The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special session on August 22, 2000, in the Government Center Florida Room, 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida. Present were: Chairman Nancy Higgs, Commissioners Truman Scarborough, Randy O'Brien, Sue Carlson and Helen Voltz, County Manager Tom Jenkins, and Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore.

REPORT, RE: HURRICANE DEBBY

County Manager Tom Jenkins stated the Emergency Operations Center is activated at a Level 1; it is monitoring Hurricane Debby; it is moving at an exceptionally fast speed, which is unusual; and the question remains will it continue at that speed or will it slow down and go at a more typical rate of speed in terms of traveling. Commissioner Voltz requested clarification on Level 1. Mr. Jenkins responded Level 1 is the most basic preliminary level; it is observation; the Center begins to alert various County agencies to be on stand-by; and it is monitoring the storm and prepping for what potentially might be needed at a later date. He noted by tomorrow afternoon the Center will have a better indication as to where the Hurricane is going; Emergency Management Director Bob Lay indicated the probability of the Hurricane going south or making a left turn is not great; the higher probability is that it will go straight ahead to the lower Keys or make a right turn and come north; but it is still too early to know what the Hurricane is going to do. Mr. Jenkins encouraged people at home to continue monitoring the situation to see what evolves; and stated the Center will have a better indication by tomorrow afternoon as to what the forecast is going to be.

Chairman Higgs stated what is important for people to understand is that not only will the Emergency Operations Center be watching, but County employees will be a part of a comprehensive program; and the Board appreciates what its employees do and what other volunteers do if they are needed.

APPROVAL FOR TRAVEL, RE: CHAIRMAN NANCY HIGGS

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to approve travel for Chairman Nancy Higgs to attend the Cabinet Aides meeting on September 6, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

DISCUSSION, RE: SIGN ORDINANCE

Paul Sekore, Executive Director of Titusville Area Chamber of Commerce, stated there have been some good changes made since the last discussion; page 2 of the proposed ordinance includes the definition for abandoned sign; if a business ceased to operate for a period greater than 90 days or 180 days, the sign would be declared abandoned; and the business would be forced to tear it down, regardless if it is conforming or nonconforming. He stated the City of Titusville has instituted a clause that would require people to blank face or white face their sign; it takes away the advertising message that advertises a business that is no longer there; it is a nice compromise; and it may be an option the Board wants to consider. He noted page 3 includes ground signs; the definition is going to change so that it will require freestanding signs to be ground signs; and such definition needs to be reviewed. He stated page 7, section (2) includes removal of nonconforming signs; the sign has to be damaged by more than 50%; and the Chamber supports it. He stated page 7, section (3), is the bona fide advertising; if there is no bona fide advertising, it will create an abandoned sign situation; if the County can work it out into the blank face provision it would help; the definition does not include conformance; and he would not be opposed to some type of time limit. Mr. Sekore stated the sign is a crucial part of the infrastructure; and the County needs to be sensitive to that and make sure it is not tearing down a significant part of the infrastructure.

County Development Engineer Bruce Moia stated the clause is under nonconforming signs, so that issue would not come into play concerning the bona fide advertising material for a conforming sign; if the business goes out of business and there is nothing happening on the site, sometimes they will leave the sign there and people think there is business being conducted on the site; and the City of Titusville has required if the business leaves they blank out their signs. Mr. Sekore stated the businesses also use a light canvas and drape it over the sign; if it does not have advertising material it does not become abandoned if it is a conforming sign; the language is only considered if it is a nonconforming sign; and if the County makes only a nonconforming sign can be abandoned, it would settle his concern. Mr. Sekore stated in the beginning the ordinance does not identify conforming or nonconforming; the basis for replacing a nonconforming sign in the rest of the ordinance is if over 50% of it is damaged; and there are different degrees of nonconformity. He stated page 20, section (3) freestanding signs to be ground signs, would require all freestanding signs which are mounted on a pole to be monument signs; those signs are typically expensive; and his main concern is the cost to the business owner. He stated monument signs can have a better aesthetic appearance; the City of Titusville offers an incentive of more sign area; and its Ordinance includes a provision where someone can get 25% more of the area if he/she decides to go with a ground sign or monument sign. Mr. Sekore stated he and Commissioner Scarborough discussed incentives for landscaping as opposed to requiring each business to create a ground or monument sign; the County could have a requirement for higher landscaping; it is a nice compromise as landscaping is not as significant a cost to the business as the monument sign; and it plays well to the Board's efforts to beautify the area. He noted page 20, section (5) includes changeable copy; a changeable copy area shall not exceed 25%; it used to be 90% in the existing Ordinance; the Chamber supports a 50:50 ratio, which is industry standard; and it would like 50% changeable copy.

