated as to what date they came out. I will say also that this evening I chatted with an attorney who I did not know and he looked at a copy of mine and he said, "That's not what I have." And I said, "Well, when did you pick it up?" He said, "Yesterday." I said, "Well, I picked up mine on -- I picked up this copy on Thursday, but I picked up this copy on Tuesday. When did you pick up yours ?" He said, "Tuesday." And we had two different copies that we had picked up from the County staff. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So perhaps they should be dated and have a time marked on them. That's a very important suggestion. MS. JANTSCH: There is absolutely no reason or value for this ordinance. It has nothing to do with the safety and welfare of the citizens of our community. It simply forces many businesses to purchase new signs simply because there are signs that are not aesthetically pleasing or that are not in compliance with the current ordinance. The sign ordinance contains drastic language that affects businesses,from the construction industry to restaurants, from retail stores to law firms. By changing setback and height sizes, the ordinance will force many businesses to change their signs. By declaring that the County has a right to limit what goes on with 80 percent of the base of the sign in terms of colors or logos, the County will become a marketing manager for all businesses in Collier. And I will say that I do know that the language on logos has been changed, however, the language on colors has not been changed drastically. In fact, it has been strengthened in some ways and weakened in others. The current language -- and, I believe, this is the copy that you have before you because it is dated. "The use of primary colors in all shades of yellow," which I think is a primary color or at least my kindergarten teacher said so, "shall be limited to 20 percent of the sign's background area. The use of fluorescent colors is prohibited. This restriction shall apply to every real estate," blah, blah, blah. That does refer to the sign's background area. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Once again, we have had several of the Commissioners say that the primary color issue is not an issue any longer. MS. JANTSCH: And I appreciate that. But when it's in the language that I have to announce to my membership and in the column in Page 32 January 5, 2000 the newspaper, which I don't edit -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. But we're announcing up here that we're not going to pass that, so you don't need anyone else to come up to the podium and complain about the primary color issue because we're not going to pass that. MS. JANTSCH: And I understand that, Commissioner. What I was referring to when I wrote my article -- and, unfortunately, the Naples Daily News does edit my work and change my headlines. At the time that I wrote it, I believe what I wrote was correct and I apologize to the Commission if it was not. I thank you for your time this evening. I know you're in for a long night. I hope to have lessened it a little bit by showing you how many are in opposition to it. I believe you received somewhere along the neighborhood of four to 500 faxes, numerous E-mails. And I understand there was something like 16 pages of phone calls from businesses or their employees against this ordinance. I ask that you vote this ordinance down again tonight, as some of you stated that you would. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have a question, too. Commissioner Constantine, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the beginning of your comment you said something to the effect that there is no public benefit or public welfare to this, particularly because it's an aesthetic issue. Are you suggesting that aesthetics have no public value? If that's the case, we should have no sign ordinance. We should abandon our beautification projects. We should have no setbacks. All of those things are aesthetics and all of those things are reasons why people compliment the way our community looks and why we don't look like Lee County and Broward County and others. MS. JANTSCH: I don't think we ever will look like Lee County or Broward County because we cannot with the current ordinance that we have in place. I also feel -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But the current ordinance that we have in place addresses certain aesthetics, such as heights and setbacks and so on. MS. JANTSCH: It does. And I'm not asking for that ordinance to be changed because it's been law for several years. However, when you're looking at the aesthetics of a business and asking them to change their marketing techniques, it is not a necessary thing. And I will assure you, having been a business representative for 12 years -- actually, 14, but representing businesses publicly for 12 years, I assure you that businesses will market themselves in the best way possible. And if they feel that their customers are complaining about their signs, they will change them out. If they feel that -- and if a customer feels their sign is ugly, they certainly don't have to shop or do business with that business. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I respectfully disagree. Because I think if you look at the example of Toys R Us or the Sports Authority that came in a couple years back. We asked them and the community Page 33 January 5, 2000 asked them to change, but because they weren't required to they didn't. And they made -- did a number of things that the community did not find attractive. Now, if I need a baseball mitt, would I still consider going there? Your average bear would say, yes, because that may be the best place to go shop. They're not going to say, "I don't like the side of that building. It could have been more attractive for five percent more before the new code went into effect." So I disagree wholeheartedly with your suggestion that a business is going to do whatever aesthetics the community wants. They are not going to, particularly large, national-type change businesses. They're not. They don't care. With all due respect to Tom, I used the comment about McDonald's a couple weeks ago in Freeport, Maine. And they thought it was terrible that they were going to have to use etched glass for their arches. There are no golden arches. It's etched glass arches. They thought that was terrible and they didn't want to do it. And I am sure if the code wasn't in place, they wouldn't have done it. Now they use that as a showcase nationally for one of their favorite stores because it doesn't look like any other McDonald's. So the suggestion that, "A", they are going to do it voluntarily is crazy, but, "B", that no aesthetics have any place -- that government doesn't have any place in dealing with aesthetics makes the suggestion that we had no place in passing those ordinances already in place. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So I wOuld just join with him. The point -- the statement that you made, Dawn, with which I disagree tonight I believe was also in the no basis in health, safety and welfare for this ordinance proposal. And I very strongly disagree. There is a basis for aesthetic ordinances. That is a big part of our job. MS. JANTSCH: Which is, hopefully, what the consultant will be looking at. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me ask you a question. You all supported community character, correct? What if they come back 18 months from now and propose the same thing we're proposing tonight and even more restrictive. I don't know what they will do. Let's say they do. Will you stand in front of me and tell me that aesthetics have no place in this community, that the community character $250,000 consultant is wrong; or will the Chamber stand up and say, "Yes"? MS. JANTSCH: I'm not saying that government has no place in making aesthetic rules. What I am saying is that if I do have to come back before you in 18 months, I hope that I've been very involved in the process, rather than having to go through in the past six weeks four or five different versions of which were even being changed tonight to the point where I, as a business representative, having worked with legal language in County and City ordinances for 12 years am confused. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And, Dawn, one last question for me. That is, was there no Chamber member on the committee; nobody? MS. JANTSCH: I believe that there were Chamber members that were Page 34 January 5, 2000 nominated to the select committee. I do not know -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I meant Commissioner Carter's committee. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think Barron Collier Company is a member of the Chamber the last time I checked. MS. JANTSCH: They're currently not serving on our Board of Directors at this point. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you didn't have Board members. And that is how the process works to get it to -- MS. JANTSCH: They were not necessarily reporting to us. So the leadership was not necessarily aware until just recently -- until just COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just have one other question. During this period, did you go to our staff and sit down with any of your concerns? Did you meet with our staff, Bob Mulhere, Ron Nino or Chahram and say, "We really have some concerns here and these are the things we would like to change"? MS. JANTSCH: In the last two months I have met with your staff with other members. And I think it was pretty much said tonight when the construction industry was up that the subcontractors were asked if they had met with the staff. And they said, yes, and what was read tonight was certainly not what they had agreed to. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. Other questions? COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. MCNEES: Your next speaker is Garrett Richter, who will be followed by Joyce Ford. MR. RICHTER: Good evening. For the record, I'm Garrett Richter. I'm here to represent First National Bank of Naples. I would like to start with my appreciation and thank you to each of the Commissioners for doing the hard work that you're elected to do. I will say up front that I'm against the ordinance as I understand it. I'm against it for a few reasons that impact the bank. I don't understand all of it. When we talked earlier tonight about protruding logos, I didn't know if the sign that you have behind you for Collier County -- if that would be a legal or an illegal sign with the protruding logo in the center. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good question. Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a wall sign and we are talking about the pole signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it wouldn't be relevant. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If we draw an imaginary box around it and the whole thing was within the square footage, no, that wouldn't be a protruding sign. And, furthermore, we just deleted that language. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But, nevertheless, let's don't go there. MR. RICHTER: So that sign would be permitted on a wall of a building? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. MR. RICHTER: On the wall of this building? Page 35 January 5, 2000 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. As long as it doesn't protrude from the roof line or -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Protruding meant over the top, not out from the building. MR. RICHTER: Would that sign be permitted on four sides of this building? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, it will not be. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would it under the '91 code? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Our code since 1991 says if you are a corner lot you get signs on two sides of the wall -- on two sides of the building. If you are not, you get signs on one side. MR. RICHTER: What about for multi-tenant buildings? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Multi-tenant buildings -- that's the one that we are starting to have problem with the high-rises. Our code says each unit. Each tenant can get a sign no larger than 20 percent of the wall area. Their visual facade area. If you have a unit 20-foot high and 30-foot wide, that's -- 20 percent of that can be your sign. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gary, what would be really helpful is you started out by saying -- MR. RICHTER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you're opposed to this as you understand it. Tell me what parts you're opposed to. MR. RICHTER: I can do that. From a pure selfish standpoint representing First National Bank of Naples, as I'm sure each Commissioner knows, we have a high-rise building which is a 66,000 square foot building. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Beautiful building. MR. RICHTER: Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Beautifully landscaped. MR. RICHTER: It sure has. You can thank your staff for the landscaping. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They should thank the code. MR. RICHTER: We have four signs that are all relatively new. They come to us at a cost of close to $50,000 per sign. Will they all remain on the building? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Today -- MR. RICHTER: We are a multi-tenant building. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Today's code is doing -- is not talking about how many signs you can have as opposed to the old code. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chahram, talk in terms, please -- please, talk in terms of adopted and proposed code because I'm confused. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. The existing code, which is adopted code since 1996 I believe is the code that's not underlined. All that we are proposing is the text that's underlined. As you can read, we don't have anything proposed that would prohibit or change the number of signs that you can have on a wall or on a building. We are not changing the number of signs on any building. MR. RICHTER: That's not the way I read it. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Could you show me where -- MR. RICHTER: We can do that off the -- I can do that off the Page 36 January 5, 2000 public record. Let me kind of go back to the beginning of my comments. I do want to thank all of you for working hard through some tough issues. It appears to me from sitting here since five o'clock that some wisdom is prevailing that is not going to knee jerk a sign ordinance into place. I represent First National Bank of Naples. We talked earlier there is a number of bankers here. If you congregate the bankers, you will see that we represent a huge employment force in Collier County. We also represent a large customer base in Collier County. If there is an extraordinary expense to the industry, even though, Barbara, yes, we are a financial institution, but we're not a utility. And the money that we have is not ours. It is represented by our shareholders and our depositors and costs do have to be passed along. We have the same earnings challenges that small businesses do. And it wasn't that long ago and ten years ago that we, in fact, were a very small business in Collier County. So there are a lot of issues relative to cost enforcement that I understand that you all are going to be addressing. I don't understand the number of signs issue. I find some conflict there and I will not take up the public time. I'm also unsure of the height restrictions on pole signs. And while I'm talking about pole signs -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. RICHTER: One of the pole signs as it impacts the banks are the signs that we congratulate the little league in town for their championship series. It's also a sign that we display to the public what the CD rates are and what -- things of that nature. I'm sure a lot of your constituents do use those advertising numbers to evaluate where they may put their money, where they may bank on different products. So as it stands right now, I do not support the sign ordinance as I have read it. Commissioner Carter -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, let me hone in on my question. I know the time is elapsed there. Pole signs -- the proposed changes to pole signs you have a concern with. MR. RICHTER: I have a misunderstanding or I have a concern as I understand it now, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Other than that -- I mean, the number of signs isn't being affected by this. If you don't understand what the number of signs are allowed now, we can get that answered for you. We are not proposing any change to the number of signs allowed. So this ordinance won't impact that. Is there any other part of the ordinance specifically that you're opposed to? MR. RICHTER: Presumably not, if I have read the most current ordinance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. It's just very helpful and -- for any of the speakers, if I know specifically what the concern is, rather than just a broad, "We don't like the ordinance." If there's something in there you don't like, it's very helpful for me. So I understand. Thanks. Page 37 January 5, 2000 MR. RICHTER: Thank you. That will conclude my remarks and I appreciate your time and your efforts on this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate yours. MR. MCNEES: Joyce Ford will be followed by Colleen Kvetko. MS. FORD: Good evening, Commissioners, Joyce Ford. I'm regional manager for Prime Retail representing Prime Outlets at Naples on State Road 951. I originally had planned to object to the sign ordinance based on the primary color use; however, that's a non-issue. However, in looking through the sign ordinance I have some confusion on directional signs that might be used at our property. So I would like clarification on that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. Go right ahead. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are not changing anything in directional signs. Code says 60 square foot signs internal to the development and you can cjuster them for a maximum of 24 square feet. We are not touching that. That will stay the same. MS. FORD: Okay. So that signs permitted and constructed at my property as of last year, 1998, would then be in compliance? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Assuming they were built legally. MS. FORD: Assuming they are legal, correct. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: All your wall signs are in compliance. All your directional signs are in compliance. I don't know about your pole sign. It looks like it's 25, 30 feet high. MS. FORD: So everything that has been permitted at my property within the last several years is considered in compliance according to this? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, they are. MS. FORD: Okay. That's all. Thank YOU. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So your objection was colors. That's great. MR. MCNEES: Ms. Kvetko, followed by Don Pickworth. MS. KVETKO: Good evening. Colleen Kvetko, president of Fifth/Third Bank. I also want to thank you for all your time and comments. And I know you've taken a lot of my phone calls over the last week. I do appreciate that. I, like Garrett Richter and First National, am 100 percent against this new language. We support, quite honestly, the enforcement of the current ordinance first and foremost. Second, signs are in the proposal by the consultants recommended by the selection committee on community character. And the current ordinance will be reviewed, along with other beautification plans as we have talked. Let's let them do their job, review recommendations, but this time include business, and come to an agreement with suggested changes. It is my hope that you will kill this ordinance. Let them do their job and then this can be a win-win situation because there are some things in here we all like. We all want the beautification of Collier County. We truly do. But there is ways to work with business to get there. Page 38 January 5, 2000 This is -- just as Dawn mentioned, it's so convoluted. I was given the new proposal as I walked in the door. I can't read that in five minutes. I just can't. I'm not sure how you all can. So include business, but I would definitely say get the consultant in here. Of course, Garrett mentioned this and I will mention it again. I mentioned in my last few comments, the last few meetings, the draft language added to the current ordinance would mean huge financial costs to the community. Not just the big banks, but the small business also. And I also want to make sure that everyone understands that business really wasn't involved in a lot of this. You're seeing business outcry tonight, but that's because now we know what's going on and we're aware of it. So please include us once a consultant does this. One of the things we haven't discussed is the pole signs. I like pole signs. Of course, that's because, you know, that's how they find my bank, as well as many of the other banks. I think there can be -- again, let's see what the consultants say, but there can be some type of agreement to maybe box in or do something with the pole signs. If you look at Dan's Fans across the street from me, there is a metal pole sign. If you look at mine, it looks pretty good. It's boxed in and it's very nice. So there can be some type of an agreement on pole signs. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Colleen, same question. Specifically you outline pole signs. What other specific parts of this do you object to? MS. KVETKO: The square footage. Decreasing a lot of the square footage in almost everything. COMMISSIONER CARTER: How is that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What do you mean in almost everything? MS. KVETKO: Well, it doesn't matter if it's on my building. You know, right now we can comply to a certain amount of square footage for the total building. That wants to be decreased. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How large is your building? MS. KVETKO: Gosh, Tim, I don't have a clue. I mean, it's 3,600 square feet. I'm not sure how big the building is or how much square footage exactly I get. But I use every inch. And I try to make -- my pole sign is the biggest and then I put some signage on the bank. So if it's decreased, I'm not going to be able to do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why I wonder is -- with the suggestion Commissioner Carter made earlier with the staggering of that for a larger building to allow a larger sign, it may not impact you at all. I don't know what the -- MS. KVETKO: On my banking centers it would. On my main office it would not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. MR. MCNEES: Next speaker is Don Pickworth, followed by Mike Adams. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd ask Mr. Adams to go ahead and be coming forward, please. Page 39 January 5, 2000 MR. PICKWORTH: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth. I'm speaking not only on behalf of McDonald's, because Mr. Adams will also speak on behalf of the restaurants, but also I've been involved with some of the Chamber groups and also looked at this on behalf of Prime Retail. And we were concerned about the primary color issue. You've taken that off the table, so I won't say anything more about that. In conformance with Commissioner Constantine's desires, I will state very succinctly my concerns. Number one, I think the suggestion that the entire matter be looked at by the consultant is the best idea that has been expressed here tonight. Number two, the amortization period. I believe the idea of the amortization period that Commissioner Norris has expressed is a good idea. I would only amend it in one way. There has been talk here tonight which seems to indicate I thought that in 1991 we had some major sign code that came into effect and some major change. That is not the case. In fact, an individual who built his sign in 1990 and got a sign permit and one who came in in 1991 and got a sign permit, the standards were, in fact, the same. If there is going to be an amortization date where prior to that it's three years -- and I'm not saying that that's a good idea. 1991 I don't believe is the right date to use because it would arbitrarily treat people whose signs were permitted under the same standards in two very different ways. I think what the staff ought to do is let's go back and look -- and I don't know if the year is '88. The draft Chahram gave me -- and basically all of your retail districts you had a 25-foot pole sign in '88. You know, I think those kinds of things can be thrashed out and I think a date that we can all agree is a reasonable date to kick in the three years ought to be there. But, again, I don't think '91 is the right date. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because you think there were in -- although not codified as a sign ordinance, there were regulations regarding signage otherwise in the code? MR. PICKWORTH: Well, we've had sign regulations here in Collier County since at least 1972, if not before. And they've obviously changed over the years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So help me with that, Chahram. Everyone keeps saying '91 is the year. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. We had a sign ordinance since 1974. And that was the time that the code said to the extent desirable when practical you do this. And in 1980, '81 we adopted the better code, but until 1991 that we repealed everything and we adopted the land development code, we didn't have this code that we have today. The old code used to go by the zoning district. C-i, C-2, they get this height, C-3 get this, C-5 this. MR. PICKWORTH: No. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I have the code here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, no. That's enough. I understand. MR. PICKWORTH: The point remains -- and if I'm wrong, please correct me. But in virtually all of your commercial districts, which Page 40 January 5, 2000 are the districts that are being affected by what we're discussing here tonight, the standards were the same pre and post the LDC. I don't know if we called it the Collier County sign code in the 1982 zoning ordinance, which was the previous major revision prior to '91. But I'm telling you that those standards were basically the same. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. You're saying maybe '72 should be the amortization cut-off period? MR. PICKWORTH: I'm not saying '72. I don't know what it is, Commissioner, but I certainly don't think that a person who built a sign in 1990 under the same standards in '91 -- I'm trying to understand what the rationale of that would be. Just because we -- well, you know, we are just being repetitive. I think you understand what I'm saying. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Don. MR. MCNEES: Mike Adams, followed by Bill Ryan. MR. ADAMS: Good evening. I'm the guy from McDonald's, Mike Adams, the one that's usually got a bull's eye on my back. