The Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, met in special/workshop session on March 9, 2000, at 1:05 p.m. in the Government Center Commission Room, Building C, 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 County Attorney Scott Knox.

Chairman Higgs led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT, RE: INDIAN LANDINGS

Commissioner Scarborough advised since the Board voted on Indian Landings, several people contacted him regarding whether or not the Board's action violated the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he contacted Peggy Busacca and Scott Knox and asked them to further respond; and Mr. Knox has prepared some information regarding the standing of the people with an interest. He noted it is broadly defined, but they can take action to have it reconsidered or revisited by petition filed with the County within 30 days of the Board's action. Commissioner Scarborough stated he wanted the Board to be aware that there were questions regarding whether or not it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, and recommended staff return with additional information and reports.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the information will come back in writing; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that would be appropriate, so all Commissioners can see it.

DISCUSSION, RE: SIGN ORDINANCE

Commissioner O'Brien advised this is a workshop only; and the Board has agreed to have the public hearing on the sign ordinance at an evening meeting to give an opportunity to people who work or own small businesses to be part of the process. He stated any revisions made by the Board today will be heard at the public hearing; and this is not the final passing of the ordinance.

Chairman Higgs advised the workshop is to discuss amendments to the Sign Ordinance; staff will make a presentation of the proposed changes; Commissioners have written comments and comments made at meetings; and after staff's presentation, the Board will entertain the recommendations then open the floor for public discussion, as she assumes the Board wants to take public comments at this workshop. She advised the public who wish to speak to fill out cards; and noted they will be given five minutes.

County Development Engineer Bruce Moia advised last year the Board directed staff to prepare language for a sign ordinance; on July 27, 1999, staff presented that language; and the Board directed staff to take it to the community. He stated staff worked with the community on the ordinance; met with various business organizations, cities, and development committees; and did two live radio broadcasts to inform the public on what they were trying to do and to receive feedback. He stated staff is requesting the Board consider the amendments, discuss the revised language, and direct staff on where to go from here. He stated staff received a lot of written and verbal comments, and tried to summarize those into certain issues; and he will present one issue at a time, with the first issue being abandoned signs.

Mr. Moia advised the proposed language would change an abandoned sign where a business had not been conducting business for 180 days, to 10 days, because if the sign is not being used, it should be removed. He showed slides of examples of abandoned signs.

Mr. Moia advised the next issue is repair of damage to nonconforming signs; the existing language says if the sign is damaged in excess of 50% of the replacement cost, they cannot repair the sign and it would be removed and replaced with a conforming sign. He stated the proposed language sent to the community said 25% rather than 50%; and with all the discussions they had and a recent Ordinance adopted by the City of Titusville, staff provided revised language which basically says to keep the 50%, but if a nonconforming sign is damaged to the extent that either the support structure is severed, the foundation lifted out of the ground, or the sign case is totally detached from the support structure, it would be considered completely destroyed, and no value can be put on it that would say it meets the 50%. He noted staff is recommending that direction instead of what it proposed in the previous language.

Mr. Moia advised the next issue is removal of illegal and abandoned signs; the existing language says all illegal and abandoned signs have to be removed within 60 days of the adoption of the Ordinance, which was back in 1991; the proposed language says with the adoption of this ordinance, all illegal signs will be removed within 60 days; and if a sign was not installed by a contractor and would be required to be installed by a contractor, the owner would have seven days to remove it because it would be considered an illegal sign, or the owner would have to get an after-the-fact permit and comply with the ordinance. He stated the new language would also say when the business is discontinued, all nonconforming signs will be deemed abandoned and must be removed within ten days, and temporary, illegal, or abandoned signs would be removed immediately.

Mr. Moia advised they did not get a lot of feedback on the flags issue; and the language says a flag is basically anything that is a piece of fabric with a colored pattern that represents a country, religion, or organization rather than something that says "open," "welcome," etc. He stated the American flag is considered a flag, but all the other things hanging from light posts or pseudo posts would not be considered flags and would not be exempt.

Mr. Moia advised the next issue is change of copy; the Code allows the owner to change the copy of a nonconforming sign; the proposed language would not allow the owner to do that without a permit. He stated if he has a nonconforming sign and a new business came in and wanted to change the copy on the sign, if it was in a frame, and they wanted to pull the old panel out and put in a new panel, that would be a nonconforming sign and would require a permit; therefore, it would have to come into compliance.

Mr. Moia advised the next issue is window signs; the current ordinance allows 50% of the window to be covered by signage; and the proposed language would reduce that to 25%.

Mr. Moia advised Issue 8 is prohibited signs; they added prohibited signs to the list based on the ordinances they reviewed throughout the State and County; they added awning signs, fence and wall signs, and signs that simulate movement, strings of lights, wind signs, off-premise signs, projecting signs, intensity, bright or colored signs, signs with sound, etc.; and showed a slide of examples of such signs. He stated the proposed ordinance was to be established Countywide; however, the response from most municipalities was they would tend to opt out if that was the case. County Manager Tom Jenkins inquired if the municipalities said they would opt out or that they did not want to be included; with Mr. Moia responding they do not want the ordinance on top of their Ordinances.

Mr. Moia advised Issue 9 is work that is allowed by a contractor and owner; staff specified what work an owner cannot do and what would require a licensed contractor; the current language says the owner can install a sign as long as the Building Code allows it; and the proposed language says the owner can only change the copy of a conforming sign, paint or repaint a sign, install a temporary sign, or any sign that would be exempt from requiring a building permit.

Mr. Moia advised Issue 10 is the on-premise sign design criteria; staff took the whole design criteria and rewrote it; and what used to be allowable with posts, columns, or poles now requires all free-standing detached signs to be monument style signs which means all the supports would be concealed and require landscaping around it. He stated they reduced the allowable sign surface area and height considerably and required a sign program for multi-tenant facilities to have uniformity within the facility. He stated the current language does not restrict the type of sign; the size can be 150 square feet or 300 square feet aggregate, depending on the size of the site; they could have up to 300 square feet if they have a big enough site to have two or more signs on it; and the height would be 20 feet. He stated they could have one sign for every 200 feet of frontage; the setback is 15 feet; and a wall sign would be one square foot per linear foot of the building frontage. Mr. Moia advised the proposed language for a monument sign size is based on use from 16 to 72 square feet; the height would be limited to 12 feet; and they can only have one sign on any frontage, but the setback would be reduced to 10 feet. He stated the wall sign size would not change; and showed a slide of the examples. He stated a freestanding sign would be required to have landscaping, and signs on the walls must match the freestanding sign for a multi-tenant facility.

Mr. Moia advised they changed the language for transient tourist signs; if they are within half a mile of an interchange, which would be consistent with TU-2 zoning, they could have 200 square feet maximum and up to 60 feet in height; the proposed language would say 150 square feet and 35 feet in height, and the setback would be 50 feet from the property frontage. He showed a slide of interchange signs with indexes put up by FDOT to encourage people to use those businesses.

Mr. Moia advised the last issue is temporary signs; staff changed the language saying the size and setback will be different and the height would be reduced; and showed examples of temporary signs, banners, streamers, balloons, and those types of things that would no longer be allowed.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board had any questions at this time.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the community spent time going through the proposed ordinance item by item; and rather than having a five-minute presentation, the Board should allow continual dialogue with them to fully understand their concerns. He stated after the public comments, perhaps the different Chambers or other people could be available to respond as the Board goes through the items.

Chairman Higgs advised any Commissioner can ask additional questions of the speakers; and suggested they sit towards the front to facilitate the discussion.

Pat Fuller, Brevard Community College Titusville Campus faculty member, advised the City of Titusville proposed a new sign ordinance in the Spring of 1998; the intent was to enhance the appearance and visual standards of the community; during extensive review over 1998 and 1999, concerns were raised by the City, businesses and Chamber of Commerce about the impact and cost of compliance with the sign ordinance; and as a result, the City got together with the Chambers and proposed a new sign ordinance that passed in the Summer of 1999. He stated the Chamber asked the College to determine how much money was saved with the cooperation of the Chamber, City, and businesses; explained in detail what the College students did, including measuring wall, ground and changeable copy signs, and working with City government, Chambers, and a sign company; and stated the result was they were able to show that if the initial ordinance had passed without revisions businesses would have had to pay between $300 and $7,500 in fines for noncompliance; and with 90% confidence, they calculated that roughly $3,327,000 was saved. Mr. Fuller stated the faculty is always looking for ways to work with government; and encouraged the Board to use something of that nature with its proposed sign ordinance. He noted the students and faculty at Melbourne or Titusville Campus would be happy to work with the County.

Hy Reed, Comptroller for Lathem Automotive Group in Cocoa, advised the Group owns Lathem Auto Sales on North U.S. 1, Doug's Amoco north of SR 528, Cocoa Auto Salvage in Cidco Park, and Doug's Towing on U.S. 1, so signs are important to them. He stated they agree with cleaning up the County; however, signs should be 20 feet because 12 feet is too small, and the 66% reduction should be 20% which would still allow signs to look better for the community.