Mr. Sekore stated the rest of his concerns relate to sign size and height; on freestanding signs and area, previous regulations allowed signs up to 150 square feet; now it is 48 square feet, which gives business owners one-third of what they were able to have before; and sign height has decreased from 20 feet to 12 feet, which is almost a 50% reduction. He noted other calculations, whether it is a shopping center or a multi-tenant facility, also have reductions which give the business owners 30% to 40% of what was originally put in; Mr. Moia indicated staff is studying other communities and would like to take a survey to ascertain some type of average of sign sizes and use it for a basis of discussion; and it would be helpful.

Mr. Moia stated issues concerning the sign ordinance were discussed on August 22, 2000; the Board approved that the sign ordinance be for unincorporated areas of Brevard County, and staff keep the cities informed so the cities can decide if they want to adopt similar ordinances; and staff removed language referencing that the ordinance be Countywide. He advised there are city representatives present today; staff has been talking to most of the cities; they are keeping up-to-date with the County's progress; and many of them are interested in having new language in their Sign Ordinances. The Board reached consensus with Issue 1, that the sign ordinance be for unincorporated areas of Brevard County, and staff keep the cities informed.

Mr. Moia stated the Board directed the County Attorney and staff to report back to the Board with options and incentives concerning abandoned signs; staff agreed that abandoned signs should remain at the 180-day timeframe to be consistent with other issues in the ordinance that address nonconforming uses and abandoned uses; however, it might be prudent to add the word "nonconforming" into the definition of abandoned signs so that only a nonconforming sign considered abandoned would be removed, and a conforming sign could remain as long as it is conforming. Commissioner Scarborough inquired about going to a blank sign if the business is no longer there. Mr. Moia responded it has its pros and cons; if the business is not conducting any business and there is advertising material there, people will pull in and stop, thinking they are going to get service or a product; if blank faces can be installed in changeable panel signs, it works well; and draping material over a sign that is not maintained does not look good, which is the drawback.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if somebody goes out of business, who would pay for the white copy. Mr. Moia responded if it is a leased building, the property owner would have to install the white face; and if the business owned the property, the County would cite them if they do not comply. Commissioner Voltz noted the County would be getting into enforcement issues and into more than what it wants to. Mr. Moia stated it is included in the ordinance, but has not been effective; it is hard to get a sign to be considered abandoned; and it is enforced, but it is difficult. Chairman Higgs inquired why would it be difficult if it is obvious that a building is not operating and not paying a utility bill. Mr. Moia responded it is not always obvious; someone has to track it; as staff does routine inspections, if they find the business was abandoned they could try to track such business; and sufficient evidence that it remained abandoned for the 180-day period is subject to interpretation.

Mr. Sekore stated the abandoned sign issue would not only affect business owners, but also where someone is leasing the property; the property owner's tenant could go out of business and wait for a 90 or 180-day period for someone else to come in; during that period they could be forced to tear down the sign; and there are some areas where the white face sign could be used to keep the sign there and the marketability of the site intact. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would prefer to see "Sorry, we're closed" as it would impact property values and reduce customer flow. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to include in the definition for abandoned signs nonconforming signs and the 180-day period. Commissioner Scarborough noted it is only the nonconforming. The Board reached consensus to include nonconforming signs in the definition for abandoned sign, and changed language "for a period greater than 90 days" to "180 days."

Commissioner O'Brien stated page 7, section 5, section 62-3305, removal of illegal or abandoned signs, (1) reads, "All signs deemed to be illegal or abandoned as defined in this article shall be removed within 30 days of the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived"; and it needs to be revised. Mr. Moia responded 30 days is from the time it meets the definition of an abandoned or illegal sign. Chairman Higgs stated after the 180 days, it meets the definition and then there is the 30 days. Commissioner O'Brien requested the language be defined better for clarification purposes. The Board reached consensus to direct staff to clarify page 7, section 5, removal of illegal or abandoned signs, (1), "All signs deemed to be illegal or abandoned as defined in this article shall be removed within 30 days of the effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived", to include 30 days after the 180 days.

Mr. Moia stated staff will be coming back to the Board with language in section 5 dealing with enforcement and how staff notices the signs; there are some areas that are difficult; and the revised language will make it easier for the staff that works in the field. Mr. Moia stated staff was directed to provide options concerning change of copy of nonconforming signs; the previous language it proposed at the last workshop was to require a permit, even to change the copy of a sign; if there was a nonconforming sign and they wanted to change the copy, they could not get a permit unless they made the sign conforming; and based on meetings with the County Attorney and Chambers of Commerce, staff suggests withdrawing that language and leaving it the way it is, allowing people to change the copy. The Board reached consensus to withdraw language for change of copy of nonconforming signs to require a permit, and leave the language as it has been originally.