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're hungry up here. It's past dinnertime. MR. ADAMS: Maybe we can make a phone call and take care of that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Burgers for everybody. MR. ADAMS: I guess the only thing that I can say is I've been in Naples since 1973. And I have been involved in McDonald's since then. I started at the grill at the restaurant that you have the sign showing right there. And now me and Tom, we own the business. And we've paid for every sign that we have in any of our McDonald's. It is not McDonald's Corporation coming in and spending money on these signs. Me and Tom pay the money for these signs. So, you know, if these signs come down, you know, we're going to pay the bill to take it down and we're going to pay the bill to put the other one back up. Just because we're a big company, you know, you've got local people that this is affecting. Now, that sign over there that you have that picture up of, that's 50 feet up. It was built in 1973 and it had a permit at that time. Now, maybe that should have came down at some point in time, but nobody has never notified us, nobody said a word. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not illegal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's non-conforming, but it's not illegal. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It is a legal sign, absolutely. MR. ADAMS: This sign I could understand if somebody would want to take the sign down and lower it. I understand. No problem. Because it's probably not with what is current in the year 2000. However, to Mr. Pickworth's point, I have other restaurants that the signs are 25-feet high and they're between 50 and 100 square feet. To be honest with you, you really can't tell the difference. If you knew -- you probably couldn't tell me the size of the sign at Golden Gate versus the size of the sign at Ridgeport. One is 100 and one is 50. One is 25 and one is 20. It's not that big of a deal. So, you know, what you got in place right now is what we got down Page 41 January 5, 2000 at Freedom Square. That's down at 951 and 41. That sign if you box the arches and include the air that is inside those arches, that's 42 square feet. And that's the rules that we now have. And it's 15 feet high. It's a baby sign. I mean, they're not going to get much smaller than that. Anything we do from now on, that is going to be the size. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with the rules that are in place right now and have been in place for the last three years. I don't know. Why do we need to change this again? It just seems like more government and it's just more people trying to make regulations on what we've got to do as business owners. Personally, I think what we've got is fine and I think time will take care of this other stuff. And if we just go enforce what is illegal out there, I think you're going to find there is a lot of stuff in Collier County that is illegal right now. Because a lot of sign companies come in from out of town and they put up signs. They don't come and see you guys. They just put them up. And Mike Boyd can verify that. He does all my sign work. He's right here in Naples. He gets permits for everything. But, unfortunately, not every business uses these kind of individuals to do their work. So, basically, that's what I got to say. CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. MCNEES: Bill Ryan, followed by Gary Tice. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Again, we'd ask the second speaker to sort of be on deck, if you would, so we can -- I know you're right up here, Gary. I'm trying to keep it movin9. MR. RYAN: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for your time. For the record, my name is Bill Ryan. My wife and I have been residents of Naples for 22 years. Our children were raised here, educated here, gone off to college, and they have chosen to come back to Naples to make their livelihood. Although I'm currently on the Board of Directors of the ASCF and I'm a past ten-year director of the CBIA, currently I serve on the State Board of the Florida Concrete and Products Association. My real job is vice-president and sales manager of Krehling Industries, not quite as big as First National Bank. What I want to do is read you a position statement. This was -- I understand this may have appeared in the paper today. Together members of this community have created one of the best built environments in the world. Collier County and the City of Naples are a result of a team effort on the part of local government, architects, engineers, developers, general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers and our citizens. The successful development of southwest Florida, specifically Collier County and the City of Naples, can best be measured by our growth over the past 25 years. People from the world over want to live in our beautiful community. Together we have created and established the proper codes and standards. Together we have created the proper densities. Together we have created the proper building heights. Together we have created a funding mechanism for both Page 42 January 5, 2000 infrastructure and beach renourishment. It appears that working together there is nothing we can't accomplish. If the Collier County Commission feels strongly that the present sign ordinance needs to be changed -- and I am going to reword my original thinking because I've talked to members that you people appointed last spring on the select committee on community character and appearance. And I hope I've stated that properly. That's what I was instructed by one of the members of the committee. The committee has in place a consulting firm which is in the process of evaluating the needs of our community for both character and appearance. They will provide recommendations which will be a total concept of where we may be going in the next 50 years. As Commissioner Berry so well stated earlier, I believe that the Commission instead of piece-mealing a new sign ordinance -- and Mr. Carter I'm not trying to be offensive. I know the work and the hours that you have put into this. Many people in this community have told me what a great job. But I really think we need to wait for the consultant to come back to your special committee with their recommendations and then see how their sign ordinance program fits into the total concept. With that, I would like to thank you for your time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. MCNEES: Gary Tice, followed by Gary Hayes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Chahram might want to comment on that. I think last time the consultants that are going to -- that all submitted to this, we studied all of their communities. I think it cost like $60,000 to get the same report that you're getting tonight. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I reviewed several of the sign ordinances that those consultants prepared for the different cities. And what we're proposing is no different than what they do. Believe me, they don't go to different communities and based on the community character propose signs. They have just kind of a cookie cutter sign code that they change it a little bit to comply with the local requirements and they sell that for 50, $60,000. This coming Friday the consultant is coming to Naples and I'm going to meet with him at 11:00 a.m. Basically, he heard that we are doing the sign amendment. And I talked to him and I don't think he thinks he's supposed to write the sign code for us. He was under the impression that he's going to take care of some of the municipal signs and stop signs and things like that and how we can dress them up. He didn't give me an impression that he thought he was going to write the sign code for us for commercial properties. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't assume he would write a sign code either because I think that would be our job to dictate that kind of thing. I would certainly encourage when he comes here that perhaps direction could be given that when he is over here and talking with individuals that he talk with the business -- representatives from the business community and that he get their input so he could make a recommendation back to this Board. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We will try to do that. Page 43 January 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't see anything wrong with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we need to review how his contract is written if he's not sure what he is and isn't going to do. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't think there is a contract. COMMISSIONER BERRY: There should be a contract. MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere, planning director. There is no contract yet. We are in the process of negotiating with the consultant. We will be bringing the final contract back to the Board. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we'll get a chance to look at that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: May we add -- make sure that there is some language in there? MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Tice. MR. TICE: Good evening, Commissioners. I want to thank you, too, for your consideration of the business interests. I think that this evening you've heard some of the messages. I think you're taking into consideration what we need. I think we maybe need to go a little bit further and maybe have a little bit more involvement from the business side. And I don't want to spend five minutes up here reiterating what everybody else has said, but I think we -- the timing issue. I think it's a short period of time from when we really understood what the ordinance is. I think even this evening we still have questions on it. And I would applaud you to definitely consider -- reconsider this, look at what we currently have and see if we can make minor modifications to that. Because I will tell you that I've been here for 23 years and I think this is just a fantastic community. And the majority of the signs are in compliance. The majority of the signs do look good. We do have some exceptions and maybe for a change we ought to work on the exceptions, instead of the existing business owners that we have today and trying to make them spend dollars needlessly when they put forth the effort to do the right thing and comply with the '91 law and comply with the '96 law. I think they've made their efforts to do their job. And I think we shouldn't penalize any of those individuals. So I really would appreciate your consideration to look at this a little harder and maybe come back and have more business people involved. Probably something we haven't even looked at is how do bringing these signs down impact the current landscaping laws we have. We may bring those signs down and find that because of all of the landscaping requirements we have, we're going to have trees and everything else in front of it and you won't be able to see the sign anyway. So I think there's a lot of things that we really need to look at moving forward. And just thank you for your considerations this evening. MR. MCNEES: Mr. Hayes will be followed by Dick Lydon. MR. HAYES: I had on my presentation good afternoon, Commissioners. I think I have to change that to good evening. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. Page 44 January 5, 2000 MR. HAYES: As some of you know, my name is Gary Hayes. I'm the president of the American Specialty Contractors Association. Some of you know me and some of you will know me. The Commission has called upon me in the past to sit on various advisory committees and boards. And just to name a few, the development services advisory committee, the committee to appoint the current community development and environmental services administrator, the committee to appoint the current building review and permitting director, the technical working group to study land use and urban residential density issues, contractors' licensing board, Collier County board of adjustments and appeals, and most recently the rural fringe assessment area oversight committee, and various ordinance amendment workshops from time to time, too many to mention. I would say this qualifies me as a community-minded individual. And I hope that this is evidence of your respect and your desire to hear my input tonight. Maybe I was just left out of the loop, Commissioner Carter, but I don't remember hearing about any workshops regarding the current sign ordinance amendments. I would have more than happily participated on it. I don't remember hearing much about the CBIA or ACIF involvement in it of any kind. Perhaps there was construction people involved, I'm not aware of it. And, again, I am quite active in the community regarding construction issues. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's just an issue we didn't address. That's probably why you weren't involved, as far as the construction part, which I think earlier we said we would not even deal with this evening. MR. HAYES: Well, that was one of my questions earlier that I wanted to try for clarification when I first came up here and chatted for a second. I was under the impression that was what we were going to do was pull that portion. Actually, I didn't even know we were going to pull the portion out of the ordinance. I didn't know that we could line item veto an ordinance that easily. I assumed that we were going to continue it until the next LDC cycle. You're saying now that you're cherry picking the ordinance tonight. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, we're saying that we want to defer that until the next cycle to get your input to deal with that issue. That's what I heard earlier. MR. HAYES: Well, that was my confusion earlier. I just didn't realize that we cherry picked ordinances like that if that's the case, then that's not a problem -- a real big problem. I still have a few things to say about the ordinance overall. I feel there's many repercussions to many people, voters, taxpayers and tax-paying businesses that will be adversely affected by the current proposed amendments not to study this thing just a little bit longer. Now, I accept the fact that you're saying we studied it for six months. I don't know what six more months is going to do to hurt it. Page 45 January 5, 2000 I won't mention the specific issues regarding Section 2.5.5.1.4 construction signs. Obviously we have gone over that, so I won't be redundant there. But I am going to mention that I am concerned that given the age -- the average age group of our community, making signs harder to read would impose a handicap on people and also contribute to accident possibilities, as I stated earlier regarding signs such as directories. And, finally, I am getting concerned about opinion -- that we haven't gotten any opinions from law enforcement and emergency vehicles might have. There is no doubt they need all the help they can get to respond to the emergencies. Today I'm going to ask for you to hear my input and I'm going to urge you to not take a vote on this issue today, but at least wait until the next six months so that we can study it and insist on some more stringent enforcement on our current ordinance and see how we comply with that. And perhaps we can find out from that one that what's in place may possibly work. I don't come down here -- I'm not constantly in front of you trying to pick apart issues. I come down here when issues are of extreme importance to myself, my family, my business, and my business associates. I hope that when I do present myself in front of you that it -- you have enough respect to realize that I am not a heckler. I'm down here for a specific issue. And I say at this point I honestly don't understand why six months further delay on enacting this ordinance would be that detrimental to my community~ Thanks. MR. MCNEES: Dick Lydon will be followed by Sally Barker. MR. LYDON: Dick Lydon representing the president's council Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm sure glad we got rid of all those against because now we have to have some that are for. I took a little exception to the previous speaker talking about us old folks being blind. We're seeing the signs. We're seeing them too damn good most of them because they're too big. We don't have a problem seeing those signs too much. We would like to have some numbers on the signs so we can tell what the house number or the business number is. We might -- that might help us. I have heard an awful lot from the business community, particularly the bankers, about cost. And I know about those fellows. I borrowed a lot of money from them over the years and paid most of it back. But there is no such thing in business as costs. There is expenses. And I remember making budgets for years. I never had any costs. I had income and I had expenses. And if the expenses were too high, I had to increase the income. And that's what they have done in the banking business. They have increased the cost of doing business with them in order to cover the expenses. When they have an anticipated expense, they set it up on a priority. They allocate their $30,000 a year. If it's five years, that is $6,000. It's just kind of mathematics. So I would urge you to not continue to do with this like we do with so much in this Page 46 January 5, 2000 County. Let's not committee it to death. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. MCNEES: Sally Barker will be followed by Vera Fitzgerald. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are we near the halfway point of the speakers? I want to give the court reporter a rest. MR. MCNEES: We are approaching it. We have about 17 left. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. When we get it about -- well, the court reporter will need a break. When we get about halfway done with the speakers, let me know. MS. BARKER: Good evening. Congratulations, Chairman. I just let that in. For the record, my name is Sally Barker. I am here tonight representing the Greater Naples Civic Association, which, as you know, was the genesis of both the focus visiting process and the select committee on community character and design, of which I also serve as vice-chairman. The GNCA supports the sign ordinance before you this evening. And for myself, I'm a little disturbed at the thought that the whole onus for this is going to be placed on the consultant that the select committee has come up with because the consultant has a whole range of things to look at, not just signage. They're going to be looking at open space, green space, transportation with a view towards improving not only the aesthetics or the pretty things in the community, but its functionality, as well. So I don't think that the consultant is going to come up with a cure-all for the signage issues here tonight. But one of the reasons the committee did select this particular consultant was that they offered an excellent program of public participation. And I would sincerely hope that when the consultant holds its workshops the folks who are here this evening will show up. We have a long history of consultants coming in holding workshops and maybe five, six people come. And then the report comes out, a proposal is made and we get a room full of people who all have complaints and objections because they didn't participate in the original process. So when the consultant has its workshops, I sincerely hope that these folks will come. Other than that, that's about all I have to say. Thank you. MR. MCNEES: Ms. Fitzgerald followed by Jeff Provenzano. MS. FITZGERALD: Vera Fitzgerald. We around Naples Park and the north end of Naples are a little bit concerned about signs and the proliferation of signs because we can visualize that one mile strip looking pretty ugly. I was in Fort Myers yesterday and we were driving along Cleveland Boulevard and I said, "This is what Commissioner Carter is trying to avoid." And trust me, we really appreciate it. We, the people, really appreciate your efforts. I wish that I had a secretary to say, "Send an E-mail to the Commissioners. Write a letter to the Commissioners protesting." Most of us don't have secretaries and we don't have time. That's why you got 400. Page 47 January 5, 2000 One of the things that have been brought out is these pole signs. I'm driving along a six-lane highway bumper to bumper usually in Naples. If you think I'm going to look up and I'm going to look at about six signs on a pole trying to find a business, wrong. I'm going to want to know where I'm going before I even set out. I want a number on that building so I know where I'm going. I've already checked the yellow pages, so I know where I'm going. I'm not just going and looking randomly at signs to drop in on a business. I know where I'm going to go before I go. The numbers would really help. The second thing, if these signs were more at eye level it would be less of a danger. It would be within my visual range, instead of having to go like this, "Oh, God." And these lower signs make a lot of sense. I've heard the bankers say these signs are very important for their business. No, they're not. We don't go and pick a bank because of a sign along the road. We sit down usually and do a little bit of research. How I pick my bank was I phoned about a half a dozen, discussed rates, discussed all of this. I never looked at one sign. And if some banker put up a sign saying six percent or something, do you think I have time to read that? I do not. I don't want to get a rear-end. So these signs -- and this proliferation of signs is ridiculous. You drive through the industrial areas. I'm looking for a building number. Again if I need to go to a plumber or if I want to go and buy some sprinkler parts, I have to know where I'm going. I want the number on the building. I don't want it six inches high. I want it eight inches high. I want to see it. That's where I'm going. Not a sign. So the addresses are the most important thing. I have heard construction people -- the trades -- getting up and saying that their signs on the construction is so important. I have worked around the construction for about almost three decades. I hate to admit it, but it's that long. I've never heard a construction superintendent select a plumber because he had a sign on another site. He does it by usually recommendation. He usually does it by cards. Their business cards are the most important thing. If these people want business, get it in the yellow pages and get some good cards printed because that's how most of us do business. What else did I -- I tried to make some notes. I didn't have time to do this because I had to work all day. Again, someone talked about -- well, Dick Lydon made a good point about the cost of signs. Of course, it's also minuscule compared to the overall cost of building a building, setting up the business and the construction and everything. The sign is a very small amount on it. I'm really puzzled as to why the business community is less interested in the aesthetics. I would think that a very aesthetically pleasing community would draw them far more business than Cleveland Avenue in Fort Myers. Page 48 January 5, 2000 I think that I have just about covered all the little crosses here. So, yes, I have just about covered all my little notes here. So I just want to say I support the sign ordinance very, very much. I want to live in an aesthetically pleasing community. That's why I'm here. I don't want to live with pole signs and huge signs. I want to live where I can just look at those nice monument signs and not those huge ones. Thank you very for all your work. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Vera. MR. MCNEES: Jeff Provenzano, followed by Guy Porter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: One comment Vera made -- and you probably have several hundred signatures from people who took the time to fill out and sign their name and address and phone number. These are people in our community. She's right. They don't have fax machines. They don't have E-mails. They signed these petitions because those are the people that shop in these businesses. And what they are telling you is that they want the ordinance and they want it to be aesthetic. That's a message. Whether we approve this or not tonight, it's a message to the businesses out here. They're asking you for something and they support you and now they're asking you to support this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. PROVENZANO: For the record, my name is Jeff Provenzano. I'm not a member of the Chamber of Commerce -- even though I do support them at this point -- or any organization in Collier County with the exception of my church. I'm a citizen and landowner of Collier County for nearly 50 years. And my parents, my grandparents pioneered here in Collier County. They worked very hard for what they got and for what we've got. I also went to Vietnam and put my life on the line believing I was doing it to protect the freedom we all expect and use through free enterprise. I also served to protect the assets that our parents and grandparents who worked so hard for the future of their children and gave so much to this community over the decades. I'm here tonight to do the same thing I did 30 years ago. And, yes, I am fighting for my family and other mom and pop livelihoods here in Collier County. I would like to ask you to look at Section 2552511 of the proposed signage code. And I did go down and I did talk to Chahram. And when I explained my situation, which I'm getting ready -- I hope you give me the time to explain it tonight because I'm on a little different subject here on the signage code. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. PROVENZANO: All I got was this. Nobody listened, okay? And I realize he was busy at the time and he's one person. So I can't blame him and I'm not putting any blame on any one person in here tonight because that wouldn't be right. We're all under a pretty tight situation here. Anyway, this section gives no consideration to the mom and pop commercial property owners of Collier County. We are the owners of smaller commercial parcels who have limited road frontage and in proportion leasable space on our properties. We are the people who do Page 49 January 5, 2000 not have the big huge buildings for our tenants to han9 humongous signs on like the shopping centers, and no offense to the shopping centers, commercial bank buildings, and no offense to them, and other taller buildings. We are the families who mostly lease the smaller retail shops and similar businesses. The main staying variety of the economy and not generally the type of business that can survive in an office building, such as lawyers, doctors, and consultants. We are also the families that do not have the stand-alone buildings surrounded by parking lots on a main highway for everybody to see. That's a big advertisement right there. We're really being discriminated against. We are the ones who typically have five to twenty tenant spaces. And some of us have more. There are approximately in my count -- I think I'm pretty accurate -- three to 400 of us scattered along every major roadway in Collier County and another few hundred of us in the industrial parks, which we've been talking about tonight. All of us will be adversely crippled and denied the income we are now receiving if you pass the proposed changes. If you do the math in this section, it only allows 67 square feet of actual signage, which is no larger than two sheets of plywood, all right? This section says 150 square feet. That is so misleading, it's unbelievable. I gave -- I was the one that gave the sketch to Commissioner Constantine earlier tonight. And he admitted that made sense. And it's something that needs to be looked at. That's why I'm praying that we don't go through with this whole thing tonight. There is a lot of -- there is more issues than what everybody else has been talking about that are not right here. My family has thirteen -- my family -- oh, yes. I'm sorry. Anyway, two pieces of plywood. And this section assumes that five to nine tenants have enough room for proper signage, plus the name of a plaza. That's not true. You don't have it. You want to talk about small signs. We're 9oing to get real small. My family has 13 to -- 11 to 13 leasable spaces rangin9 in sizes from 900 to 5,000 square foot. Our larger spaces are off the road. In other words, in order to lease off-road space when the only access is on the main road, we must be able to let our tenants have reasonable signage space on the main road or we will not be able to lease these spaces -- that's true -- to any suitable tenants. If we are reduced to warehouse and storage space, most of us will not be able to afford the mortgage payments and the small parcels will become undesirable; and, hence, the commercial blight has begun on our major roadways. I'm talking from 30 years of experience of being a small retail landlord here in Collier County. And I have to give you another little scenario of proof because I did -- I did a lot of development and worked with a lot of Commissioners, Broward County Commissioners and Dade County Commissioners the last ten years. If you 9o over to the Boca Raton Area, drive along U.S. 1 and drive alon9 Dixie Highway in that area where they have enforced this signage and you're going to see a Page 50 January 5, 2000 blight. It's already started in these areas. They look fine aesthetically for the neighborhood and for that part of the City. We've got the City of Naples. It looks beautiful. We've got Pelican Bay. It looks beautiful. But we've got the commercial areas and the people that are in the commercial areas deserve to have signage. If you don't have recognition and you don't have signage, you just -- I mean you have to. You have to put your signs up. When you're doing a political -- otherwise, you don't do it. You want to just take down your signs and go on TV. That's fine. This is pretty much the American way. We believe in change. My parents believed in change. We all did. We all believe in development. And my stance tonight -- and I did -- I walked two days during the Christmas holidays and I didn't only get people from businesses, I also went to citizens, okay? So not businesses, but also citizens. I found one lady -- out of all these people, I found one lady who told me that she was for the sign ordinance and if this sign ordinance did not pass that we are going to look like Lee County and maybe Vegas one day. So what I did is I took out the ordinance. And I showed her the existing ordinance. And she read it and she told me -- she says, "You know, I really apologize. I was misled." So this misleading goes on both sides. You've got extremists on both sides. I do want to leave these petitions because these are the leaders of the community, the people that do donate the money, the people that support all the public functions that go on, and also the citizens. So I did do both. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. Mike, if you would pass those down for us to see, I would appreciate it. MR. MCNEES: Your next speaker is Guy Porter, followed by Pat Miller. MR. PORTER: For the record, my name is Guy Porter. I'm representing the Edwin Watts Golf Shop, which was referred to earlier by Chahram. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. What shop? MR. PORTER: Guy Porter. Edwin Watts Golf Shop. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Golf shop. MR. PORTER: I am the manager with the company. Mr. Watts wanted to come down himself because he felt it was a very important issue, but because of time restraints he could not get down here. He asked me to represent our store here in the Naples area. He wrote letters to Chahram and the Chamber, which they have. I was going to read them, but I don't want to take up your time. A lot of people have been very eloquent tonight in stating what the feeling is by most people that the ordinance is -- at this point by requesting people to take the signs down that have been in compliance for a long time doesn't seem a very common sense thing to do. I agree with Commissioner Norris and Commissioner Berry that to ask someone who has -- and the letters that I have state that we in good faith as a company came to Naples three years ago, built a store, Page 51 January 5, 2000 put up a very attractive sign. It's a pole sign, but it's boxed. It's very -- it's not something that is going to stand out and be detrimental to the community. It does have the store number on it where people can find it. We have a lot of people who call the store asking for directions to our store. And one of the main things they say to us is, "Do you have a sign where we can see where you are when we get there?" And it's very important to us as a small business to be able to have the sign there. Chahram pointed out that our sign is in compliance at this time. It's 96 square feet. If the ordinance passes, it goes to -- it has to go to 80 square feet. Well, the only way it can be shrunk is to be taken down and a new one put up. That's a large expense. We're talking a lot of money to do that when at one time you've been told everything is fine and then you have to turn around and you're being told that it is not fine. And you have got to spend your hard earned money to change it, doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Now, I agree that going back to 1991 possibly or a particular date and coming up with a time where signs before that were not in compliance should be brought up and from this date forward or whatever date you set to go forward, the sign should comply with the ordinance. I agree with that. But the bottom line is that our company does not agree with it and we would like to see that it does not get passed. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. MCNEES: Pat Miller and then it will be time for your break. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. MILLER: Commissioners, thank you. My name is Pat Miller. And although I am dressed in my banker's suit, I will tell you, as I did the last time, I'm here representing my wife and the 42 employees at The Gathering Restaurant in Golden Gate. My first point is please enforce the laws and regulations that are on the books. That's what -- we do have a good code now. That's all I'm asking. Two, if you are going to put an amortization period in, why are you penalizing the people that have supported the community the longest? The restaurant has been there 15 years. I don't believe that our sign is an ugly sign. Under the new code -- or amortization, I've got three years. Everybody says it's a tax deduction here, tax deduction there. It's still cold, hard cash out of my pocket, my wife's pocket. It costs us money. We can't give raises to employees. We can't do a lot of things. The cost of food goes up, we have to raise the prices in the restaurant. If we have to change the sign that is a perfectly good sign, that is a cost that we're not anticipating. It's going to change the cost of things to do. All I ask is you not do the sign ordinance tonight and that you consider enforcing the ordinances that we have on the books today. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Pat. Page 52 January 5, 2000 Is a five minute break enough for you? We'll take a five minute break. (A short recess was held.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call the meeting back to order, please. Thank you. We'll call the meeting back to order. If you would all quietly go to your seats and Mr. McNees will call the next speaker. MR. MCNEES: Terry Lenick is your next speaker, who will be followed by Kevin Durkin. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're going to start your time whether you're up there or not. MR. LENICK: I shall hurry. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. MR. LENICK: For the record, my name is Terry Lenick. I represent J.R. Woods, Incorporated. My understanding -- and I've been listening. There has been some alluding to a provision with regard to primary color. I was the attorney who received one particular portion of the ordinance -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Terry, excuse me. You may not have been in the room. We've had, I think, all five Commissioners say we're not going to mess with the primary colors. MR. LENICK: That's why I want to make sure it's explicitly on the record because -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's on the record. MR. LENICK: Do you mind if I ask the question just to make sure? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. LENICK: There is a sentence -- and this is purely -- that's why I'm going to be relatively brief. I'm going to read the sentence. The sentence is 2.5.5.2.1 (M), which says, "The use of primary colors and all shades of yellow shall be limited to 20 percent of the sign's background." Has that been eliminated? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. MR. LENICK: Okay. The other provision concerns the logo, which is provision "K". It says, "The sign shall not be in the shape of a logo." So if that provision -- my understanding is that provision also is gone. For example, if you have a McDonald's sign, you still can have your McDonald's sign like that. If that's true, then that first part of that conjunctive sentence should go, too. It says, "The sign shall not be in the shape of a logo." CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chahram, is that correct? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We crossed out half of it saying that logo cannot protrude from the sign. But if you have a sign and we have a logo on it, then it's perfectly okay. The thing is if you only have the logo. And that's because of the Blockbuster Video sign. We don't want a sign -- we're saying logo can't occupy the entire area of the sign, but it must look like a sign, not a torn ticket or hamburger or things like that. That's what we are saying no sign in Page 53 January 5, 2000 the shape of a logo. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, that's different from what we talked about. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: McDonald's name with golden arches on the top would be okay. MR. LENICK: If you want to permit a sign in the shape of a logo, then you have to eliminate the first part of that sentence which says, "The sign shall not be in the shape of a logo." MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. We don't want the entire sign to look like a logo. We want a sign with the logo in it. MR. LENICK: If that language remains, McDonald's could not have its golden arches. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No matter how small. MR. LENICK: No matter how small. And the question to this Commission is: Is the Commission going to eliminate that language? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We said if there's a name McDonald's and the logo on it, that would be perfectly okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But you couldn't have the arches? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, we could. What we are saying is the sign cannot be just the logo. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chahram, let me ask a question. Hold on, please. I picture golden arches here. Cut out -- okay. That shape right there. If that is -- if you did an imaginary line and measured it the way Bob said you measured signs and it met all signage -- it met all size requirements, would it be permitted? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's not how it reads. MR. MULHERE: Not today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Now, pause a second. Board members, did you agree or disagree with that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Agree. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Agree. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Agree. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But this sign would comply? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This sign if we draw an imaginary line -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, it would. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- and it was the size that the code asks for, it would be permitted. MR. LENICK: He's saying if you put a box there -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. An imaginary line. MR. LENICK: Okay. Well, it says, "The sign shall not be in the shape of a logo." Is that the logo; "M"? Is that the shape of it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's partially a logo. MR. LENICK: So, therefore, that language has to go. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This sign is only partially in the shape of a logo. If you cut off the red part, you can't make it small enough to be a permitted sign under the proposed ordinance. MR. LENICK: I'm suggesting to you that unless you remove that language that you're going to have some problems -- you're going to Page 54 January 5, 2000 have some bureaucrat down the line saying you can't have those golden arches. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think he's wrong. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate you bringing that to our attention, but I think if you read it in context -- MR. MULHERE: I would only offer one caveat. That is, looking at the flip side of that, if you do not restrict that you will have signs in the shape of any plethora of things that I do not believe you will want to see. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Inevitable plethora. That's why I say -- I agree that we should not be in the shape of a logo. MR. MULHERE: If you want your logo, put it on the sign. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But not -- but you're saying -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unless your logo is a rectangle. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. LENICK: Another point that I was trying to be direct to, if I could. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If it's really quick. MR. LENICK: Very quick. The amortization schedule. It's a real quick question. My understanding -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't have four Commissioners supporting an amortization schedule. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There ain't one, Terry. MR. LENICK: Yes, there is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, good. MR. LENICK: You're not going to have an amortization schedule? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't have four Commissioners supporting it. That's what we need, so apparently not. MR. LENICK: So then provision -- let me find it. 2.5.9.1.4 is eliminated, which is -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I overstated it. We do have an amortization schedule for pre-1991 signs. There is support for that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm not going to quote you section and verse. MR. LENICK: Is that the ten-year time frame? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We haven't decided that yet, but that is staff's recommendation. MR. LENICK: The question I have with regard to that is: How was that determined; the ten years? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The ten years -- the County Attorney can say. She said that five to seven years is fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chahram -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on just a second. We haven't determined any term. The ten years was when we were talking about an amortization schedule for all signs that are in place now. It was Commissioner Norris who suggested earlier this evening it only apply to those signs pre-1991 code. We haven't set a time line on that. Page 55 January 5, 2000 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So do you have an opinion to give us on what the time line should be for pre-1991? MR. LENICK: No, no. I'm not going to give an opinion on that. The question is: How did they make a determination of the proposed ten years? That's the only question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's a moot point now. MR. LENICK: You're not going to have anything amortized after '91 then? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't have four Commissioners supporting that. We don't have four votes. MR. LENICK: Then you have to eliminate the language that they're proposing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: At this point in time I don't think there is any support from it. I'm not going to support it until we get something back depending on how the vote goes tonight. My recommendation is that when we get something back from Dover Cole and then this is discussed what their recommendations are, then at that point in time, perhaps working with the business community, there will be a recommendation as to what we should do in terms of depreciation. MR. LENICK: I understand. Thank you very much. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we are not closing off that possibility forever? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not closing it off, but I'm holding out -- I'm going to be the bad guy and be accused of overkill. We already did it. We all sat up here and agreed to give them money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Next speaker. MR. MCNEES: Kevin Durkin will be followed by Phil Wood. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who is next? MR. MCNEES: Kevin Durkin. UNKNOWN VOICE: Mr. Durkin had to leave. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So Mr. Wood, followed by who? MR. MCNEES: Phil Wood. June Singer would follow Mr. Wood. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is June Singer here? UNKNOWN VOICE: She is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great. MR. WOOD: Okay. I'm Phil Wood. I think you need to realize that we have been jerked around with different versions of this ordinance. This changed today from what it was yesterday. And so the only thing that we can address is the draft that we picked up on the table out here. So I appreciate you saying, "Oh, we're not going to do that. We're not going to do this," but we have to sit here and address what is written in front of us. So please let us do that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Phil, let me just say this. I won't take this off your time. But perhaps, you know, this discussion is relevant for future -- how we handle these things. Because I think Commissioner Carter and staff tried so hard to be responsive to public comment that they changed and changed and modified and said, "How about if we propose this?" Page 56 January 5, 2000 Maybe it would have been better to stick with one proposal. But do you understand that their intention was not to confuse you with different versions, but to respond to complaints. MR. WOOD: Okay. I understand. But I've been told before that the primary colors were going be out. Not only did they not get out, but yellow got specifically added in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At the very beginning of this hearing taken out by the Board. MR. WOOD: I heard you say that's your intention. I heard no formal vote. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. MR. WOOD: I just want to go on record as being against that. I hope that you go through with your intention. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. WOOD: One other thing that I feel like is very important -- I personally don't feel we have to wait for the consultant and wait 18 months, but I do feel that the business community needs to have more input. And I can tell you I'm a member of NABOR, CBIA, Chamber, the EDC. Those are your four major groups. There have been no major meeting of any of those where we said, "All right. Let's get a group of 100 people together and tell you what the ordinance is about and get some input." At the last minute, roughly two weeks before the final planning meeting at which they voted not to send -- not to adopt this and gave you that recommendation, Mr. Carter did come to the Chamber board, but we had no time to, you know, call the rest of the Chamber members. I mean, there were roughly 15 or 16 people there. So I don't feel that the business community has had the opportunity for the full input. One other thing regarding the concept of -- you know, it sounds great at first to say, "Let's have all the signs low and mixed in with the landscaping and everything. Won't that be pretty?" They told me when I was in Boy Scouts -- they said, "If you're lost, climb a tall tree." And then I found out what happens when you climb a tall tree and look around is that you see other tall trees. And the same thing when you're driving around. If all the signs are at street level, you're going to see other people's eyes in cars is what you're going to see. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a practical application. Thank you for that. MR. WOOD: One other thing that I think is -- I am concerned about being lost a little bit here is there seems to be some people in the room from the public or up there or on staff saying, "Well, it's only a 16 square foot change in the sign," or, "No problem. You'll just increase your income." I mean, that's a clever idea. Why didn't we think of that? Increase our income. But, you know, it's not that easy. These are major expenses. You're talking some very major expenses to change and not to mention, you know, potential impact on actual business. The question about the logo in the sign that Terry was addressing just a minute ago -- as it reads right now and as I think the Page 57 January 5, 2000 direction you're going, it would mean that the Ditka's sign, which was only recently put up a few months ago would be illegal because it's not in a perfect little square or rectangular shape and it sticks up above it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Repeating for about the fifth time. At this point the majority of the Board doesn't support amortization, so we don't need to spend a whole lot of time. MR. WOOD: I'm not talking about amortization. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, you are. If it just went up, it wouldn't be affected. It wouldn't be illegal. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think he's just giving us an example of a sign that would not be permittable under the proposed ordinance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they wanted to put up another like it, that is true. What they only did six months ago is moot. MR. WOOD: My point is we got into a very difficult decision at the planning meeting trying to define what a logo was. And you start saying, "Is it only the graphic part? Is it the word, plus the graphic part? Is it this? Is it that?" I would just encourage you to stay away from the concept of what a logo is. I think that's a very complicated definition. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Phil. And as the next speaker comes up, Chahram, I want to see, please -- there must be somewhere a list of the committee members, the number of meetings. Who was the business community representation on this committee, et cetera? I don't need to know that right now, but I want you to know I need to know that before this meeting is over. Yes, ma'am. ~ COMMISSIONER CARTER: Before you start, I mentioned that I went to the Chamber. I went to the EDC. The only group that did respond was the Chamber. EDC had the opportunity to participate. CBIA said, "We don't have a dog in this fight and we're not interested." CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I mean, as the committee met and progressed. Not after the -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can give you names, yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I want to have at the end. I am sorry, ma'am. MS. SINGER: I'm June Singer. I'm a past president of the State Restaurant Association. And I'm also the immediate past president of the Collier Chapter. And because Kevin Durkin couldn't be here -- he represents the hotels. We have communicated a little bit and we both feel about the same way. I'm going to try not to make this too long because I think there have been a lot of people that have expressed the same thing. I'm really not a single person up here. I represent 300 members and a lot more restaurants in Collier County. And we all -- our board voted a couple months ago to stand against the draft changes. We would also like to ask you that you not take a vote today and that there be a little more communication to the businesses. We would have -- my husband is general manager for Kentucky Fried Chicken. It's a franchise. It is not supported by the main Kentucky Fried Chicken. Each franchise store has to have its own costs. And Page 58 January 5, 2000 if there was a change in the sign that we have, our store would have to pay for that, which would cost us a lot of money and there would be no bottom line. And restaurants usually pass these costs on to the people. So there would be extra costs to the community if we had to make a change in our signs. I think that the Chamber has expressed some of our feelings. Our restaurant is not a member of the Chamber, but we do support their feelings on this. And I think enough has been said about the pole signs. I don't have to go over the whole thing again. But I do feel that there are other ways that we can do this. I ask you not to take a vote tonight and to reconsider it. There is many in the community that don't really pay attention -- and they should -- to some of the Commissioners meetings and they don't read the newspapers like other people, you know. We don't always do the right thing. But I think you have got the attention of the community and I think it would be very helpful if you had some of the business owners put input in, other than a very public hearing like this. I am sure you would hear some of the same things that I'm expressing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question. Same question I had earlier. You referenced pole signs. Other specifics that you object to in the ordinance? MS. SINGER: Well, the pole signs and the cost of monument signs are the main things that we object to. There are some other things, but I think that's the major cost that we are talking about. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: May I ask you a question, too, please? I think you mentioned that the Restaurant Association Board voted a couple months ago on this. How did you become aware of it? MS. SINGER: We were made aware by the -- by Dawn. And we were asked to come to -- when Jim Carter came to the meeting. There were a lot of us that were aware of it. One of the problems is that -- and this is why I have attended this. A Restaurant at five o'clock in the afternoon, especially seasonal, it's impossible to get here. So they all asked me to come and come back with some information. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure. MS. SINGER: A couple months ago -- maybe I am talking November. We were made aware of it and we all talked about it and it would affect every single restaurant in town. And the lady that spoke about the six lanes of traffic and looking, well, she had a good point, but she's not looking at it from a tourist standpoint. And if you're trying to look over six lanes of traffic and find a sign that is low, it could cause a problem. And I'm not saying that all the pole signs are great either, but I think that I agree with the gentleman before me. Our sign ordinance is pretty good now. Maybe we ought to take another look at the way it is before we try to make some changes. And I think you'd get cooperation of the entire community if you were willing to not take a vote on this tonight. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess the point I was trying to get to is whether or not your organization had had any participation in the Page 59 January 5, 2000 process of developin9 the ordinance, but I understand. MS. SINGER: They had no notification. I mean, there was no awareness in the Restaurant Association or the restaurants that we or our members of anything that was going to be happening with the signs until they were made aware of it. And as I'm saying -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that was what; a couple of months ago? MS. SINGER: That is when Dawn Jantsch -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. That was when? I don't know when Dawn did that. MS. JANTSCH: I was your guest speaker for -- MS. SINGER: Right. She was our guest speaker for -- at the -- we have a culinary arts program at Lorenzo Walker. And Dawn was one of our speakers. She did a great job and made us aware. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Was that in December? MS. SINGER: That was November. MS. JANTSCH: It was before my Board of Directors meeting. It was after Mr. Carter had discussed the issue with me and I announced it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is going to sound wise and I don't mean it disrespectful at all. But if we've had November, December and we're into January now, you've had at least eight weeks that you're aware something was going on. What is the objection that you haven't had time? I realize -- I realize the format has changed some. But I don't mind if there are objections, like you said, the pole sign and specifics, but I'm getting a little weary of hearing nobody has had a chance to have any input on this. If they have known for eight or ten weeks, that's certainly an ample opportunity. MS. SINGER: I wasn't able to attend the December 15th meeting, but I was here at the meeting before. And I think there was a lot of confusion in my mind with the language, which kept changing. What I have in here is not current anymore. And to take that back and try to give this to all my members on the board and call a special meeting would have been difficult at that time. The restaurants were involved in Thanksgiving week, Christmas coming up, holiday parties. It's just a bad time for all of the restaurants to really come out and say, "Okay. What is this all about?" COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess why I'm sensitive to that is I've heard continually what sounds like criticism of Commissioner Carter for not including people in the process or people not having an opportunity to go through the process. I realize it's a busy season for restaurants frankly well beyond the holidays and hopefully through June. But that's not Commissioner Carter's fault because somebody didn't have time. MS. SINGER: I'm really not criticizing him. I understand from everything that has been said that he felt that he needed to do this. He certainly got the attention of everybody, which, I think, is what it was supposed to do. I guess what I'm saying is that I didn't feel that -- maybe there Page 60 January 5, 2000 was a better way, a public forum or something. You know, people are very lax about responding to something that they don't like, unless it affects their pocketbooks. Once it affects their pocketbooks, then they're going to be very concerned. And I'm not saying that we would object to everything. Maybe if we had -- we, being the restaurants in town -- represented by me or someone else, the current president, we would have a better time talking things over than just saying, "This is the way it's going to be." And I worry about taking a vote tonight. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think anybody is saying this is the way it's going to be. Again, I want to reiterate if there's a difference of opinion or a difference on the substance, I don't mind that at all. That's why we're here. But the repetitive drum beat, "We haven't had a chance or people haven't participated," Commissioner Carter went through a six to eight month process, put together a community group, including community people, business people and so on, went to the Chamber, went to the EDC, went to CBIA, et cetera, and this is our second public hearing which is open to anybody on the planet. There's certainly been no shortage of media attention for tonight's activity. So if we have a difference on substance, I don't mind that at all. But I really don't want to hear anybody say, "We didn't know what was going on. We didn't have an opportunity," because there has been repetitive opportunity, including this public hearing. There have been some changes in that. And Phil pointed that out. That was not helpful to have six different versions of that floating around. That's why we're here tonight is to go through the substance. MS. SINGER: It's shame on us for not responding and taking advantage of a time when we could have. This is not -- definitely not directed at Mr. Carter. It's just a concern that all of a sudden it was there and the restaurants woke up and said, "Wait a minute now." And I'm not -- I'm not going to apologize for that. I mean, I'm going to say that they probably should have awakened before, but lots of time you're so busy with your own business that you don't have time to think about the community. I know that we have been to the City Council because they had that open container problem and we worked very well with them and got it settled. But it takes -- it takes time to do this. And, I guess, they thought I had the time. Thank you very much for listening. And, please, Mr. Carter, we were not -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's all right. I appreciate your comments, but I would like to walk everybody back through a little history. We started in February of '99 with this process. We came to the Board LDC meetings in June. The Board told me, "You did not have broad enough participation." Those were public hearings. I didn't see anybody in here tonight that was at the June LDC meetings saying, "Oh, we want to step forward. You know, we want to get involved in this process." We went out and we got people. Mike Davis is the business community. Susan Weiss is business community. George Botner is Page 61 January 5, 2000 business community. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I want to read from the list because -- just to add to this. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's frustrating to me because, in fact, in Mr. -- I may be wrong and I will apologize publicly if I am. I think sometime ago he came to me or phoned me and he said, "I understand you're going to do something about sign ordinance changes." I said, "Yes. We're working on it. And you're more than welcome to come to the meetings." Well, all they had to do was call our office. Those were all public meetings. There's no secrecy here. MS. SINGER: I guess I'm just going to have to be a more permanent fixture around the Commissioner meeting, so that I can at least go back and tell them what is going on. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I just want to read, too, from this. There is a great number of staff members here, but we have a representative from Wilson, Miller; a company called McDonald Investments; Hook and Associates. Those are both landscape architects. Joe McHarris and Bother, also a landscape architect. Well, Cliff Barksdale. He's in Maryland, I guess. I don't know what his -- but we have Wilson, Miller; McDonald Investments; Barron Collier Companies; Ryan and Associates; Sign Craft. There are -- and then, you know, there only two people on there that I can even find. That would be Cliff Barksdale and Nick Hale who aren't on here in their capacity as a business owner. I just want to say that. If anybody else wants to look. Next speaker. MR. MCNEES: Your next speaker is Russell Tuff, followed by John Schoemer. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What do you have there, Mike? MR. DAVIS: Mike Davis, for the record. I have -- maybe to help the situation, I have in chronological order the minutes and the attendance of Commissioner Carter's meetings. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would love to have that. Thank you. MR. DAVIS: Hopefully this will help. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair, Russell has changed dramatically. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mrs. Russell. MS. TUFF: An operation. My husband had to leave for a seven o'clock meeting. I couldn't begin to give you all his comments -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But for the record, your name is. MS. TUFF: My name is Katie Tuff. If I'm allowed to speak for him, I would appreciate it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. MS. TUFF: He had two concerns. The ordinance would affect a broad area of the Everglades. I realize the City itself has its own ordinances, but there are unincorporated areas there that will be affected by this sign ordinance, as well as Immokalee. And I was just curious of those -- I guess, my husband was curious, and myself, as Page 62 January 5, 2000 well, if those areas were also included. They both have Chambers. And just one last comment on my part. I wish there was a great big pole sign on the top of the landfill mound and that it gets some good attention, too. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Chahram, you might want to address the overviews we talked about -- or overlays, I am sorry, for Immokalee. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Last time we talked about we are working on an overlay for Immokalee. And I mentioned last time that until 1991 we had two types of zoning ordinances; one for urban area and one for rural area. And probably we are moving towards the same type ordinances with all the overlays we are proposing for Immokalee and all the rural areas. And she was talking about Everglades. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Everglades City. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Everglades City is an incorporated city, so we don't regulate that. And all other signs in the area, they are in the agricultural area and they have not been affected by this code. CFIAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But there's certainly more to the Everglades than Everglades City. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What about Chokoloskee? Well, I got a call just before this meeting and they were very concerned about how this would affect the signs on Chokoloskee. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Well, we have an urban line on the growth management plan. And -- MR. MULHERE: Chokoloskee is urban. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chokoloskee is urban. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chokoloskee is urban. So that may be the one area that is affected. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add one comment with respect to the changes. I know we have -- the fact that there is really no other way for us to incorporate the Board's direction at their first meeting, other than to change the document and bring that to you. We're trying to do that in being responsive to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's document one and document two. I don't understand document~six. MR. MULHERE: I don't think there is document six. I think there is document one and document two. Planning Commission is the first document. We didn't change it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's don't have that debate. Let's go to the speakers. MR. MCNEES: Your next speaker would be Maureen McCarthy. MR. SCHOEMER: My name is John Schoemer. I live in Pelican Bay. I want to congratulate Commissioner Carter for starting this whole process and for going -- as somebody who lives in Pelican Bay, I am very much in favor of where we're going. I can't talk about technical aspects of what would be the appropriate number of square feet or the appropriate amortization period. Those are things I have to leave to the staff and everybody else. But you can drive up 41 up in North Naples now and you take a look at the Long Horn Steakhouse and the rest of it. And God knows Page 63 January 5, 2000 what the section between Vanderbilt and Immokalee is going to look like when we get -- when, you know, that gets -- you know, they have to sit for the next couple of years and worry about the construction. After that goes, it's just getting worse and worse and worse. The signs are worse. We need to do something. And I don't know whether this is the right answer or all of the answer or part of the answer, but we need to do something. And I want to support doing something. I got to say that what bothers me a great deal is listening to what I consider to be an absolute vacuum in the business leadership in this room tonight. And I'm going to start with the Chamber of Commerce. I don't know anything about the Chamber of Commerce. I'm not a member of it and have no reason to ever be a member. But I just don't understand how somebody representing the business leaders of the community and with their bankers banking them up -- and First National Bank of Naples, that's fine. I send you an awful big check every month. You can buy a lot of signs with what I send you. And for them to sit and say that this Commission has no right to legislate on aesthetic issues and their proposal is voluntary, trust me. We all know what trust me means. It's voluntary, it's delay. It's excuses. That's all that we've heard from. Now, if the guy in Golden Gate -- who has the restaurant in Golden Gate has a problem, I can certainly understand that and he has to work with this. But for the massive outpouring of the big-money business coming into this town -- coming up and saying, "No. It's good the way it is," it obviously isn't good the way it is. And I think that something has got to be done with it. So I recommend most strongly that you do something. Whether the amortization is one year or 20 years or forever, I don't know. I can't answer that. And whether or not you do something about what's already existing, boy, I have a lot of trouble. I'm an accountant by background. And I have a lot of trouble having sympathy for people who build signs back before 1990 and are going to have to change them by 2003 and saying, "I can't stand the expense." I mean, they probably got a five year or seven year write-off for tax purposes on them. It's lasted a hell of a lot longer than they should. Maybe some of them should come down. Maybe some of them shouldn't. Those are technical issues that have to be addressed. But we've got to do something about this to make this town look better. So that's what I would like to say. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. MCNEES: Maureen McCarthy. Following her will be Mary Catherine -- I believe it's Treptow. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is she here; Mary Catherine? MS. MCCARTHY: Don't do my timer yet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Apparently not. Who would be the next speaker? MR. MCNEES: Stephen Santoro. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is he here? Page 64 January 5, 2000 MS. MCCARTHY: Good evening. My name is Maureen McCarthy. Before I proceed, I want to thank Commissioner Carter for a very valiant attempt to do the right thing. I'm very saddened that you won't have the opportunity to do that. I would like to tell the audience here, most of whom are business owners, that I am an eight-year full-time resident here. I also own and operate my own business. I, however, believe that I am a person in a community before I am an owner of a business. I'm appalled at what I see. I'm appalled at the lack of direction of the bankers in this community who have made their money on the progress we have made, have made their money because it's a beautiful community, and people like all of us in this room have chosen to live here because of its quality. To say that they now don't want to change a sign, which, by the way, this nice gentleman that has been working so hard tonight tells them they don't even have to change the sign. I'm appalled that a bank president stands up and says, quote, unquote, "We all support beautification of Collier County. However, I don't want to address this signage issue." I'm also appalled that my fellow business owners who talk about lack of input. I have not had input as a business person. However, I will tell you who hasn't had input in this County and that is the individuals who pay taxes and who live here. We, as individuals -- I'm taking off my business hat because I'm first and foremost a citizen. We are the ones who haven't had input. Let me tell you something that I found out tonight. The Chamber of Commerce, which, again, I'm appalled at the role they have played. They have sent a flyer to every business saying, "Business owners and managers are urged to fight the sign ordinance changes on 1-5 at 5:05." Jim Carter was right and so was Pam Mac'Kie when she said this has been taken out of context. Now, guess what, homeowners who live with me in my little community, they didn't get a flyer. I called Jim Carter and I said, "Why are you not telling individuals because everyone I know is in support of you?" He said, "Maureen, I don't have the vehicle to do that." You know what, it's the individuals who are being short-changed, not the businesses. Again, folks, I am a business owner, but I make money in this community because it's such a great community. It's a high-end, beautiful community. People want to live here because of its quality. But you know what, you're all being so short-sighted that you're going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. This community is not as attractive as it was eight years ago. I don't care what anybody has to say. And if nobody wants to change, then we shouldn't have Fifth Avenue. Those of you who say, "Well, I've had my sign for eight years. I don't see any reason to change it," and the Commissioners who are saying, "People shouldn't have to change their signs," that is just wrong. It's wrong. We have matured as a community. We have quadrupled -- I am Page 6 5 January 5, 2000 probably wrong on quadrupling. We have dramatically increased our population. The rules have to change as you become bigger. I'm appalled at the lack of direction of the presidents of the banks in this community. And I'm a retired banker long before I ran my business. I'm a retired senior banker. I'm just appalled at your lack of leadership on this. What you should be fighting for is to keep the beauty in this community and make sure we don't become Dade, we don't become Fort Myers. I don't want to live in Fort Myers. I don't want to live in Dade. There is a Budweiser beer sign outside the airport right now. A neon Budweiser sign. I was taking guests back to the airport and my sister who lives in New York said, "My God. I feel like I'm in Newark airport." There was -- I don't know if it's still there. There was a Budweiser beer sign -- a big billboard on Immokalee Road. Is this what you all want? Is this what you think will increase your businesses? I will grow my business based on quality and service. I would like a sign. I don't need a billboard and I don't need big signs. What I need is a quality marketplace. I need people who have the money to come into this community. And if they don't think this is a quality community, they won't come in and I will not make money and neither will you. I will give you one further thing that I think is very relevant. I have served -- and Commissioner Constantine knows this. I've served on several environmental and other advisory boards for the County. Several of them. But I was on the ill-fated EPTAB board. And I will tell you there was a gentleman there who represents one of the largest businesses in this County. He voted against basically everything we tried to accomplish. And some of the employees in here know what I'm talking about. We finally -- I was the first person on EPTAB who said to the Commissioner Hancock -- I said, "Disband it. We're useless. We have no power. We can't get anything passed." Well, this one guy who voted against everything, after we were disbanded and we all went out into the parking lot -- I liked him personally, even though I disagree with virtually everything he tried to do. I said to him, "Tell me something, how are you going -- when you're finished, how are you going to retire here?" His direct comment to me, "Hell, I wouldn't retire here. My wife and I would never plan on living here because by the time we retire in six or seven years this place is going to be a hell hole." He said -- he talked about all the things we were trying to change. And I said, "Why do you fight us on everything we try to do?" You know what his answer was, "Because I represent my business." He said, "When I retire, I'm getting out of here. I'm going someplace where we don't have sprawl, where we don't have pollution, where we don't have these things." And I tell you something, I hope you all think about this and I Page 66 January 5, 2000 hope that the business community leaders here get a little bit smarter than worrying about the next nickel. Worry about our future because you're not going to make money if we lose this community. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am. MR. MCNEES: Mr. Santoro will be followed by George Bother. MR. SANTORO: For the record, Stephen Santoro. I grew up in a family-based owned sign business that's almost 50 years old right now. I'm a personal financial advisor in the community. And I believe I speak for many here tonight and many in the community. We are opposed to the Commissioners intentions to force businesses to change signage. The business community members are here and saying they think it will put them out of business. I would like to ask for a guarantee that the change won't put them out of business. The author Chahram of the proposed change cited that the reason for the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me respond because I highly doubt that a change of sign all by itself would put somebody out of business. MR. SANTORO: Okay. I have some additional facts that I would like to make. Before that, Chahram stated in Section 2.5 the reason for the changes includes monument signs, and I quote, "Have more architectural elements and are more aesthetically pleasing than pole signs." I ask your attention to my synopsis and paraphrasing of the Supreme Court case Sun Ad, Inc. versus City of Sarasota. It cites constitutional guarantees with reference to enjoyment of property. The courts were opinion adopted by a Supreme Court in 1917 contained a statement that City had no power to deprive an owner of legitimate use of his property because it offended the aesthetic taste of other persons. The City of Sarasota has recently believed in the same category as Miami Beach so far as its appeal on the ground of attractiveness is concerned. And I personally know that Miami has been looked at as the benchmark for the proposed Collier County changes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: By whom? COMMISSIONER CARTER: By whom? MR. SANTORO: From some work that I have done in the County here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Looked at by whom? MR. SANTORO: With the planning and zoning department. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who has looked at Miami as the goal for Collier County? Is that what you said? Who has done that? MR. SANTORO: I have seen some documentation in the planning zoning department two years ago when I was in town here personally. I eye-witnessed it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Witnessed what? That is kind of an important point. You stated that somebody is looking at Miami as the benchmark for where we want to be. Who is looking at that; who is that somebody? MR. SANTORO: That was part of the information that was used as a culmination of the documents that was used to prepare the original Page 67 January 5, 2000 sign code two years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You may have seen some document, but you're not answering my question. Are you suggesting that the Board is looking at Miami as the benchmark? MR. SANTORO: No. I am suggesting that the planning zoning department. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our staff is looking at Miami as the benchmark? MR. SANTORO: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. MR. SANTORO: The Supreme Court case with Sun Ad versus City of Sarasota, the findings were this controversy devolves then itself into the question of whether or not the ordinance operates to put the petitioner out of business or so to cripple its businesses as to an amount to an unreasonable and discriminatory invasion of its rights; hence, an exercise of police power which aesthetics do not warrant. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the case? I mean, you're referencing -- I don't mean the name. What was the substance of the case? Were they trying to prohibit any signage; were they putting a limitation on sign size? MR. SANTORO: The substance was about aesthetics. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. But how; was it prohibiting any sign or prohibiting any advertising? What was the prohibition or the restriction? MR. SANTORO: The foundation is exactly as what is being proposed tonight with the stated intended changes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In 1917 Sarasota proposed the exact same sign ordinance that we're proposing tonight? MR. SANTORO: I could give you some of the documentation. I don't want it to take away from my time that I have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I bet the Chairman will extend the time if you will answer my questions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You bet. Absolutely. MR. SANTORO: I can give you the case law and you can read it over. I would rather not go through it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not worth it, Tim. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's really not worth it. I would ask you how many communities -- other communities you would like to contrast against. Have you been to Palo Alto? Have you been to Boca Raton? Have you been to -- I can give you 50 communities and I'm sure that they have not been too concerned about the particular Sarasota case in 1917. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The suggestion you sound as though you're making is that local government doesn't have any authority to make any decisions on aesthetics, which is not true. MR. SANTORO: I beg to differ. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you can, but -- MR. SANTORO: It's a Supreme Court case. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Page 68 January 5, 2000 MR. SANTORO: It's on the book. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please continue. MR. SANTORO: There has been no traffic engineer that has been hired that I found or an economic impact study that has been done. You might say there is no statistical evidence to back up the claims that monument-type signs cause people to slow down and create auto accidents or lose business. We would like to see a blind and double-blind study and find out. Palo Alto, it's a college town. It's not Naples, Florida. COMMISSIONER CARTER: There are 100,000 people. How big do you want to be? MR. SANTORO: It's a college town and the traffic and the density is far less than what it is here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who do you represent again? I just needed to get that clear. MR. SANTORO: Myself and some business community here locally. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you're in the financial consulting business? MR. SANTORO: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I just wanted to see. MR. SANTORO: Hilton Head is also a business. There is supply side economics and demand side economics. And the normal business district taken into consideration when sign changes are in effect, it takes l0 or 20 years for a study to be in place. And I would like to see a blind and double-blind study. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ten and 20 years worth of study? MR. SANTORO: I would like to see any study that you had period that shows that there is no economic impact to the community and the business owners. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me give you one city name and it costs you seven cents a minute to call them tomorrow. And I guarantee you will get the answer that I think you will get. That is, Freeport, Maine, which has, to the best of my knowledge, the single most restrictive sign ordinance in the United States of America. And that town in the last 15 years has absolutely exploded with business. That is in excess of your ten years that you're looking at and it's far more restrictive than what we're suggesting. MR. SANTORO: Is there empirical data and a blind, double-blind study that has been done on it? That would be interesting. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's just wrap up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Define for me blind and double-blind study. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Tim. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to know. I don't know what that is. What is a blind, double-blind study? MR. SANTORO: The statistical probability that the impact on businesses would be substantial and the criteria that big-box companies and small mom and pop stores use to go into business when they look at the criteria for selection of a site. They look at their roadside signage and their outdoor communication pieces. And they're Page 69 January 5, 2000 going to stop choosing Naples. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I find that hard to imagine. And I think rather than a blind, double-blind study, we look at real life cases. And Freeport, Maine is probably your best case where no company has left certainly in that 15 year period and literally hundreds have come to Freeport, Maine, which was a little sleepy town and now has hundreds of businesses there. It has not dampened the enthusiasm for that community whatsoever. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I would like to ask you to wrap up your comments. MR. SANTORO: Okay. There is studies that I have on the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute and Penn State University on the evidence and reaction time of distance and impact on legibility. For instance, for lack of time I'll just wrap up. The aesthetic standards, it would be great if you can let the Dover Cole study be performed, including commercial signage. If and when the recommendations are made, then call meetings with the business community to come up with the changes together. And to quote Little Italy's owner, "You're not spending your money, you're spending mine." Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I've got to say this because we have heard it so many times. We never are spending our own money. We're always spending your money. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You were going to give me the case. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Every time we spend money, it's yours. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me. You were going to give me that case to look at. You said there was a specific case from 1917. Did you have that paperwork? MR. SANTORO: I will put a copy in the mail. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Copy is in the mail. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't do us a lot of good tonight, does it? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but if you're going to bring information forward and make a claim that that is what we should be basing our legal opinion on, we ought to be able to have information complete. And I just can't imagine that the Supreme Court has said no community has any control over any aesthetics whatsoever. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It hasn't. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just want to make a comment. What I'm witnessing here tonight is the very thing that I don't think we need to have happen in this community. What we're going to see is a split between the business community and the homeowners associations and different homeowners groups. That was never the intention I'm sure Jim had when he went into this sign ordinance. We have said before, this is not a final, final. Jim -- I appreciate the fact that he got into this and brought it forward. The timing perhaps is not quite what it should be. And this is not the end. And I have told people who I have spoken with that I think you will see some kind of recommendation come forward. I mentioned this earlier. And I think business owners ought to be looking at -- be Page 70 January 5, 2000 ready to have some input when the time comes. So for anyone to stand up here tonight and say that we don't care about the community and that we're trying to committee-ize all these things and we don't want to make a decision and do that kind of thing, you're wrong. That's not the case at all. But I think we're -- I'm going to say it again. I think we're a little preliminary in making a final decision tonight. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, we disagree on the timing, but if you're in agreement -- I just want to make sure. I think the whole Board is. We have the legal authority, whether it is now or 18 months from now, to make aesthetic decisions. I just -- I am not accusing you of anything. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tim, I'm not opposing -- I'm not opposing that. We have to make those kinds of decisions. Nobody is opposing aesthetics in Collier County. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And if we're that ugly, I would suggest to people that if you're that unhappy here -- I was told this about 30 some years ago when I moved to this community. I was a young upstart in a school room down here and I got to complaining about some situation. And I had a very dear friend teacher who told me and said, "Mrs. Berry, you know the road that brought you in here will take you out." And if you're that unhappy with the looks of the community and the way things are going, keep that in mind. There isn't a one of us sitting in this room that isn't dispensable. And it takes all of us working together to make this community what it is. There's a lot of us that have put in a lot of blood, sweat and tears. And I hate to bring this up, but the people -- I'm a little resentful when I hear the newcomers start griping about the way Naples looks. I'm going to tell you something. I came here 30 years ago -- more than 30 years ago. Some of you wouldn't have wanted to live here then. You would have been so unhappy here with what you had. Now, there is some who have lived here during that period of time and they loved it and they're sorry to see what has happened today. There was no Philharmonic. There was no beautiful library on Central Avenue. There wasn't a lot of those things. And we have come a long way. And you didn't have a decent hospital. You had a very small hospital. If you wanted to have a baby, you went to Fort Myers. But I get so tired -- I'm sorry that we're off the track here. But I get so tired of people coming in who have only been here a short time and start complaining about this community. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER BERRY: We have had a lot of people that have worked darn hard. And my husband is a businessman in this community. And we put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into this town. So for anybody to come in and start being critical, I'm not going to put up with it. I have a great deal of respect for the town and I want it to do nothing but grow and to be what it should be. And we're all working Page 71 January 5, 2000 towards that end. So nay sayers, if you're -- if you're going to be negative about Naples and this community, then I suggest that you go out and take the elevator down. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Botner. MR. BOTNER: For the record, George Botner, president of Collier Naplescape. Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to address you again on this very important subject to all of us. I was one of the members on Jim Carter's streetscape committee and then before that on the urban design component of focus. And you all know we had at Naplescape a big hand in drafting your streetscape master plan. And also on the streetscape committee another sort of monumental piece of legislation that you enacted recently to ensure our environmental quality was the architectural guidelines for commercial structures. So that document, along with your streetscape master plan, I think did a lot to kind of send us in the direction that we want to go in terms of fortifying, establishing and maintaining with the higher level of environmental quality that this community expects of itself. And you certainly have been big supporters of that along the way. In my capacity, I have lots of opportunities to talk to groups all over the County about the Naplescape program and how other folks can contribute to that. And there are parts of the lady -- the speech made by the lady who spoke two people before me. I'd almost like to record and tape it to kind of pump people up. However, having been president of Naplescape for the last eight years -- gee, it has been a long time now. The point that I would like to make sure that also gets into that message is that we would never have achieved anything at Naplescape if it were not for the direct hands-on support of the business community, and in particular one of the bankers who helped found Naplescape, Gary Tice, who is sitting here today. I just think it's unfortunate that he or his bank or the banking industry should be in any way impugned. However, having said all that -- and I'm a little conflicted because I'm a landscape guy and pole signs aren't necessarily my most favorite object to have to compete with when we're trying to establish landscape that helps to connote the kind of environmental quality that we really want to promote here. So for that main reason that's why I'm in support of it. That's why the guy who wrote your architectural guidelines is in support of it. The guy that helped write the original LDC in '91 who sat on our committee is in support of it, given the fact that there would be a level playing field and that there is an equity related to the transference of the cost to establish the initial and ongoing sign program with a new signage program that can help contribute to the new look for Naples. With those provisos, I would have to say that our group is in support of the landscape theme for Collier County, rather than a strictly commercial theme. Thank you. MR. MCNEES: Your next speaker is Mike Boyd, who will be followed Page 72 January 5, 2000 by John Cardillo. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many more? MR. MCNEES: Four after Mr. Cardillo. Make that three. MR. BOYD: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Mike Boyd. I am the president and owner of Signs and Things, a local company. I employ approximately 22 people. I just want to clarify a few situations. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We may need you, Chahram. MR. BOYD: For the most part, I can support the code. Page number five it has, "Monument signs shall contain an architecturally finished base of not less than 24 inches in height and an architecturally finished cap no less than six inches in height." To allow us some design leeway, I would prefer to not tie my hands behind my back that I have to have a 24-inch base or an architecturally finished top. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it would be up to 24 and -- up to 24-inches and then up to 6-inches as the cap. It seems reasonable. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The code reads 24-inches base minimum. So let me show you what the base means. This sign to here is basically the base. MR. BOYD: Okay. That particular sign there doesn't have a 24-inch base. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Doesn't have a 24-inch base, but I was trying to show them what I meant by base. MR. BOYD: All I'm asking for is that you don't limit -- don't set a figure of 24 inches that I have to meet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He might rather have 22. He might rather have 22. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have to have a number. We cannot say zero to 22. Then everybody is going to -- MR. BOYD: Why do I even need a base -- if you're requiring a 100 square foot planting area around the base of the sign, chances are if I plant flowers and everything around it you're not going to see it anyway. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The whole point of this is aesthetics and that we would have an architecturally pleasing sign. We can't count on the landscaping to make it beautiful or we would just enhance the landscaping code. MR. BOYD: But you're requiring me to have a planting base of -- I think it's 100 square feet. Is it 100 square feet, Chahram, around the base of the sign? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a sign without the base and with the required landscaping. As you can see, it doesn't look as attractive as the sign with the base. MR. BOYD: But that's not a monument sign. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's a ground sign. It's eight-foot high. MR. BOYD: But it's not a monument sign. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: How do you define a monument sign without -- MR. BOYD: A monument sign would have to have a closed section between the two posts, so you wouldn't have any area below that. Page 73 January 5, 2000 That's what you're asking us to build, is it not? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. But what I'm saying is this would have been the sign if they didn't have the pole. You should agree with me it doesn't look as attractive as the sign -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: With the nice substantial base to it. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. I think you've made your point. MR. BOYD: All right. My other question is on wall signs. Are you changing -- we're not have a maximum 200; there is a stair step effect? Is that what I'm told tonight? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: What we proposed today is propose to have three different sizes up to 250 square feet, which would make all pole -- all wall signs legal. MR. BOYD: Okay. And that's what the majority of the Board is in favor of? Okay. I can support that. The other thing that I would like to do is -- you know, the main problem -- our present sign code is pretty darn restrictive. And the main problem in my mind -- and I'm in the business and this is how I make my living -- is the enforcement. Could you put the Fayard and -- Bennett's Grocery and Fayard. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You can go ahead and talk. We know the one you mean. MR. BOYD: You know the one I mean? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure. MR. BOYD: There has never been a sign code in Collier County that has allowed a roof sign. That sign has been there forever. It's illegal, but it's still up there. Why isn't it -- I don't understand why it isn't out? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is it grandfathered in? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This sign has been around for as long as anybody can -- this sign has been around for as long as anybody can remember. We didn't keep the files of old sign permits and we don't know if it was permitted or not. But we didn't have permit -- building permits until 1960 or something like that. MR. BOYD: That's my point. Let's enforce what we have right now. I think we're rushing into something. I think we have a good sign ordinance. If there was just some enforcement out there, everybody could live with it and be happy. In the past year I have taken probably four or five non-conforming signs and we have went through the process with Chahram and Bob of making them conforming. We have either lowered them, we have put a pole covering on them, we have taken neon off. The classic example is the Kia sign at the corner of Shadowlawn and Airport Road. That used to be Denny's Auto Sales. It used to have neon around it. It used to be 25-foot tall. Now it's 20-foot tall. It has a pole cover on it. The neon is off. I think it's a pleasant sign. So let's enforce what we have. I did a little survey. I drove from the Golden Triangle on the East Trail to 951. I came back. I Page 74 January 5, 2000 drove up Airport Road to Golden Gate Parkway. I counted 141 free-standing signs, which if you don't do the amortization schedule or if you do do the amortization schedule and make those people take them down, they're going to have to take them down. And a conservative estimate would be $10,000 per site. That's $1,410,000. I don't know where the business community can come up with that kind of money. So I would just like to say slow down. Let's try to enforce what we have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question, Mike? You ran through some points you could support, the monument portion. What parts -- MR. BOYD: Commissioner, I have been -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First I heard you say like three different parts you could support that and then you said, "But let's slow down." Are there parts in here that you're specifically concerned shouldn't go forward, setting aside the amortization question? MR. BOYD: Well, to be honest with you, I hope I'm still married when I get home tonight because my wife told me I'm crazy for coming here and not supporting these changes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is your retirement plan. MR. BOYD: This is my retirement plan. Please vote yes. Vote right now and vote yes. I will give everybody in the room 100 bucks. You know, Tim, I've lived here for a long time. My kids were born here. I care about the community. I am a business person. You know, all the business people here care about the community. I can build a monument sign that is 15-foot tall. I don't have any problem. I can make it look nice. I can make a good living at that. If you pass this ordinance, yeah, I'll live with it. There is no doubt about it. The business community will live with it. But don't go back and make people that have spent hard earned money, whether it's ten years ago, whether it's 12 years ago, whether it's 15 years ago. Don't make them spend their hard earned money to replace something that was just fine back then. There was nothing wrong with it. We can put some things into this ordinance that can allow us to go back and find some of these ugly signs and do something about them. There has got to be a way we can do it. Let us sit down and go over it and get rid of it. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, mike. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I smiled there, Mike, because of the sign that popped up when you said that. MR. BOYD: It's actually one of my favorite places to drink. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would like to know where this is. MR. MCNEES: I am not sure whether Chahram is showing us the sign or suggesting we adjourn there. Your next speaker is John Cardillo, followed by Andy Hill. MR. CARDILLO: I just got a call from Mrs. Boyd to file the petition. Page 75 January 5, 2000 By the time I 9ot up here, most of the answers are -- that I was looking for are here. But I will follow up with what he said. That is, hard earned money and time. We were here less than a -- about a year ago, a year or a little more ago, and had petitioned to have a sign moved because of what had happened near our property. The Board passed it. The Board proclaimed our sign. They thought our sign was beautiful and the sign is up. What I think my point is now is that the -- ours was only a year ago and cost us $25,000. That's a lot of money to anybody and to us. To then see it eventually be non-conformed and you have to change it -- and I know we're not there yet -- will affect everybody at some time and it affects us. We want to make sure that doesn't happen because we put a lot of good faith into that sign. The model that you use in your -- in the most recent of the proposals is based on -- is somewhat based on what we did. We had an architect do it. We had it match the building. We were applauded for doing what we did to our building 25 years ago. We were applauded for the sign that we did. It makes things safer. It's much more attractive in our community. And, yet, it may be -- it might be found sometime to be non-conforming and we have to go out and spend all that money to redo it. I think what we're looking for is there ought to be some exceptions for the particularity or the peculiarity of your grounds -- of the property or what one could consider a substantial compliance. One of the things that concerns me in the proposed ordinance was I did not see any room for variances beyond the -- where certain administrative decisions could be made. I didn't see anything that would allow somebody to come back to the Board and say, "Well, this was not contemplated. Would you allow that?" I think we ought to be a little bit flexible in hard and fast rules. I think the Board has to be commended for embarking on this. I think what has made Naples great over the 30 or 40 years that I have been coming here and the 30 years that I've lived here was that we had very -- we had strong ordinances, we had strong commitment to beautification. I've worked on those things. I've worked on landscape and Naplescape and all those other things to help make Naples look beautiful. I think sometimes, however, when we do put these things through that we have to be somewhat flexible or allow there to be some maneuvering, some variance, some -- something that prevents a total hardship. And so that's really -- by the time tonight, by the time at this hour, that's all I have to say. I know that Commissioner Carter is well intended on this and that when you do something good, you're going to get swings and arrows. Or you attempt to do something good. I think what we need to do is really form some alliances, rather than, as Commissioner Berry was saying, to have it divide. In our particular situation, we worked well with Chahram. I hope that some minor excesses or minor variances doesn't cause us to have Page 76 January 5, 2000 to redo this whole thing again. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we'll just have a brief pause between the speakers, the court reporters need to change. We're not going to take a break, but they said they could do that in 30 seconds. (Brief recess.) CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: We will go back on the record, and Chahram had a response, I think. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have administrative variance and we have regular variance for sign that comes in front of you. And regarding Mr. Costello's sign. MR. CARDILLO: Cardillo. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Cardillo, I'm sorry. John, it's getting late. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Who's on first? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Cardillo's sign, the height is twenty feet measured from the ground. The sign is in a ditch. And our code says you measure the sign from the crown of the road. So it's my belief that it's not more than fifteen feet and the copy area, we are proposing eighty square feet, and that sign is close to ninety square feet, real close, maybe eighty-five, eighty-eight. And we are saying that if your sign was built before this code, there is a ten-percent allowance, so sign can be up to eighty-eight square feet. I believe Mr. Cardillo's sign is in full compliance with the proposed amendment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And beyond that, Mr. Cardillo already has a variance for his sign, so I don't think we're going to worry about it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: No, but I think his point was, if we did the amortization, he would have to take it down in three, five, seventeen years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the answer is no, he wouldn't. And the unfortunate reality is that a number of calls we have gotten this week from people who, after reading the column in the newspaper, were under the impression virtually everybody would have to were misinformed. You, like many of them, would not be affected. MR. CARDILLO: Well, I appreciate that affirmation of our -- the legality of our position or of our sign. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Andy Hill, to be followed by Nick Susa. MR. HILL: Good evening. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, and I would like to indicate my support for this measure. I have four points that I think are important. The first point is on somewhat of a sarcastic basis, as a shareholder of First National Bank stock, if we don't get our stock up twenty-two bucks a share, we may see a sign change whether you want to or not. VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: Do I get equal time? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Best line of the night. Good line. MR. HILL: I'm sure the price of your stock is well beyond your good work nevertheless. On a more serious note, I think the issue -- I'm an investment analyst for those of you that don't know me and I look at things from a macro standpoint. And I look at Naples as -- as I look down at Page 77 January 5, 2000 Naples, relative to some of the other communities that we compete with for the tourism dollars, we have to make sure we present an excellent product, an excellent appearance. I think we all agree some of the signs in the community don't -- are not consistent with what we would like to present to the tourism industry. So that is one key point that I would like to make, that we should consider the competitive environment and the long-term benefits that our businesses will -- will achieve by having a more stringent and attractive sign code. The next issue, the competitive landscape for our businesses as they compete with one other I think will be enhanced by a sign code. There's certainly an advantage for a well capitalized company to out-sign a smaller mom-and-pop competitor, and I think that's an issue that may not have been considered. It doesn't impact my business, but for others I think it would be an excellent situation, where everybody plays by the same rules just as we have in sports. My final issue is that I think the sign issue is going to diminish its importance over the long term due to technology, which I don't think anybody's addressed that issue today. Certainly in the financial services business, which I am somewhat familiar with, the Internet and the ability to market through the use of technology is going to be so much more important than it is today. So I think to some extent signage and business location won't be as big a deal as some people are emotional about this issue today. So I think those are some thoughts that the -- that the commissioners should consider in their thought process. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER BERRY: In that case, then we'll start tearing down all commercial buildings, right, Andy, and we'll replace them with multi-story condos and increase the density in the coastal area to -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: You don't want to say it, Barbara, you don't want to say it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As long as they're never leaving their homes, Barbara. COMMISSIONER BERRY: They're never going to leave their homes, so who cares if you stack them up three hundred deep, you know. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Don't have to widen the roads either. VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: (Inaudible). COMMISSIONER BERRY: You'll have to work your business at home on your boat, is that it? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Let's get our next speaker. MR. McNEES: Mr. Susa followed by Nat Howard. MR. SUSA: I'm Nick Susa. I've been a resident in Collier County for twenty-one years now. I have been in the sign industry for the last eighteen years. This would directly affect my business along with Mike Boyd. I agree with him, but I don't think we need any more restrictions than what we have. I hear this '91 code, our code has changed numerous times since '91 that not too many people are often aware of. This past June I lost over thirty thousand dollars' worth of business because of some Page 78 January 5, 2000 changes that were done in June on the codes that I was not aware of. The job was sold. Stuff was ordered. I told the guy not to give me a deposit check until I came and got a permit. I went to see Chahram. The codes have changed. Stuff's wiped out. I can't do the job. It's like taking money right out of my pocket. We have a good sign code in place now, I believe. I think it's pretty restrictive. I don't think we need to have any more restrictions until we have time to adjust this out a little bit. Give it a few more years to play out to what we have. A lot of complaints I heard last time I was here was about Davis Boulevard and East Trail and stuff. Most of those signs are non-conforming, haven't been, don't think there was ever a permit pulled for the majority of that stuff. The biggest thing is code enforcement. The guys that we have now work hard. They're working on current stuff, trying to keep up with that, and they don't have the time or resources to go back over the old stuff. Bennett's, Dan's Fan City, I was asked to do a service call on that last week. That was a bone of contention -- there was a thing in there. The guy would love to do something with his sign, but he's afraid to because he knows if he changes it, he's going to lose it. If you can work out something in that respect, let him do something else, he would be more than happy to change. I think a lot of the business owners would. It's just that they're aware that if they do something with the stuff now, that they will have to change it. Plastic Specialties, I do a lot of business with those people. That sign never, never was permitted. I'm sure of that. No sign company would ever have done the warehouse underneath that, let alone install it. The key is enforcement. Leave what we have in place now. Don't change it any more than we have already done. You're trying to hone in something that you're not getting to the real core of the problem in getting rid of the old signs, the non-conforming. Lee County has had something in -- I've been doing business up there the last fifteen years. They've had an affidavit that the property owner and the business owner have to sign for a non-compliant sign. It's real simple. You've got a non-conforming sign, you've got one year to bring it into compliance or take it down. You sign the affidavit as a business owner. The property owner signs the affidavit as the property owner. There is no argument with the county a year later when they come by and hey, take it down, it's not in compliance or bring it in. It's a done deal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you suggesting that we bring those that are not up to current code up, all those non-conforming but legal signs, that we pass an ordinance requiring those to come up to at least today's standards? MR. SUSA: I would say yeah, or at least '90 standards, '91 standards. I mean it's all the same, but the height has dropped down. But we're restrictive enough. I mean, if you did something like that with an affidavit, for instance, you know, with the property owner Page 7 9 January 5, 2000 and the business owner, it 9ives the 9uy a chance to 9et into business for a year, make himself a few dollars where he can put up a nice sign and 9et rid of somethin9 that's non-compliant. Maybe him and the property owner can do somethin9 there. And I have done them before. I mean, Sandal Factory, years ago. Went up to Fort Myers, did a job up there. They were aware when they went in there. A year later they had to take it down. The sign used to be on the side of their buildin9 down here on Taylor Street after we cut the sign down because they couldn't brin9 it into compliance, otherwise they would stick them on the building. It was one of those deals, but there was no argument about it when the time came around. But I think you need to 9ive the code enforcement 9uys a little more support and maybe add a couple more people to 9o into that respect and 9o after the signs that aren't complyin9 that are the problem and leave what's in place alone now. You have 9ot property that you have made people put in landscapin9 and stuff over the past years. Now you're 9oin9 to make them cut their sign down and drop it right in the middle of their new landscapin9 or the landscapin9 that's been in place that's not even fully 9rown yet. So they're 9oin9 to have to 9et the sign dropped down, is -- is a huge expense, plus they've 9ot to re-landscape the front of their property to compensate for the new height restrictions. I don't know about you, but five years ago when this stuff went through on Airport Road, you have 9ot to pull out into traffic to see if anything's comin9 because of the bushes and stuff. They haven't 9rown up enough yet. You know, you've 9or to 9ire things time to adjust. You can't keep fine-linin9 them and fine-linin9 them, you know, until you fine-line it to death. That's about all I 9ot to say. I hope you vote this thin9 down and 9ive it a little more thought. Thank you. MR. McNEES: Next speaker is Nat Howard. Your final speaker will be Mike Davis. MR. HOWARD: I'm 9oin9 to try and talk as fast as I can. Excuse me -- appearance, but I had a little rollerblade -- tipped over. But what I wanted to speak -- my name is Nat Howard, and I'm one of the owners of Municipal Supply and Sign Company. We manufacture traffic control signs, stop signs, speed limit signs, do not enter signs, but traffic control. What I wanted to brin9 forth was that I would ask the committee before they voted for this ordinance, because of the restrictions on size, height and visibility, to take a look at the studies of traffic accidents, traffic engineerin9 studies that relates to traffic speed with the demographics in our county here. Demographics are, we have a lot of old people. We have a lot of tourists, and the Florida Department of Transportation did studies that showed that the nighttime vision and daytime vision, specifically nighttime, decreases seventy percent when you get over the age of sixty from what it is when you're twenty-one. So they have increased the size of their signs and the brightness Page 80 January 5, 2000 to reduce accidents at intersections. And I think there's a way that you -- you might want to take a look at those communities like Boca and others and take a look at their traffic accident data, because they have had a fairly good increase in rear end collisions as a result of people trying to find businesses. I think there is a way to make signs that are the present height and size and visibility more aesthetically pleasing also, but it might be something you would like to look at before you finalize this. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. Mike Davis. My wife says this jacket makes me look more intelligent. There you go. Well, although I think she has a call in to John Cardillo. I think she and Mike Boyd's wife are going to get a cut-rate deal from John on their mutual divorces for speaking out on this sign ordinance. I didn't plan on speaking tonight. I think you all have heard an awful lot of information. But a few things as I sit there and listen and sometimes my blood pressure goes up when you rookies are talking about my livelihood and my expertise, and so I leave the room until my pulse gets back down again. But I have some historical knowledge about the sign ordinance of this community, as you all know, going back to when it was rewritten in the mid eighties, and I was involved in that quite a bit. And what was used at that time was a model sign ordinance developed by the University of Florida. I don't recall anything that said Dade County or anywhere else on it. Once again when we rolled it into the land development code in the early nineties, it was touched up a bit, and that was done through a process, like most of the land development code was, of community input and meetings, as I'm sure you are all aware. That does bring one point that has occurred to me. If one is talking about a point at which old non-conforming signs, there would be a cutoff deadline, I think there's an ordinance in the mid '80 or '86 that probably is a more appropriate place for that to occur because that was the -- there was really -- from there to '91 there really wasn't any significant changes in the code. So I'm really not sure why the later date might -- might serve purposes better. A concern that I have with the hour being late and all of the information you have received and some of the misinformation here tonight, it's been obvious to me several times people can look at a sign that they have a problem with, they have heartburn, but there's a few of us in the room that can readily tell you if that's a conforming sign, that's an illegal sign, that's a sign that currently is built under today's code. The -- I'm probably -- I run the risk of getting in trouble here with county staff, and I might point out that Mike Vignari and Gary Dantini are both here, who are the sign enforcement people for our community on county staff. And they should be recognized because they have been sitting here listening all night. (Applause.) Page 81 January 5, 2000 So give them comp. time, Michelle. But I have to point out, we -- we look at this brand new Seven/Eleven station that opened. I got gas the other night coming home from church. And under today's code, not the code we're talking about, but under today's code -- C~IAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: The existing code. MR. DAVIS: -- the existing code, I observed logos above the gas pump, which are prohibited. I observed the ground sign with no pole cover and no two hundred square feet of landscaping. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, but I just use that as an example of, when we go back to this once again, a big part of this has to be the enforcement of what we've got on the books. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Mike, what you're saying is this sign that's on the visualizer does not comply with the current adopted code even though it's just been installed in the last six months to a year? MR. DAVIS: Yes. MR. MULHERE: The sign does comply. There are some elements that don't comply. You said signs above the gas pumps, you said landscaping. The sign itself meets the code. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Are there code violations in this photograph? MR. MULHERE: I'm taking Mike's word for it that there are. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Poles are too tiny. They have to be twenty percent of the sign width, so poles must be slightly thicker. MR. DAVIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARTER: But not an expensive -- MR. MULHERE: No, no, not an -- no, don't misunderstand me. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: The question is why did we issue a permit for a sign that doesn't comply with the current code? MS. ARNOLD: The sign was permitted according to the code, but it was installed not according to the code. And it's not been passed, so, I mean, it's -- it's in the process. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I see. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. That was Michelle Arnold, for the record. MR. DAVIS: I would -- I would just remind you all that, you know, we have talked about code enforcement. We have all identified as a community that -- I haven't heard anyone speak out against that, that we don't support that, and we all do. And that's what we need to accomplish. My concern is this. At such a late hour, when you've had so much input, it's -- it's maybe difficult to get everything right in what you want to do. And with that, I will leave it to you to do. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mike, before you go away, can I ask you a question? MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I know you've had a lot of -- a lot of calls about signs over the last several weeks. MR. DAVIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can you give me any feel -- do a lot of Page 82 January 5, 2000 people find out, A, they're not out of compliance? MR. DAVIS: That's certainly a part of them, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Part of them. Others may have to do some modifications otherwise. They don't have to lose the whole sign. Part of it may be acceptable. They may have to lower it, but there's salvage to the current sign? MR. DAVIS: As an example, the dinner theater that just opened, what we had to do as part of redoing their signage was drop the pole sign height down to meet the current code. That's required in today's code. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So the other part then, this whole cost issue, and I am a business person and I'm not against the business community, but I have said all along there probably isn't as much heartburn out there as may be visualized. There may be less heartburn. There's got to be a way to get all of this to work. And as I have been sitting here and listening to everything that was said tonight, if there's some way, and I don't think Commissioner Norris and I are too far apart, the difficulty -- the question I have is can we pass everything that we're talking about? And then is everything that comes along, A, it's got to be brought into compliance, number one, anything that's -- it's got to come into compliance. B, and it's not to you, I guess it's more to the board. B, as any changes are made, business changes hands, somebody does something, Dan's Fan City says I don't want to change my sign because I'm afraid it will cost me some money, but eventually he gives in and says I got to change the sign. Then I want him to be under the new ranks. That's where I'm trying to take this. And I guess that would take care of everything except an amortization schedule. And somewhere I'm trying to find out stuff that's pre-1990, '91, '89. Is there some way that we can get a short-term amortization schedule in there to get that out of the picture? MR. DAVIS: I don't recall, Mr. Carter, it was '85 or '86, I believe, that there was -- and I -- that's the first written down pretty complete code I remember. I think there was an '82 or maybe an '84 code, but that was when I think it stayed -- from there to my knowledge it stayed pretty consistent all the way through fairly well until the mid nineties. So I think that that's -- I just point that out to you that that might -- is a good time period in my opinion, if you were looking for one. And your Dan's Fan City example, if we were contracted to change something on that sign, of course, we're required to get a permit. And if my -- if the picture in my mind is correct, if primary colors are not an issue, we would have to do one of two things, drop its height down to twenty feet, because I'm sure it's above twenty feet, and/or add a pole cover to bring it into compliance with today's code. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And the cost of that, say the cost of adding a pole cover? MR. DAVIS: About a thousand dollars and about two thousand to reduce its height. Page 83 January 5, 2000 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Other questions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of quick comments. One, I can't let this go. I apologize, but I've got to quickly cover it. The item that the gentleman talked about, the 1917 Supreme Court case, had he continued to read from his own information that he brought to us, it would have gone on to say that the statement conflicted not only with decisions of the District Court of Appeal but also the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1941. The construction of buildings in areas of certain character could be restricted by zoning ordinance to maintain aesthetic appeal. It went on and its decision says aesthetic decisions could be just cause for regulating advertising signs in the city of Sarasota in view that it's a city of culture and beauty and hence aesthetics are a factor properly to be considered. In fact, what the Supreme Court said was exactly the opposite of what he indicated. More importantly, on the screen you see the picture of Seven/Eleven, and now I feel bad the poor guys have to have the bottom part of their sign fixed, but my point in bringing this photograph was, if you look, that sign is roughly in the front corner of their property. You can go about four hundred feet in either direction to the edge of their property. It's on a corner. Those shrubberies come to a V, and there is no signage other than what you see in that picture. There are a couple of -- Mike's right, I noticed this today, there's some little advertising signs above the pumps., which I don't think are allowed. But there's no other Seven/Eleven sign anywhere. You see the one Seven/Eleven sign above the doors as you enter the building and the -- what is supposed to be a monument sign there. And visibility is -- not only is not a problem, but as far as Seven/Eleven goes, this is about as attractive as you're going to find, unless you're going to have specific structural requirements as well. But finding this is not a problem, even though it's at that height. Seeing it, you're not going to cause any accidents. It is very aesthetically pleasing. We passed the more restrictive signage for gas stations two years ago, three years ago, and I think that is maybe when we say well, we ought to look and see what's the impact of this, we have some real-life studies here in Collier County. That's why I brought this -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Double -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pardon me? The whole -- the whole -- why we brought those in -- why I brought this in is because this is certainly not the first one to go up under this ordinance. But it is very attractive and it shows that despite the limited signage, you certainly get the point of where you're going and what its purpose is. You can find it. But it creates a more appealing atmosphere than say the old Seven/Eleven that just recently closed a year ago down on the East Trail over by the old miniature golf course and the sign that went with that. So this is required for gas stations. It's not required for Page 84 January 5, 2000 everybody else. This is similar to some of the things we would be asking for under the new code. I don't think that's such a bad thing. I think it's attractive and it still meets all that business' needs. We still see -- a couple of folks said we're afraid nobody will come if you have restrictive -- more restrictive things. The gas stations and convenience stores are still coming despite the fact we have a more restrictive code for them. What we're asking for for everyone else is no more restrictive than this. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But, Tim, one thing this points outs, too, you're look at this and if you will look at the canopy around the top, do you see any Citgo letters on those? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and that's prohibitive. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, really? Well, go out to G's General Store at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard and take a look. Brand new canopy, citgo. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's code enforcement. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Consider that a report. He's writing it down. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may, this is only an eight foot high sign, and we are proposing a fifteen foot high sign, more than double the height. And we are proposing eighty square feet and this is a sixty square feet sign. So we are proposing more than double the height and larger. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know a number of people raised the code enforcement issue. And we have, on this coming Tuesday's agenda, a budget amendment item to bring in two new code enforcement officers specifically for this purpose. We are, I think, going to address that. I guess we will see Tuesday, but I think we'll have a final vote on that. CF_AIRPERSON MAC'KIE: It sounded to me like there might be consensus on the board and my voice may be gone. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Brenda Vicaro (phonetic). CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: For adopting the ordinance as modified, proposed verbally by Commissioner Carter as we started this meeting, and then discussing an amortization schedule perhaps beginning with a '91 code or something like that, is that -- does that help sort of frame the discussion? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not at this hour. I would want -- I will not vote on anything tonight in regard to this code. I mean, I'm not going to vote in favor of it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: David, give her some advice. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we need -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, I will vote yes or no, obviously, okay? But I am not going to vote in favor of this code tonight when we make changes as we go along here. I would rather see everything codified in order here and presented to us where we have got time to readdress what we've got in front of us and then set another date for a meeting if you must. But I do not see anything -- I'm not going to sit here and tear this apart, because sitting out there, they still don't know what Page 85 January 5, 2000 we're doing. And until they have a chance to take a look at it and get some consensus about what we're doing, I think this is ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, this is another workshop to try and get this thing straightened out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. If we were to outline what that was and put it on another hearing, would you want that to be a 5:05 hearing or would you want that on a regular Tuesday? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Fine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then it doesn't matter. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think it matters. I think it matters to the people who are sitting out here in this audience, because I think they ought -- you know, I want to know that they have seen it, they know what we're talking about before we do anything about it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. I'm just saying, if we did that, would you prefer -- do you think it would be better for public purposes to do that on a Tuesday agenda or to have another Wednesday night meeting? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't -- I don't care. I don't have any feeling about it, Tim. Tuesday is fine, but I want to make sure that the people have had the opportunity to review it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because, frankly, I don't have any objection to that. There's been a lot talked about. We've spent three hours. I don't care about the hour, that doesn't matter, but there's been a lot talked about, a lot confusing. And what if we -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, we lost a lot of people, Tim. That's my point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if we pick a day like three weeks from now? We have codified this. Tuesday we bring it up and -- not for a vote, but just to say yes, that's what we discussed tonight. If we can come to some sort of agreement of what we're trying to write down, and then put it on for two weeks after that for a -- the 25th or twenty -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fifth. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- fifth, thank you, meeting. And that way there will be -- Tuesday we will have it formally. There won't have to be three or four different copies floating around. Tuesday we'll have a copy that we say yeah, that's what we want to vote on yea or nay in two weeks, and on the 25th they will have ample opportunity. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tim, let's put it for the first meeting in February. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: So this gives the opportunity for the people to get some input into this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. What's another four weeks, six weeks? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it's not -- it's not that long. I mean, you know, you're in January. You're talking maybe a month away. I don't think that's too long a period of time. Page 86 January 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no objection to that at all. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you all telling me that you want to go through another four-hour public hearing on this? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I'm not. No, I'm not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm just -- I think Barb is suggesting, Commissioner Berry is suggesting, and I'm agreeing, that if we can have clarity, there's been a tremendous amount of public interest in this, there has been some confusion as to what we are and aren't doing. If we can clarify that, put that in writing and let them all look at that, I don't have any objection. I don't have any objection if there's more public input. If people want to get up again in February, that's what we're here for. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What did we do this for tonight then is my question? What did we go through four hours of public hearing for? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But, John, here's why. Because we're going to come to a consensus among the people in the room and the people who have spoken to us outside the room and we -- as the elected leaders. And now we're going to come to a consensus about what we want staff to draft. And then we're going to confirm that when we are clearer headed on a -- next Tuesday, so that they can then begin the drafting process. And then -- then nobody changes that draft. That is the draft that goes out for public comment. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then vote it up or down. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Tweaking perhaps, but only tweaking, not major policy changes like we've been doing tonight. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine, it was you that was complaining early in the meeting about studying something to death and dragging it on and on and on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I will respond to that. I'm not suggesting we study this. I'm suggesting for the benefit of the public who clearly has an interest and probably isn't sure where we've ended up at nine o'clock at night, it's not going to harm it to put that on paper and let them look at it for a couple of weeks. I am not suggesting an eighteen-month study. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that's -- my position is a compromise to that situation. I think that if we can get something down, but let the public have better input into it, then I think we're better off. COMMISSIONER CARTER: As we frame this, Commissioner Norris, do you have some points that you would like to make for this? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Let me -- I want to go ahead and commend you for starting this discussion nearly a year ago, getting into it, and all of the work that you have done. I hope that hasn't been missed because I don't agree with all of it. But I understand what you're trying to accomplish with an amortization period. And it's my contention that you can accomplish the exact same thing without being so perhaps harsh about it, by simply requiring those signs that are in question, and that would be the pre-1990 or the post-1991 or the post-1986, as Mr. Davis had said is the same thing. Those signs, rather than force them to change them just unilaterally as the board to do that, I think over the same ten Page 87 January 5, 2000 year or less time period you would accomplish well over ninety percent of that by simply saying that on the sale of a property you have to bring your sign into compliance with the current code, whatever that happens to be when we're done, change of business ownership or name change, you have to bring it into the modern compliance. A voluntary change. Sometimes people want to change their sign voluntarily. That will happen in a small percentage of cases. There may be a sign that just doesn't function well or whatever and some business owner might say well -- and I think Dan's Fans was mentioned that, you know, he might want to, you know, be amenable to a change in his sign. Well, fine. Of course, we always have the replacement due to destruction of hurricane or fire or accident or whatever else. But if you -- if you make that the trigger point, rather than saying we're going to give you a set time period, then I can support that, because that's a lot different. That's a lot different. And I think that's reasonable. But I think it's completely unreasonable to say to somebody who put their sign up -- I have said this several times -- that somebody put up their sign yesterday and you're going to tell them you're going to give them three, four, five, seven years, that's just not reasonable. I think these other trigger points -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: But what I'm saying is that if I put it up yesterday, I sell my business six months from now to Tim, he has to come in and conform under the new ranks. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And everybody knows that going into the business transaction. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Same way for the change. If they decide to change this logo out here, they're going to do something with the M or the burger or whatever, they have to come under the new regulations. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. That's what I'm saying. MR. MULHERE: I feel I need to say something with respect to that. I think if you were to tell us that if they changed the copy or any structural alteration or changed the business name, we can require them to come in and get a permit and then they would have to come into compliance. But what gives me grave concern is when we're talking about a sale of a property. We have no way to track that. We do not know when a sale of a property occurs. And it's going to happen a lot without us knowing. I mean, there's no way to require someone to notify us that they're selling the property. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Got to be a way. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Well, the clerk -- obviously, when they sell the property, if they sell the real estate, there's a recording of the deed. MR. MULHERE: Right, but then we're going to be -- we're going to be responsible for monitoring the sale of property to make sure that the sign comes into compliance. I'm just saying that's a very significant -- I think I have the need to say that would be a significant optional issue. And I would like to -- I would like to at least be able to look at that a little bit between now AND whenever we come back. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: You will give us some suggestions if you Page 88 January 5, 2000 can hear that there's some desire to come up with some trigger points that afford people notice. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think, you know, copy change is a lot more stringent than what we have right now. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But -- but -- but you hear that as a point that you will be drafting and discussing with us on Tuesday. MR. McNEES: I think maybe another way to make Bob's point is, clearly we have seen throughout the evening enforcement is one of the difficult issues. And the more complicated and the more difficult we make enforcement, the harder it's going to be down the road to keep up with whatever we create. So I think that's a good thing for to us look at. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I wonder if there's been opportunity with the property appraiser's new GIS system to be able to trigger flag these out, sale of commercial properties? MR. McNEES: That's highly possible. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we can find that out by next Tuesday. MR. McNEES: Sure. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we can come up with a list of -- of recommendations. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That might be a fairly simple software routine to put into that GIS system, any sale of commercial. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, but we're not going to have that in place for a while, are we? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're not going to have it tomorrow, but we will have it some day. COMMISSIONER BERRY: By that time the sign -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's in lieu of an amortization schedule. We're trying to get to the same point, John. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I understand that. My concern is the enforcement. And if the GIS thing will work, fine. Or if there was some inverted amortization schedule. I want to find some way so that we don't have this stuff falling through the cracks and we don't create another code problem enforcement. MR. MULHERE: I have just one other comment that I feel I need to share and that is I think it -- it may be a little bit difficult for to us come back to you this coming Tuesday, if that's what I understood you were -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: No, just the list of items that you're going to be drafting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not for an ordinance. We just want -- the final ordinance will appear first meeting in February. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But we wanted to have a clear list of each of the issues, you know, the -- Commissioner Carter talked about the three different size signs. MR. MULHERE: All of the items that were contentious. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, take out the primary colors, et Page 89 January 5, 2000 cetera. MR. MULHERE: How we're going to deal with change. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A piece of paper so that we can say yes, that's what we're talking about. And then the members of the public have -- MR. MULHERE: That's fine. Appreciate that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the better part of a month to figure -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: But you don't need to write it in ordinance form. MR. MULHERE: Right, I understand. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's just going to be a grocery list of items that you're going to present to us. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right, right. Then we can take a look at that. MR. MULHERE: I understand. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Ask Ron. Talk to Ron and then he can ask his question if you need to. VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: I can see that's what caused a lot of the problems before. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, no, but if they're going to come here, okay. In other words, this isn't going to go out ~- you know, you can come and listen, certainly. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Please be here Tuesday. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We're going to know what these items are rather than, you know, see it striking and then something new written in. That's too late. I want to see if these are the things that we want incorporated into ordinance language. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So that's an important point. COMMISSIONER CARTER: There are two phases, grocery list. Once that's agreed on, then it goes to an ordinance form where we get the verbiage. You get a chance to review that. If you've got a question about it, you come to us and say that bothers you. Then we can -- we can wordsmith it to a way that we can get consensus, the people say yeah, we all understand it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, frankly, the grocery list ought to be easier to comprehend. Okay, this is in, this is out, this is in, this is out, rather than trying to fish it all out of an ordinance form. So I think this will be clearer if nothing else. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So if on Tuesday we give you direction, Bob, to draft -- I'll get there -- to draft an ordinance and we outline, how -- when might that ordinance be available for public review? How much time might that take? MR. MULHERE: I think reasonably within two weeks from that point. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So then that would give two weeks for it to be in the discussion process or three weeks before it comes back to the board? Does that sound like a reasonable amount of time to everybody? COMMISSIONER BERRY: As soon as that's ready, it needs to get to Page 90 January 5, 2000 the community. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask, Miss Student, we're looking then at two new public hearings for an ordinance approval, right? MS. STUDENT: Yes. And what you can do, under our code, when we amend our land code, we can have, as long as one hearing is after five o'clock, we can have others during the day, in other words, not after five, if a majority plus one or super majority of the board votes to do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Help me understand why. We're still dealing with the same ordinance change? MS. STUDENT: Yes, we are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The substance is different, but we have already had -- you know, some of the substance will be different. There will be some changes in there from what appears today. We've already had two hearings after five o'clock. So by adding a third hearing, I don't know why we would be required under law to have two more or be required to have the additional hearings after five. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So instead of adjourning this meeting, we would continue it to Tuesday. And then on Tuesday we would continue it to the first meeting in February. MS. STUDENT: No. I understand that, and it's -~ it's a little -- I guess what's giving me some pause, it's a little unusual and I don't think it's contemplated by our code. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think the code intends to penalize us because we want to have more hearings for the public. MS. STUDENT: Oh, not at all. I just feel that, you know, it would be safer if we went ahead and -- and took that vote to continue it and if it's unanimous -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have any problem with that. The suggestion that we had to have two more and they had to be at night, I don't think is -- MS. STUDENT: No, it doesn't have -~ it doesn't have to be at night. Our code and the state law, and this is state law that we have put in the code, provides with the super majority we can do it in the day. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Who's going to be brave enough to go down the list here and -- and try to have some consensus here to give staff an idea of how to start on Tuesday? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may before -- and we have some additional changes that we did not discuss. Political signs, we reduced the size from forty to thirty-two. We reduced the number from two per parcel to one per parcel, and we added a five hundred dollar bond that the applicant must post when applying for that permit. And if all signs are removed within seven days of the election, the bond is returned. Otherwise, it's used to clean up the site. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Pam, you shouldn't even vote on this because you can't put up any signs anyway. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I've got districts outside the city of Page 91 January 5, 2000 Naples. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, but not much. CHAIRPERSON MAC,KIE: Geographically. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've got two thirds of Collier County, for crying out loud. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One last thing, last time we talked about prohibiting neon signs behind windows. In this amendment we are saying that all those signs -- all those businesses with signs, neon signs behind windows, they have three years to remove them. They don't have to trash them. They can use them inside the store as long as it is not readily visible from the store. There are several restaurants that they have those beer signs on the inside. They don't have to be hanging from behind the windows. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So they could move them inside. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Inside. They can keep them inside. And anyways, they never paid for those signs. Those were given by the beer companies. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Some of them. But then there are also those pawn shop signs, which are the ones that I want to see moved. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Title loans. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Title loans. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Are we ready for the laundry list? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Be brave. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let me start with what I think is maybe the most simple, and that is reduction of wall signs as follows, parentheses, twenty percent of a ratio remains in code. Buildings up to twenty-five thousand square foot area, one hundred fifty foot square foot sign. Building of twenty-five thousand to sixty thousand square foot, two hundred square foot sign. Buildings over sixty thousand square feet, two hundred and fifty foot square (sic) sign. I have got this all written down so you can -- you can have it if you like. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Let's take it point by point. Does anybody object to any of those? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Agreed. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Reduction of directory signs to a hundred and eighty square foot and twenty foot high with a minimum of four tenants and a maximum of eight tenants displayed -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The code -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- on the sixteen foot setback. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The code you have says one hundred and fifty square feet. I don't know where you are gettinH one hundred and eighty square feet. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: One fifty is the current code. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, current code is two fifty. We are reducing it to -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: He's proposing a compromise, Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Well, that's a compromise. One eighty is a Page 92 January 5, 2000 compromise number. Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: There were some questions raised about that one eighty as a more applicable number. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So that would be one eighty and four to eight tenants. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. Twenty foot high. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Agree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agree. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Reduction of shopping center outparcel pole signs to same type ground signs as gas station, parentheses, sixty square foot, six foot high and on a ten-foot setback. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That surely we're going to do to everybody, just like we've already done to gas stations. Identical situation. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I can tell you -- now, I don't know how this applies, but take a look. I gave you the example of the McDonald's sign down on Marco Island. What's the setback? Mike, you were telling me about that. What's the setback on that sign? It's a monument sign. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Is it an outparcel? COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's outparcel. Would this be considered an outparcel? VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Inaudible). COMMISSIONER BERRY: Mike, come up here, because we need to talk to you. MR. ADAMS: Marco Island I believe is -- Mike Adams, McDonald's. I believe Marco Island is a fifteen foot setback, and the parking interferes with the visibility of that sign. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You put an SUV or a van in front of that sign and you can't read it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So are we going to change it for gas stations, too? MR. MULHERE: May I say something about that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, isn't there a green space requirement? MR. MULHERE: I would like to say something about that sign. That sign was negotiated by the Marco Island Civic Association at the time that McDonald's was put in there. It was smaller than what could be otherwise permitted at the time. Is that a correct statement? MR. ADAMS: Yes, it is. There's no doubt about it. But the overall height of the sign is currently about I believe eight feet. And I believe that's what we were talking about earlier, was eight feet on a monument sign. So I don't know where the six foot came from. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't there a minimal amount of green space or something that -- for example, on this one, no one could possibly park and block it because there's lawn on all sides of it. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have -- we have ten to fifteen foot landscape buffer, and sign being ten feet back from the road, it's within the landscaped area. Parking is always in the back, between Page 93 January 5, 2000 the sign and the store. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tim, in this parking down there, you have got the sign. Right here is a parking space. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. I'm just saying under our code. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What he just described with setbacks and what's required and where the sign goes I think -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was just -- my concern was, are we dealing with this setback, that we don't put it so far back that we lose -- you know, that they're wasting their time. I mean, and I'm not saying that I want it any other way, but I just don't know what the proper way is to address this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, Chahram, from what you have described -- I understand her concern and it doesn't sound like that's a problem. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It should -- it should not happen in Collier County new development. Our sign setback today is fifteen feet. We are proposing to reduce to ten feet, so brings it closer to the road. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, okay. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So outparcel's the same as the current? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's fine. But let me just point out something right here. On this type of sign and the monument type of sign that we're proposing to go to in the future, we do have to do something with our landscape code to keep the landscaping low, away from it, for a certain number -- can't read the signs at all. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We need to -- amendment to the landscape code. In this code we are proposing that the location of the sign be shown on the landscape plan so the landscape architect is aware of the location and can meander the landscaping behind it. MR. MULHERE: And the landscape code already allows for a cone of vision in front of the sign. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It calls for what, Bob? MR. MULHERE: A cone of vision. You don't have to put landscaping in front of your sign for -- to create an area so that you can see the sign from the road, not blocked by landscape. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So I heard consensus on that point. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Next point is on pole, slash, ground, slash, monument signs. The scale, one sign fifteen foot high, eighty square foot in area when along an arterial or collector roadway. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Say that again. Collector or arterial, you get what? MR. CARDILLO: Fifteen foot high, eighty square foot in area. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Arterial or collector, fifteen foot high. Is it a pole sign? MR. CARDILLO: No, it's a monument sign. It's in reference to pole signs, taking them down to ground or monument signs. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I need to know what kind of a problem that Page 94 January 5, 2000 presents. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So that may be a point that we have to get more information about. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, let me give you the three criteria and then we can comment. One sign twelve foot high, sixty square foot in area when along a local roadway. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: One sign twenty foot high, one hundred square foot in area when in agricultural areas. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Ag. areas get a twenty foot high sign, a hundred square feet. Local road gets a twelve foot high sign, sixty square feet. And arterial collector gets one fifteen foot sign, eighty square feet. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry, I don't get what the objection is there. What's the concern? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just -- I don't know. I want this run by somebody before we decide. You just can't sit up here and arbitrarily pull numbers. And I feel like that's what we're doing. We're sitting here -- we're saying, you know, sixty feet, a hundred feet, you know, eighty feet. Come on, guys. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I don't think Jim arbitrarily -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I took this from -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Where did you get this? COMMISSIONER CARTER: I got this from staff based on their research in other communities, and I would defer to Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically, most of the numbers come from this, Street Graphics and the Law, which has charts and research saying what height the signs should be if you have so many lanes of traffic and a given speed limit. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: What is that book again? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Street Graphics and the Law. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me ask a question here. You say a fifteen foot high sign with eighty square feet; is that correct? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now, let me ask the question before you answer. If it's fifteen feet high, it can only be five feet wide. That would be seventy-five square feet. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. We are talking about the copy area being eighty square feet. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. The copy area. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are saying an overall area of one hundred and fifty square feet is acceptable. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So the entire sign could be a hundred and fifty square feet? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We measure from the ground all the way to the top of the sign. If you draw an imaginary box, it can be up to one hundred fifty square feet. The copy area feet limited to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I got you. That was my question. Page 95 January 5, 2000 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And one more thing, at the last hearing, you asked us to just get rid of the two type signs for collector and arterial roads and local roads and have everybody fifteen foot high, eighty square feet. But are we going back to the old one or just having one sign? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Still talking, Chahram. We're still talking. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We're still talking here. And the reason -- the only reason I brought this up is that maybe one size doesn't fit all. Maybe arterials need a bigger sign than on some of the local roadways. I don't have a problem of going just in one direction. What I was trying to do is build in some flexibility so that we wouldn't penalize some businesses. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So let's just say that we're going to -- we don't have consensus on that point. I don't think we do. Am I right? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who disagrees? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I do. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Berry does. I'm not disagreeing with this at this point. As I understood it, arterial and collectors are fifteen feet, eighty square feet of copy, and a local road is twelve feet, sixty square feet of copy. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Ag., twenty and a hundred -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, ag. is -- MR. MULHERE: Just a couple of points there. We will have to define local or arterial as defined in the traffic circulation element CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. MULHERE: -- and a couple of other little issues we will deal with when we bring it back. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So apparently there are four who agree on that point. COMMISSIONER CARTER: All right. We will go to the easier ones. Stepped up -- well, let's -- let's -- elimination of all exposed exterior neon. That's pretty well out. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: There's no question about that, right? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we need to add something in here about the interior neon in windows being gone? Was that part of -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is part of this amendment. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are you going to start with the City of Naples windows, Pam? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask now, you say elimination of all exterior neon, but once again we're not going to go in here and say you got to take it out today. COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. What we're looking at is the future. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Future, okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I mean, if I come in today and do a business, John, I have got to go with the new code. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just clarifying. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are just saying exposed neon, not covered neon. We have signs -- neon. Page 96 January 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER CARTER: Illumination of fluorescent colors. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Did anybody disagree with that? COMMISSIONER BERRY: What are you going to do with the road signs that are recently being posted? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, those are municipal signs. We're talking commercial signs. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: But then we got to separate that, commercial and municipal. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I'll guarantee you somebody will call because they won't know the difference. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is anybody objecting to that fluorescent? I don't think anybody has. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Use of logos and primary colors is not prohibited. You can use them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wouldn't it be better just not to mention anything about primary colors? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Leave it out. COMMISSIONER CARTER: All right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if that was written in the other copy, we want to eliminate whatever was there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I have to ask you a question, are we okay with the -- we were going to work on language for odd-shaped signs -- my contact is fading -- giant hot dogs, et cetera. The use of the logo will be permitted within the confines of the sign itself. There's no restriction being placed on the amount of the sign that the logo can occupy. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That's what I supported. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That imaginary square box. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That imaginary square box. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Can we say that no signs shall be other than in the shape of regular geometric form or forms? Something that if somebody has a hot dog shaped sign, I don't know, ice cream cone shaped sign -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Think about how to do that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- we say that's -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Somebody has to think about how to do that. I think the message that I'm feeling from this board is we don't want those kinds of things, but we do not want to prohibit the fact that you can have the M with McDonald's under it with an imaginary box around it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think if -- and the attorneys help me, but you can't say you can legally have an M but you can't legally have an ice cream cone shape. MS. STUDENT: You have to -- you're not going to catch everything that way, and you need to describe what you wish to achieve but in general enough terms to solve the problem but not overly general either, because you have over-breadth problems if you do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That might be one of the trickiest ones Page 97 January 5, 2000 we're dealing with. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That would be a challenge for staff in the legal department to come up with something that is mutually acceptable. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Because we are anxious to prohibit hot dog shaped signs, as an example. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What are we -- and I'm not suggesting, Mike -- I'm not suggesting we've done a lot of the M's and I'm using it strictly for example, why is an M okay and a hot dog is not, other than we're familiar with the M? And if somebody has a company tomorrow that has a Q -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My preference would still be if we're going to put the M on the sign, that it would be on the base of a sign, not as an arch above it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I would certainly go there. MR. MULHERE: I think that's going to be the only way that we can prohibit the worst case scenario and still allow the use of logos within the sign area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we want to do that, fine, and if we don't, fine, but I just -- I don't think you can differentiate between, okay, an M's appealing, a Q isn't or an ice cream isn't. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What if they have a sign with an arrow sticking through it or something like that, for example? And I think Chahram was on the right track, sort of. Probably take a little refinement, but he was saying something about the geometric shape, the sign has to be some sort of geometric shape. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Geometric shape and logo shall not protrude from the sign at all. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: At all? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: At all. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I think you just heard four in support of that. Jim? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That would be my preference. That's four then. What else do you have, COMMISSIONER CARTER: The last thing we have is the stepped-up enforcement of existing code and establishment of -- well, we're not going to have a three-year amortization. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But we are going to have some kind of an amortization. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Can I say some kind of an amortization period, prior to signs permitted, prior to the LDC codes being established in -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 1991 was the date we repealed all codes and adopted the land development code, and I believe that it's logical. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Miss Student. MS. STUDENT: I have to go back and research this a little bit in the history, but my recollection is that we had a sign code that found its way into our LDC pre '91, but not much pre '91, that Ken Boginski when he was here sheparded through, and I want to say maybe '89 into Page 98 January 5, 2000 early '90, and then that ordinance would have been a part of the old eighty-two two -- '91. repealed. It was CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But here's the point, Marjorie. MS. STUDENT: -- as part of the LDC. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Everything was repealed and readopted in MS. STUDENT: Right, that's true. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So if we say '91, it will incorporate whatever the Boginski code was, the '75 code, because the '91 repealed everything and readopted everything. MS. STUDENT: The one that Mr. Boginski -- we took away the old sign code as I recall, but I would have to go back. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: You guys understand what our intention is, and you'll have to research that and tell us what the right year is. But our intention is that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The adoption of the LDC would be the logical time. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And what is the deal there, John? If you had a sign -- if you currently have a sign that was permitted under the code as it exists today, you can keep it until this falls down. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, you can keep it until the property is sold, the business ownership or name change is altered, a voluntary alteration to the sign, modification of some sort, or replacement due to destruction as we have in the code. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And the hard one to monitor is going to be if the property is sold. MR. MULHERE: We're going to come back with the trigger points and ~- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the hard part might be, you know, when the property is sold because it doesn't necessarily change the name of the business at that point. It might, but it doesn't necessarily. And so that might be the hard part to keep track of. But I suspect that will be an easy little software routine to write in the GIS when that is finally up and running. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We are in agreement that if I sell it to my brother and we still set up the same name of the company on there, it doesn't make any difference, it's got to come down to the new compliance? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Upon the sale. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Upon the sale. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think if you would have said sale to somebody other than your brother that might have been -- within the family might be a little sticky. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. The guy next door. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The guy next door, right. MR. MULHERE: I just want to just reiterate, we're going to look at that and bring back what we think might be some concerns with sale being a trigger mechanism, but we'll come back and let you know the best that we think we can do. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Tell us -- tell us if the board -- because, Page 99 January 5, 2000 you know, the possibility exists that the board's going to say do it on sale. MR. MULHERE: I know. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So tell us how you would monitor it and then -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How realistic. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: The second piece is how is Michelle's guys -- how are they ever going to know who's got a legal and an illegal sign? How are they ever going to know? If we don't give the date. MR. McNEES: Sale of the business without sale of the property might be very difficult. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Even the sale of the property. MR. McNEES: But we'll look at it. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Are there other points? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Now, we do have in here -- you said we're going to finalize the gas station sign setbacks, standards, et cetera? That's already in here? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's already in here. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Already done. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Three more things. The construction signs, what are we going to do? CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Construction signs, we wanted you to roll that into the next cycle of amendments. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Stays the way it is. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Stays as is for now. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And amortization for all pre '90 or '89 signs? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: LDC. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: LDC. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: What is the number? Suggest a number. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Three years. CHAIRPERSON MAC,KIE: I could do three. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Miss Student was going to advise us after some -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: She did though. MS. STUDENT: I had opined that they already have got nine, and three on top of the nine gives them twelve. Courts have -- again, they don't draw a bright line on any particular number. They look at the circumstances for each situation as to whether the sign was taken or not, but the cases I have seen, courts uphold five, seven. So effectively they have got twelve. One of the cases I looked at, the court even looked at how long they had to use it, you know, after the thing was changed and they -- but in this scenario, and the court said no problem. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: So, Marjorie, based on that, we could even -- I mean, there's not a problem legally with one year from. MS. STUDENT: I would say not -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: With the gas station signs, one year. MS. STUDENT: -- because that effectively gives them ten. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: One year. Can you go there, John? Page 100 January 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be a minimum of ten. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: They would have ten years' worth of that sign at a minimum. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You know there's going to be a real horrendous logistical problem in trying to make fifty thousand signs change in one year. I mean, I think it's much more reasonable to stretch that out to three to five, something like that and have -- the best suggestion I heard was to have, as the code enforcement people go around and note these signs, to give them a notice and say you have twelve months from this date or twenty-four months or whatever you want to do at that point from this date to get it done now. And you're on notice that it has to be done. I think that's one of the best suggestions. But to try to say -- I don't know how many -- how many pre '91 signs are out there. I said fifty thousand. That's probably too many, but there's got to be twenty thousand, twenty, twenty-five thousand out there, pre '91 signs, and to think you're going to change all of those all in one year, it just ain't going to happen. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, some of those, even though they're pre that time, may still be in compliance. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That true, too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You could have several thousand at once. Three years is -- a year may be pushing it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can live with three. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: I can live with three then. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One thing with this giving notice, that may cause us trouble if we miss one or two signs and three years has passed and we ask everybody to remove the sign, the person who hasn't received the notice is going to say I wasn't notified. We may have a problem, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps by Tuesday we can figure out CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And what kind of notice might be appropriate, whether it's advertising or particularly mailed notice and -- MR. MULHERE: Or all three. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: And as hard line as I am on all of these things, I want to be sure that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps when they get their annual occupational license. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That's a nice time. Real good point, license. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We could mass mail them to everybody and say please be -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: But this is a better idea, occupational license time and just get notified. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Inserts. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Inserts. Variances are available? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are available. Sign variance, yes. Page 101 January 5, 2000 CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. Construction signs, we are dropping. Political signs, I'm ready to prohibit, but, you know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All joking aside, we actually talked about that in '93, and we had some legal issues where we could not do that. MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. Legal signs have a high degree of protection of the first amendment. We can't prohibit them and there are some other concerns as our code is currently written, that in the next amendment cycle you're going to see some more amendments on those because there's some new case law out. But you cannot do it. It's first amendment protected. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Anyway, everybody joked about that early in the hearing, but we really did talk about that in '93. MS. STUDENT: It's non-commercial speech. Non-commercial speech has less protection -- or non-commercial has greater than commercial. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Are there other points that we have missed, Chahram? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, I believe you covered everything. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Other comments from board members? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to continue this meeting until Tuesday the llth of January. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will second that -- I will second that with a clarification. We're bringing back that laundry list Tuesday which will say yes, that's what we talked about Wednesday night, and distribute those to anybody who's interested, and then in the next couple of weeks they will get that together in ordinance form and by the first meeting in February we will actually have it finalized. That's the intent of the continuance? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Of course. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel had a point, I believe. He rarely stands at the microphone without one. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Tuesday the llth is just a very few work days away. I know that staff on the county administrator's side and the county attorney's side will be working pretty hard on the regular agenda for Tuesday. It's just getting published today to be distributed tomorrow. Would it be problematic, and we would be able to get this stuff into a distributable form, if we actually went to January 25th for the next continued meeting and then go to the next meeting after that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would prefer not to because all we're asking for for Tuesday is that laundry list. We don't need it in ordinance form for this coming Tuesday. I mean, Jim's got most of it typed up here already. I bet in four minutes on the word processor we can have it done. The only thing we've got to add is Commissioner Norris' caveats for people coming into compliance. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What we're asking is simply to put this laundry list down and we'll look at it one more time on Tuesday and say this is what we want you to now take and codify. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Fine. Thank you. Page 102 January 5, 2000 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So that shouldn't be too onerous. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you have a question you want to ask us? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: About the architectural standards for the monument sign, talking about the base and the cap, are you in favor of keeping them or dropping them? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Should all be shiny granite. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: All in favor of keeping them? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Are they all going to look alike? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: They're all going to look alike? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, now Mike's saying yes and you're saying no. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: All cars have two headlights and two taillights. Do all cars look alike? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Pretty much. A car's a car. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can see that's why you all buy Hyundais. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay, Mike. MR. DAVIS: Mike Davis, for the record. They won't all look exactly alike. They will all look very similar. And as Mr. Boyd pointed out before, I think you do take away from us the ability to do some nice design. If you require a cap, well, then we can't do a radius top on a sign, a rounded top, which if -- with a building that had architecture with some round elements on it, you need to be able to do that if you want it in architectural harmony with the building. I would suggest if you were limiting signs as much as you are tonight, which is a drastic change from the way they are today, that you at least allow us the architectural freedom to make them look nice, because those -- that criteria may or may not match the building. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I have a suggestion. Give them the option of the way it's currently written or to be built in architectural harmony with the building that its sign is on. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's fine. The cap doesn't have to be a flat cap. I mean, if the building is round, they can build a round cap. The thing is we want some finished look to the sign. We don't want people to go and cut the pole down and bring the sign down and -- CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Those things you put on the visualizer, we don't want that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If we had the wording, Mike, that said architectural standards or as Commissioner Norris says, to meet the architectural -- MR. DAVIS: Architectural harmony. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- harmony, thank you, harmony of the building, we'd be okay. MR. MULHERE: I think we can work up some language that talks about using common elements, architectural elements found in the building. Page 103 January 5, 2000 MR. DAVIS: And I would also throw in that you might want to reiterate if you want the pole covers on the pole signs that you're still allowing in the code to stay at the current twenty percent or increase to the fifty percent that's been previously discussed. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically by asking them to provide twenty-four inches of base and the cap on the top, we are shrinking them so much that they are not going to be pole signs. However, if you remove the architectural designs, yes, they're going to be shorter pole signs. CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Okay. These will be some of the things that we will clarify on Tuesday because these are important points. I personally am too brain dead to capture all of it tonight, to be blunt. So having admitted to being brain dead, I think I will call the question. Ail in favor of the motion to continue, please say aye. (Aye) . CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: Opposed? (No response). CHAIRPERSON MAC'KIE: That passes unanimously, and this meeting is continued. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:59 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX DW~G~T'.'E'!:"BROCK, CLERK onlz. These minutes approved by the Board on as presented ~ or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY DEBRA J. DeLAP, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 104