Andy Sacchitella, representing Space Coast Bookkeeping and Taxes and various business clients throughout the community, advised of their concerns regarding repair of damaged signs, abandoned sign definition, and the ten-day requirement to remove signs which affect their renters agreement and could result in legal action. He stated usually renters leave and they do not know about it; requested the Board reconsider that provision so they do not get caught in a legal issue; and noted 30 days would be more reasonable. He inquired what are considered conforming and nonconforming signs; with Mr. Moia responding if this ordinance passes, anything that does not comply with the ordinance would be nonconforming; and if they want to change the copy of a sign in the future, they would not be able to do it without a permit and bringing the sign into compliance. Mr. Sacchitella requested a definition of what is considered intensely bright and colored signs, as 99% of the signs in Brevard County have color; with Mr. Moia responding intensely bright refers to signs that would be considered unsafe to the traveling public and would be tied into the County's performance standards for off-premise lighting; any lighting not contained on the premise would be considered bright if it did not conform with the standards; and it was strictly related to fluorescent lighting. Mr. Sacchitella inquired if there is a way to measure that as 99% of the lighted signs are fluorescent; with Mr. Moia responding there is a quantitative number in the Code. Mr. Sacchitella advised the cities decided to opt out of the County's ordinance; and inquired if every business in the County has to comply with it regardless of whether or not the cities opt out; with Chairman Higgs responding no, depending on how the ordinance is written, it can apply to only the unincorporated area or countywide which would include the cities, but the cities can opt out; and if it is written not to include the cities or they opt out, they do not have to comply with County requirements. Commissioner O'Brien suggested sending the ordinance to all the cities for review and the opportunity to opt in rather than have them opt out. Mr. Sacchitella advised the construction standards include repairs and what business owners can and cannot do; he replaces the lamps and switches when necessary; and inquired if all they can do is paint and change the lettering; with Mr. Moia responding if an owner wants to repair a sign, the ordinance does not say he or she cannot, as long as the cost of repair does not exceed 25% or 50% of the cost of replacement value of that sign, depending on what percentage the Board chooses; and if a repair is done that required a building permit, whether for electrical, mechanical, or something that is not covered by the ordinance, it would be covered by the Building Code.

Commissioner Voltz inquired how would staff determine who is changing their signs; with Mr. Moia responding it would be an enforcement issue, and they would have to have enough people to ensure they could enforce the ordinance. Mr. Moia advised there are people patrolling the County, and as they become familiar with the sites and signs and document every site, they will know what signage is on the site; and if they go by and see that the sign has changed, they do not have to be there on weekends, but they would notice it during the week. Commissioner Voltz inquired how many signs are in the County; with Mr. Moia responding there are approximately 9,000 businesses in the unincorporated area of the County. Commissioner Voltz inquired if staff is going to trust someone's memory that the sign is different; with Mr. Moia responding they document the site and take pictures of signs on the property; and they do become familiar with what is out there.

Commissioner O'Brien again suggested sending the finished product to the cities for comments. Commissioner Scarborough stated they commented on a proposed ordinance sent to the community, but if the Board makes major changes, it may want to go to the cities out of courtesy to let them know where the County is with the ordinance. Chairman Higgs stated there is clear indication the cities do not want to be part of it, but as a courtesy staff could send it to them. Commissioner Scarborough stated the cities opted out of something that was not a final draft. Commissioner Voltz stated if the Board wants to adopt an ordinance the cities would want to come in with, that is what it needs to do, but it should not suggest they come in. Commissioner Carlson stated if all the cities have their Sign Ordinances and are happy with them, they may want to review the County's ordinance and take certain provisions and integrate those into their Ordinances. Commissioner Scarborough stated Titusville went through an extensive discussion on its Sign Ordinance and would not want to do that again. Commissioner Carlson stated it would take an exorbitant amount of time to try and retrofit all the cities ordinances and make everyone happy which probably will not happen; so the Board should go forward with its ordinance. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Board should keep the cities informed as promised. Chairman Higgs stated there does not seem to be an indication to be a part of the County's ordinance, but staff could send the cities a copy of the ordinance for review.

Priscilla Griffith, representing the Partnership for Sustainable Future, substituting for Kim Zarillo, advised the League of Women Voters of the Space Coast has not studied the sign ordinance enough to make a statement; that does not mean the League would disagree with it; and it may have specific comments at a later date. She stated the Partnership feels the changes appear to move Brevard County in the direction it should go; this type of ordinance has been successful in upgrading other communities; and it should work well for Brevard County.

Carol Roach, owner and operator of the Best Western Inn at I-95 and SR 520 in Cocoa, advised of her personal experience relating to the present and proposed sign ordinance; presented photos of the hotel logo sign prior to September, 1999, in November, 1999, and today; and explained in detail what happened to the sign when Hurricanes Floyd and Irene came through Brevard County. She advised of the problems she encountered in trying to obtain a permit to replace the cabinet and panels, application to the Board of Adjustment for a waiver, and the sign sitting without panels for six months as an eyesore. She described the sign in detail with two cabinets to support the electrical mechanism and to frame the logo panels on a single support pole, and advised they were denied a permit, as the County claimed they had two separate signs and were replacing 100% of the sign. She stated the sign was approved by the County and installed previously; currently they are trying to repair 10% of the total sign dollar-wise which is less than 50% allowed by the current Ordinance; the proposed ordinance restricts the maximum to 25%; and they are still less than that, yet were denied a permit. She stated the County would allow her to replace the panels in the logo portion of the sign, but she wants to replace the whole cabinet housing the panels which would still only be 10% of the total sign, because the cabinet was damaged when the hurricanes blew out the panels. Ms. Roach stated the new cabinet is a foot smaller in length which would reduce the overall square footage of the sign; that was not acceptable to the County; but the County would allow the use of the existing cabinet, which is weak and could pose a danger in future storms. She stated the State has passed a law that forbids businesses from taking advantage of others in a natural disaster; and inquired why is Brevard County taking advantage of a natural disaster to harm the local businesses. She stated the County should first properly administer the current Sign Ordinance, then determine if changes should be made to the existing Ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if staff is enforcing an ordinance that has not been adopted yet; with Mr. Moia responding no, there is a clause in the current Ordinance that says in no case, regardless of the cost, shall a nonconforming sign be replaced. Mr. Moia stated Ms. Roach's proposal is to remove the sign completely and replace it with a new cabinet with panels; staff denied the permit; they applied to the Board of Adjustment; and the Board of Adjustment upheld staff's ruling.

Chairman Higgs advised the better option is to get this item explained as part of an agenda item at a regular meeting so the Board will have all the facts in writing. Commissioner Scarborough stated by not allowing the owner to fill in the panel it has become an eyesore; and inquired what does the Board want to see happen under the current Ordinance. Mr. Moia stated if they want to repair the sign, they can do that without a permit; they can repair the frame and replace the panels without a permit; but because they want to remove the sign and replace it with a new cabinet, the Board of Adjustment agreed it was a total replacement.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Ms. Roach wants to repair the hole in the sign or put up a new sign; with Ms. Roach responding there are two cabinets; the bottom cabinet is the electronic mechanism which has to be sealed within itself; there is a structural pole that goes through it; the panels have to sit in something to keep them secure; the cabinet is bent; she can put panels in it; but she has a $6,000 sign ready to be installed sitting in a warehouse, and it would only be a matter of lifting off the damaged cabinet and putting on the new cabinet. She stated when she was given permission to construct the sign, it was one sign and now someone is trying to read into it that there are two signs. Commissioner Scarborough inquired when it is repaired will it look the same as before; with Ms. Roach responding the new panels will be a foot smaller. Chairman Higgs requested staff clarify the issues.

Mr. Moia advised there are multiple cabinet signs throughout the County; and any time a cabinet is removed or replaced, they require a permit. He stated because this sign was considered to have two separate cabinets, it is no different than a shopping center that may have five cabinets on the sign; it is permitted at one time when it is originally installed; but when one cabinet gets removed or replaced, it requires a permit; and if it is a nonconforming sign, they cannot remove the cabinet because it is considered a total replacement. Chairman Higgs instructed staff to give the Board a report and put the item on the Agenda. Ms. Roach stated if she is allowed to put the cabinet up, it would look exactly like it did before except it would be one foot smaller. Chairman Higgs stated it would still be a nonconforming sign, which is part of the issue.

Commissioner Voltz inquired how old is the sign; with Ms. Roach responding ten years. Chairman Higgs inquired if it is a nonconforming sign being replaced by another nonconforming sign; with Mr. Moia responding that is correct. Discussion ensued on replacement or repair of the Best Western Inn sign.