Mr. Moia stated staff was directed to provide language that legally addresses window signs, which may include safety reasons; based on research it has decided to leave it at the 50% which it currently is, as it meets State law and safety concerns.

Commissioner O'Brien stated French windows are small and the 50% is only one-half the glass of a 4 x 6 window; and there needs to be language added in the definition of window for clarification purposes.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he has seen nice lettering on some antique stores and restaurants; there are other stores with cheap advertising scotch taped on the windows; and going to percentages for window signs is missing the point if one business owner has invested in quality and the other business owner has used scotch tape and cut off cigarette tops. He noted the bottom line is looking at the individual next door; the person who is most adversely affected by bad sign ordinances is the businessman next door; it depreciates his property and reduces his flow of customers; it helps the community as a whole to have a nice appearance; and the businessmen are looking to the Board to create a certain quality.

Chairman Higgs inquired is there a way to address it; with Mr. Moia responding the County would need to separate what is advertised as the business and what is advertising products within the business. Assistant County Attorney Christine Lepore stated the County would be getting into regulating content. Commissioner Scarborough suggested the County go to the manner in which it is put on the sign; with Attorney Lepore responding as long as it is content neutral. Commissioner Scarborough stated putting stuff up with glue and scotch tape is different than having a professional artist do the sign; and inquired if the County can exempt certain types of artistic signs that are individually painted. Chairman Higgs noted it could include the type and permanency of the signage. Commissioner O'Brien stated he understands Commissioner Scarborough's concern; and there is probably a way the County can approach it to be fair to all involved. Commissioner Scarborough stated the permanent sign is painted on the outside window, and anything inside is not permanently affixed to the window; and that would satisfy him. Commissioner O'Brien stated certain lettering would also be considered permanent fixture. The Board reached consensus to direct staff to provide clarification and some standard concerning non-permanent signs.

Mr. Moia stated the Board approved leaving the Building Code the predominant standard for construction of signs; staff removed the language which discussed who can install a sign, whether it had to be a sign contractor or if the owner could do the work himself; and the only limit would be what is in the Building Code. The Board reached consensus to approve that the limit for construction standards be what is included in the Building Code.

Mr. Moia stated the Board directed staff to report back with various options and implementation strategies concerning on-premise signs; staff is looking at two different strategies; one would be to establish the design criteria for on-premise signs by using the average size and height throughout the County from all the cities and municipalities; and Attachment 2 includes a spreadsheet showing what some of those standards are for sign height and sign area. He noted most of the cities agree what is important is when one travels the corridors of the County they do not see disparity in sign height and size; there could be more of a consistency, which is one of the strategies; and the other strategy could be by providing some kind of flexibility in the ordinance and allow incentives to provide the lower and monument-style signs.

*County Manager Tom Jenkins' absence was noted at this time and Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca's presence was noted.

Commissioner O'Brien stated most of the signs on Clearlake Road in Cocoa are at the old standard of a given height and size, and aligned down the road; and if a sign is taken down due to hurricane damage, to come into conformance with the new ordinance and without some leeway by staff, the sign would be put in the middle of the parking lot as setbacks for the stores were only 25 feet with no grass in front. He noted there needs to be a remedy to that situation, such as handling those types of issues on a one-by-one basis at a staff level. Commissioner Scarborough stated Brevard County would prefer to have the high-rent, high-class County; he does not want to send out the signal that Brevard County is not trying to have one of the quality counties in the United States; one of the first things people notice is signage and aesthetics; and if the County does not give that right message, it does not know what opportunity it may lose. He noted people from all over the world come to Brevard County; they are walking away with impressions; and inquired how does it change the impressions and not get into profound retrofit problems. He requested staff provide photographs of on-premise signs; and stated the County needs something that is clearly workable that the whole community endorses.

