Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/15/1999 S (LDC Amendments)December 15, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 5:05 LDC MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, December 15, 1999 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: CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Wednesday, December 15, 5~05 p.m. 1999 NOTICEs ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM 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 COM)~ISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1 December 15, 1999 2. 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 FOLLOWINGs ARTICLE 2, ZONING, DIVISION 2.1. GENERAL; DIVISION 2.2. ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, DIVISION 2.3. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING; DIVISION 2.4. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING; DIVISION 2.5. SIGNS; DIVISION 2.6. SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 3.2. SUBDIVISION; DIVISION 3.4. EXPLOSIVES; DIVISION 3.9. VEGETATION REMOVAL PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION; ARTICLE 6, DIVISION 6.3. DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS OF SIGN MONUMENT, BEACON LIGHT, ROADSIDE SALES AND RIPARIAN LINE; APPENDIX B, TYPICAL ROAD CROSS-SECTIONS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSIVE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. 3. ADJOURN 2 December 15, 1999 December 15, 1999 Item #2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - SECOND PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD JANUARY 5, 2000 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call to order the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of December 15th, 1999. This is an evening meeting for the purpose of adopting Land Development Code amendments. And if you would all please stand, we'll have the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Nino, if we could, on the way in, I ran into a group of people, all of whom -- as a matter of fact, anybody who's here to discuss the sign ordinance, would you raise your hand? So why don't we take that item first, for the convenience of this crowd. Then we'll move on to the more mundane matters after you're -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: What page are we at in our book on that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you help us with that, Ron? MR. NINO: Page 50 -- no, I'm sorry. Page 52 of your packet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I should ask you, Commissioner Carter, if that's all right with you, since this is your baby. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That would be fine. Maybe I could just make -- could I make a couple of -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that would be great. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- comments before we start this process -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Get us started. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- and Mr. Nino takes us to the LDC? This process, dealing with this part of the Land Development Code, started with a group on -- called the streetscape committee who worked for about eight months with a number of very recognizable people in this community, some which sit in the room tonight, to come up with a list of recommendations to deal with the beautification of this community. A part of that was sign amendment code changes. What we did is we took a laundry list to another committee called the community character committee, which included this, emphasizing the changes you will hear tonight in the Land Development Codes for sign changes, plus endorsing a comprehensive sign enforcement plan which will also be presented tonight, because both need to be moved simultaneously through this process to bring into compliance that which is out of compliance. We made some other recommendations, but deferred that to this Community Character Committee, because we thought that these issues would be best served by having the consultant that has now been retained look at those, which is to look at side-scaping, street-scaping, gateways, signage in terms of how you get through your community kinds of things, colors, and whether or not we should be going to an architectural review committee for Collier County. The Community Character Committee approved that which is coming forward tonight. They believe that it was in the best interest of the Page 2 December 15, 1999 community. We also took this to the Chambers -- the board -- the Chamber of Commerce, we've taken it to the Greater'Naples Civic Association, to the President's Council, to the Second District, to the Golden Gate Civic Association, and we have had endorsement of changes that you will hear tonight, plus some things that have been modified and moving forward to where we have, I'm going to say, about 95 percent of the community on board with these changes. So that's kind of a preface to the board and to everyone else is the very broad-based process that we have taken this through. It has not been a narrow input, it has been a very broad-based input from all aspects of this community as we look at, quote, community character and the aesthetics of the community and a ringing endorsement from the community that they want us to look our public best. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate all that. And considering the immensity of the process that you've gone through already, I wonder if we might start as a board with what are the contentious issues. How do you feel about that, board members? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that's what the people are here for. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So maybe we'll even more narrowly focus on what are the contentious areas to which -- for which there's not complete agreement in a sign ordinance proposed. MR. NINO: Again, Ron Nino for the record, representing planning services division. Just remind you that this is the first of two meetings you will hold. The next meeting will be on January 5th, at which meeting we hope you will take action to approve amendments to the Land Development Code. Commissioner Carter said much more succinctly that which I was going to relate to you, that staff were a part of that public dissemination process, and here to concur that there was an indication of support to the amendments that were proposed and that are in your current agenda package -- as they are in your current agenda package. Although I think I could also say that as professional planners, a lot of things that came out of that process are aesthetic controls that we would have attempted to achieve, even without the process. I mean, we think that your message to us all along, and it began with the architectural standards, is that we need to raise the bar. And as professional planners, we don't believe that the current state of sign regulations is consistent with that bar that's already been heightened, and needs to be complemented now by a similar action in the sign area. Chahram Badamtchian is the architect of the changes, and I'm going to ask Chahram to describe those changes that we believe are in contention. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good evening, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. When I was asked by a streetscape committee to assist them in drafting a code, sign code for Collier County amending the existing sign code, I decided to read at least 10 or 20 codes from other Page 3 December 15, 1999 communities, similar communities, to see what they have, and if ours is as good as theirs. So I reviewed at least 30 sign codes from different communities. And I also read four or five books that American Planning Association published regarding signs. And basically what we have here is going to be consistent with what different communities throughout the United States, they have already approved and implemented. The major problems we have here that people are opposed to, some business community people are opposed to, are, number one, we are proposing to reduce the height of pole signs. And today pole signs are allowed to be as high as 20 feet. We are not proposing to reduce it to eight feet or five feet or four feet, that some communities have. Naples is a different community. Most people, they come from other parts of the country and they don't have real good eyesight either, so we have to have some large signs. So what we are proposing is to reduce it to 15 feet. Which I don't believe by itself is a problem. The problem that the business community has with this amendment with their lowering the height is that we are asking some architectural treatment of the sign. Right now our code allows a pole with a sign on to of it. Two years ago we said let's cover the pole by a pole cover 20 percent of the width of the sign. But this time around we are going a step further and we are saying we have to have some architectural treatment of the sign. Basically a base, a cap. I have some signs that -- basically these are the type of signs that we are looking to have in Collier County. This is only a, I believe, eight-foot sign. We are not asking signs that small or signs this small, but basically we are asking some architectural treatment of the sign so the sign looks at least as good as the building. Since 1997, we have this architectural code, which has immensely approved the appearance of the buildings we are building, and since 1992 and '93, we have this Land Development Code, so we have nice landscaping and good-looking building; however, we still have sign code that allows signs like -- signs like this, which is a 20-foot high sign and hung less than 100 square foot in area with a pole cover. What we are proposing is the same bank, but this is -- again, it's smaller than what we are proposing. But we are looking into asking some architectural treatments and some design to the sign. That is one sticky point. The other one is we are asking that the logo -- the sign not be in the shape of a logo. This is a sign in the shape of a logo. So we are saying the sign cannot be in the shape of a logo. Logo can be inside the sign, no problem with that. But the entire sign cannot be in the shape of a logo. And the question was that some businesses, they have a sign that -- their name as their logo. So our code says that the name of the business shall not be considered logo. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So like -- what's an example of that, somebody who -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Like they were saying that Coca Cola, the way Page 4 December 15, 1999 they write it -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- that can be consid -- that's their logo. By this definition, you cannot have a sign that -- with that Coca Cola on it. But we are saying no, that's the name. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So they could have even -- so that could be the shape of the sign. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. What the problem was, we are saying that the logo cannot cover more than 20 percent of the sign area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But where the logo and the name are the same MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Then that's fine. We don't have problem with that name -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, that's what I thought. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- occupying most of the sign area. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to pass a picture down for Commissioner Mac'Kie. I think that would -- a picture's worth a thousand words. That would clarify that issue. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Go back to Blockbuster. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is this okay? MR. NINO: Here's the logo. COMMISSIONER CARTER: There's the logo. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We will not consider this logo because -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's legal? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- this is the name of the business. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, but Blockbuster would not be? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Blockbuster, their name is not the logo. The shape of the torn ticket is the logo. We don't want the sign to be in the shape of a torn ticket. We want a sign -- MR. NINO: In other words, what Chahram is saying, if your logo happens to be a banana, we don't want the sign to look like a banana. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But what -- but if the name of your business is -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is banana. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- is written in the shape of a banana and the name of your business is banana, you can have a sign in the shape of a banana. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- asking for some architectural treatments and some cap on the signs so we get away from those banana or hot dog shaped signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I don't think that's what -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- when the logo and the name are identical, if Coca Cola -- I don't care. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The logo will be printed on a rectangular sign -- Page 5 December 15, 1999 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Am I correct? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct, that's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- within a rectangle. MR. NINO: Exactly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No matter what the shape of your logo is, it has to fit within a rectangle. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Even if -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The name of your company and the logo are identical, like Coca Cola. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, John, because I did have that wrong. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. And the other problem was we said no primary colors shall cover more than 20 percent of the background of the sign. Basically we didn't want bright yellow signs, like you see with the pawn shops and the title loan signs. That was another problem that we decided that may be we should not have this requirement in our code, so we took it out. It was in our original recommendation, but we are not recommending that anymore. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, so you can have primary colors. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Even those pawn shop signs then are going to be allowed? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The problem we have with primary color, we were saying no yellows. Mostly primary color. Yellow is the one that people, they use. And Mr. John R. Wood was here opposing it, saying that all his signs are yellow, because that's his sign and that was his color for the past so many years, and he doesn't want to have to change the color of the sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know even who you're talking about, but -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: John R. Wood. COMMISSIONER CARTER: John R. Wood. There's a whole background is the primary color. So to accommodate that concern -- if I might interrupt a second, to accommodate a concern, in a meeting with business leaders, we said we would not remove primary colors. We would allow them, even though there are situations that we're not too crazy about. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, that, I'd rather have -- I would rather prohibit the primary colors with provision for a variance to come before the board. That was my thought on the John R. Wood signs. I'm happy to approve John R. Wood signs. They're tasteful, they're attractive. But I want a general prohibition, because otherwise, we're not going to solve the problem that I've got over on Davis and Page 6 December 15, 1999 the East Trail and this pawn shop mess that I don't want to -- this is my second shot at the sign ordinance since I've been on the board, and we still haven't gotten it to my satisfaction. MR. NINO: May I indicate -- Ron Nino again. Staff feels it's backing off. It's backing off for a purpose. There is a Community Character Committee, and we're saying that that's one of the items, if we have to give anything, that's an item we can give up for about a year, because we're convinced the study will show that we need to do more, not less. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, again, I'm just going to say my position will be that those primary colors need to go and there needs to be a provision for variances. COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: But isn't a primary color blue? Yes, red. Red, green, yellow -- No, not green. Sorry, yeah. Red, blue, yellow. Red, blue, yellow. Okay. Sam's Club, up on Immokalee Road, how many people know where Sam's Club is? Just put a new sign up there. It's blue, three shades of blue, and it's not unattractive. It's a -- I don't know, I would refer to it more like a monument sign now, or maybe it's a pole, modified -- what is it Mike? What would you call it? MR. DAVIS: Pole sign. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is it a pole sign? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But it's smaller. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But it's not the typical pole up and a sign up on top of it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what Mike would call it. He has a reason for calling it that. What would you call it, Chahram? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's a smaller pole sign than most businesses, they have. MR. DAVIS: As defined in the Collier County Land Development Code, it is a pole sign. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a pole sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that was Mike Davis, for the record. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I will remind everyone that our American flag has two of the primary colors in it, contained within it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, if I'm going to lose that one, I'm going to lose it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Sorry. I mean, from what they had -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I lost that battle a couple weeks ago, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If I'm going to lose it, it won't be the first one. But if I am going to lose that, Chahram, come up with something Page 7 December 15, 1999 then to help me with the pawn shop mess. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, just excuse me just a second here. If your primary objection to primary colors is yellow, why don't you say no yellow backgrounds without a variance from the board? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm asking planners to give me -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Say all background must be on earth tone colors or something like that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: far, because -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: or no yellow or no red? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, well, I don't think I want to go that How about no yellow and red? No. Going once. What do you mean, no yellow and red together The background cannot be 100 percent primary colors without a variance is what I was looking for. But we'll hear more on that subject, I'm sure. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, let's -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sure there are bigger fish to fry here. I mean, I'll fight something else. But I'm looking to try to get rid of those ugly pawn shop signs. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not opposed to that. I'm just saying let's be careful how we go about it, because if yellow is the problem, why take out blue and red at the same time? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Baby with the bath water, I understand. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And another sticky point is our plan for amortization. We have signs that are 20, 30 years old, in extremely bad shape. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We just have some free advertising for these guys. This is -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm not sure that's considered advertising. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, good point, Chahram. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I can understand. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have signs that are in bad shape, but they are grandfathered in, and they can stay for as long as they want to keep them up. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Until they fall down. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Until they fall down. And some of them, they are not ready to fall down, believe me. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And we are -- we were proposing an amortization plan to say that all nonconforming signs must be removed or made to comply within five years of adoption of these amendments. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I like that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: However, a few days ago, we had a meeting and basically we decided to have two amortizations. All signs built before 1991 -- that's the date that we adopted the Land Development Code and the current Sign Code -- must be removed within three years. All those three signs, they are pre code, they will be removed in three years, if this is approved. Page 8 December 15, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Ail signs built between 1991 and the end of this year that do not comply with the code, they will have 10 years to be removed. That is what we are proposing. But you are more than welcome to change it back to five years. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question. Wasn't there at some point -- don't I recall correctly that we did have a deadline period for replacement of these older signs at one time and that that has just simply not been done? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have amortization plan for all billboards. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Billboards? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's all? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Was it only restricted to billboards? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The code says off premises signs. Doesn't talk about on premises signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we need an amortization plan for on premises signs badly. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We can have the best code on earth, but if we don't get rid of the old and ugly-looking signs, we will never have a nice community. We will always have those signs staying there. And this is a almost 250 square feet sign, which doesn't really belong there. But it's there and it's going to stay there for as long as we don't have an amortization plan to get rid of it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. Well, in order to change that sign, we need an amortization plan. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We need an amortization plan, either five years to remove all nonconforming signs, or three years to remove ones built before '91. MR. NINO: Or a hurricane. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Whichever comes first. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. This is a pre '91 sign? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a pre '91 sign, yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Could you show -- just give me -- I want to know what we would get. What would we get rid of in three years with the -- I need to understand what's pre '91 and what's post '91. Because I want to be sure -- I can live with three years, if we're going to get rid of all the junk in three years. That's -- and our '91 code's not too bad. Would that go? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is pre '91. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Show me your ugliest post '91. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, this is what we'd call the ugly. We had good signs and bad signs and ugly signs. We're starting with the ugly. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's post '91. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Now, what would that become? If you were to change that sign, what's it going to look like? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No pole. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It will look something like this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's like when you go to nice communities Page 9 December 15, 1999 that have those nice character. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, you can go to Hilton Head, South Carolina and drive down the street and rear end the car in front of you because you can't see where you want to go. Does it look nice? It looks great. Looks absolutely fantastic. It's wonderful. I mean, it really is aesthetically -- looks wonderful. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Being someone who just got rear-ended a couple days ago. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You want to tell us about that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, actually, I disagree only in that -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: This guy didn't have brakes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, this guy had no brakes. 7-Eleven that just opened up on the corner of Santa Barbara and Davis literally a couple weeks ago, it's go the new gas station required signs, eight feet. It looks fantastic. I mean, it is clearly visible, as is the sign on the screen, but it looks fantastic. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Isn't that great? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so far superior to your old pole signs and -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I agree. But I just -- you know, I just want to make sure that, you know, not all our citizenry is -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may, there are communities that allow only 42-inch high signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They do what? What size? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 42-inch. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 42-inch. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 42 inches. We are proposing a 15-foot high sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 50? MR. NINO: 15. One-five. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is only eight -- probably eight, nine feet high sign. So it is going to be twice as tall as this one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So twice as tall as that, just without a pole. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Just without a pole. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Have we got pictures of that? MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: That sign is 15 feet -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No hollering from the audience, please. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. If you look, actually that vehicle I'd be just a little bit taller than, so the vehicle is roughly six feet or a little under. So double that. The sign's possibly -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 15. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- close to 15. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that is -- that's our maximum under the code, as proposed? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: As proposed, correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That sign right there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right there. Page 10 December 15, 1999 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is another proposal, seeing that since we lowered the gas station signs to eight feet, and we don't have problem with those. They are really visible. You are in your car, the sign's right in front of your eyes, you can see it. Why not lower the size of all signs on out parcels ~to the same height? Most gas stations are located on those out parcels. Why is that the gas station gets eight foot high sign and McDonald's is going to get 157 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Makes no sense. Out-parcel signs ought to be eight feet. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because if -- I mean, if we've said that's good enough for a gas station -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We ought to at least be consistent. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. So somebody -- you know, eight feet on out parcels. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, I just want to just remind the rest of the board, we're setting a code for all of Collier County. Now, what are you going to do when you get to Everglades City, what are you going to do when you get to Immokalee? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, Everglades City has their own, I guess. They can do an ordinance. But Immokalee, they're going to have to comply, unless Deborah, do they have a separate -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any reason we wouldn't want Immokalee to look every bit as good as the rest? COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's not the point, Tim. I'm looking about setbacks, the businesses from the side of the street. You don't have the same situation out there that you do here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Deborah, does Immokalee, with their special overlay -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question? COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's just a concern. I mean, I think we've got to be careful when we say one size fits all, that's all. And I'm not opposed to this. But I just -- when you're thinking about this, I think everybody's zeroed in, you're either thinking Naples or you're thinking maybe Golden Gate, but you're not -- you better be thinking CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: County-wide. COMMISSIONER BERRY: As long as it's a county-wide ordinance. Now, if you want to allow some exception to have it reviewed and come up with something a little bit different -- I'm not saying ignore it, please don't understand, but you better be careful. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Commissioner Berry, I think it's a good point. I think we just have to pull that into the process. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. All right. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Our code exempts agriculturally zoned properties in that rural area. If on the way to Immokalee there's a farm, they can still have a 20-foot high pole sign. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I'm not worried about to and from, I'm worried about when you get in. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. One more thing is we are reducing the Page 11 December 15, 1999 setbacks from 15 to 10. The reason being that our landscape buffer is usually 15 feet, in some cases 10 feet in narrower streets, and require rough shrub. And if the sign has to be lowered and behind the shrub, .it's not going to be real visible. So we are proposing to put the sign in front of the shrub, reducing the setback by five feet, and we are going to ask the landscape architect on the landscape plan to show the location of the sign, so it's -- sign's not an afterthought. They know where the sign's going to be, and they do the planning accordingly, and we don't end up with the conflict of one plan showing the tree, the other plan showing the sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One suggestion maybe to address this concern would be to have this apply within the described urban area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: perhaps. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a thought. Just a suggestion. We could think about And then work on that as a separate issue, Urban versus rural signs or something? Well, like that exempts Immokalee, and what else is out there is nothing to speak about anyway. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, no, but then I'm saying then, if we want to do something, if they want to come in with -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Community initiative. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I ask Commissioner Berry a question? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You may. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I picture, most of the existing or built anyway commercial property in Immokalee actually has a smaller setback or no setback. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're right. It's like right on the street. What do we do? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, how do we address this issue? That's all. I just -- I don't have a solution. I would like one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But it's a valid issue to raise. Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Until 1991, I believe, we had two sets of codes, one saying urban coastal area and one saying Immokalee area. And basically with all these overlays we're having for Immokalee, we are moving towards that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- old way of doing things. So one size doesn't fit all. We know that now. And probably we have to have an overlay for Immokalee that includes signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I could stand to make a compromise -- I don't know if I could stand to do a 10-year amortization on post '91 Page 12 December 15, 1999 signs, but the chip, the bargaining chip there is if we could get a really short -- three years is pretty darn short for the 1991, pre '91 signs, and that's where the real problems are. But it's going to be tough to say we're going to do this today, but it ain't going to really matter for 10 years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But three years from now is almost 15 years minimum after those were -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- installed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. I mean -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that I'd feel that bad about -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, no. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- three years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't have any problem with the three years. My question is, should the 10 years be shorter. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Constantine, you weren't here. There's two amortization scales: Prior to '91, three years, after 1990, 10 years. Originally, our group had come up with five years. Some communities do seven years. It seemed to be a compromise with all interested parties, as of a couple of days ago, doing 10 years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that was my question is should we stick with the committee's recommendation on five years for everything, or go with this three and 107 Just -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Seems to me that five years -- if I just installed a sign on my building yesterday and you come in and tell me I've got to take it off in five years, that seems a bit draconian to me. I don't -- I don't know that I would want to cut it that far. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So Commissioner Norris, you're more comfortable with the 10 or seven or eight or whatever? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I would say 10, because for a couple of reasons. First I think you need to let people know that have some money invested in these signs that they're going to have to change it. But second of all, we have improved our sign code so that anything that came in here fairly recently is a fairly nice-looking sign. I mean, you're not seeing some of the old -- some of the photos that we just saw. You don't see that being built anymore. The signs that you do see that have come in in the last couple of years are pretty nice signs, you know, in relative terms to what we've had before. So I don't have any objection to 10 years because of that. You know, the older ones, the people have had them a long time, let's face it. Some of those signs are 20, 30, 40 years old. I think they've got their money's worth out of them. I'm not objecting to that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This may be thinking out loud, which is always a dangerous thing. This may be way too cumbersome, but it's worth asking. Is there any way to monitor and -- maybe it's 10 years from when the permit was issued on those that fall after the 1991 -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That -- it's going to require additional code Page 13 December 15, 1999 enforcement staff member to do that, because we have to monitor thousands of signs throughout the county. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And it may very well be too cumbersome. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's possible, to answer your question. Obviously we could do it if we wanted to staff out that much. But I don't think I would support it at this point, because -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Other changes -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- you're not giving them enough warning. You're only really saying I'm only going to give you 14 months warning. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Other changes we are proposing to prohibit. Exposed neon signs. We are not -- we don't have problem with signs that is neon, as mean of elimination. We don't want to expose. Bates Motel sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's neon that's not exposed to look like? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Publix sign, Walgreen signs, those are all neon signs. They have cover over them. MR. NINO: It's in behind the sign. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have a channel and -- MR. NINO: Right. And neon -- they have a plastic cover. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We don't like that or we -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We want to keep that. What we don't want to have is exposed to neon that you see, neon tubing. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, like where it says bail bond? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's kind of what I thought you had in mind. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's the one. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't know, maybe Outback still has the thing that says Outback, exposed neon. MR. NINO: Longhorn. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Longhorn. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, but that's not a controversial issue, is it? Surely -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, this is not the controversial one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Longhorn is covered? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Longhorn is covered neon. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The sign is, but the trim is neon. They got in under the wire. But if they make one change in the building, the neon's gone. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And we are proposing to reduce the size of directory signs for shopping centers from 250 square feet to 150 square feet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Those have gotten out of control. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did we arrive at 1507 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This 150 was kind of arbitrary number. We just decided to reduce it by 100 square feet. This one was proposed two or Page 14 December 15, 1999 three days ago as part of the compromise negotiation that was going COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have some photos of exactly what you're talking about? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't know if I have any. I might. COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is one of the hardest things to do without having something to look at. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Amen. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We're dealing with a visual type of concept. And to sit here, I couldn't -- if somebody said something was 150 square feet, I wouldn't have any idea. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Perhaps Mike Davis might help us with that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: What's something that's 150 square feet? I mean, you can tell me, unless you can give me a comparison, something I can look at? I don't visualize that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: About three of those window panes. MR. NINO: 10 by 15. MR. DAVIS: Mike Davis for the record. I'm helped with my competitors, Mike Boyd, from Signs and Things back here. All of us I think are familiar with Crossroads Market. MR. BOYD: Crossroads Market on Pine Ridge Road. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sure. MR. DAVIS: Pine Ridge Road. That's 150 square feet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Plenty big. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Now, wait a minute. Is that the one out in front of -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Target. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The Target. No, wait a minute. Is that the one out in front of -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Target. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- the Target site or -- MR. DAVIS: Target, Publix. COMMISSIONER BERRY: On the other side? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The Target side. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The Vineyards. This is Vineyards. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The Vineyards? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Crossroads is the Vineyards. MR. NINO: Crossroads is the Vineyards. MR. DAVIS: I'm sorry, yes, you're right. The shopping center in front of the Vineyards near the Cleveland Clinic is a 150 square foot directory. I believe it's got four tenants on it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay, what's the one at Car -- what about Carillon where Target and all that is? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 250 square feet. COMMISSIONER BERRY: 250? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And so we're saying that wouldn't -- that would be a no-no? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are proposing to reduce that to 150, and we are also proposing to have a minimum of four names and a maximum of Page 15 December 15, 1999 eight names on both signs. COMMISSIONER CARTER: But again, it's 10 years to do -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: You travel on the North Trail, you will see directory signs with 50, 60 names, and you cannot read anything. Names are so tiny, they try to accommodate all the tenants. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we referring strictly to the directory portion of the sign? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is the directory, in shopping centers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that a controversial item? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is not a controversial item. Everybody agrees that 250 is too large. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And the wall signs, we were proposing to -- our code allows 20 percent of the wall area to be covered with signs with a maximum of 250 square feet. We were proposing to reduce that to 150 square feet maximum, with no more than 15 percent of the wall area. And the compromise was that we may keep that 20 percent, but lower, the maximum from 250 to 150. I believe City of Naples, the largest sign they allow is 90 square feet in -- basically if we have seen Sam's sign, that's 250 square feet. Costco signs, they're 250. Home Depot signs, 150. We are -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 150 is enough. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 200 -- we are proposing to lower that maximum to 150. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So everybody agrees on the 150 as the caps, even if it is 90 percent -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to hear, though, from the perspective of a business in a shopping center. I'd just like to know how this effects -- if you go into a shopping center, what does this sign -- how is a reduction in size of this sign going to affect it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I talked to a shopping center manager, and he told me that if this is applied uniformly to all the businesses, to all the shopping centers, he wouldn't have problem with that. He said if everybody has a smaller sign, that's fine. The problem is if some people, they get larger and some smaller. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, a level playing field is the point here. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And, by golly, you know, that's another point to do a certain deadline, rather than stagger them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely, all starting at a certain time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's the beauty of an amortization schedule. Whatever we decide, it puts everybody on a level playing field. CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: So Chahram, am I getting this right, the Page 16 December 15, 1999 issues are the pole signs and the time period for amortization, those are the controversial issues? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Those are the controversial issues. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And beyond that -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: And yet we came up with a suggested compromise the other night, that we would go from 25 percent coverage of that pole to 50 percent coverage as a compromise in bringing the signs down 15 feet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I've just got to understand why we don't bite the bullet and, you know, get rid of pole signs. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I would be happy to bite the bullet and pull them down, but I was only trying to make sure I get this in front of the commission -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER CARTER: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chahram? I understand. -- and out of the way. It's a fun job, ain't it? It's more fun than making sausage. So have you completed your list for us, MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, basically as you heard, we have two proposals, one that came from the committee, the other one was like compromise position. And either one you will approve, that's fine with staff. Either one is better than what we have today. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have one other question. Driving by construction sites, of big buildings or whatever it might be, all due respect to the people that finance the project, to the general contractor on the job, to the plumbing contractor, to all of them, they all put their signs out on the project. That to me is far more offensive than some of these signs that we're talking about. What can we do -- how are we in this code addressing that issue, or are we? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The construction signs are allowed to be 15 feet high. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why aren't we going to hold them -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why aren't we suggesting holding them to the same -- and I know we just changed it. But why aren't we considering holding them to the exact same standard as all the rest of these? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just because they're temporary. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Those are temporary signs. They were proposing to lower the height to 12 or 10. However, part of the compromise was that we shouldn't touch construction signs. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But whether they're temporary or not, I'm looking at them when they're up, so why would we have those higher than everything else we're asking to come down? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The best would be to have no more than -- a sign no more than 32 square feet in area. We really don't need a 64 square feet sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we need one with everybody's name on it Page 17 Decen%ber 15, 1999 instead of -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly. That's my point. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- 45 signs. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: See, our code today allows subcontractors to have a 40 square feet sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We need to take that out, Chahram. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is the logic -- I don't care that it's a temporary sign. What's the logic of leaving it, other than gee, we just changed it six months ago? What's the logic of leaving it at 15 feet? Because in my mind, if you're going -- I don't agree, but the question of 15 feet to eight feet, when you're going by a store and you're looking for it and you can't see it, that's a legitimate question. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if you're just curious, gee, is that a Holiday Inn or a Marriott being built over there and you're going to look at the sign, that's not a legitimate reason. I don't understand why you need to have that at 15 feet high. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Part of the proposal from the committee was to lower the height. However, the other day when we had the meeting with the business community, they proposed that we do not lower the height of the construction sign, and we thought maybe -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe they'll be able to explain it to me, the logic why -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- when they speak. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, we'll call -- MR. NINO: Let me say that at the time when we thought about these amendments, temporary signs were not a problem, were not high on our agenda. There was no logic, Commissioner, we just didn't address it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right, as we get -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: And we could take it out if we want to, Commissioner. I think that's -- and I have no problem with that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is -- I'm sorry, you talk about sign pollution. And here again, there's no rhyme or reason to these signs. I mean, you can drive by a construction site -- I can take you to one on Pine Ridge Road. You've got a big sign, you've got a little square sign, you've got a long narrow sign. I mean, there's anything you want to -- you know, any myriad of shapes and sizes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you say tacky? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think it's tacky. MR. NINO: I think you need to -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I agree, Commissioner Berry, I would like to see it into one square, everybody's posted and that -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: And very clear. I mean, let's tell who the financier of the project is and let's tell who the general contractor is. I'm not saying take it away. I'm just saying let's do it a little better. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And at the same time, if we're talking about Page 18 December 15, 1999 construction signs, we would be talking about them in the category of temporary signs, is that true? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Temporary signs, correct. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And hopefully we could -- temporary signs would extend to political signs. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we could -- whatever limitations come on construction signs and other temporary signs would be extended to political signs, because they would be temporary. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, it sure would save everybody a lot of money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It sure would. And a lot of ugly. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Save all your pictures from your last campaigns, folks, they're now a relic. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You mean we can't put pictures on signs any more, Tim? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's don't even go there. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I hope not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, so let's say that there are now six issues on the table, because temporary signs are on the table as well. So those of you who are coming up for your comments need to know that. How many registered speakers do we have? MR. FERNANDEZ: 16. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good, let's hear them. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's go. MR. FERNANDEZ: First is Mike Davis, and then Colleen Kvetko. MR. DAVIS: For the record, Mike Davis, Sign Craft. And I'm here representing Mike Davis tonight and no one else. I've asked Chahram to put this on the visualizer. I don't know how well it will work. I think I've given each of you a copy of it, and hopefully it will help you to -- I've checked the items that by your discussion -- at least I thought I checked the items. The checkmarks don't show up. Great. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Put his -- he had check marks on his sheet, guys. MR. DAVIS: I was just trying to expedite things, marking the items that apparently are not in contention with your discussion thus far. And bearing in mind that the first one is checked only over to where the part about an amortization period begins, to hopefully facilitate moving through this. I did, you might notice, the 64 square foot construction signs that you were just discussing. You kind of were talking about apples and oranges and tomatoes and bananas and a whole bunch of things all at once. Understand that most of the signs you're talking about that you see are the four-foot by eight-foot signs, which by our code are only allowed to be eight feet tall. This one on this sheet here is only the 64 square foot signs. The larger signs on the very large pieces of property, they're either for sale or a development is beginning. Eight feet square usually, where Page 19 December 15, 1999 the 15 feet is needed, and that's why you all changed the code the last time to 15 feet. Because very often these are still down at the low part of the ground that hasn't been filled, hasn't really been touched yet to be brought up to grade of the road. So usually it can be two or three feet below grade. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we think they're really ugly, Mike. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions, Mike, because you and I actually went through this in 1993. MR. DAVIS: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's measured from the grade of the road, though, so there's -- MR. DAVIS: The center line of the grade. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. DAVIS: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So whether they're in a hole, the posts go in a hole or have already been filled, the sign's still going to be at the same spot, can go to the same height. And you may need to get a little more wood to get it to that height -- MR. DAVIS: That's true. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but you can still legally put it to that height. It's not 15 feet from where you happen to dig the hole. MR. DAVIS: That is true. You're exactly right. But bear in mind, it's a 64 square foot sign, and it's 10 feet -- or I guess maybe 12 feet. I forget now what it might have been proposed in this round of changes. You'll have to appreciate after 10 or 11 years of that, I'm starting to get a little addle brained on which change was which, because we changed this code so damn many times. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's for sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mike, what public purpose does -- do those signs play? I mean, do I really need to know that Joe's Plumbing is the subcontractor for the hotel that's going in there? MR. DAVIS: No, I was going to comment on that, too. What the code -- code requires of people is the general contractor, the construction signs I think Commissioner Berry was talking about, the general contractor is allowed a 32 square foot sign if it is of sufficient size to allow that size, and then each subcontractor is allowed to a four square foot sign, a small real estate type sign. By and large what you're seeing is a lot of illegal signs, quite frankly. So once again, we go back to the number one thing on the list, which is -- and Commissioner Carter's alluded to this, that -- the need for stepped-up enforcement. So that a lot of this -- a lot of what is being seen, and there's concern about -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Mike, I'll go ahead and say out loud that I would support a budget amendment at our next meeting to add code enforcement officers to be focused on signage. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would second that. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd make that third, if possibly -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ron, take notes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: One of the things that could happen here is Page 20 December 15, 1999 a combination -- MR. NINO: The director is right here. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- is code enforcement, and also a possibility that we could have people in the community trained by code enforcement to just go ahead and take pictures of the areas that are causing difficulty and do the legwork, if you please, for code enforcement and to bring them in and help them in that process. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to get sidetracked tonight on whether or not we need to do that, but if -- I don't have any objection to that if staff comes to us and says yes, we need additional people because of. Let's just not throw money at it and say well, we think that, without hearing from them. If Michelle comes and says boy, we need two bodies to do this because we have "X" number of calls, great, I don't have any problem with that. But what I'd say is next meeting, let's have a report from them and then decide what the appropriate action is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: On that topic, though, there's -- the related question here is do we want to have code enforcement continue to be only complaint driven, or to have officers -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. MS. ARNOLD: That's what my comment was going to be. What I'm hearing here tonight is that there is need of more proactive patrolling on the part of signs, sign code. And with that, I would need additional investigators and I will be prepared to present you with a report at whatever meeting you ask me to come back. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: January llth. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: January llth we'd like to hear from you. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think that really would be key in this process. Because some of the communities that I have met with in support of this process have said we will work with you if you can help us with the code aspect. We will work with you side by side to try to clean up some of the areas that we really just don't like. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yep. We need to give Mike about another four minutes or something, because -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Time's up, Mike. MR. DAVIS: I think -- thank you, Madam Chairman. I really don't want to talk that long, to be honest with you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, good. MR. DAVIS: This sheet -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just kidding. No. MR. DAVIS: This sheet that I've given you is one I prepared. Commissioner Carter and I spent quite a bit of time the other evening going through this. And my intent is a sign professional will sit down with Commissioner Carter and try to determine where some middle ground might be that would satisfy his concerns of improving how signs look in the community. And that's how we arrived at this. And I want everybody to understand that this was something that I generated in concert with Commissioner Carter. Page 21 December 15, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it was your suggestion then to work on language to encourage giant hot dog signs. MR. DAVIS: Yes. No, I -- is this what I -- no, I didn't say that. I said work on language for odd-shaped signs. Giant hot dogs, et cetera. The idea was that between now and your second hearing on January 5th that staff might be able to come up with some language, because I think, as Commissioner Norris pointed out, one's logo is one's logo. And if it's contained within the body of your sign, I don't think any of us have a problem with that. But if the -- the giant hot dog sign that, you know, has Tim's Hot Dogs on it, maybe we as a community don't want that. I don't know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All beef franks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for the moan. I have to hear it all the time. You ought to be sitting up here when he's whispering. MR. DAVIS: I apologize for -- I set you up, I know. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Strike man. MR. DAVIS: And I think you -- by my checklist here, you've identified the parts that are probably in contention here tonight. I told Commissioner Carter that my comments would be brief tonight. These are ones that he and I worked out. And as a sign professional, I think they work for signage for customers. I think there's probably some people here tonight that don't necessarily agree with me on that count. And I think probably what it boils down to, as it always does with signage, is the size by square footage and the height of the sign. Those are the issues that control all these things. And one comment on primary colors. With the stepped-up changes in the code for architectural standards that Chahram has put in, it's going to encourage businesses or require businesses even more so that the sign structure itself is going to be required to be much more in harmony with the building it represents. That's been accomplished. What happens in the actual sign area itself, I would suggest for you not to be too concerned about, because that's contained just in that signage area. And whether it's John R. Woods yellow and brown -- that personally I think looks great. I kind of like yellow as a color, though -- or a red or a blue or whatever, it's just contained in that signage area. So I think that's -- given that it's put maybe in a better package in the future, which is what our code's requiring, I think that probably alleviates a lot of your concerns then. Thank you, unless you have some questions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Board members? No, maybe later. Our next speaker? Colleen, and after Colleen is -- MS. KVETKO: Colleen Kvetko, Fifth Third Bank, president and CEO. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then Mr. Botner. MS. KVETKO: Might I use that one? I have some pictures. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You certainly may. MS. KVETKO: Thank you. Okay, before I show you some pictures, one of the things I do want to say is from a business perspective, first of all, the Page 22 December 15, 1999 community character is a must. I mean, you know, mentioning Hilton Head. Hilton Head's great. I'd love to see their accident ratio, because I'll bet you it's high. We went there for vacation, you really can't find anything. But the community character is great. We do need to think about the cost to business. Let me put that in perspective for you. My banking centers, which I've got 10 of them now -- well, my tenth one's being built on Fifth Avenue. But nine of them on our branches, we tend to put 25 to 30,000 in signage. That's 25 to 30,000 per banking center. That doesn't -- does include a pole sign, and it does include my logo. My logo is Five/Three, which includes the whole sign. So I'm totally out of compliance. Put it in perspective from a Carillon. We all know where Carillon is. If Carillon had to go to these -- the new code, it would cost Carillon, because everyone would be out of compliance or out of code, approximately $250,000 to replace those signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just made me think of something. And I'm going to -- I apologize for interrupting. Maybe the logo question could be addressed if logos are prohibited unless they happen to be squares or rectangles or, you know, some standard shape. MS. KVETKO: Well, McDonald's. You know, McDonald's, the golden arches. One, they're out of compliance in the color and the logo. So, I mean, the logo situation I think as a whole really needs to be defined much more clearly, because it really is not defined in the new code clearly enough. Especially from my perspective. The other thing is, the reason I like pole signs and mine are in compliance today, is because people can find me that way. We have such a strict, as we all know, very strict landscaping code. And I'm going to show you an example, a picture I took. Actually, I think this is the first picture I'll show. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yep, just put it on there. MS. KVETKO: Okay, I'll let you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's your bank? MS. KVETKO: No, no, this is not the bank. I didn't take any of the bank. But wait, I want to show that. You know, you talk about hot dogs, here's a submarine. I'm sure they're out of compliance. As far as the pole signs, this is actually a monument sign that I'm going to show you next. But -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have a picture of your Fifth Third logo that you are concerned about? That's -- MS. KVETKO: No, but it's here. I can show you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's basically just a square with a five and -- and a fraction, five over three. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, but that's compliant. MS. KVETKO: No, it would not under the new code. I mean, that's my logo. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER CARTER: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: would comply. But -- But it would comply, as long as it's -- It would comply. -- contained within a rectangular sign, it Page 23 December 15, 1999 MS. KVETKO: Yeah, but it's more than 20 percent -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's not the way -- I think you're misunderstanding. MS. KVETKO: Okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chahram, clear that up for us. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or maybe I am. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The name of the business shall not be considered logo for the purpose of measuring the size of the logo. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So she would be okay? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Fifth Third -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If that's the name of the bank, then she's okay. MS. KVETKO: I know it's a funny name, but yes, it's our name. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, my daughter thinks you can't do math. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Frankly -- MS. KVETKO: One and two-thirds. This shows you -- boy, these are hard to figure out, aren't they? Right there, right there. That's Gulf Coast National Bank, but it's behind all the -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Palm trees. MS. KVETKO: -- palm trees that you can't even see it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ironically, if you had that down to eight feet, you'd have a better view of that particular sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. MS. KVETKO: Well, but if we had it left at 15, or whatever the pole sign is, you'd still have a pretty good view. Actually, the purpose of these pictures, and I'll pass them around or show you just a few, and Commissioner, or. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chair chick. MS. KVETKO: Chairman -- Chairwoman, this is exactly what you're saying, that's out of compliance. There's a lot of these. All these pole signs we already saw. Burger King. The message I want to bring today is one, please consider the cost to business. That's the first message, please consider the cost to business. And I'm not saying we don't need possibly some changes in the current code. We may. We just changed two years ago. But every time we change then we are now out of compliance every time we do that. So if I have -- I have 10 years or five years to come into compliance. The other issue is in enforcing what we've already got. And that's why I went out and took these pictures. I wholeheartedly agree, you know, to -- instead of being reactive from folks calling and complaining, let's be proactive and get those that are out there today out of code into code. Because I'm a business and I make sure I'm in code. Because when my sign goes up, it is still in compliance with the code. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Colleen, may I ask you one question? In your new property, what's the capital investment totally on your new property? Page 24 December 15, 1999 MS. KVETKO: Which? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you said -- MS. KVETKO: A banking -- let's say Lely, for example, our new banking center? About 1.7 million. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And you have a $15,000 sign amortized over 10 years? MS. KVETKO: 25 to 30. That's for a banking center. And then my main office, we spend about 75,000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the percentage of expense of the total building on the total project of a sign is? MS. KVETKO: 25 to 30,000 in our new banking center. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Out of 1.5 million? MS. KVETKO: Uh-huh. But you've got to remember how much land is here. That's 750,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You asked -- you had a specific questions about logo, and it looks like you folks are fine. But you mentioned McDonald's. MR. ANDERSON: Gosh, they have big golden arches, and their colors and everything. I come from Maine, Freeport, Maine, home of L.L. Bean. It has undergone enormous growth in the last 20 years. And when I was a kid, it was a little sleepy town that L.L. Bean happened to be located in. It's now the outlet capital of the world. But their town, as they began to grow, instituted literally the strictest sign code in the country. And when McDonald's went in there, they wouldn't allow them to use the bright colors, they wouldn't allow them to put golden arches up. This is true for all, but I use McDonald's only because everyone's familiar with them, that logo. And what they ended up doing, they actually went into an old home, turned it into a restaurant, and there is etched glass arches that show off. But you don't have golden arches anywhere and people still seem to find McDonald's. Ironically, they have turned -- as contrasted with the one on our screen right now. But -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Huh, look at that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, even that one they laugh. But the point -- and I'm not suggesting that we go as far as Freeport, Maine, but the point is that if a community as a whole has a particular standard they set and you are consistent with that throughout, then it's not a matter of they won't be able to find your bank or they won't be able to find McDonald's. They adjust to what is consistent throughout that community. And so I appreciate the concern on the expense side, but as far as visual or trying to find someplace, as long as everybody's playing by the same rules, I don't worry about that. MS. KVETKO: But we have a lot not playing by those rules today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. MS. KVETKO: So that's really my point is enforce what we have and then tell me I need to do something different. So -- and if anyone would like some of these pictures to look at, I'll pass them around. Page 25 December 15, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I've got a suggestion. Why -- if you don't mind, why don't you give them to Michelle Arnold, because she's our code enforcement director, and they can be -- MS. KVETKO: Oh, God, these people will kill me. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, they could be from me. MS. ARNOLD: I'd just like to note for the record that those signs may be illegal under what's being proposed or what has been -- MS. KVETKO: No, these are under the -- what we have today. I have -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Under the '91. MS. ARNOLD: But they were, at the time that they were constructed, permitted to be built that way, and so they're not conforming signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which is how we come to the amortization question, that hopefully we will make them get into compliance no longer than three years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The submarine, for example, clearly wouldn't be allowed today, but that's been there at least 20 years, so COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: amortization? Madam Chair? But three years. May I ask her a question? Of course. How do you feel about the 10-year MS. KVETKO: I really -- I don't like it. I mean, not just for me from a business perspective, but from all business. You know, from '91, anything '91 would fall under that 10 years, because I didn't even arrive here until '92. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I hope you understand that we're saying from the date of an action of this, you have 10 years forward. So it will be -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 2010. MS. KVETKO: But probably within 10 years the code's going to change five more times anyway. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it could, and then -- MS. KVETKO: Which it probably will. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not trying to be smart, but probably in 10 years the name of the bank's going to change two or three times. MS. KVETKO: I don't know. You need to look at our financial. You need to look at our financials. Since 1908. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then it will be one and two -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: One and two. MS. KVETKO: I don't know if it's going to happen. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Barbara said by the end it will be one and two-thirds. MS. KVETKO: That's right. We're more than a whole bank. Thank you, Barbara. Page 26 December 15, 1999 I do have a couple pictures that under this code today, if it passes, would be out of compliance. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Put that up. MS. KVETKO: We all know the Pavilion. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can you zoom in on that? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's ugly. MS. KVETKO: I agree also, it's ugly. But that would definitely be out of compliance, and so would all those signs at Carillon, some of the ones we all know that are brand new. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And my feeling is 10 years is too long. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, one of the speakers tonight I think can address part of this. Judge Peterson, who is a former judge from a tax court in Washington, and is a CPA, so I think when he comes to speak, maybe a couple of these questions might be brought into perspective. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Our next speaker was? MR. FERNANDEZ: George Botner. And then Patrick Miller. MR. BOTNER: Good evening, commissioners. For the record, George Botner, president of Collier Naplescape. Nice to visit with you. Just wanted to thank Commissioner Carter for taking the initiative to put together the streetscape committee. And I was pleased to sit on that group for the eight or nine months that we worked together. And we looked at a number of items that all of us see visually in our community besides just street signs on commercial signage. In fact, our group's interest, Collier Naplescape, has taken a broader viewpoint in the last several years to help develop an integrated approach to everything that we see visually from our public rights-of-way. And one of those key elements of course is signage. Not just commercial signage, but also the public signage that we erect ourselves within our public rights-of-way. But as we kind of narrow the focus down to commercial signage itself, we feel fairly strongly that the emphasis in our community wants to be in terms of tastefully designed architecture, well done mature landscape, and that as you look at the skyline in any community, that's a highly visible location to display information. Hence, pole signs obviously like to be accommodated in that location because it is so visibly recognizable. Our preference would be to limit pole signs to heights that kept them away from that very visible location, and perhaps to in time eliminate pole signs altogether as being unnecessary to display information and to create the opportunity to more tastefully design landscape. And those signs in a monument kind of approach that's being proposed by staff would probably be preferable. But I'll have to say that so far as our group is concerned, we'll have to -- what just about everyone else has said, that the issue is compliance and nonconformance. If -- I was amazed to find out from Michelle Arnold that, you know, 70, 80 percent of the signage we have is either nonconforming or illegal. So we really need to crack down on that, and then tweak and Page 27 December 15, 1999 fine tune the code as we go along. That was our message for this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, George. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Patrick Miller and then Dawn Jantsch. MR. MILLER: Commissioners, for the record, Patrick Miller, representing The Gathering Restaurant, my other employment. First I'd like to agree with what Colleen said, that is, rules are good, but if you don't enforce them, what good are they? And they're not enforcing the existing rules and regulations, okay? Commissioner Constantine was talking about a 10-year tracking of permits. How do you know -- and the staff said they couldn't do that. So how do you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I since dismissed that idea. MR. MILLER: Okay, but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I said I was thinking about it. MR. MILLER: But what my question is, prior to the Land Development Code of 1991, how do you know what signs were up before that then? If they can't track what you ask for, how can you track what was built before 19917 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because the amortization period is going to be measured whatever number of years, three years from the date of the code as adopted. Three -- if we were to adopt it tonight -- let's say January 5th we adopt it. Three years from January 5th, 2000, January 5th, 2003, all of the pre 1991 signs will be illegal. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And he's asking you how do you know it was built before 19917 MR. MILLER: Right. How do you know -- okay, for example -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, no, no, no. You don't know when it was built. You just know whether or not it complies with the code as it existed in 1991. We don't care when it was built. What we'll look at -- am I right on that, Michelle? You do this, you do a better job than me. MS. ARNOLD: We would be able to determine when a particular sign is built from their building permit. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But would we have to? MS. ARNOLD: But when we are going by the amortization schedule, we would go from this date or -- when we go look at a particular sign to determine whether or not it's in compliance, we look when it was built and then what the code was at that particular time. And so many of the signs, as I indicated before, that were pictured upon the monitor may not be consistent with today's code, but they were consistent at the time that they were built. MR. MILLER: Exactly. As is the sign at my wife's and my restaurant, okay. MS. ARNOLD: At the time that they got their building permit under that code. MR. MILLER: That sign was under the code was permissible. Under what they're proposing, it's -- MS. ARNOLD: It wouldn't be. Page 28 December 15, 1999 MR. MILLER: -- too big, it's on a pole, and it's 90 percent primary color. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But, you know, the more -- MR. MILLER: Is it ugly? I mean -- that's my point. And as a small businessman, I don't have 1.8 million dollars that Fifth Third or my other employer had to spend on their signs. I already checked on just changing the face plates on my sign at the restaurant. It's $3,000. That's a lot of money to a small businessman. And that's who you're talking about in most cases. And so I've been here longer, the business has been here, so the people who have been here longer are the ones that are going to get hurt quick, and mostly all the small business people. Fifth Third can afford it. Even Gulf Coast National Bank can afford it. But what about all the other people who are small business people that can't really afford it? It's hard enough staying in business today without having to replace something that you paid for. There's nothing wrong with a lot of the signs. That's why I'm saying that we need to enforce those, the codes that are there today. I'm not against the quality of the community, that's why I've lived here for 31 years. I love this community. Like to see it better. But if we just enforce the rules that we have today and then go forward from there. Okay? Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I really think I'd like Michelle to speak to that point, to reinforce the point that she made earlier, that we have a number of different standards that were in place at different points in time. And signs that are perceived to be illegal are essentially nonconforming, which means they may have been legal at the time they are constructed, but may no longer be legal -- or may no longer be conforming to the current standard that's in place. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The problem is -- you're absolutely right. The problem is that we have never had the courage to adopt an amortization schedule, which is the flip side of what you're talking about, Pat. I mean, on one hand you're saying get rid of the junk out there before you come messing around with me. And on the other hand you're saying don't make somebody throw away a sign that still has -- that you can still read, okay? But if we don't have an amortization schedule, we're never going to get rid of the junk. The submarine can stay there till it falls down, until we say all the junk goes in three years. And that's -- it's a thin -- it's a tough call, but we're never -- it's not in compliance. Because the signs that are out there right now, that submarine sign, I'm willing to bet you, or some like it, is quote, legal. It's not conforming to code, but it's grandfathered in because it was built before 1991, so Michelle can't go make them tear it down or fine them or do anything else to them until we adopt a law that says you've got three years to get rid of it. And then three years from that day, she can start making them take it down. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's right. Page 29 December 15, 1999 MR. NINO: May I add an editorial comment? Ron Nino. And you'd be amazed how innovative some people are in prolonging the life of those signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I bet we would be. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, the next speaker is Dawn Jantsch and then Sally Barker. MS. JANTSCH: Good evening, Dawn Jantsch, Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. I would like to commend the board for their decision, three second -- how do you say three seconds, for the decision to enforce the code that we currently have, and for the decision to help your staff be able to do that with more of a budget. I appreciate that. That is a stance that we as the Chamber of Commerce have been taking. Tonight I am representing two organizations, at least. The Florida Restaurant Association, Collier chapter, had also sent me a letter endorsing the Chambers' stance on this issue. And I'm afraid it is against the ordinance. I was at the meeting on Monday evening with Mr. Carter and Mr. Davis and the company staff. And what I do have to state at this point is that I have to speak for the business community. And I will say that I was not the one who suggested the construction signs can be left alone, so I'll put that in. I would also like to state that there is not full agreement on all the pieces of the sign. First of all, I'm very concerned about the discussion regarding primary colors tonight. I have been told for the last two weeks that that had been removed from the ordinance. The language for the new ordinance has not been drafted yet, so I certainly could not endorse something that I have not seen or even favor something that I have not seen yet. As you know, language can make a very big difference in an ordinance. I have seen the entire presence of an ordinance change to inform and completely retract its original intention by one word. And so without seeing that language, I cannot take a stand for it. With the discussion regarding primary colors tonight, and most particular pawn shops, I have often heard that the neon signs inside the pawn shops and inside the windows of the pawn shops are actually is what is controversial. From what I also understand, that is not language that can be utilized in this ordinance, so I'm certainly not speaking for those pawn shops or in favor of that; however, I understand that that may be the actual problem. There's something along the lines of First Amendment rights that causes the windows not to be changed. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Chahram, is that the gold coins inside the windows that are -- you know, we can't do anything about those? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are limiting the window coverage to 25 percent of each window. It appears that we cannot get rid of the signs that are inside the store. However -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we make them not be neon if they're inside the store on the windows? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We possibly could. Page 30 December 15, 1999 I was reviewing the sign code for the City of Laguna Beach, California, and their sign code says any sign that will be visible from the street needs permit. So -- but did not exempt signs hanging from behind the windows or anything. And if that was -- that's legal over there, I don't know why it wouldn't be legal in here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I'm writing that one down, because when we get down -- when we start making our list here, anything visible from the street needs to be regulated. Thank you for bringing that up. MS. JANTSCH: I would also like to refer to the beauty of our community. It is a lovely community, and one of the reasons why I'm here in Naples was because I stepped away from the airport and drove a car down 41 and observed the gorgeous medians in our county. Not in the city, but in our county. In the past few days, I've received a number of phone calls from businesses that were aware that there could be a potential compromise. I explained it to them in as positive a manner as I could, because the compromise was very generous that you were offering. However, the businesses stated, and very emphatically, we cannot agree to that, it still will cost us money. And several times over and over again, I heard, "My sign is already paid for, and is this going to change again?" I have asked the question that when this goes before the consultant for review, will it change again in two years? I have received the promise that it would not be an individual commissioner that would be changing it; however, we cannot guarantee the consultant will not recommend that. So does that mean that taking a wall sign down from a 250 feet to 150 feet might not again be changed in a year to 100 feet, meaning that that business which may have created the sign this year would again be out of compliance, thinking that they were creating a sign that was legal and approved. So we do -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But they would have -- they would be grandfathered in, just like all of the ones that are built post '91. They would have three or five years, or whatever we end up -- MS. JANTSCH: They would. And I hope that I -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- giving them. MS. JANTSCH: -- I'm not the one to explain to them that if they put up a sign late January after this ordinance passes January 5th, that that sign that they put up after a major sign ordinance was taking place, that again a year from then it was not legal and that they only had 10 years to conform to it. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I can understand where they're coming from. But I would also raise this issue, if they change a zip code, they change an area code, any of these would change all the literature that they use in their companies. And I would suspect that they will spend far more on those efforts than they ever will in changing a sign. So I think signage is just a piece of marketing which is a part of business -- and I'm sorry to interrupt. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll certainly give you more time. MS. JANTSCH: Thank you. Page 31 December 15, 1999 I understand the comments regardin9 amortization of the business. However, a business has to pass their extra costs on to the community. They have their profit margins that are very strict and very marked. And those costs, in additional costs, especially ones that are legislated by unnecessary laws such as this one, will be passed on to the community. The calls that I have received have been from both large businesses and small businesses. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know what? I'm sorry, but I'm going to give you more time, because I think that is an excellent point, that the cost will be passed on to the community. And I think what you'll hear is that the community is overwhelmingly in support of the changes. And they can't -- they're not stupid people, they know it's going to be passed on to them, but they're willing to pay it, because they want it. I can't answer. MS. JANTSCH: Finally, I would like to say that if this ordinance does pass on January 5th, I hope that we will encourage the consultant to not be as strict in their review, because this change could mean a lot to those businesses that do come up within the next year. Once again, we would be back at square one if the ordinance does change drastically or even minor at that point, making new signs out of compliance. Our current ordinance is not the problem, it is the potential changes that we could have for the new businesses, for the current businesses, and it is definitely in the enforcement issue. And we applaud the staff's efforts and the desire to bring those businesses into compliance. We have been on public -- in record in my column in the Naples Daily News that we encourage all businesses to come into compliance, and we will continue to do so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This would be a good time -- I was going to wait till later in the program here to bring this up, but we might as well just get into it now, because Ms. Jantsch's broached the subject, but since we do have the select committee coming on line here with the consultant and all, I would be very reluctant to pass the buck of this ordinance and then have them come back and look at it once again. What I think we ought to do -- just my thinking, what I think we ought to do is set a bunch of guidelines, have them look at it as quickly as possible, and tell them our opinion, which is what we want: Do you see anything wrong with this, do you have any objection to this, do you have any other suggestions than this, and then at our next LDC cycle, we make it firm. But to go in and establish this select committee, then hire a consultant and then preempt their work, I mean, what are we doing? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Commissioner Norris, I sat on that committee and looked at the RFP's, if I might address that. I did not see any proposals that came to Community Character that in any way, shape or form would have encouraged the proliferation of pole signs or bigger signs on buildings. I think they would applaud -- I think -- I think we would save the consultant's time by what we're proposing here. I don't think they would come back to us and recommend any Page 32 December 15, 1999 major changes on top of this. I think we would be ahead of the curve. And I think that if we delay this, all we do is give the opportunity for more proliferation of that which we don't want. So that's why I haven't brought it forward at this time. And Community Character, by the way, by a seven to two, one abstention, approved what we were going to do here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, I agree with you, that they probably would not make any changes. But I think we ought to give them the opportunity to look at it if we -- why did we appoint them if not to do their work? I mean, we appoint them to do a certain job and then we do the work for them, I don't think that's exactly what we intended in the first place. That's just my opinion -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: out -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: subject. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you're entitled. -- I think this was a good time to point it Absolutely. -- because Ms. Jantsch had broached the Our next speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Sally Barker and then Claire DeSilver. MS. BARKER: Good evening, commissioners. I will keep this mercifully brief. My name is Sally Barker, for the record, and I'm here tonight representing the Greater Naples Civic Association, which voted at its board meeting on November 23rd to support the proposed sign ordinance changes that Commissioner Carter and staff had come up with. Commissioner Carter and the staff also made a presentation to the Property Owners Associations of North Collier County, the Second District Association, and they were very well received. But we did not have a formal board meeting since that presentation, so we have not been able to take a formal vote. But I think it would be fair to say that unofficially, the Second District supports the ordinance as well. I just had one additional thought. I just -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah. MS. BARKER: You know, I'm a transportation groupie, and I hear an editorial comment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, I said yes, you are, and it comes behind you. MS. BARKER: Oh, okay. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sorry, the speaker's behind you. MS. BARKER: You know, I just think that having a uniformity of signs and placement of signs really helps more than it hinders the motorists. You know, signs that are smaller, okay, they may not attract the casual drive-by traffic as much as the big flamboyant submarines and signs of that nature. But on the other hand, these businesses don't become instantly invisible either. People who are looking for a fast food restaurant to go to will be able to find a fast food restaurant to go to. Page 33 December 15, 1999 From my perspective as a transportation groupie, I think ease of access into and out of a place of business is more of a factor a determinate in why do people go to that business than besides the sign out front? That's all. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Claire DeSilver and then Raymond J. O'Connor. MS. DeSILVER: Good evening. This will be very brief. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you'd state your name for the record. MS. DeSILVER: I'm sorry. Excuse me, Claire DeSilver. I am chairman of the community affairs committee of the Pelican Bay Womens League. We'd likewise have to say this is an unofficial tally. The women's league is about 800 members. Our particular committee met recently and Commissioner Carter came to speak on a number of issues to us, and this was one issue of the signage. And I have rarely seen a committee unanimously in favor of a particular issue as they were this signage issue. And I think none of the people had really focused on the signage. They're vaguely uncomfortable about it. But it wasn't something like mangroves. I just have a couple of points I would like to make. I think that in order to find something on 41, I've got -- I've lived here since '79. I've gone up and down that street a zillion times, and I keep passing places because there are no street numbers. They say oh, blah, blah, blah, Mulholler or something, and I don't have those names memorized. But they don't have the numbers. Now, I think Commissioner Carter did mention that this was going to be something that was going to be considered, that new signs should have a street number on them. Many people look up the address of something in the phone book and then they go looking for it. So I would like to have you consider the street numbers. It occurred to me, hearing the discussion about temporary signs and real estate, that the reason that a lot of these subcontractors put their names up is because it's free advertising. And I think if it's not legally required, it shouldn't be allowed. But I certainly agree, eight feet high seems adequate, not to go 15. And, you know, if anybody wants to have a nightmare, go along Davis on the East Trail and we won't -- we will try not to think about how that could happen. But it can. And then again, I just wish to emphasize amortizing. The cost of these signs, compared to the buoy of our community. And I think we can all cope with that. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Raymond J. O'Connor, and then Marvin Peterson. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And how many speakers after that? MR. FERNANDEZ: Nine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My name is Ray O'Connor and I'm president of Pelican Bay Property Owners Association. We represent Page 34 December 15, 1999 about 3,100 households, or 6,000 people in Pelican Bay. And our organization is primarily an organization that is designed to protect and enhance the property values of the people in our neighborhood, Pelican Bay. And I think with that in mind, to protect and enhance the property values of the whole county, I think this signage issue is one that's very important and should be considered here tonight and not postponed indefinitely while all kinds of committees and consultants look at it, because that's a good way to really put something on the back burner forever, by studying it forever. However, just as a personal note, I was in the criminal justice system in my former life. I was a probation officer up north, and I think to try and enforce something that appears to be almost unenforceable, I really feel for Michelle and her deputies. You know, when you get -- when you have something that's written and you can understand it, you can enforce it. But if you have all kinds of exceptions because somebody had something before a certain time or whatever, that makes it an almost impossible task. So I think at least the amortization piece and then the ability to enforce it, as the business people say, that's their primary concern. Well, if it is, then I think they would be supporting this so that they could get rid of all of that that is undesirable in our community, and this is one way to accomplish that. So I urge you to adopt these changes with whatever modifications that you think are at least viable that you can all live with, and I'm sure we'll come out with something that everybody will be happy with. And eventually I think even the commercial interest will be happy with it. But thank you for your time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Marvin Peterson and then Dick Lydon. MR. PETERSON: I'm Marvin Peterson from Pelican Bay. I'm also on the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association, and I too wasn't too focused on this pole sign, but it first came to my attention on Highway 41 where Longhorn Restaurant popped up, and then right next to that popped up another restaurant with a pole sign. And I got thinking about this, because as a part of our project in Pelican Bay, we're working on beautification of the median, which it's a policy of this commission, the board, to do this throughout the county. Now, it seems to me to be a little inconsistent to beautify the center and to allow a bunch of pole signs down each side of the road. And we are at a crossroad, as we all know right now. The commercial interests are just leapfrogging, you know, one after another. If you go up to where I'm talking about, between Seagate and Vanderbilt Beach Road, there's a business right -- one right after another. And if each had put up a pole sign, whether it's 15 feet or 20, I mean, it's like telephone pole row. It's terrible. And I think you're -- we're at this point, and I agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie, now is the time to really bite the bullet and go to the monument and be done with it. This will alleviate the criticism that you've received from the businesses saying, well, you Page 35 December 15, 1999 keep changing. It was 20 feet, now you've got 15, pretty soon you're going to -- well, you eliminate that if you simply say let's go right down to the monument, you can have a beautiful sign. Most people know where they're going anyway. And I think they'll get there. And I read in the paper about the Mike Ditka restaurant. Well, I knew that was going to be before they put the sign up. I think I read it in the paper. I mean, you know, the sign maybe gets the casual person going by, but I don't think it's the bulk of the business. And I think now is -- this is a real crucial time, and I think it's very -- I congratulate the board for getting into this at this point. This city is just growing so fast. We've only been here five years, and we're here for the same reason everybody else is. And we certainly are starting to see it -- it's like the high-rise building on the corner of Vanderbilt and 41. You have to stop it now or there will be no end. And low signs is not going to hurt a thing. I think the Commissioner just wanted you to comment a little bit on that tax aspect of it. And there's really not too much to say except that I suspect all these signs that these businesses had have been fully depreciated. They're usually depreciated over a 10-year period. So from a tax standpoint, they probably received their money back, or they've gotten their tax deduction. But that doesn't mean the fact that it's fully depreciated you won't continue to use it if it has some value. I can understand, you know, the businesses want to keep it up. And I think the people here that represent the businesses, certainly the corporate people, they're doing their job. They don't want to spend any more money than they have to. But I think that's a cost of doing business, and they'll have to recognize it. Thank you very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Dick Lydon, and then Kathy Curatolo. MR. LYDON: For the record, Dick Lydon. I'm representing the President's Council of Greater Cleveland and the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Association. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They probably do have opinions on it. MR. LYDON: And I would just like to ask you if you'd like to take a vote now. Normally when I come up here, somebody says Dick, do you want to shut up now and go your way or do you want to talk? I just thought I'd give you that option before I started making my remarks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: We wouldn't try, Dick. MR. LYDON: First of all, I'd like to take exception to what somebody said a little earlier about us seniors that can't see. Now, we have over at the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Highway 41 a perfect example. On one side of the road we have Walgreen's that tells me that they got $6.96 for this, that or the other thing. That's a great big sign up there and everybody can see it. But, you know, on the other corner there's a very nice little Page 36 December 15, 1999 thing that says Pelican Bay. And on there, there are two very important signs. One says The Inn of Pelican Bay, very small letters. The other one says Ritz Carlton. I don't remembering anybody's gotten lost trying to find those places. They've all managed to get there. At least both those hotels are doing very well. So, you know, we senior citizens can find our way around. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did anybody -- in your knowledge, did anybody accidentally stay the night at Walgreen's rather than going to the Ritz? MR. LYDON: Well, I was going to -- I'm sorry that the young lady from my old headquarters in Cincinnati left, because I was going to suggest to her that I had never done business with a bank because I saw a big pole sign out in front of it. But be that as it may, this sign thing is getting to be ridiculous. I called the other day to have a new stop sign put in, the post had rotted out up in Vanderbilt. And I went out and saw it. And the damn thing was seven feet off the ground before they started putting the stop sign on it. And I called and got ahold of transportation and said how come? Well, that's a federal law now. Now, they've been five feet forever, and everybody seems to be able to see them. They don't stop at them, but they're able to see them all right. But now we have them at seven feet. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I bet a lot more people are going to stop now that they're at seven feet. MR. LYDON: Now they can't see them because -- unless -- they're a little car. Unless you got one of them SUV's that you sit up high. But let's put that in -- I don't know whether that's a local option thing or not. But if we could reduce that down to five feet again so we could see those stop signs, somebody might just pull around and stop at one of them. McDonald's is a perfect example of some of the things you're saying. And I go to Palm Beach once in a while, and I love that McDonald's over there. It's just a little home that they put a McDonald's sign that you could recognize. But it doesn't have anything like this, and it doesn't have that playground that's green, yellow, red and all those colors that we're talking about out in there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Now, wait a minute. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The burgers taste better there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Makes all the difference. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You mean you don't use that playground? MR. LYDON: I don't even take my grand kids there I don't like it so much. Couple of other comments. First of all, 15 feet is too high. Eight ought to be plenty. Secondarily, five years ought to be enough to amortize. This gentleman and his problem with his $3,000 for that sign. If you divide that $3,000 by five years, it comes out to $600. That's less than $2 a day. I reckon if I was in the restaurant business, I spill Page 37 December 15, 1999 more than $2 a day. And then I'd like to go back and hit Mr. Davis, if he's not here -- he's still here. These professionals that make these signs ought to have some responsibility as to where they go and how high they are. I can go to a sign maker and say make me a sign and he makes it. If he puts it up, it ought to be in compliance. I can't hate him if he doesn't put it up. But if he is making it, it's got to be -- it should be in compliance. Let him bear some responsibility. And as far as Mr. Norris, letting those other committees look at it, do the same thing we've been doing. Just committee this to death and we never will get it done. Thanks very much. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Dick. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Kathy Curatolo, and then Michael Boyd. MS. CURATOLO: Good evening. I'm Kathy Curatolo with the American Specialty Contractors Association. I represent construction supply companies and specialty contractors. First of all, I would reiterate what every other business person said this evening, cost, cost, cost. Many of the individuals that I represent are small companies, and frankly, cannot afford to change a sign every time the ordinances are changed. We don't disagree that we want a beautiful -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on just for a second there. And I'm sorry to interrupt, but how many times have we ever forced a business to change their sign when we've changed the ordinance? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Unless it's a billboard, it's zero. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because several speakers have said well, you've changed it so many times. But never before has there been a requirement to come to the updated -- you know, unless everything changes there. So I understand the concern, even once costs money, but I don't want anyone to be -- MS. CURATOLO: I appreciate your -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- misled. MS. CURATOLO: -- clarification. But again, I would reiterate that even once costs money. The thing that I really would like to focus upon is the logic behind construction site signs. They are not free for the individual who stated that. They are marketing tool for specialty contractors. The type of sign, the coloring of the lettering, often identifies a company. The size depends on the amount of money that a specialty contractor has to spend. And I contend that most specialty contractors represent small companies; so, therefore, they have small signs. And I will tell you this, that signage is one of the least expensive marketing tools that a small business can use. That's why specialty contractors use them. They don't have a lot of money for marketing. It's their way of getting their name out to the public on a temporary basis. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But ma'am, don't they -- specialty contractors typically are hired by the general contractor, so their Page 38 December 15, 1999 market isn't the general public, it's the general contractor. MS. CURATOLO: No. Their -- part of their market may be the general contractor, but many of the companies that I represent also do service work for private individuals, and they feel that those signs are helpful in getting their name out to the community. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just for what it's worth, you know, when I was running for County Commission five plus years ago, one of the things that people told me is that if you put up signs, we're not going to vote for you. so, you know, maybe it's working the opposite way. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, let me just add something. If you -- I don't want you to misunderstand, because I brought the issue up, okay? I'm not against the name being out there. But what I would like to see, whether the general contractor does it, supplies the sign with all of the -- I'm going to use the word subcontractor, or specialty contractor, whatever, and used a sign with all of those listed, to me just would be maybe in a little better taste, but it would still get the name of the specialty contractor out there, so people would still get the benefit and the contractor would still get the benefit of the advertisement. It's just -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What I would -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- if we could do it a little better way, that's all. MS. CUPd%TOLO: I would agree with you wholeheartedly, but I would like to see specialty contractors work with the commission in that process. But yes, we're all for beautification. I just don't want to see specialty contractors be taken away the only marketing tool that they use. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that wasn't a suggestion, the suggestion is can we do a better job. And I think we can. And I -- MS. CURATOLO: Definitely. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- would suggest that this might be something where we could sit down and certainly work on that. MS. CURATOLO: We'd be happy to do that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then, you know, their marketing tool, the marketing effectiveness will only be enhanced if we could make it something better. MS. CURATOLO: We'd love to see that. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Michael Boyd, and then Philip Marrone. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We could basically call this the Mike and Mike retirement ordinance or something, right? MR. BOYD: Yes. My name is Michael Boyd. I'm the owner and president of Signs and Things, a local company. I have been here for 24 years. There is a lot in this proposed ordinance that I can agree with. But right now I'm somewhat confused in what we're talking about. I don't know whether we want to go through this page by page to see what Page 39 December 15, 1999 we're changing, what we're not changing. You know, I'm told there's some compromise here, and I don't understand what we're compromising on. But I'll get to the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just tell us what you know. MR. BOYD: I'll get to the heart of what I want to speak about. You know, the first page of this proposed ordinance, it has the purpose and intent. And the last purpose and intent is for the authorized use of signs which are reflective of the identity and creativity of the individual occupants. I don't want to lose that. I don't want to lose my creativity. In the past two years we have gone to the architectural review committee -- or not committee, but the architectural standards -- which brought about unified sign plan, which in multi-tenant centers meant that all the signs had to be consistent in color, the method of construction. And that's gone a long way, I think, in improving the character of the community. And I wholeheartedly support that. In going through the code, we had a limitation on the height and width ratio. We couldn't exceed three times the width of the -- for the height of the sign. I don't know whether that's still in. Evidently we have compromised on the logo can't occupy more than 20 percent of the sign. The change from the large pylon signs at shopping centers from 250 square feet down to 150 I wholeheartedly support that. Because you can't do a 250 square foot sign that looks worth a damn. My only question would be is I brought up the sign at Crossroads Market in the front of Vineyards. I built that for the Lockerd (phonetic) Companies. It's probably eight to nine years old. They probably spent 40 to $50,000 on that sign. It's 150 square feet. The problem is, it's 25 foot tall. We've never had a complaint with that sign. I think any of you commissioners, if you go by there, that's a gorgeous sign. I've won some national awards for that sign. Why should they be penalized at this point for taking down a sign that nobody has a problem with? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But Mike, it will be 18, 19 years old by the time they have to take it down. MR. BOYD: Sir, that sign will be standing there for 50 years. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not if this law passes, I guess. MR. BOYD: Not if this law passes, right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I appreciate your concern, but still, I mean, it's almost -- it will be almost 20 years old at that point. MR. BOYD: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And they could -- MR. BOYD: I could guarantee -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Similar sign, I believe. MR. BOYD: That sign is all concrete block and stucco. I mean, that sign will be -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I'll take your word for it. But I just wanted to make the point, that it will be almost 20 years old. MR. BOYD: Right. But if you know that company, that sign will look fantastic 50 years from now. Page 40 December 15, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Of course. MR. BOYD: The out-parcel signage, I can support that. I can support going down to eight foot. I don't have any problem with that. I think our main contention here is what we're calling pole signs and what we're calling monument signs. And I can make a monument sign that's 20 foot tall. And you'll never see the pole that's supporting it inside. And I've had some recent installs that I've done for some companies in town, they spent a lot of money to change some signs, and now within, you know, the next 10 years, possibly, they may have to take them down. Germain Honda on Davis Boulevard pulled down, you know, probably one of the uglier signs in town, put up a small monument sign that's 18 foot tall, you know, and that sign's probably worth $25,000. Yeah, Germain sells a lot of cars, but that's still a lot of money to them, to anybody. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A low of money. MR. BOYD: I've done the Guardian Personal Storage on Davis Boulevard. Probably one of the nicest-looking storage facilities in the country. We installed a large 20-foot sign for them. There's no pole visible. It's a monument structure, but it's 20 foot tall. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To tell you the truth, it's only a marginal looking sign. No offense, but it's mildly attractive. MR. BOYD: The architect designed that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good answer. I like that. MR. BOYD: Community Bank on -- I'm sorry. Community Bank -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go ahead. MR. BOYD: The first project that you had go through the architectural standards, Naples Dodge. They had a monument sign out front. It's, I believe, 18 foot tall. Again, it will have to be removed. But is there anything offensive about it? Because it's not a pole sign, it's a monument sign. There's some major companies that employs a lot of people in this town that are going to be severely impacted by this proposed change. DeVoe Automotive, they've been here forever. They have seven signs that will have to be replaced. Germain. Germain Automotive, they'd have five signs. The local McDonald's, yeah, you can make fun of McDonald's, but they employ a hell of a lot of people and they give back to the community. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, they do, absolutely. MR. BOYD: They've got seven signs that will have to be replaced. And then you have the mom and pop operations that, you know, you can say yeah, $600 over so many years isn't a lot of money, but to some people it is. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Frankly, those speak to me a lot more than the McDonald's. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And they retrofit every five years anyhow, so I -- I probably don't have as much empathy. But we have the visualizer. Do we have a picture of the Dodge sign that was put up? Chahram, it was my understanding if somebody comes -- you know, we say 15 foot, but if they come within a percentage of that, I think we have some flexibility here. Page 41 December 15, 1999 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Our code says if the height of the existing sign is up to 10 percent higher than what the code requires, or the square footage is up to 10 percent larger than what the code would require, we make them -- we call them conforming signs. So they do not have to remove it. 15 foot is 18 inches. That's 16 and a half foot signs, existing signs they would comply with today's code. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But 18 wouldn't? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 18 wouldn't. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And is there a variance procedure -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- on the amortization question? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is no variance amortization, but there's a variance for the sign. Anybody can apply for a variance to an unexisting sign -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I guess what I was saying is if you have an -- if 16 and a half feet doesn't have to get torn down under amortization and you have an 18-foot sign, can you come in and ask for a variance after the fact? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, you could. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I hope we wouldn't get into that, though. I mean, if you're going to have amortization, have it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Amen. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're not, don't. Because otherwise we'll have 15 of those every single week, somebody saying much like the gentleman here who said he didn't agree because his impact fees, because he was 94 dollar -- or 94 square feet over. Well, they're 18 inches over, but they're over. You have to set a limit somewhere. MR. BOYD: Okay, my other point would be on the wall signs. It's presently 250 square feet. I know that sounds like a lot, but it takes a big large building to go to 250 square feet. I just recently completed two signs for Gulf Coast National Bank at their new office on Immokalee Road. Their picture was in the paper yesterday. I think they fit fine on the building. They're 198 square feet. So that they would have to come down. Once again, those are signs that are $25,000. And I think you should give some consideration to either increasing that to 200 feet or, you know, keeping it 250, because it takes a large, large building to get a 250 square foot sign. If you're reducing the size of the monument signs, maybe we should consider that. The construction signs, I wholeheartedly support keeping those at 10 feet. They don't need to be 15 feet in the air. Those are temporary signs. I think in a lot of cases what we're seeing is sign pollution, sign clutter of the construction sites. Good God, you drive down Pine Ridge Road and there's one project there, they must have 15 signs out there. I thank you for your time and appreciate it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Philip A. Marrone and then Don Page 42 December 15, 1999 Pickworth. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, we're going to take just a five-minute break for the court reporter. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I make a quick comment before we break? Because I'm actually going to have to go. I've got somewhere, and I wanted to share a couple of comments before I go. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Will your fingers not fall off? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 60 seconds. And that is just -- I'm looking in particular at the compromised list we have here. There's a couple items on here that I wanted to get some questions answered on, including the reduction from 250 down to 150. And we don't necessarily need to do that tonight. But other than those, I agree with most of what's on here. I, however, would like to see the construction of real estate signs go by the same rules as everybody else. That's at eight feet, not keep them at 15. If we're going to make it and have some rationale why they're all at eight feet, well, everything ought to be under the same rules. I'd like to see -- I like the idea -- in other words, we talked about having two different amortization schedules for pre '91 and post. I like the three-year for those things that are more than -- that predate '91. I don't think that submarine needs to be there more than three more years. I don't -- I don't want to see the pole signs stay with the formula here, reduction of pole signs to 15 in height and cover 50 percent. Get them out on the same amortization schedule as everything else and bring them down and make them ground size. I'd like to see the amortization period be considerably less than 10 years. If we're going to do this, then let's do it and let's not piddle around for another decade. Let's make that three years and five years. And I realize there's an expense there, but what I'd love to see someone do -- I don't know if anybody on staff has the ability to do this, but we've got almost a month, we've got three weeks until our next hearing. It would be interesting through the magic of computer graphics to take a picture of Davis, or 951, or any of those that have various pole signs and all the things that many of which are more than 10 years old, and graphically remove those and put in what those eight-foot ground signs would look like. And I bet visually that difference would be unbelievable. And if we could have that in front of us for that January 5 hearing, I think it would be very hard for someone to dispute that it wouldn't make a tremendous difference if you had that change county-wide everywhere in a five-year time period. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Let me understand, Commissioner. You are proposing that no sign shall be taller than eight feet -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- is this the recommendation? Our recommendation was that all parcels eight feet, all others, 15. But if you are saying all signs eight feet, that's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I apologize. I'm speaking Page 43 December 15, 1999 particularly those -- the out parcels where you don't have -- you're not going to have much of a setback. And the only other thing, and I'll wrap it up, is Commissioner Norris had said earlier, and I had really shared a similar thought until we got further into this discussion, is that we've got the community character group. But I'll tell you what, this board in the last year has had a knack for delaying decisions, whether it's, you know, landfills near and dear to my heart or any other -- we could go through a list of 15 things that some of them we have no choice but delay, delay. But some of them we've just put off and put off. And I think this is maybe one of those times where it's time we say okay, we're going to make a decision, we're going to set some new rules in place, here's what we're going to do and move forward. I think we need to make some commitment that we're not going to come back next fall and change those dramatically, but I don't want to see us just say well, these are some guidelines, let's have a committee look at it, talk about it again 12 months from now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And on that, I'm going to stop, because I think that was more than 60 seconds, and we'll take a five-minute break. (Recess.) (Commissioner Constantine is absent.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call the meeting back to order and our next speaker I think was Philip Marrone. MR. MARRONE: Good evening, commissioners. My name is Philip Marrone, and I'm from Little Italy Restaurant. And I read in the Naples Daily News about this, and I'm here. I'm not too well prepared. I apologize for that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's okay. MR. MARRONE: I have a nonconforming sign, okay. And I'm a strong believer in monument signs, with the concept that if a monument sign is put on a property, okay, you can have the Environmental Protection Agency, whatever they are, the landscaping, the planners, say well, you've got to put these trees up and these shrubs you, so your sign is invisible. We don't go to the Pelican Bay Club for or the Ritz Carlton. Those are easy places to find. Small businesses, they're not. Okay? The setbacks have to be adjusted. Not all buildings that are there are conforming with the setbacks. That has to be addressed, and changes have to be made. New businesses, new signs, new landscaping, something that I've seen businesses go up in East Naples, and that has not happened. Okay. A new business goes in, take whatever sign you have down, and make them put up a monument sign. Make me change my sign now, or some of these other businesses, it's going to be difficult. The cost is -- it's a lot of money. I as a small businessman have to agree with him and many other people, money's not that easily come by these days. We don't all live in Pelican Bay. We don't all go to the country clubs where all these businesses are found easily. Page 44 December 15, 1999 As far as the height goes, that has to be adjusted with the landscaping. A business has to have some kind of signage that has to be visible. We pay taxes too. We also vote. COMMISSIONER CARTER: If the landscaping -- I don't want that to be an issue. And I think that we're trying to address that so your sign is visible. We may change the setbacks so that you can be closer to the road with a monument sign. And if I hear you correctly, you would be supportive of that as long as we don't block your sign; and willing to go to that expense over an amortization period in order to comply with this community. MR. MARRONE: Amortization period? I don't know. I don't know if I agree with you on that. You're spending my money, not yours. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm just trying to have clarification, is what I thought I heard you say. MR. MARRONE: That's what I came to say. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Don Pickworth and then Cheryle Newman. MR. PICKWORTH: Good evening, commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth, here representing McDonald's Corporation. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I noticed the big M on your shirt. MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, sir. I'm not going to tell you that McDonald's can't afford to change its signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a good thing. MR. PICKWORTH: I will say that, you know, certainly we are concerned -- and I will echo Dawn Jantsch's comments. We have been following this, and it's been a little difficult. There's been a number of changes, and the last thing we saw was this list that Mike Davis put up. So we've kind of geared our thoughts to this, understanding that, you know, we know that doesn't represent the final draft. But we would be very concerned with any ordinance changes that would deal with the golden arches, our logo, if you will, and would certainly not be supportive of changes in that. We feel that the 15 feet on the signs, on the pole signs, is adequate. And I can see the direction is not to be supportive of that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Even in out parcels. MR. PICKWORTH: I guess -- you know, I talked to Mike Adams today, and obviously we did not discuss logos, because I did not think logos were still on the table. But, you know, I think his sense is that it ought to be the same on the freestanding and the out parcels, and of course his idea of the same is 15, not eight. With regard to the amortization, again, looking at this sheet, the 3, 10, we're -- we're supportive of that, if it's three, five or something like that. I don't know, I got a feeling that obviously there would be a concern there. McDonald's is not poor, but money is money, and everybody has to work for it. So I don't think we'd be supportive of that. Page 45 December 15, 1999 But, you know, other than that, for the most part, you know, we -- we've been -- as you know, we've been supportive of a lot of changes over the years. We're supportive of most of the things that came into being during the architectural standards and agreed that the color scheme would change and we wouldn't use the garish-colored playthings. And so I think the company here has had a history of being supportive. But I do think there would be a major concern if we're going to, you know, impact their ability to have their -- you know, their logo type of signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So get that where we can see it, Ron. They don't object to that? MR. PICKWORTH: I'm not going to say -- they may object to that, yes. And I realize they may have them have somewhere, but I'm not saying that as a blanket thing that in every instance that that would be acceptable. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I like the top one, that's nice. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think we've all probably been to communities, like that top photo, that they have small signs with the M incorporated, small like that. But even some of them, they're not even allowed to use the yellow. MR. PICKWORTH: Oh, I know that. I realize that folks in Northbrooke will be -- will consider that. And obviously, on a national level, there are places where they're not allowed to. We know that. But, you know -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, I think the bottom one is either Orlando or Boca Raton. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's this one we're looking at? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. PICKWORTH: Like I say, I wanted to put our thoughts -- I assume -- can I just ask one thing? I assume that whatever we finally come up with as direction here tonight will then be reduced into writing so that there'll be a final proposed draft that's going to go before you next time so we can kind of looking at the whole cloth. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course there will be -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I sure hope so. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course there will, because we'll have to have an agenda packet, you know, for the next meeting. Although, I want to be clear that because of all this sort of compromising negotiating that's been going on, I don't mean to sound arrogant about this, but the final decision will be made at the board meeting on January 5th and so, you know, don't presume that if staff has said yeah, we're going with it -- you know, they can't bind the board, and they know that they would never suggest that they could. But it's troubled me tonight when people come in here saying, well, since we have to compromise, we didn't worry about logos. Well, you know, we're discussing signage, and I think we'll discuss signage on January 5th. MR. PICKWORTH: I do understand that. But, you know, January 5th is the final hearing, and I would just ask, no matter what side of the Page 46 December 15, 1999 question you're on, that there be at least something that represents at that point where we are in the process that gets disseminated, because we may be able to come back here and not say much to you on January 5th, if we've had an opportunity to look it over. I think in fairness to everybody -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. MR. PICKWORTH: -- it ought to be out there. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's absolutely our goal. I just wanted to mention that because of all this discussion of negotiations. I wanted a chance to make my old comment there, too. Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just looking at the sign that's on the visualizer right now, the easiest thing this board could do is to just say that everyone in Collier County, if you have a business, this is what your sign is going to resemble. I mean, you can put your logo on it, you can put dancing girls on it, if that's your thing, or whatever it is, but that's the sign -- the height it's going to be, and that's going to be it. But that's where I think this -- that would be easy for us to do, but I'm not inclined to do that. I think this idea -- and I know it appears that we're dodging the bullet, but I still think I would like to hear from the community, the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Character. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- character committee? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Select committee. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Select committee. I still think that that has some merit to it. What if they came up and suggested this type of thing? I mean, I don't know, I don't even know frankly personally everybody that's on that committee. But what if they came back and said this? And we said -- and here we're going through all this thing with pole signs and all this. What's to stop them from coming back and saying this is what we should do? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This is my problem, though, is that I guess the last LDC cycle was when Commissioner Carter came in with some proposed sign changes and we said, you know, take the broomstick, go away and get the broomstick, whatever that is in the Wizard of Oz, go, you know, work this out in the community and bring it back for the next LDC cycle. Well, that's been done. We have community'd this one to death, and now we could -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: But they still don't have an agreement. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're never going to have everybody agreeing. Everybody's not going to agree. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But I think we're getting away from the central point, and the central point is we established this committee to do precisely what we're looking at here today. What kind of insult are we handing them if we say, well, we're going to do it ourselves, forget you guys? I mean, I just, you know really -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't really think that we're insulting that committee, because the committee -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It included them. Page 47 December 15, 1999 COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- looked at this, and of everything we took to them, they said this is the point where which we can agree that we can do this now, and no matter who ends up being our consultant, we feel that we've given them some really nice parameters to work with in terms of what has been generated through this process, that we will go to the supposedly -- this is kind of a compromised list to some degree of everything we could accomplish with the amortization schedules. Even if they came back and fine tuned it, the amortization schedule is in place. It would not detract from what we're trying to do. Their focus on signage is getting people through a community to get some consistency in your road signage, what are you going to look like in your public works area, what color is your piping going to be, your side streets, your streetscaping. That is more their charge from the RFP than dealing with one single issues of signs. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And maybe we could ask them to be present, ask their Chair to be here at our January 5th meeting. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may, we took these amendments to the select committee. We mailed them two weeks before the hearing, and we went there, we explained what we're trying to do. And at the end of the day took a vote and they voted in favor of changes. It's not that they are not there. They know that this is coming here. And during my review, I at least reviewed 30 other codes from different communities. I have some of them in here. And probably 10 of them, they were drafted by consultants. And for one thing, they certainly look alike. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They what? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They strangely look alike. From one committee to another, if the same consultant is basically -- they took the same code. And probably the difference between the code we are proposing and the code that the consultant is going to propose is going to be a $60,000 price tag. That's my opinion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. And that's a very good point. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It appears I'm going to get out voted on that. But if we're not going to run this through the committee, I think we should delete that from the RFP and delete some of the money from the consultant's fee as well. What's the point? If we're going to do it, why pay him to look at it? I don't see any point in wasting that money. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So maybe staff could look at the RFP and tell us how much of it is relating to signage, because I doubt there's much. MR. NINO: Well, I -- Ron Nino -- MS. PRESTON: For the record, Deborah Preston. We're just going to start negotiating that contract with the consultants, Dover-Cole (phonetic). So we can certainly put in or not put in the signage issue. They can take our ordinance, or whatever you adopt, and then place that into their transportation network and other issues that they'll be dealing with. They can deal with it that way. Page 48 December 15, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we can work with it. That's a good points. We didn't finish our speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have three more. Cheryle Newman, and then Ronald Fowle. MS. NEWMAN: Good evening. For the record, Cheryle Newman, Golden Gate Are civic Association. I'm just here to clarify a point. Commissioner Carter did come and meet with a small core group of the Golden Gate Civic Association. It's an umbrella section called the code enforcement volunteers. And we were very interested in what he had to say. That has not gone back to the general membership, so I cannot endorse it at this point. We are changing heads of the organization in January -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You keep telling. MS. NEWMAN: -- so I will be taking this information to the new president and then we will bring it probably before the general membership, but we wouldn't be able to do that till February. And I just wanted to clarify that we can endorse it, but we are listening very intently with what he has to say. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Cheryle, what is the name of this person who's going to try to replace you? MS. NEWMAN: Oh, the election was Monday. Russell Tuff is the new president for -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wonderful. MS. NEWMAN: -- 2000. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Cheryle has a big smile on her face. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, she does. She's been looking forward to this moment. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Ronald Fowle and then Bill Byington. MR. FOWLE: First of all, I want to thank you for trying to protect us. When I first came here, I was always upset with the ordinance, but then one day I went up to a wedding on Dale Mulberry Highway in Tampa, and I came back and said thank you to the commissioners. Now here's where the I stop giving you the lauds. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We can take it. MR. FOWLE: What the young lady from Fifth Third Bank said about Hilton Head? I've been there. It's beautiful. But God forbid, there's one accident after the other. Rear end, rear end, with people looking. We have a tremendous transient population that comes into this town. I can show you my records. We track by computer. During the off season, which I would say goes from April to December, all right, we're probably running about 90 percent regular customers. And then when we hit January, February and March, we'll shoot up to almost 32 percent. A lot of one-timers in, one-timers out. We do depend upon them to find us, and the signage is what helps. If the sign gets too small, I'm afraid we will have rear ending. I think you should contact some of these towns that have these low signs and see if there is a high percentage of rear end accidents, Page 49 December 15, 1999 Which was asked for by the lady from Fifth Third Bank. Now, I want to thank Pam for all the recognition she gave me for the car wash. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You did it. MR. FOWLE: Okay? Well, no, I got recognition from you, from the East Naples Civic Association, from the Chamber of Commerce. And we also won a national award on the design. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's great. MR. FOWLE: With the new ordinance, my five by 15 pole is gone. The letters on the facade of my building are going to be reduced by 25 percent, I just spent $12,000 doing that. And it's going to take me a little bit more time to amortize it than five years, because this was done last year. Personally, I think Mike Davis and the gentleman from Sign Craft are the two craziest men in the room because they're going to make more money than anyone can imagine on this. So I thank them for what they've -- the way they're trying to defend it and have everyone look at the issue from a real open point of view. I have a little problem with the tree trimming ordinance, which Mr. Marrone spoke about. When you do put a sign up, if your tree grows up, you better have a licensed guy over there doing it, and you can only trim so much. And if that sign (sic) grows in the front of your sign, tough, then your sign is finished. For a businessman to go against residents is stupid, all right? It's not the thing to do. But they're only looking at it from a business point of view. They're just seeing the signs on 41, on Davis. And I agree, Davis is a problem. I think what you should do, since you have gone along with the fact that you're going to give up political signs, which is very nice. No doubt they make a mess of the landscape. I think you should also consider the way these people market their homes. Maybe you should get rid of open houses that proliferate the roads on Sundays. Maybe you should get rid of real estate signs in front of everyone's house. Market through the real estate people, market through the Daily News, make them a little richer, but get rid of all those things. I'm sure people in Pelican Bay use this, because I see the signs on Sundays when I go down the road. Take that away from them, they may get a little upset. So I'd like to just see you look at this whole thing from a broad perspective, and give it time to make sure that this is going to be the last one for the next 15, 20 years. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, Ron. MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker on the subject of signs is Bill Byington. MR. BYINGTON: Good evening. Bill Byington, First National Bank, Naples. I'm the vice president and cashier of the bank, and unfortunately just found out about the ordinance within the last week or so, and so I have not had the opportunity to put together all the details on it. But based on what I'm hearing here, I can tell you the bank does have some concern. Our concern primarily is the cost. We just finished a Page 50 December 15, 1999 renovation, or apparently almost finishing a renovation of FNB center. And the signs alone on that building were -- at the top of that building were substantial in cost. If this proposal were to pass, we would no longer be compliant and would be forced to remove those signs. A three-year or five-year depreciation for that part would still not satisfy us. It would not help us. The cost -- I'll tell you, we've spent in excess of $100,000 for that signage. And our depreciation is in excess of three years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How long can you depreciate those? MR. BYINGTON: I would have to defer to one of the CPA's probably here, but I believe it's somewhere in the vicinity of 10 to 12 years, if I'm not mistaken. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Somebody I thought said it was five years, but we'll find out. MR. BYINGTON: A fixed asset, I believe, is a little longer, but I may be wrong about that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll find out. MR. BYINGTON: In addition to that, the -- some of the other concerns we might have would be the primary color issue. First National Bank of Naples has a blue color. That's part of our logo, part of our identity. To limit that to 20 percent of the sign space would not be to our advantage and probably would also create some havoc as far as customers trying to find or locate branch offices, because that is part of our identity. Indication would be the logo surface. If we go in excess of 20 percent of the sign space, our logo, the One is on most of our signs in excess of 20 percent, so again, we would be out of compliance there. Again, all the components or most of the components I'm hearing about this proposal tonight would create problems for us as a business. Well, let me clarify. I say that as a resident and also as a commercial citizen of this county, we fully support anything we can do to help improve the appearance of the county. I don't want to go counter to those wishes at all. But I want us to consider I think the cost and the impact to the commercial citizens of the county. To be perfectly honest with you, I'm a little dissatisfied that we don't have a little better turnout tonight from the commercial side of the county. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll bet they'll be here January 5th. MR. BYINGTON: Well, you hate to wait until it's too late, though. But anyhow, that's -- those are the most parts -- points that we wanted to hit, and let you know that if you can find a way to work with us, we'd be happy to sit down and talk with you about that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two points. Once again, if your name, stylized name is your logo, that's not illegal; is that correct? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That will not be -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're talking about your name plus a logo. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The color of the lettering can be whatever Page 51 December 15, 1999 color they choose. We are talkin9 about the background of the sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Also talking about the lettering on the building? Is that not what you're talking about? MR. BYINGTON: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And It would be out of compliance with any action that we take tonight. It's too big. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, yeah, but that wasn't our point. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, I think he was -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And about the trees hiding the signs? This used to be, before Nations Bank, it used to be Barnett Bank, and they had a 20-foot high sign. They came to me, they said that big tree (sic) is not visible, because of the trees, and they wanted to trim those trees. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This sign right here? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sign wasn't here. And when we told them no, you cannot touch those trees, they decided to go with a smaller sign. And they are extremely happy with the sign. I never hear any complaint, sign not being visible or even by theft. The way around it is just lower your sign on the tree canopy and stop competing with the tree. MR. NINO: If I may, just as importantly, it's important that the landscape architect that creates your landscaped environment not place plant material that's going to block the sign. And we don't insist on plant material that we know will block the sign. Hopefully our landscape reviewer is also sensitive to that issue. So those issues that suggest that we're below signs will be blocked by vegetation is not true if we do our job as landscape reviewers and ensure that plant material is put in not to do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that may be true on new construction, but it will not be true on these retrofit signs. Because some sign that's sticking up in the air now might come down into some vegetation. I think Mr. Marrone will verify that. And so we're going to have to at some point in time come up with some mechanism to be able to lower the landscape near the sign. If we're going to lower the sign, we're going to have to lower the landscape within a certain distance of it in order to be able to see the sign. I mean, that's one of the things that we're going to have to be aware that is going to also have to be a companion to this. But I think the gentleman from the First National Bank made my point once again on the argument for the 10-year amortization on current signs, because he's got a brand new sign that we thought was not objectionable not very long ago, and I can't in all good conscience make him take that down in five years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll just go ahead and say since we're I guess sort of wrapping up the sign issue here, I would support Commissioner Constantine's position on the amortization, which as I understood, it was three and five. And I hope that what we're -- what I think would be important for us to do right now is to give you some Page 52 December 15, 1999 direction on what to draft for the next hearing, so I'm going to just take you through. I support the no pole signs. I will give on the colors question. I support the eight foot max on out parcels. I would support a three and five-year amortization schedule. Do you know what I mean by that? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I don't think there were other controversial issues. I support the prohibition of neon, I support the change in directory signs, the change in wall signs to 150 feet. I would very much like you to bring the construction signs and all temporary signage, bring some suggestions for those to include that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are proposing to lower it from 15 to 10. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But in addition to that, I'd like to see some suggestion in line of what Commissioner Berry brought up tonight with one sign per property, and some design appropriate for that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sure. COMMISSIONER BERRY: On the construction site. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: COMMISSIONER BERRY: could, Madam Chair -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: and come up with -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: Right. Okay. But I would also like to add, if I Please. -- that work with the specialty contractors Absolutely. -- something that they can live with that would incorporate both the general contractor and all the specialty contractors into a sign rather than putting 25 different signs up on the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We do not want to squeeze out the specialty contractors. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Absolutely. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The last thing I want us to say, have the general contractor have a big sign or the bank have a big sign and leave them out. Rather, an aesthetic design of some kind. And then the only other point that I made a note of is that all signage visible from the street should be included, whether it's placed inside or outside of a window. Because those pawn shop signs are really something I'm really hoping to get out. And we won't do that otherwise. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not in disagreement with much of that except for of course the 10-year amortization is what I'm going to support. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But the other points you agree? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other points -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just so they can do some drafting. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I'm willing to let them ride until January 5th when we'll talk about them again. I'll get to do some thought on it. Page 53 December 15, 1999 But the five years is just not going to be fair to people who fairly recently put up their signs. I just can't see it. It's not -- they're not the problem. I mean, what we need to do is identify the problem. What is the problem? The problem is the pre '91 signs and the illegal signs and those nonconforming signs. It's not really the post '91, and especially the post '95 signs. Those are not the problem specifically that we're trying to address. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think in the prioritization of things, you're absolutely right. The pre '91 -- well, first priority would be illegal signs. Second priority, pre '91 signs. Third priority, maybe pre '95. Maybe there needs to be some additional category. And I'm not trying to be unreasonable, but I just want to say that I'm willing to take the hit. I'm willing to do what I think is the right thing to do and not be wimpy about it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's -- not many people accuse me of being a wimp and live through it, anyway. But I'm not being wimpy, I'm just trying to be reasonable. I mean, a gentleman put up his signs this year and to tell him to take it down in five is not reasonable. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's tough. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That is not reasonable. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If I may, you are talking about the signs that will be placed behind the windows? I've seen the bars and restaurants, they have Michelob, Coors or whatever, beer signs hanging behind the windows. Those are exposed neons. So basically you don't want those signs? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely not. We do not want them. And in addition, there are pawn shops that have -- I can only speak for myself, but there are pawn shops that have neon signs on the inside of the windows. There are other stores that have -- if it's exposed neon on the inside of the windows, I want it to go. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm weighing n on the 10-year amortization. I can live with the discussion that Mr. Davis had with Commissioner Carter, number one, the stepping up, the enforcement of the existing code. I definitely support that. The neon, that can go. Fluorescent, I do think you need to check the spelling of fluorescent, because I think it's F-L-U-O-R. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I didn't do it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: She's a former school teacher. Don't mess with her. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's fluor. Use of logos and primary colors is not prohibited. I think we better leave that alone. Odd-shaped signs. I've got to tell you, I'm one of the few probably that thinks Mike Ditka's sign is kind of neat. But I think that -- I don't have any problem with that. I just think it's kind of unique. Let's everybody know that we've got Ditka living in the Naples Community. I'm surprised he frankly wants to go out on a limb like that. But as long as he has, I think it's kind of a neat sign. If you want to talk about gas station signs, I could have a Page 54 December 15, 1999 little problem with that. My biggest problem is putting any kind of letters or anything up on the canopies. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, me, too. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And that to me is one of the bigger problems, as far as I'm concerned. But I think I've -- I spoke to Ron Nino, we had an issue that came up, a property out in the Estates. They've just installed a new Citgo -- some new Citgo pumps out there. And I looked at the canopy, and that canopy does not fit in, but that's an architectural standard kind of thing that we need to take a look at so it's not necessarily fitting into this category, but it goes back to the architectural standards which need to be continually looked at. And they don't apply. And this goes back to one size does not fit all. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But this is a good little heads up for staff to make a note that that's something we want to see later. Because I agree with you. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And the wall sign thing, I really am having some problems with that. I would like to see somebody show me, here's what 250 feet looks like, and I know about the Gulf Coast Bank up on Immokalee Road, I know what that looks like. Personally to me, that's not offensive. It's not a glaring sign, it's a very soft lit sign up on the side of that bank. It's not offensive to me at all. I'd like to see the difference in a 250 -- is that what it is, Mike? MR. BOYD: It's 198 now. COMMISSIONER BERRY: 1987 Okay. I'd like to see the difference in that to the 150. COMMISSIONER CARTER: And Barbara -- perhaps when they're doing the thing that Commissioner Constantine asked us to do, that we could show a graphic difference? COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's why this is so very hard. For me to sit here -- I'm sure that the two Mikes can visualize and know exactly. But for me to sit here and say -- you can show me some pictures and I can say that looks nice, that stinks, you know, but to sit here and just arbitrarily go through and say this, I've got some real problems with it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm open minded on that question, too. Primarily because of that bank. That sounds not ugly, that 198. Maybe 200 is the number. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I'll tell you, the -- what I call the monument type signs at the shopping centers, the one that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Those directory signs. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The directory signs. I guess I'm weird, but that isn't all that offensive to me. Many of them are landscaped around the base, and it tells what stores are in that particular shopping center. And I guess maybe because of my age, when I'm driving down the road and I'm looking for those things, I want to know where I'm going. And I don't want to slow down traffic, because I'm going to have people honking their horns. So I -- that is not offensive to me. But what is offensive to me, frankly, I mean, we have the McDonald's sign here on the single Page 5 5 December 15, 1999 pole. Now, if you want to do some other kind of a sign, you know, and -- I don't care, you can keep the golden arches, as far as I'm concerned. But I really don't like just the single pole sticking up in the air. I'd like to see eventually all of the signs in Collier County get away from that kind of thing. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Commissioner, the original code that's in front of you, not the compromise thing, the original one, says that logos shall be within the body of the sign and not protrude from it. Do you have any problem with that, keeping it that way? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The "M" can be within the sign itself. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You can have it, you just can't have it standing out. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. So this is fine, but we have to have a language saying that the logo shall not protrude from the sign. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then that goes back to Ditka's sign. What are you going to do with -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: With his hair? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: He has 10 years to remove it. If they put a box around it, then the whole thing is inside that -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: 10 years. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll bet his restaurant isn't in there in Of course not. Well, I don't know. I won't go there, but I think you may have a majority supporting that logo question. supported it. I do. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: did you say on the -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like five years. that I could go 10 years. Because I know Commissioner Constantine said he I support that logo within the box. What I don't mind Blockbuster either. -- amortization? What's -- If I had my druthers, Commissioner Norris, But I agreed with the group on Monday night So mine is a soft position. Anything between five and 10 is good for me. But on the -- from '91 back three years, everybody's been in agreement on. So there's two amortizations, the one that's prior 1990, '91, three years, everyone is agreed, get it out of here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, we may be looking at an impasse here. I don't know what we're going to do on the 5th, because I see three to two, 10 to five. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And we need four votes to make a change, don't we? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Well, start lobbying now, guys. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One last thing. The original document says that signs must have architecturally finished base. Something like that. And the compromise reached said we don't have to do that. Page 56 December 15, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I still believe it's a good idea to make signs look like that than like -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just a square. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Than like this. Even though this is not an offensive sign. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How much more does it cost -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: You will agree that this is a better looking sign. one ? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How much more does it cost to do the nicer MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They're asking people, they all come up with 10, 15, $20,000 figures. I don't know where they are getting those numbers. Everybody is saying this shopping center is going to cost $300,000 to fix, that one 400,000. I don't know where -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But look how ugly that McDonald's is compared to that FTB. You know, flat -- the architectural features on that First Florida -- MR. NINO: We will try to come up with a response to -- that won't address all of your concerns. We will come back with a revised ordinance that addresses what we hear, the concerns. And of course your January 5th meeting, we can continue to fine tune that for what CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So you've gotten an impression, anyway, of the board's feelings so that you'll know what to be drafting. And that's going to conclude our discussion on the signage we had. What else? What other topics do we have speakers registered? MR. FERNANDEZ: Just one other speaker on the subject of parking. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Parking. Could you tell us what the change is in the parking? MR. NINO: What is the speaker here for? I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Parking is all I heard. MR. NINO: But the parking regula -- the amendments to the parking section have to do with combining currently three different ways of dealing with off-site parking. We have shared parking, we have off-site parking, we have parking reservations. And this amendment attempts to consolidate that into a parking exemption process. Basically retaining the same development criteria, with the exception that it doesn't allow the development services director some latitude to approve parking exemptions. Unified parking exemption provisions. Now, is that the issue that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who is the registered speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Dan Cox. MR. cOx: I'll waive. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He's waiving. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, come talk to us. MR. COX: No, I'll waive. Page 57 December 15, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'd be happy to hear. Okay. Well, he's waived that. Were there other items that you thought you should highlight for us in these proposals, or would you like to respond to questions? MR. NINO: Let me say for the record that all other items that are before you for consideration for the Land Development Code amendment have been reviewed by the Development Services Advisory Council, those that are appropriate to the EAC, the EAC and the County Planning Commission. And in all cases, with the exception of the sign regulations, those review bodies have supported the staff's proposal. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So there aren't contentious issues. MR. NINO: I don't believe any of the amendments are of a substantive nature. They tend to be more -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Tuneup. MR. NINO: -- of a housecleaning effort to make it easier for us to administer the code in some cases. Nothing -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do board members have any questions? MR. NINO: -- earth shattering here. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Board members have any questions about any of the remaining items? Is there anything further we need to do, Mr. Weigel, or do we adjourn this meeting or do we continue it to the 5th? MR. WEIGEL: No, that you just made the statement I would recommend and that is to advise the public that the next meeting of this is January 5th, at "X" hour. COMMISSIONER CARTER: 5:05. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Could I ask one more question? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Deborah Preston, can I ask you a question, please? I don't mean -- I don't mean to be blind siding you, but I just have a question. In regard -- we're going back to the sign thing for just a minute over in the Immokalee area. Is the overlay -- is this going to go help in any way? Can we address -- MS. PRESTON: Yeah, right. In our Immokalee overlay that's before you tonight, that one actually adds some other provisions for additional types of signage on the Immokalee Main Street. After we finish the Main Street section, we're going to go to State Road 29 and deal with signage and landscaping and setback issues there, recognizing that there are some needs for some flexibility out in Immokalee. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And likewise, we'll see that in an overlay in the Gateway Triangle -- MS. PRESTON: Right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- et cetera. So the one size fits all got some COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not -- as I said before, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do something. I don't want that misunderstood. But to be real stringent on some of these things right away, it's got to Page 58 December 15, 1999 come through this other process. MS. PRESTON: Right. And so hopefully we can address it every time we do a subdistrict. The Main Street area we're not really dealing with pole signs there. What we're looking at is projected signs that will hang down so the pedestrian traffic can better identify the businesses. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Good. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just one other thing, Madam Chair. If I'm understanding correctly with the feeling of the board tonight is that the only issue that's really a little -- an issue that we haven't resolved is the amortization, the long-term amortization -- MS. PRESTON: That's right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- how many years that should be. But the rest of the items on there, if everyone is fairly comfortable with, with some tweaking here and there to make sure we that we have the right clarification. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I heard. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fairly close. Fairly accurate. I think we do need some discussion on like we want to see the graphics displayed. COMMISSIONER CARTER: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: a look at the wall sign -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. We can get that put together And maybe take Right. -- numbers and that sort of thing. But yeah, that's pretty accurate. COMMISSIONER BERRY: At the next meeting -- or at the January 5th, we won't be hearing from Michelle at that time. We won't hear from her until the llth? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER CARTER: The llth. What she's going to do is bring us a proposal on increased code enforcement, to beef up the package that everyone has recommended that we do. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And do you have any questions about that, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: No, I don't, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All right, anything else? We're adjourned. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Merry Christmas. Page 59 December 15, 1999 There bein9 no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:40 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST:- -DWIGHT E'~i~BROCK, CLERK These minutes ed by the Board on ~$~.~ ~, as presented TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 60