Paul Secor, President of Titusville Area Chamber of Commerce, continued to comment on the study done by Brevard Community College, noting a savings of $3.2 million; stated he worked hard on the Titusville Sign Ordinance for over a year; and when he reviewed the County ordinance, the first and most crucial item he saw was the removal of abandoned signs. He stated ten days is unreasonable to declare a sign abandoned; if a property is leased and the tenant changes, it could destroy the property by requiring the business owner to remove the sign for the next tenant; and the abandoned sign applies to all signs but does not address nonconforming signs. He gave a scenario of someone who starts a business, puts up a monument sign that meets Code, then ceases to operate and in ten days the sign is considered abandoned and in 60 days must be removed; and stated he does not understand why the Board penalizes people who are conforming to the ordinance. Mr. Secor advised the next item is the 50% damage rate; if a sign is damaged 25%, it does not make sense to replace the whole thing; but once it gets pass 50%, the argument can be made that it would be prudent to replace it. He stated if an owner changes the copy on a nonconforming sign, it does not mean a new owner; it could be an owner offering a new line of products or renaming a business; a good example is an auto dealer; auto dealers switch makes or merge and could go from Geo's to Chevy's; if the sign said Geo, it would not be appropriate; but if it is a nonconforming sign, they cannot change it to say Chevy. He stated it may seem like a minor point, but with a $30,000 sign, if they cannot change it to advertise the products of their businesses, it is unfair to the business people. Mr. Secor stated free-standing signs were reduced to half of what the current business person has now, and in some cases down to one third; he cannot come up with an analogy to figure out what the Board could do to affect a business person by suddenly taking away two-thirds of his building size, parking area, etc.; and that seems radical. He stated changeable copy is different from change of copy on a nonconforming sign; changeable copy is changing letters that slide in and out to advertise products and services; they are popular with florists, restaurants, hotels, etc.; the Chamber has one and so does the Police Station; and it is effective to advertise special events that are going on, but reducing it to 10% does not leave room to advertise special events, so that needs serious review. Mr. Secor stated signs are a significant part of the infrastructure to a business; it is part of the property value; it is part of a building to re-rent or re-sell; and a lot of the changes will affect new owners and economic development in the County if the ordinance passes as is.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the study analyzed the difference between the original Sign Ordinance in Titusville and a subsequent Ordinance; with Mr. Secor responding they analyzed the difference between the proposed ordinance similar to this ordinance and what was done after all the negotiations and meetings took place, but it was only done on three factors. Chairman Higgs inquired if the increase in value of property or business or positive factors other than the cost were analyzed; with Mr. Secor responding they did not because he does not know how they would quantify that. Chairman Higgs inquired if property values increased at any place; with Mr. Secor responding he is not aware of it as they did not have appraisals done, but signs are part of the value of property and the ability of a business to advertise its goods and services; and the size of the sign is linked to the value. Chairman Higgs stated most value of property is an income valuation or property valuation; with Mr. Secor responding if a $20,000 sign is erected and they have to tear it down and put up a $10,000 sign, they would lose $10,000 of infrastructure; so it is not logical to say because they removed $10,000 of infrastructure from the property, the value would go up; with Chairman Higgs responding it might if business increased. Mr. Secor noted there could be unique situations where that could happen, but he does not know of any examples.

Commissioner Scarborough requested Mr. Moia respond to the comment on abandoned signs; with Mr. Moia responding Mr. Secor is correct, it applies to all signs according to the definition. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if that is the County's intention if it has an acceptable sign that conforms to the ordinance; with Mr. Moia responding it depends if the new tenants can use it or if they want to put up their own sign. Commissioner Scarborough stated sometimes a tenant will give notice and it takes a while to get someone else in; someone said rather than 180 days they would need 30 days; but conceivably it could take a year or more. Mr. Moia stated the intent of the abandoned signs is so they do not have those structures out there with no advertising material on them for a long period of time. Commissioner Scarborough stated he appreciates that, but is uncertain if it has to be torn down when someone who comes in later may like what was there previously and have to rebuild the same thing; with Mr. Moia responding staff could modify that provision. Mr. Secor stated they put in the Titusville Ordinance that it is mandatory for an owner of the property to white face the sign to exclude the ad and make it more aesthetically pleasing.

Commissioner Voltz inquired if changeable copy changes 25% of the sign, how is that handled; with Mr. Moia responding currently they have a certain size sign area; right now 90% of the sign area can be used as changeable copy; the proposed language is 25%, not 10%; so they can change the copy of the sign. Commissioner Voltz stated if it reduces letters from 4 inches to 2 inches, what does that accomplish; with Mr. Moia responding it may reduce the length of some messages. Mr. Moia stated changeable copy has a use, but they tend to be abused also; they are not maintained or changed and updated; some are left blank or fall off or people rearrange them to say undesirable things; and with all the Ordinances they studied, it was determined to minimize the area of changeable copy to be more aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if a strip mall with ten stores and one vacant store would have to take down the whole sign and white it out.

Geo Ropert, substituting for Heidi Brandon of Cocoa Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, advised the Chamber wants to thank Mr. Moia for reviewing its comments, and capturing a lot of its issues as part of the responses to different parts of the ordinance. He stated the Chamber believes the current Ordinance is pretty good, but needs enforcement; he understands there is a list that was developed some time ago of businesses that were in nonconformance; staff could track that list down, start fixing those signs first, and bring them into compliance; and they could monitor the effectiveness of enforcement. He stated the Chamber has issues with various parts of the ordinance, including abandoned signs, prohibitive signage, sign height and size, and time limitations. He recommended the 60 days be two consecutive 30-day periods so if a person is putting up a sign at the end of the month that goes into the next month, he or she would not have to buy two separate permits. Commissioner O'Brien inquired where is the item in the ordinance; with Mr. Moia responding page 25, Section 62-3317(c)(1). Commissioner O'Brien stated "temporary signs per month" should be changed to "permitted on a 30-day consecutive basis." Mr. Ropert again expressed appreciation to the Board for listening to their concerns.

Lee Bohlmann, Melbourne-Palm Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, advised the Chamber wants the area to look good; it wants businesses to look good; businesses want businesses to look good; signage, frontage, and landscaping invite people in; so they have a consensus for enhanced signage and aesthetic beauty. She stated businesses also do not want to spend a lot of time at other places unless it is with customers; and they are concerned that so many things in the ordinance require getting permits and taking time away from their businesses. She suggested being more customer friendly in those kinds of things and not impede business so much. Ms. Bohlmann advised the Chamber thought the present Code was fine, but is not enforced; the new code will offer changes; but if it is not enforced, it is not going to get the Board the things it wants. She suggested spending six months enforcing the current Code and seeing what the County will look like at that point, then phase in other concerns. She stated ten days and thirty days are strict and fast when it comes to businesses; they want to make changes when appropriate, but some things take time; and identified Ms. Roach's quick response to repair her sign, but not getting the attention she needed. Ms. Bohlmann stated government continually asks for more permits, more designs, and more professionals to come in and advise businesses on certain things; and all that takes time and money. She stated business owners work hard and do not have a lot of extra time to attend meetings, that is why the Chambers come out and the business people do not; the Chambers want to work with the cities and others; and encouraged the Board to look at other cities' Sign Ordinances, noting Titusville and Melbourne have good Sign Ordinances, and would add some cohesiveness throughout the County. She expressed appreciation to staff for taking the time to listen to their concerns; and stated they are frustrated and wonder why it has to be more restrictive than what it used to be, and what it will mean to the business community to understand and facilitate all those changes. She stated many of the changes are unclear and confused her, so she can imagine how they will affect a person trying to start a business in the community and the frustration that person will feel trying to understand those things. She requested the Board be logical and simplistic and consider the end result of what it wants; and stated if it wants to clean up signs, it should look at the current Ordinance. She stated what she hears from people is that the County has not done enough to enforce the Code and remove bad signs; and unless it does that energetically and efficiently, it is going to have the same problems with the new sign ordinance. She stated they look forward to talking with the Board further on the document and offering other insights it may need.

Leah Selig, Space Coast Association of Realtors, agreed with the Chambers' comments on specific aspects of the ordinance; and suggested the Board look strongly at the existing Ordinance, and consider keeping it and policing it effectively rather than going to a more restrictive ordinance. She inquired if there is difficulty enforcing the current Ordinance, what will be in place to enforce the more restrictive ordinance. She stated the fact that a lot of the cities opted out of the ordinance makes her wonder what business communities will be served by the new ordinance; and she lives on Merritt Island, and is sure that is the area the ordinance is targeted to because it is the largest business community in the County.

Commissioner O'Brien stated it is not targeted toward Merritt Island at all; Brevard County is 79 miles long and 33 miles wide; it will affect Merritt Island, but it will also affect other unincorporated areas such as Port St. John. Ms. Selig thanked Commissioner O'Brien for the clarification and noted she did not mean to say it that way. She stated if the current Ordinance was enforced, the Board would not be dealing with this issue today; and hopefully that is something it will look at.