Commissioner Carlson stated she understands where Commissioners Scarborough and O'Brien are coming from; every Commissioner has areas of special need that may not be able to afford to retrofit; and perhaps the County can have an amortization schedule for specially-designated areas that are obviously problem areas. She noted there are areas that may be real sore points and difficult to retrofit; and there may be specific rules or incentives for those particular ones to get them all to conform in some time frame, so it is more consistent. Commissioner Scarborough stated amortization is part of the issue; the County has to have some escape hatches for the places it does not work, without running staff crazy with special hearings; and it has to recognize that there are places the new rules will not work. Commissioner Carlson stated there are cities with areas that have those kinds of problems, and they revitalize the areas. Commissioner O'Brien noted redevelopment agencies accomplish those tasks and try to bring them into conformity; and S.R. 520 on Merritt Island is an example of what redevelopment can accomplish. Chairman Higgs stated staff can craft criteria that would be exceptions, depending on age of the building, the size of the lot, and number of parking places; and those kinds of things could be part of an administrative exception that pushes in a positive direction. Commissioner Carlson noted it could be done on a locational basis so it is not applied to every place. Commissioner Voltz inquired is there an area in Orange City that was left as it was and the City did not make the area conform to anything; with Mr. Moia responding the City had a special district for the older area in town and did not require the district to conform to the sign ordinance. Commissioner Scarborough stated the problem with signage is the visual clutter; too many signs is a detriment to the businessman and not a benefit; most businessmen want to have the smaller, more manageable sign because it adds to the quality of the business and clientele; and the County is not trying to fight the businessman, but help him as visual clutter harms advertising. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board needs to think about the costs involved; inquired is it going to make somebody tear down a $30,000 sign to put a smaller sign up; and noted for a small business it is not an easy task. Commissioner Carlson stated the Board needs to do the conformity issue, otherwise it is going to have inequities. Commissioner O'Brien stated there are areas in the County where the problem cannot be fixed; to foist the ordinance upon those areas would be a fiasco and an unfair burden on them; and perhaps staff can provide a list of the areas with certain streets that are exempt from the Code or something. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County needs to look at the whole building site and can the sign be moved to be conforming. Chairman Higgs inquired can the Board look to particular areas in the unincorporated part of the County where it would potentially exempt or have different criteria; with Attorney Lepore responding affirmatively. Attorney Lepore stated Port Orange recognizes its development history; it has different standards for the older development along the U.S. 1 corridor; there is a longer amortization period; and it often recommends to other jurisdictions that it takes into consideration the existing development history of signage when enforcing a sign ordinance. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board could set forth better criteria in the ordinance for staff to implement. Chairman Higgs stated she wants to be careful that the County does not allow competitive advantages because of the configurations. She inquired how have other communities gone about this kind of change. Mr. Moia responded they have an Ordinance where one size fits all, which includes criteria that everybody meets; some Ordinances have more flexibility, including a different size of sign if one does certain things or their parcel is a certain size; there is also an Ordinance that addresses existing conditions which usually have amortization; so the Board has three options to choose from. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County could look at the setback guideline as a community standard and the size of the sign as a guideline, so there is no unfair advantage.

Commissioner Voltz inquired does the County take into consideration the size of the sign on a two-laned road at 30 m.p.h. versus a five-laned road at 50 m.p.h. Mr. Moia responded the City of Titusville has different criteria on its arterial roads; and if someone has a business on an arterial roadway they have a different height and size. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it is addressed in the ordinance; with Mr. Moia responding negatively. Mr. Moia stated it is in the strategy of Issue 1, that County staff will do a comparison with other cities and try to fall in line with that. Commissioner Voltz stated it is something that needs to be addressed. Commissioner Scarborough stated it would be nice to have some variation in criteria and still keep the aesthetics up; the County may reduce the cost to the businessman and increase aesthetics by allowing plant material around poles; and it would be more attractive.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the County's Landscape Ordinance currently does not require that vegetation remain on a site any more than one year; so the Board may want to amend the Landscape Ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough noted there could be an exception to the ground sign definition; if the sign is within so many feet of the copy, landscape material must be maintained; the sign could be non-conforming if the plant material dies; and it is a landscape issue, but it is an exception to the ground sign requirement. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not have any problem putting the landscaping in; some of the non-conforming signs sitting on a pole could be brought into conformance by the landscaping requirement if they are not too high; and it is a more aesthetic presence. Commissioner O'Brien stated an example of a monument sign that worked out well is B.J.'s Warehouse on Merritt Island; and the County could ask for monument signs on local collector roads. Commissioner Scarborough stated the taller sign is needed where there is faster traffic and divided medians; and it is not needed on two-laned roads at 25 m.p.h.

Discussion ensued concerning ground signs, height landscaping requirements, and concrete monuments.

Warren Mattingly, United Signs, stated the County is headed in a positive direction in addressing the feeder streets that go into the arterial roads and not penalizing main arterial roads with ground signs; and requested the County consider business signs on a case-by-case basis in certain areas.

Charles Moehle, President of Modern, Inc., stated every city in Brevard County has wrestled with signs for years; the City of Titusville spent over two years developing its Ordinance and brought everybody in from the community; the important issue is that one size does not fit all as Brevard County is a long one; and the County should not take overall averages, but it should fit with the community standards. He noted the community standards vary a great deal; the communities have addressed this issue and have come to some resolution; the category of the arterial roads and local collector roads are all different; and one size does not fit all. He stated TU-2 zoning should be looked at as a separate issue; the County should not have a mindset of restricting to ground signs or small signs that are not appropriate and will put businesses in a detrimental condition; and it would not help what the County is trying to achieve.