Dan Farley, Burger King, agreed with the last two speakers on enforcement of the current Ordinance; and stated the County does not have sufficient manpower to enforce the current Ordinance. He inquired, if they close a restaurant to remodel, would they have to take down the sign or abandon it for a new use and new tenant. He stated two restaurants had faces blown out of the logo signs during the hurricanes; business sales went down immediately by approximately 25%; and the day after the signs were replaced, they went to positive 10% and have remained positive since. Mr. Farley stated signs for restaurants, particularly along the Interstate would not be seen if it is lowered to 35 feet; DOT has signs informing transients of the locations of restaurants; but that has not been as effective in getting people to stop and spend their money in Brevard County. Mr. Moia advised if a person is conducting business and remodeling, that person is not discontinuing the business; and the ordinance was not written with the intent that he or she would have to redo the sign. He noted they may want to consider changing the sign as part of the remodeling, but it would not be required. Mr. Farley inquired if conducting business means his cash register has to be operating; with Mr. Moia responding no.

Daniel Dunnivant, Lamar Advertising, stated the issues are very precise; virtually every sentence in the ordinance affects someone on-premise and off-premise; and he submitted comments on the off-premise signs, so he will not go into it because it is very complex. He stated he spent many years working with shopping center developments; many tenants come in and out; and it takes a long period of time to get another tenant, so the language as written will have a substantial effect on a lot of businessmen. He stated the study BCC did could not quantify certain things; it is hard to quantify damage of anything; so he would like to further discuss those issues including the change from 50% to 25% for damage to signs. Mr. Dunnivant requested the Board keep them involved in the process; and stated they want enforcement of the existing Ordinance.

Nancy Watson, owner of Vital Signs on Merritt Island, advised she would make more money because the signs proposed in the ordinance are more expensive than what is allowed under the current Ordinance, but being a small business owner she knows how hard it is to afford signage. She stated most of her friends are small business owners; they are horrified by the new ordinance because they cannot afford to meet the Code; so it is a slap in the face to small business owners. She stated she does not recall any person in the sign industry on the committee; it is like making new rules and regulations for the construction industry without a contractor, or changes to the medical profession without a doctor on the committee; and a lot of things in the ordinance are absolutely stupid, because whoever made the rules knows nothing about the sign business. She stated someone said the signs would be 20 feet in height and his delivery trucks cannot get under them; and she heard that several times in her shop from customers who read the proposed ordinance. Chairman Higgs advised they will be ground mounted signs, so the Board does not want them going under the signs. Commissioner O'Brien stated if a truck is taller than 20 feet, it should not be on the roads in Brevard County; the average height of an 18-wheeler is 14 feet; last week a garbage truck was squeezed under a bridge because it was 14 feet 1 inch; and they had to let the air out of the tires to get it out. Ms. Watson stated she received several complaints about that. She stated Issue 5 is change of copy; most of the time her workers pull the permits for customers; very rarely does a business owner do that because they do not want to leave their business; and she does not have the manpower for every little permit being proposed to change the sign copy. She stated they do window lettering at least once a day and cannot pull that many permits; Issue 6 reduces window signs from 50% to 25%; if a business is far back from the road, the sign would not be effective; the majority of window lettering her shop does, which customers seem to be happy with, is 50%; and there is nothing wrong with that. She stated there is nothing wrong with lettering on awnings; sometimes fences are the only places some businesses can put signs; and if it is tastefully done, it could be nice. She stated it would be a tremendous cost to put up an architectural-type sign on a pole big enough to be seen from the highway. Ms. Watson stated a lot of times the permits cost more than the signs; and that should be looked into. She stated temporary signs are proposed to be reduced from 32 square feet to 24 square feet; 4'X6' is not that different than 4'X8'; but sign shops will have to do more work to cut off the extra two feet because the boards come in as 4'X8'. She stated four feet in height is ridiculous; and if they had asked someone in the sign industry to be on the committee, they would not be here today.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Board sent the proposed ordinance to the Chambers and cities in July, 1999; and if there were committees formed, they were not by the Board and could have been formed by individual Chambers to study the ordinance. Ms. Watson stated her Chamber did not call her; and inquired who came up with the ordinance; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the Board asked staff to prepare a proposed ordinance with changes to the Sign Ordinance and to send it out for input. Chairman Higgs stated the Board started the discussion and directed staff to proceed; staff did a yeoman's job in talking to people; and the Board did not form a committee. Ms. Watson commented perhaps there should have been a committee. Commissioner Voltz stated there was a committee when she first came on board. Ms. Watson stated she was invited to the Licensing Board hearing but none of her suggestions were used; requested the Board keep the current Ordinance and enforce it; and advised of her experience with a sign inspector who did not know the rules. She stated the current Ordinance should be enforced by people who know what they are doing, which could solve a lot of the problems.

Chairman Higgs inquired if someone can submit an application for a permit online; with Mr. Moia responding no, they can fax it, but it is not online at this time. Chairman Higgs inquired what is the permit fee; with Mr. Moia responding $100 per sign plus an additional charge if they need a building permit.

The meeting recessed at 2:37 p.m., and reconvened at 2:50 p.m.

Commissioner Voltz advised representatives from the cities are in the audience waiting to see what position the Board will take on whether or not it wants the cities to opt in or out of the ordinance, or what it wants to request of the cities at this time.

Chairman Higgs advised Commissioner Scarborough suggested a copy of the revised proposed ordinance be sent to the cities for review, and if they want to opt in, they could.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to prepare the proposed sign ordinance for the unincorporated area, but keep the cities fully informed in case they want to adopt the same ordinance with minor variations. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Charles Moehle, President of Modern, Inc., advised the existing Sign Ordinance is sufficient and needs to be enforced, as previously stated; that should be the first issue, then there should be a cooling off period; the Board could then address other issues it wants to; but redoing the entire Sign Ordinance will be damaging to businesses and commerce. He stated Issue 11 is a complete change in TU-2 designation located at interchanges of I-95; the purpose of signs in TU-2 is to get travelers off I-95 and to spend their money in the local economy; there have been many studies over the years; and anyone involved in a business around an intersection is aware if the sign is less than 60 feet high and less than 200 square feet in size, it cannot be seen from the Interstate and is therefore ineffective. He stated it is also a public safety hazard for people traveling along I-95 who cannot see the signs soon enough; and it is inappropriate and harmful for commerce and the County as a whole. Mr. Moehle advised another concern is the spacing of the signs at a minimum of 200 feet; fast-food places do not have 200 feet of frontage; so that criteria should not be there and should be 100 or 150 feet. He stated all the people who come in and build on the sites do their own scientific sign studies and figure out where their signs are going to be so they would not interfere with other signs; and the TU-2 provisions should go back to the original provisions. He stated Issue 10 deals with on-premise signs and requires a monument sign for many properties; it is inappropriate and unnecessary, particularly for existing and small properties, and will cause major hardships; many of those sites do not have space to put those types of signs, particularly existing businesses; and there is no reason a monument sign should be required on a site of less than two acres. He stated it is a hardship; in some cases it cannot be put on the sites without being in violation of setbacks, etc.; and suggested the Board leave the current Ordinance alone.

Commissioner Scarborough stated Issue 11 says additional 35 feet height; the language says, "additional freestanding pole-mounted sign oriented toward. . . with maximum height of 35 feet; and inquired if the Board is giving sign owners an additional 35 feet above what is there or an additional sign; with Mr. Moia responding an additional sign. Commissioner Scarborough inquired what good is an additional sign because once they come off the interstate, there are so many businesses it would almost be a visual clutter, as opposed to giving them additional height so they can be seen from the interstate. Mr. Moehle stated they are allowed 60 feet now and an additional monument sign or on-premise sign of 35 feet in height and 150 square feet in size.

Commissioner Scarborough stated philosophically more signs may not help whereas signs seen from I-95 may; and having a multitude of signs does not have a net benefit. Commissioner Voltz stated it would just add another sign, which is what the Board is trying to get rid of. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board needs to discuss the concepts of signs near I-95 and whether the additional signs will help or confuse travelers. Mr. Moehle stated it took over six to eight years to develop the Ordinance for TU-2 and a month or two to throw it out. Chairman Higgs stated the proposed ordinance uses the fundamental structure of the original Ordinance and makes amendments to that; it is not a totally new ordinance; and it has been in process since July, 1999, and not a month. Mr. Moehle stated TU-2 has been totally eliminated and rewritten, and this is the first time he has seen it.

Maureen Rupe from Port St. John advised she is not a member of the Chamber, not a business person, has no gain or loss by the ordinance, but is a resident of Brevard County who drives every day and is tired of seeing visually degrading, tacky, gaudy, and confusing signs. She stated Mr. Moia did an excellent job on the proposed ordinance, and she supports it. She stated she is concerned about the economy and business people, so she called Port Orange Chamber of Commerce and was advised the Sign Ordnance had no adverse effects on business, and it had no complaints from businesses. She stated she called the Planning and Zoning Office of Port Orange and received the same response; so it would behoove the Chambers to contact other cities and counties that have restrictive Sign Ordinances so they can report the complete picture to the businesses. Ms. Rupe stated 75% visibility into a store window would give more safety than 50%; she does not understand why businesses want to keep wind signs; and inquired if she would not know it was a car lot if they did not have the ribbons. She stated carnivals and school festivals can be dealt with on a temporary basis; mentioned signs for Kennedy Space Center and McDonalds as being unnecessary; and noted she has not seen a rotating face sign, so if there are any, they are not effective. Commissioner O'Brien advised Viera has a rotating sign on I-95. Ms. Rupe stated rather than convince the cities to come in, the County should set the example; people prefer to shop in pleasant surroundings; Brevard County shoppers drive to Vero Beach Outlet Mall as opposed to Orlando because it is aesthetically pleasing; hopefully the cities will realize and opt in before their businesses are affected; and other businesses will think twice about locating in the cities if the Board beautifies the unincorporated area. She stated sign restrictions have been implemented nationwide; Titusville cannot be the city beautiful while people have to drive on SR 50, Garden Street, and U.S. 1 where there are numerous signs; signs cheapen all of Brevard County and are visually degrading to residents and tourists; and urged the Board to go forward with the ordinance.

Len Beckett, owner of Rockledge Roses and Wines, stated he takes issue with the statement, "Establish and maintain a character for the County by regulating all exterior signage in a manner which promotes low profile signage of high quality design"; and inquired by whose perception and who decides those things. He inquired since when does the Board regulate personal desires, likes, and tastes; and stated signs reflect a business's individual style and taste. Mr. Beckett inquired who decides if signs "protect and maintain visual integrity," and how many accidents have been caused by elderly people looking for a business who cannot read a sign. He stated there are two accidents a day in front of the Publix Shopping Center in Rockledge because people cannot tell whether or not a business is in that shopping center. He read, "enhance the appearance of the physical environment by requiring signage to be designed as an integral architectural feature of the site"; inquired who has the right to determine what somebody looks like other than the individual; and stated they have individual rights as to their businesses. He read, "foster civic pride and community spirit by maximizing the positive impact of development"; stated it is an oxymoron because he has never heard of positive impact of development; and inquired what does it have to do with signs. He read, "nonconforming signs or advertising structures shall be permitted to be erected on the same place of business with an existing nonconforming sign until the nonconforming sign has been removed or made conforming"; and inquired what happens in a shopping center. He inquired if anyone priced what it cost to change the face of a sign. Mr. Beckett stated Brevard County is not Port Orange, Hilton Head, or Vero Beach; and inquired how much of Port Orange's infrastructure and homes are more than ten and 15 years old, and how many signs did it have to force to be replaced when it created the Ordinance. He noted that City almost did not exist ten years ago, so to depend on it as an example for the sign ordinance is unrealistic. He stated it is important for his business to have a good image; he is restricted with signage where his business is located; people cannot see the sign he is allowed; the other portion of the sign is a two-inch thing that says Rockledge Roses and Wines; because the sign companies are so busy, he has waited five years to see his name on the reader board; and it is not worth $100 to put two-inch letters up there. He stated the proposed ordinance and concept of changing it needs to be revisited; and he would like to know what it cost to come up with the proposal, how much was spent on travel, and every dime spent to come up with the proposed ordinance. He stated the Board knows it is not going to pass, and knew it from the beginning; and to expect the small businesses to foot the bill again is ridiculous. He stated they are overly hit and it needs to stop; if residents want things to look better, they should quit putting up puppies for sale signs on telephone poles; and those signs can be seen often on Fay Boulevard in Port St. John.

Chairman Higgs advised Mr. Jenkins there is a citizen's request regarding the cost to produce the proposed ordinance that needs to be responded to.

Jackie Gregory, North Brevard Beautification Commission, advised much of the proposed sign ordinance is based on Port Orange's Ordinance; and inquired if that Ordinance is considered so restrictive, why is that business community thriving with continuous new construction and very few empty buildings, and why would Lowe's, Wal-mart Super Center, Applebee's and Chili's locate in Port Orange if the sign and landscape Ordinances are too restrictive and there are other communities and unincorporated areas of Volusia County that are nearby with less regulations. She stated lowering the height of signs and reducing them to a uniform size will level the playing field for everyone; the competition for the biggest and highest sign will disappear; and visual clutter will be eliminated. She stated another issue not considered is safety; during hurricanes and powerful storms, tall signs are the most likely to become dangerous missiles; and that should be addressed in the ordinance.

Keith Houston advised his family owns Crest and Master Cleaners; they have 13 locations, six of which are in the unincorporated area; and 66% is extreme. He stated if the Board thinks 66% is not extreme, it should reduce the amount of money Mr. Jenkins can spend by 66%. He stated it is not fair or reasonable; the permit fee to change the sign face adds another cost to a business and is ultimately designed to be an enforcement issue; and if the current Sign Ordinance was enforced, the Board would not be concerned about signs today. He stated the current Ordinance allows linear footage to be accepted into the amount of the sign; if there is a multipurpose building with at least three tenants, they can have a larger sign so each business could have a reasonable chance to catch the public as they go by; and the way the proposed ordinance is written, if they have three businesses in a building, they can have a 6'x8' sign and that is all. Mr. Houston stated a lot of people move in and out of the County, and about 20% of the people move within the County; he loses about 20% of his customers every year; and if he loses the ability for people to see his signs and come in, it would not take five years to lose the majority of his customers. He stated they have been in Brevard County 30 years, but with 20% of the people moving each year, they need a reasonable sign to convey to people where they are and hope they will come into the business.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to go through each issue and give direction to staff.

Commissioner Voltz advised enforcement is a big issue, whether it is the old or new ordinance; and if the Board would spend money on enforcement officers and enforce what it has, it could then see what it needs. She stated more laws will not make a difference unless it enforces what it has; and that is where the Board needs to focus. She stated there is a lot of money to be made by sign companies; however, they are also opposed to the ordinance because of what it will do to the business community. She stated it is not just one business, it is 9,000 businesses that would have to change their signs; and in order to enforce the ten-day rule, someone would have to drive by 9,000 signs every ten days to see what is going on. Commissioner Voltz advised she has been to Port Orange and it is beautiful; it is a relatively new city, and they grandfathered in the old section with high signs and odd sized signs which are not very nice; this County would have to grandfather in the entire County; and she is not sure if that is what the Board wants to do. She reiterated that enforcement is what the Board needs to look at before it looks at anything else; and stated if it is not willing to spend money to enforce what it has and hire more enforcement officers, then passing the ordinance will do nothing for the community. She stated the Board would be passing a feel-good ordinance to make itself look like it is trying to make the County beautiful, but it is not; so it needs to enforce the current Ordinance, see what the community looks like in a year, see if it made a difference and made it a better place to live, and look at quality of life issues instead of making more regulations. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board does not know if the current Ordinance is working because it has not been enforced; it does not know if it would have a better looking community with enforcement; and although she agrees with some of the proposed ordinance, she is not sure that is what the Board needs to do given the fact it has not enforced the current Ordinance.

Commissioner Scarborough advised the Titusville Chamber of Commerce worked with Transformation Titusville and did not produce the sign ordinance overnight; all Commissioners have been to Port Orange, which is not a rich community; there are areas in Brevard County that are more affluent and have a higher tax base; but Port Orange has shown it does not have to be a Boca Raton or Palm Beach to do the right thing. He stated one thing a businessman is concerned about is the value of his property; if a business is in an area for a period of time, its clients and customers know where it is; but if the area deteriorates, and deterioration is most apparent and rapid with signage, that business is hurt more directly. He stated limiting the size and number of signs would reduce the cost to the businessman and eliminate the frenzy of more and bigger signs which cause visual clutter. Commissioner Scarborough stated communities with good sign Ordinances have high-rent districts and less vacancies, so there would be more prosperity; and those communities should be checked out to determine if they are improving the economy of the businessman or hurting him. He stated the Board has the ability to create a community that people will choose to move into with a better sign ordinance; people do not choose to move into areas where there are no restrictions; but the ordinance needs to be analyzed to determine if it will impact existing businesses. He stated Ms. Roach made an excellent point with her sign problem; and it would have been better to work with her and have the sign repaired. He inquired if Brevard County wants to bring in companies it wants to the area, and more affluent retirees, or does it want to become the low-rent district in Florida. He stated if it is a low-rent district, taxes will go up and citizens will have less service; and this ordinance is part of that solution, so the Board needs to move forward.

Commissioner Carlson advised sign companies are required to obtain permits for signs they produce for clients; and inquired if they are getting the proper permits, and can the Board get a report on the number of signs those companies put out and what permits were issued to make sure they are abiding by the Code. She stated they may be proliferating the County with nonconforming signs, based on the comments from staff. She suggested getting a list of the names and signs put out on the street at the time the sign companies' occupational licenses are renewed to make sure they are getting permits for those signs. She stated the number of permit applications submitted to staff has been minuscule compared to the comments from the owner of Vital Signs about all the permits she had to draw. Chairman Higgs noted it would be interesting to know the number of sign permits issued in the last six months and who is getting them. Commissioner Carlson inquired if that is something staff can do, and how many sign companies are in Brevard County; with Mr. Moia responding there are an estimated 85 sign companies, and staff has been issuing less than one sign permit a day. Chairman Higgs instructed staff to give the Board a summary of the permitting and what is happening.