Mr. Moia stated the County has established special districts in the County; staff can overlay those with the sign code; if the Board wants staff to explore different areas, it can do so; staff knows the classifications of all the roadways in the County and can specifically address criteria for specific roadways; and it can do different criteria around fringes of other areas to be more compatible and provide a better transition.

Commissioner Scarborough expressed concern about creating five or six different ordinances; stated he has always fought for uniformity; and it is all right when moving into older areas around the County to go with the current standards.

Chairman Higgs noted the County should not say because there is an older neighborhood it does not want to move it forward to a standard; hopefully it will increase property values and business potential; the Board needs to be careful and not say since this is an older established area it is going to write it off; and it is not what the County has been trying to do for several years. Commissioner Scarborough stated he would like to see other criteria concerning width of the roads and speed limits. Chairman Higgs stated if the County establishes those as criteria it may be able to grant variances in certain cases based on the size and configuration of the lot, building, signage and existing roadway; it would establish different characteristics based on the road, plus give ability to staff to grant variances; and if the County went to a multi-year amortization, it would not force existing businesses into a total mold. Commissioner Scarborough stated there could be a new development coming in; if the speed is so fast and landscaping is in the median, it becomes difficult to see lower ground signs; the County needs to recognize the size and height and speed. He noted another issue is the old area not physically being able to do it; and the third issue is if it can be changed, how does the County amortize and not hurt the businessman. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County is not trying to write any neighborhood off; and the consequence is that the physical limitations of those properties will not conform to the County's "one ordinance fits all" ordinance. Commissioner Carlson stated her intent is not to encourage mediocrity; she wants areas, such as Clearlake Road, to move forward as the rest of the community moves forward; otherwise, they will be left behind which leads to problems, including crime; by helping them clean themselves up, it will be a betterment issue for the whole community; and to promote lower standards is not the way to go. Commissioner Voltz stated the County needs to be cognizant of what it is going to cost the businessman.

The Board reached consensus to provide an ordinance that deals with different types of roads, recognizes existing character of the areas, directs new development, have different areas recognized based on types of roads, and to review the height issue.

Commissioner O'Brien stated page 6, section 3, subsection (2) reads, "Protect and maintain the visual integrity of roadway corridors within the County by establishing a maximum amount of signage on any one site to reduce visual clutter"; and requested staff define "visual clutter." Commissioner Scarborough stated visual clutter harms the businessman and the community, lowers property values, and is a deterrent to customers. Commissioner Voltz inquired is there a definition. Attorney Lepore responded from a legal standpoint it is not anything the County is going to charge somebody with violating; it is a concept; and the ordinance the Board adopts will express what its idea is of visual clutter by what it is trying to avoid.

Commissioner O'Brien stated page 6, section c, reads, "This article shall be applicable to the unincorporated areas of the County." Commissioner Carlson stated that issue was previously discussed by the Board; the response to Issue 1 is that the cities are being kept informed of the ordinance status by Land Development staff; and the cities can adopt any part of it if they wish.

Commissioner O'Brien stated page 7, Item 2, reads, "Any nonconforming permanent sign may be repaired and maintained. Nonconforming signs which require repairs that are equal to or more than 50 percent of the estimated replacement cost of the structure itself, cannot be rebuilt . . ."; and suggested the County have a scale of 65% now, 50% in 2002, 40% in 2004, and 25% in 2006 for replacement of nonconforming signs. Commissioner Carlson noted it would be the same thing as applying an amortization schedule to nonconforming signs that have incurred some damage. Chairman Higgs stated Commissioner O'Brien is discussing putting dates in the ordinance that bring the percentages into play. Commissioner Voltz inquired do people know their signs are nonconforming; with Mr. Moia responding they usually know it is nonconforming when they try to get a permit.

Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated staff will come back to the Board with several alternatives for amortization; they discussed the idea that if the sign is more expensive, there could be more time to amortize it; and that would be one alternative for the Board to review.

The Board reached consensus to direct staff to report back to the Board with alternatives concerning amortization for nonconforming signs.

Attorney Lepore stated it applies not just to repairs if there is destruction, but also maintenance; if somebody voluntarily replaces half of the sign or half the cost of the sign, it does not matter if it is destroyed; and staff will come back with options to explain it.

Discussion ensued concerning the demolition and new construction of signs, and cost to the businessman.

Chairman Higgs recommended staff report back to the Board concerning Commissioner O'Brien's concept of different dates and time periods, and different areas and roadways of the County, and how it might apply.

Commissioner O'Brien stated a memorandum from Ms. Busacca dated April 15, 1998, indicates a letter was forwarded on April 2, 1998, to approximately 75 sign companies informing them of changes to the Ordinance; the sign companies are being educated as to what the ordinance is; and through occupational licenses and commercial building permits, they are also informed.