Chairman Higgs advised Issue #1 is the abandoned sign definition revised to include off-premise signs, number of days, and definition; and people complained about the ten days. Commissioner Scarborough stated another issue was all signs as opposed to only nonconforming signs.

Commissioner Voltz advised Mr. Moia made a statement that cash registers did not need to be operating during remodeling to still be in business; but the proposed ordinance says, "any off-premise sign shall be considered abandoned if the business identified on the sign has not been conducting business at the location noted on the sign for a period greater than 90 days." She stated if they are renovating, they are not in business, and that time would be included in the 90 days; and if it meant something else, the language needs to be changed. Mr. Moia stated that was not the intent, but staff can change the language if it could be interpreted in that fashion. Commissioner Voltz stated it is not an interpretation, it is what is said in the ordinance.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the ten-day abandonment period is the same for on-premise signs; with Mr. Moia responding no, when the ordinance was written they talked about off-premise signs, but since the ordinance was brought to the Board, there were other ordinances that were adopted that addressed off-premise signs; so staff will be taking the language out and including the existing language the Board has already approved. Commissioner Voltz inquired what is the other language; with Mr. Moia responding 180 days for off-premise signs based on certain factors which the attorneys are working out. Chairman Higgs inquired how long would it be for an on-premise sign; with Mr. Moia responding that language would not be included now that it has an Ordinance that addresses that, but would still be ten days in lieu of 180 days for on-premise signs unless the Board chooses to modify that. Commissioner Voltz requested a visual definition of on-premise sign; with Mr. Moia responding a sign within the site boundaries detached or on the wall of the business. Commissioner Voltz stated if a restaurant closes its doors, the County can tear the sign down after ten days even though within a month another restaurant may open in the same facility which does not make sense. Chairman Higgs inquired if there is another time period the Board wants to consider. Mr. Moia advised staff could look at only nonconforming signs, but most new businesses that come in where an old business was will change the sign, put a new face in the cabinet, or change channel letters where they have to take the sign down and put up the different name of the business. Commissioner Voltz stated that is a different story; it would be at the expense of the new owner; but the ordinance does not give the new owner an option to change the face of the sign or install a whole new sign. Mr. Moia stated no, it does not; and shopping centers are good examples because the ordinance also requires multi-tenant facilities to have a program so if a tenant moves in where there was an existing sign, that sign would conform generally with the rest of the facility rather than have different styles throughout the complex.

Chairman Higgs advised Issue #1 includes off-premise signs in the definition of abandoned signs.

Commissioner O'Brien stated Section 62-3301 talks about on-premise signs, and states, "Any permanently fixed structure that is erected or maintained for the purpose of advertising the name of a business, service, accommodations, products or activities which are actually offered for sale on the premises on which the sign is located." He read, "If the business identified on the sign has not been conducting business at the site on which the sign is located or at the location noted on the sign for a period greater than ten days. . ." which goes back to what Commissioner Voltz said; and inquired what would happen if a business in a strip mall left and another person wants to rent the unit. He stated the strip mall across from Villa de Palmas has empty stores, and if the ordinance is adopted, they would have to totally remove the sign; with Chairman Higgs responding the shopping center sign would not be removed, just the sign for the business. Commissioner O'Brien stated if a shopping center has five businesses and one of the businesses leaves, in ten days that sign has to be removed, the owner of the center has to get a truck, take down the sign, and leave a big hole in the sign; and inquired if the owner could install blank panels; with Mr. Moia responding no, according to the proposed language. Chairman Higgs inquired if it would be reasonable to put in a filler blank and allow 30 or 60 days; with Commissioner O'Brien responding 90 days is reasonable, but two or three years later if the sign is faded and paint is peeling, it may be a problem.

Commissioner Carlson stated the owner of a strip mall with a nonconforming sign cannot change the sign until it conforms to the Code. Mr. Moia stated that was the intent; if the owner cannot replace the sign, eventually it would be to the owner's advantage to make the sign conforming so the tenants can advertise their businesses. Commissioner O'Brien requested Mr. Moia clarify his statement; with Mr. Moia responding if the Board chooses to allow owners of existing nonconforming signs to replace the panels, they will remain nonconforming unless they are destroyed. Mr. Moia advised if the strip mall gets new tenants, those tenants would not be allowed to advertise on the structure, so the sign will become useless to the owner who would be compelled to put up a conforming sign. Commissioner O'Brien commented he is not sure he wants to do that.

Commissioner Scarborough stated abandoned signs went from 180 days to 10 days, and regardless of when the sign is deemed to be abandoned, it will be removed in 60 days; and gave a scenario of a sign that is in conformity, but a new tenant does not move in within the 30 days so the sign had to be torn down and rebuilt. He stated if a sign is something the County likes, it would not want the sign torn down because there has not been a tenant for 30 days; the owner may not have time to advertise within those 30 days; so something needs to be addressed. He indicated the Board wants to get rid of problem signs and not nice signs. Mr. Moia stated of all the ordinances they reviewed, that was the strictest criteria. Commissioner Scarborough stated the Legislature goes back every year and corrects things in the laws, and this is the first draft of this ordinance, which needs tweaking. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to give staff direction regarding the Issue.

Commissioner Voltz stated she has no idea what impact it will have on shopping center owners or business owners or how often they change signs; and no business will rent in a shopping center if a sign cannot be installed, so there will be defunct shopping centers all over the County. Commissioner O'Brien stated businessmen will look elsewhere, perhaps in a city that allows changing of signs. He stated if he owned a shopping center with ten stores and one tenant moved out, he would have to remove one panel and would not be able to replace it; however, the flip side is it would be in his best interest to tear down the sign and build one that conforms with the Code so he can get another tenant. He stated if the sign costs $20,000 and leaving the store vacant costs him $1,000 a month, losing another tenant would force him to have a sign that conforms. Commissioner Scarborough stated that is unreasonable. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board needs to determine what is reasonable. Commissioner O'Brien stated it needs to be reasonable to the public and the owner of the property.

Commissioner Scarborough stated the Board should ask Mr. Moia to come back with new language rather than tell him what to say, otherwise the Board would spend a lot of time on trivial items.

Chairman Higgs advised what she has heard on this issue is ten days is too short and replacement of one sign on a multi-facility structure sign does not necessitate the replacement of the entire sign. Commissioner O'Brien stated an on-premise sign should not be replaced because one or two tenants moved out or the business changed hands; but if it is destroyed beyond 60%, they would have to replace it with a conforming sign; and that is fair and reasonable.

Discussion ensued on different scenarios regarding removal of the entire sign, legal signs, conforming signs on property that has been vacant for a year not being considered abandoned because it goes with the property, nonconforming signs, and time limits.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the problem is the definition of abandoned signs. Commissioner Carlson advised it is not explained; the definition just says nonconforming, and reads, "Nonconforming sign is any sign which was lawfully erected and was in active use on or before the effective date of the Ordinance from which this article is derived, but does not comply with the regulations of this Article or any subsequent amendments." She suggested language that says what a conforming sign is, which may be more self-explanatory.

Commissioner O'Brien stated if there are 800 signs that are nonconforming and never permitted, those are illegal signs; and inquired if a tenant moves out, will the sign be gone also; with Chairman Higgs responding yes. Commissioner O'Brien stated the County should not tear down someone's sign because a tenant moves out; on the other hand, if someone has a sign that is nonconforming and never permitted, and the store is empty, they could tell the owner the sign has to be torn down. Chairman Higgs stated illegal signs, whether today's tenant or next week's tenant will be enforced; a number of people said they need to enforce the Code against illegal signs and it does not matter if it is a new or old tenant; so if it is an illegal sign, it should be gone. Mr. Jenkins stated they could come in and make it a legal sign. Commissioner Carlson suggested tracing the signs back to the companies that are actually putting them out illegally, and that should help solve some of the problems. Commissioner O'Brien stated it needs to be made clear in the ordinance. Commissioner O'Brien read the definition for off-premise sign as follows: "Any permanently affixed structure that is erected and maintained for the purpose of advertising a name of a business, service, accommodation, product, activity that is not available on the premises where the sign is located. Any off-premise sign shall be considered abandoned if the business identified on the sign has not been conducting business at the location noted on the sign for a period greater than 90 days, or if the advertising structure is in a state of disrepair per a section of this Article." He stated 90 days is a long time for a billboard sitting on a site and the business is closed, and suggested 30 days.