Chairman Higgs stated staff's response to Issue 7 talks about average size and height requirements, and flexibility; and inquired if the Board needs to give additional direction to staff. Commissioner Scarborough reiterated he would like to look at photographs of actual signs. Commissioner Carlson requested staff review the scenic highway issue, as there is now a designation of scenic highway in the County; and stated the City of Melbourne has two different issues for free-standing signs, non-scenic and scenic corridors, and the height of those signs.

Mr. Moia stated a lot of the scenic corridors throughout the County that cities have adopted as scenic corridors are those roads that are four-laned with a median and have fast traveling speeds; those are the roads they have the lower signs on; and if the Board's direction is to have the bigger signs, it will be in conflict with the cities. Commissioner Carlson stated she does not know if there is any money associated with scenic corridors to landscape/beautify the corridors; but since the County has the designation, it might be applicable to assist those in certain areas and corridors that are degraded which need extra attention.

The Board reached consensus to direct staff to provide criteria regarding the scenic highway issue.

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 8 includes "changeable" and "interchangeable"; and inquired if staff resolved it. Mr. Moia stated the only issue with changeable copy is the amount the County would allow as a percentage of the sign; Mr. Sekore talked about the 50-50; currently 90% of the sign can be changeable copy; and staff previously brought 25% forward to the Board. He noted Mr. Sekore suggested the 50-50 split instead; he does not have a problem with it, as 50-50 is fair; and the County may want to keep some of the language that discusses changeable copy exceeding that for certain uses, such as movie theaters and entertainment halls where they have different events all the time and have to change the copy consistently. Commissioner O'Brien requested staff define a monument sign and what size it is.

Discussion ensued concerning portable signs, freestanding signs, and monument signs.

The Board reached consensus to revise language on page 20, section (5) changeable copy, to include "Changeable copy area shall not exceed 50% of the allowable freestanding sign's area and shall be included in the maximum allowable area" instead of "25%."

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 9 is a summary of the permits issued for the last six months and who obtained them; and it is included in Attachment 3. Commissioner Carlson stated Attachment 3 shows the number of permits pulled by sign companies; and inquired how is the County educating the people creating the signs, and who is actually pulling the permits. She noted it is $100 per permit and there are a lot of zeroes listed which concerns her; she is confused with the numbers and how the County makes sure conformance is captured; and inquired why the County is not getting more permits for the sign companies, and how can it have zero permits on signs if it requires a sign permit. Mr. Moia responded since the Board has directed staff to be proactive on signs, they go to the businesses on a daily basis to determine if they have permits for their signs. Commissioner Carlson stated the County would be helping itself to make sure there is a consistent body that puts in for sign permits. Mr. Moia responded who can pull the permit and install the sign is dictated by the Building Code; staff previously provided language that would discuss what an owner could put up and what would be the responsibility of a sign contractor; there is a vast difference; and somebody could put up a significant sign without getting a sign company to install it. He stated it is a cat and mouse game between the owner and the sign company of who is pulling the permit; the work gets done and everybody gets paid, but the permit somehow falls through the crack; and staff finds them when it can, but sometimes it is difficult to determine if they have a permit or not.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired would it be more appropriate for the sign company to pull the permit to fix, repair, maintain or put up a sign so there is a mechanism for it. Mr. Moia stated the Building Code is the mechanism that describes if there is a need for a contractor; that is the criteria the County uses; if they need to pull a permit, who can do the work is established by the Building Code; and there is no language in the Sign Ordinance that says the owner cannot pull a permit and install a significant sign without the use of a sign contractor if it is under the threshold of the Building Code. Commissioner Carlson expressed concern about many sign companies and so few permits; stated some sign companies have a lot of permits; and inquired if there is any standard the County is using, and who is responsible for the permit. Chairman Higgs inquired is the owner ultimately responsible; with Mr. Moia responding the property owner is responsible. Commissioner Carlson stated there may be individuals who are not pulling permits which is why there is nonconformance; it is a vicious cycle; the County is causing additional work on its end when it does not have all the rules and regulations; and the only way to follow it is to have a consistent permitting process. Commissioner O'Brien inquired is the fine still double the amount of the permit; with Mr. Moia responding if it requires a building permit the fine would be double. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if somebody puts up a sign and did not pull a permit, would the fine be double what the permit would have cost; with Mr. Moia responding affirmatively, and they would additionally pay a $500 fine. Commissioner Voltz inquired who pays the fine; with Mr. Moia responding the sign owner. Commissioner Voltz noted the County is not penalizing the sign company; with Mr. Moia responding that is correct. Commissioner Carlson stated the person who builds the sign should know all the restrictions in the particular county and relate them to the person who is buying the sign; it is buyer beware, but with any product somebody buys, it comes with directions; and there should be directions given to the owner of the sign. Chairman Higgs inquired if the County wants to increase the liability to the sign company and can it go that avenue for the installer to suffer some consequences. Attorney Lepore responded staff will review it and report back to the Board with options and ways to make installers more responsible. Commissioner Carlson noted the City of Melbourne cites both the owner and sign person. Commissioner Carlson stated there needs to be a streamlined permitting process.