Commissioner Scarborough stated he does not know how to deal with the situation involving the sign for Best Western in Cocoa as presented by Ms. Roach; she has a $63,000 sign with landscaping around it; if it was tacky and ugly, with sandspurs underneath it, that would be totally different; and somehow the Board needs to be more lenient in what it considers nonconforming, as capital investment, landscaping, and maintenance increase. He stated he has a problem telling someone with an attractive sign except for dimensions, that the sign cannot be installed. He stated there is a difference between an old junk sign and something that may not meet the new requirements but speaks volumes in terms of capital investment and care. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to see language that allows some flexibility and recognizes levels of nonconformity and some way to handle it; with Commissioner Scarborough responding if Mr. Moia has the answer, he would like to know what it is. Commissioner Carlson inquired if it would be reasonable to consider exemptions or waivers; with Mr. Jenkins responding staff will discuss it and try to come up with recommendations.

Commissioner Voltz stated Commissioner O'Brien suggested 30 days for off-premise signs; however, 90 days is not a lot of time to rent a business facility. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is nonconforming signs or any off-premise sign; with Commissioner Voltz responding it does not say. Commissioner O'Brien advised of signs erected on SR 520 for the skating rink, and the Chamber wanting to put a sign on SR 520; and stated if the Board is not careful, it could have signs all over the place. Chairman Higgs inquired if there are restrictions on where off-premise signs can be installed; with Mr. Moia responding yes, an Ordinance was passed last year that prohibited off-premise billboards; there is no allowance in the existing Code for off-premise signs under 32 square feet; and anything over that would be a billboard which is prohibited.

Commissioner Voltz stated if Code Enforcement could get rid of all illegal signs, but not the nonconforming signs, the Board would be able to see what signs are left in the County. Chairman Higgs stated if the Board does not set the standards in the ordinance now and goes out and enforces the Code on illegal signs, some of the nonconforming signs may be illegal, and it may have to go back and enforce it again. She stated the Board recognizes the need for enforcement, but it needs to enforce a standard that is reasonable. Commissioner Voltz stated if the ordinance is passed, conforming signs could be made nonconforming; every new business has to come in under the new code and the conforming sign may be stuck in the middle of tall signs and not be as visible, which could impact the new business. She stated the face of Brevard County will not change over the first five years because not everybody will tear down old signs and put up new signs; so new businesses will be at a disadvantage with the lower conforming signs. She stated it could also be a safety issue because people driving down the street looking for the place may not find it because they are looking above the conforming sign.

Chairman Higgs suggested giving incentives so everybody would want to come into compliance; stated it could be a two-step process, such as if they come into compliance the first year, they would get an advantage on the size of the sign or the setback; and the second year could be something else. Commissioner Voltz stated the Board could consider reducing the value of the property by the cost of the sign for one year so their taxes would be less; with Commissioner Scarborough responding that would be paying them to do it. Commissioner Voltz stated the new sign could improve the property value, and the property would be reappraised after the first year. County Attorney Scott Knox advised he is not sure the Board can do that, and would have to look into it. Mr. Jenkins inquired if the State has to authorize any kind of tax abatement or rebates; with Mr. Knox responding not necessarily, and it would depend on the circumstances.

Chairman Higgs stated she wants to hear from the County Attorney what options the Board has for incentives and from staff on incentives that may encourage people to come into compliance. She inquired if someone wants to make a motion in terms of numbers or wait until the ordinance comes back; with Commissioner Scarborough responding Mr. Moia has been listening to the conversations, so the Board should let him come back with recommendations.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to deal with Issue 2. Mr. Jenkins advised staff's alternative is to leave it at 50% except if the sign is badly damaged as set forth in the City of Titusville's Ordinance.

Motion by Commissioner Scarborough, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to accept the language contained in the City of Titusville's Ordinance for Issue 2.

Commissioner O'Brien inquired if it is possible to say 50% in the year 2000, 55% in the year 2002, 60% in the year 2004, and 65% in the year 2006. Commissioner Scarborough stated rather than the amount of damage, it should go to the type of damage, and consider what Ms. Roach brought up about the same or smaller sign. He stated if the pole snaps off and they put in new poles, that could be less than 10%. Commissioner O'Brien mentioned the billboard behind Ray's Tires on SR 520 causing problems and cannot be removed because it is grandfathered in; inquired how will that be approached; and noted there are ten to fifteen of those types of signs that should not exist. Mr. Jenkins stated only through inventory could the staff identify those signs. Mr. Jenkins stated the alternative language is, "A nonconforming sign damaged to the extent that the support structure is severed or lifted from its foundation or lifted out of the ground or the sign case is totally removed from the support structure or wall shall be considered destroyed and shall not be replaced except in conformance with this Article"; and staff recommended leaving it at 50%.

Commissioner Voltz advised of a tornado in Indialantic that pulled the Mobil Oil Gas Station sign out of the ground, but the sign was not broken; and stated if it was a nonconforming sign, they could have put it back up again, so the proposed language is better.

Chairman Higgs called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs advised Issue 3 deals with removal of illegal and abandoned signs; and inquired if the Board wants staff to come up with additional options that deal with multi-facility tenant signs; with Commissioner Voltz responding yes.

Chairman Higgs advised Item 4 deals with flags. Commissioner Voltz inquired if it pertains to the American flag, Florida flag, etc.; with Commissioner Scarborough responding no. Commissioner O'Brien stated it says, "A banner made or temporary sign made of paper, cloth, or fabric of any kind having only such material for a backing, banners may or may not have characters, letters, logos, illustrations or orientations applied thereto. Banners shall include any animated rotating lettering devices designed to attract attention. Balloons and pendants shall be considered to be banners. National flags and flags of political jurisdiction including flags of states and municipalities shall not be considered to be banners." Commissioner Scarborough stated the American flag is not included.

Chairman Higgs advised Issue 5 deals with nonconforming signs, requires a permit, and brings existing signs into conformance before copy is changed. She stated the Board discussed that and asked staff for more options.

Chairman Higgs advised Issue 6 pertains to window signs reduced from 50% to 25%. Commissioner Voltz requested an example; with Commissioner Scarborough responding gas stations load windows up with posters. Mr. Moia stated most gas stations and convenience stores that advertise prices and goods plaster the windows until they are almost opaque. Commissioner O'Brien stated if it is a problem with convenience stores and gas stations, perhaps the ordinance could be specific to those operations. He stated the owner of a store in a strip mall may want to put the name of the store on the window with lettering a foot tall which could consume 50% of the window; and those businesses could be hurt by the requirement. Commissioner Scarborough stated what bothers him is the clutter and not a nicely done sign. Commissioner O'Brien stated rather than reducing the 50%, it could be restricted to be the business name and service rendered, so if Circle K wants to put beer, cigarettes, chewing gum, candy, etc. on the window, it could do that, but could not put up posters all over the windows. He noted it is a different approach, to allow the percentage but restrict the use, or it could just apply to service stations and fast food restaurants. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board can do that. Commissioner Voltz stated it is a safety issue with gas stations and convenience stores being held up because when policemen drive by they cannot see inside the store. Commissioner O'Brien stated government cannot be a nanny to a series of stores whose owners know they are susceptible to robbery; and if they want to block their windows and their people are shot, robbed, or killed, they are liable. Mr. Jenkins indicated 50% may be a State requirement. Commissioner O'Brien stated the provision should not pass based on clutter of windows because it would impact other stores such as those in Cocoa Village; the writing on the window is 18 inches, but it is nice; and the Board should not tell business owners in the County they cannot do that.

Commissioner Voltz stated there are businesses that have names across windows, and there are convenience stores that plaster posters all over where the police cannot see into the stores; and inquired if the Board can isolate those types of stores versus other stores for safety reasons; with Mr. Knox responding if safety is the reason, he thinks the Board can do that. Commissioner Scarborough inquired if the Board can distinguish between the type rather than the content of the sign and how the sign is affixed to the window; for example, if it is painted, that is one thing, but if it is preprinted, it would have a different regulation. Mr. Knox stated that would be looking at the nature as opposed to the impact of the sign; and if the reasoning is to be able to see into the building because of security, how the sign is put up does not make a difference. Commissioner Scarborough stated he was concerned about the clutter look; with Mr. Knox responding the Board has legal grounds to regulate aesthetics if clutter is a concern. Commissioner Scarborough stated an antique store with antique lettering across the glass that makes it more opaque is totally different than a convenience store with cigarettes, beer, candy, etc. signs on the windows. Mr. Knox stated theoretically the Board can do it, but the question is does it want to do it.

Chairman Higgs inquired if someone wants to make a motion or have staff come back with language that addresses the situation with window signs.

Chairman Higgs advised Issue 7 relates to prohibited signs and has been totally revised; and inquired if the Board is comfortable with the new list at this time and will look at it specifically when it comes back. Chairman Higgs advised Issue 8 has been dealt with.

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 9 relates to what the owner or contractor can do. Commissioner Scarborough inquired why is it to the County's advantage not to have the owner do certain things; with Mr. Moia responding it would have better control of permitting signs so they do not proliferate the site. Commissioner Scarborough stated owners of several buildings can reduce their costs by doing more of the work; and he does not want to deny a person the right to work on his own premises. Mr. Jenkins advised the Building Code will regulate whether they need a licensed electrician or whatever. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to leave it as predominantly regulated by the Building Code; with Commissioner Voltz responding yes.

Chairman Higgs advised Issue 10 relates to smaller monument signs. Commissioner Voltz stated it is a disadvantage to new businesses coming in to have a monument sign among tall signs; the elderly population is increasing, and they drive around looking for things; so the Board needs to consider what kinds of problems it will create. She stated she likes the monument signs as they are more attractive, but realistically they could cause problems. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants to go forward with the monument signs and ask staff to come up with some incentives for existing businesses for discussion, and if the Board wants more information on the impact of certain mile-per-hour areas regarding the size of the sign.

Commissioner Voltz stated "reduction of changeable copy area from 90% to 25% is a radical change; and suggested doing it in small increments to see how it works. Assistant County Manager Peggy Busacca stated the Board may wish to consider districts similar to Port Orange; there are certain districts where most of the development is new; the examples would be the Port St. John connector, Grissom Parkway, and other areas that are newly developing; and in those areas there would not be an unfair advantage for any commercial because all the signs would be the same and come under the new standards. She stated in Port Orange they found that the communities outside of the sign districts began to look at the districts as desirable areas and voluntarily began to use the new monument signs as signs were replaced. Commissioner Voltz stated that is the way it should be, the community should drive it and not the Board. Chairman Higgs noted there could be dueling communities.

Commissioner Scarborough stated some people spoke in opposition to the requirement, but other businesses strongly support a good sign ordinance because it is good for business and property values; and it adversely affects property values, business, and rents if there is not a strong sign ordinance. He stated when Ms. Rupe called Port Orange Chamber, the response was it was good for business; and inquired if the Board can create incentives and make it work. He stated Mr. Knox can bring back ideas on incentives such as freezing the appraised value for a period of time. He noted because the sign ordinance could improve the business, the Property Appraiser may raise the assessment; and if the Board can freeze the assessment for a number of years, it would indicate the Board wants to work with the business community.

Commissioner Carlson inquired if there were any economic or safety studies regarding monument signage or any of the different types of thoughts that went into the Port Orange Ordinance that made it interested in getting into monument signs other than aesthetics; with Mr. Moia responding he has not seen anything from Port Orange, and only saw one study that showed the correlation of the size of letters to the speed of the roadway and how safe it makes it; and he has those numbers if the Board wants to see them. Commissioner Carlson inquired about height in terms of safety; with Mr. Moia responding it was strictly how large the message had to be relative to the speed of the road.

Mr. Jenkins advised Ms. Busacca talked about creating districts; the Board could create districts for old and new areas if it prefers the monument signs; and it could create some flexibility on dimensions to get businesses in the old district moving to monument signs, or provide different standards for the new and the old districts.

Chairman Higgs instructed staff to return with various implementation strategies and incentives for Issue 10.

Commissioner Scarborough stated districts will fragment Brevard County because it will visually impact people; and it is not what the Board should be doing. Chairman Higgs stated she does not want to do overlay districts, but wants to look at incentives and implementation strategies to encourage people and reward them for doing it the first year, second year, etc. maybe by the size of the sign or different things; but the County should not be divided into districts.

Commissioner Voltz stated signs have gotten out of hand because the Board did not fund Code Enforcement officers to enforce the current Ordinance; it needs to look at every proposed ordinance and consider if it can or cannot enforce it to the fullest extent; and if it cannot enforce it, then it should not pass it. She stated Mr. Moia said the sign permit is $100; a lady said it cost more for the permit than for her to do a small sign; it does not make sense and is not enhancing what it wants to enhance; so the Board needs to look at some criteria that would allow for certain size signs, dollar value of signs, etc. and start the permit fee at $25 based on the criteria. She noted it may get more people to comply at $25; and $100 may be cheap for a $63,000 sign, but not for a copy change of $100 or less.

Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board wants some options for Issue 10; with Commissioner Scarborough responding yes.

Chairman Higgs stated Issue 11 is for TU-2 property and allows 35 feet in height. Commissioner Scarborough stated there is no reason for an additional 35-foot sign and no justification for higher signs, so staff should come back with options. Chairman Higgs inquired if the Board agrees; with Commissioner Voltz responding she agrees.

Commissioner O'Brien stated page 8 of 28, Section 3306, says, "including but not limited to all on-premise signs, off-premise signs and change of copy"; change of copy is if a business sells the facility to another business, they have to change the sign and get a permit; however, if Burger King wants to put "Whoppers 99 cents" on its sign for a week, that is a change of copy and the owner would need to get a permit because the ordinance does not say he can do that without a permit. Commissioner Voltz stated that needs to be specified in the ordinance. Chairman Higgs instructed staff to ensure there is some interchangeable ability on those signs. Ms. Busacca stated there is a difference between changeable copy and change of copy; the changeable copy is when people put different messages up at will; and change of copy is permanent language that is changed. Chairman Higgs instructed staff to ensure it is properly defined. Commissioner O'Brien stated page 20, Section 3316, Design Criteria for Free-standing Signs, says, "Freestanding signs shall not exceed 12 feet in height"; there are also provisions for 35 feet along I-95; some of the roads are four-laned such as U.S. 1 and SR 520; and if someone in a Winnebago is going to the beach and another person is in a car in the middle lane trying to find a sign, that person will not see the sign with four lanes traveling 30 to 40 mph. He stated 12 feet will not do well on those roads; and the Board may need to consider a different height for roads that are four lanes or wider. Commissioner Voltz noted it was suggested at 20 feet somewhere which is shorter than most of the signs on those roads. Commissioner O'Brien stated it is not important on a two-lane road, but more than two lanes should have higher signs. Commissioner Scarborough stated signs should not be garish and harsh; and if the Board goes with taller signs, maybe requiring landscaping around it will soften the impact. Commissioner O'Brien stated the Landscaping Ordinance addresses some of that; and suggested the ordinance say refer to "Ordinance so and so, page so and so, paragraph so and so."

Chairman Higgs suggested a height mitigation scale; and stated if they do certain things to enhance and beautify their signs and soften the effect, they could get two feet, or some matrix that allows visual enhancement without totally reducing the height. Commissioner O'Brien stated he does not think a businessperson would want to put in half an acre of landscaping for a 24-foot sign; with Chairman Higgs responding if the Board wants to provide the flexibility the business community seems to be asking for, and get the visual appeal the Board is looking for, then it needs to talk about incentives. Commissioner O'Brien stated it could end up with lower signs next to higher signs just for extra landscaping. Commissioner Scarborough stated if it is a two-lane road and the speed is slow, an exception is not needed; however, the Board should get the data on the size and height of a sign based on speed and distance from the site, then it can decide what to ask for in landscaping. Commissioner O'Brien inquired if the square footage of the sign is sufficient to require certain amount of landscaping; with Commissioner Scarborough responding the speed and distance should be considered. Commissioner Scarborough stated there should be studies that say what size letters are needed from a certain distance for the average person to be able to read it.

Chairman Higgs recommended staff come back with alternatives that may help deal with the issue, and see if there is some way to come up with incentives and mitigating factors.

Motion by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Voltz, to direct staff to return with alternatives that may help deal with the issue and some way to come up with incentives and mitigating factors. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Chairman Higgs advised the ordinance will come back at a regular meeting for discussion about the options developed by staff. Commissioner Voltz suggested an evening meeting; and Commissioner Scarborough recommended the next draft be sent to the Chambers and other interested parties with sufficient time to get their respective groups involved; and inquired how long would Mr. Secor need to work on the ordinance after he receives it; with Mr. Secor responding he would like to have 30 days but would opt for 60 days. Commissioner Voltz stated it may not be able to be heard at an evening meeting in May and would have to wait until July, 2000. Commissioner Scarborough stated the moment it is sent should set the clock for when it comes back to the Board.

Chairman Higgs suggested the ordinance come back to the Board at an evening meeting between 45 and 60 days from when people receive their copies.

APPROVAL, RE: ALTERED AND ADDED PRECINCTS

Supervisor of Elections Fred Galey advised there is a new precinct and polling place so people do not have to drive almost to Brevard Community College to vote.

Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner O'Brien, to approve revised and new precinct legal descriptions for Precincts 134 and 162. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.

Commissioner Scarborough inquired if Mr. Galey will drop some of the names from the ballot; with Mr. Galey responding he does not have word from the State, but if the State tells him Mr. Bradley has withdrawn officially, he has to do that; however, Mr. Bradley has not released his delegates so he may not; but if he does, the Democrats will not have a contest and there would not be a ballot at the polls for them. He stated all the candidates are still on the Republican ballot because John McCain only suspended his candidacy; none of them have withdrawn as yet; so there are still six names on the Republican ballot and two names on the Democratic ballot. He advised all voters to bring a photo identification to the polls.

Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m.

ATTEST:

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

SANDY CRAWFORD, CLERK
(S E A L)