The Board reached consensus to direct staff to provide options on how the sign installer will be more accountable to protect the people who are buying the product.

Commissioner Voltz stated she has seen large signs brought in on a truck for different motels and hotels that are not made locally; and inquired how does the County address them. Chairman Higgs responded they have to conform like anybody else. Mr. Moia stated staff notified the businesses located in Brevard County and businesses that have State or County licenses to do work in Brevard County.

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 10 is a request that the ordinance include a definition of conforming signs; the Board has talked about levels of conformity; and there is nothing more to address there. Commissioner O'Brien requested there be more administrative waivers.

The Board reached consensus to direct staff to provide additional language concerning administrative waivers.

Commissioner Scarborough stated page 23, section (6) includes houses of worship; and inquired does the County have a uniform house of worship provision for size, or does it anticipate if the house of worship is in a residential area it is different than in a commercial area. Mr. Moia responded it would be the same for both. Commissioner Scarborough noted the County could allow for adjustments because in a residential area less signage is needed; in a commercial area the County may want to allow the signage to be compatible; and there should be compatible signage with the exception of those in residential areas. Commissioner O'Brien stated page 25, section (2), setback, reads, "All temporary signs shall maintain a minimum five-foot setback from all property lines"; and inquired does it include the right-of-way; with Mr. Moia responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien inquired does it include the easements; with Ms. Busacca responding negatively, as an easement is within the property. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if a commercial business has a swale on the property up to the sidewalk, can the temporary sign be put across the swale; with Ms. Busacca responding those conveyance systems are usually in the right-of-way. Commissioner O'Brien inquired is the setback five feet from the right-of-way; with Ms. Busacca responding affirmatively, as that is where the property line begins. Attorney Lepore advised the sign cannot be put in the right-of-way. Commissioner O'Brien noted sometimes the right-of-way and property line are difficult to define. Commissioner O'Brien stated page 25, subsection (c) time limitation, reads, "Temporary signs subject to permitting requirements shall be permitted on a per month basis. No more than six temporary signs permits may be issued for a particular property within a 12-month period"; and inquired which signs are not subject to permitting. Ms. Busacca responded such signs include real estate signs, construction signs, and political/campaign signs. Commissioner O'Brien stated no more than six temporary signs permits may be issued for a particular property within a 12-month period is a lot; the reason the County approached the Sign Ordinance was to reduce visual blight; and six temporary signs is too many.

The Board reached consensus to direct staff to do a comparison concerning time limitation for temporary signs.

Commissioner Carlson suggested staff do an inventory of all non-conforming signs and provide an administrative waiver to make them conforming. Mr. Moia stated it is something staff could do, but it would be a massive undertaking to do the inventory. Commissioner Carlson stated Fernandina Beach's Ordinance includes a non-conforming sign provision where it uses a graduated method of amortization; she does not know how long it has been in place or how effective it has been; and perhaps staff can find out the details to see if it is worthwhile to do it, and how much staff time is required. Commissioner Voltz inquired if staff is going to address the area and height of signs, along with the size of roads; with Ms. Busacca responding affirmatively.

Discussion continued concerning specific rules and criteria, incentives, hardship cases, overlay districts, new standards, monument signage, and conformity.

Chairman Higgs stated the sign ordinance will come back to the Board, and the County Manager will schedule another workshop.

Charles Moehle stated property owners generally do not receive notices about signs; they are sent to the sign owners or the people who have the business; and encouraged the Board to not put any amortization schedule in place unless it has a procedure that it starts upon notification of the property owner. He stated if the County is going to make the property owner ultimately responsible, he needs to know what he is responsible for; and requested the County reiterate the notice provision. He noted on page 9, section (2), building permit, the County is requiring a building permit and calculations by a state-certified engineer or architect; it includes all types of signs, including wall signs; and inquired why do the provisions include wall signs, as they should be for freestanding signs or monument signs. Mr. Moia responded if the sign is over a certain threshold, even if it is a wall sign, it would require a permit because it is a structure; it is based on the Building Code; and once the sign is a certain size or has some kind of criteria that puts it over that threshold, an engineer needs to certify that the sign is going to be attached to the building properly and be subject to a certain wind load. Chairman Higgs advised it is the same language that is in the Code today. Mr. Moia advised criterion (f) reads, "For wall sign plans, the elevation of the building wall on which the sign is to be attached and a section showing how the wall sign is to be attached to the building shall be submitted to the Building Division for a building permit for a sign"; and the only criteria for a wall sign is under section (f). Mr. Moehle requested clarification language on criteria (b) and (f) and how they are labeled. Mr. Moehle stated page 12, section (17), Roadside stands, reads, "Signs which identify the roadside stand shall be exempt from permitting, subject to the provision that all signage is affixed and non-projecting, or painted on the stand structure and does not exceed 32 square feet in area and 10 feet in height"; the County is putting all kinds of restrictions on people who have permanent structures and nice buildings; and it is being arbitrary. Chairman Higgs requested staff review provision 17. Mr. Moehle stated animated signs or activated signs need a permit, but barber poles do not; and inquired what is special about a barber pole. He stated page 14, section (9) refers to signs, commonly referred to as wind signs, consisting of one or more pennants, ribbons, spinners, streamers or captive balloons, or other objects or material fastened in such a manner as to move upon being subjected to pressure by wind; and inquired what is it, and is it conflicting with some provisions. Chairman Higgs stated the whole section is enumerating things that are illegal. Mr. Moehle stated he does not understand what is making it illegal, and it seems to conflict with other provisions. Chairman Higgs requested staff review provision 9. Mr. Moehle stated page 15, section 9, Prohibited signs, subsection (31), 1, includes "Any other scenic corridors as adopted by incorporated areas within the County". Mr. Moia responded staff proposes to strike that language. Mr. Moehle stated page 20, section (3) refers to freestanding signs; those signs are eliminated for being ground signs; and it is not an appropriate elimination. He stated page 21, subsections (a) and (c), state, "Freestanding sign structures on the same ownership parcel shall be a minimum of 700 feet apart"; it is far apart and restrictive; and inquired what is it trying to prevent. Mr. Moehle stated page 22, subsection (c), Outparcels, (1) and (2) read, "Freestanding signs shall conform with Section 62-3316(b)(1)(a) of this Code. Wall signs shall conform to Section 62-3316(b)(1)(b) of this Code"; it goes back to the comment of one size does not fit all; and it does not fit with certain corridors, such as I-95, TU-2 zoning areas or other arterial roads. He suggested staff review it in conjunction with the widths of the roads, speed limits, etc.

Discussion continued concerning roof signs and signs attached to fences or walls, except as allowed for residential subdivisions under Section 62-2889.

Commissioner Scarborough stated it is important for staff to provide the revised ordinance to the Board and other interested individuals in sufficient time to review.

Commissioner Carlson stated page 20, section (2) refers to properties having vehicular access to public streets through easements; Post Commons, the new development on Wickham Road, has two large signs that have Publix on them; and she does not understand why there are two signs. She stated on top of those two large signs, there is clutter with Wendy's and other outparcels; there will be five signs which create the visual clutter the County is trying to work against; and it is in the existing Code. She noted Post Commons does not have any signage on Post Road and it put its frontage on Wickham Road; and the County needs to address it as only one sign is needed.

The Board reached consensus to direct staff to review page 20, section (2), "Properties having vehicular access to public streets through easements," including outparcels, and provide options.

Commissioner O'Brien requested staff provide information concerning overlay districts, and monument signs in Residential Professional (RP) zoning classification. Mr. Moia stated staff included criteria for non-residential uses in residential districts in the proposed ordinance, such as child care, home occupation, houses of worship, etc.; the Board previously considered all ground signs; and it is in the proposed language, but staff can review it.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if provisions for scenic highways have been added to the Comprehensive Plan; with Ms. Busacca responding the amendment has been made, and it is consistent.

Commissioner O'Brien requested staff provide language where both the owner of a building and the person erecting the sign have equal responsibility. He inquired what progress is the County making to rid itself of the growing visual blight of bench signs; and stated bus benches belong at bus stops. Chairman Higgs inquired if Commissioner O'Brien wants the concept of the Jaycees and bench signs brought back; with Commissioner O'Brien responding affirmatively. Ms. Busacca advised staff will provide a report to the Board on the status of removing those benches. Commissioner O'Brien inquired what is the County going to do to have signs inspected, and is it going to have a label for them. Mr. Moia responded every sign that gets a permit receives a sticker.

Gary Penna, Code Enforcement, advised not everybody picks up the sticker; and they are supposed to attach the sticker to the sign, but a lot of them do not do it. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the stickers can be mailed; with Mr. Penna responding affirmatively. Commissioner O'Brien requested staff provide him with a copy of the sticker the County is using.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 12:45 p.m.

ATTEST:

NANCY HIGGS, CHAIRMAN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)