HomeMy WebLinkAboutVII (A) Discussion/ Action re: Appeal of Planning Director's Decision re Sign Permit Request by all All Women's Fitness Center TATrgenda7-06-99
"CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" wt9roRY❑oAissIoNER
Ocoee S. SCOFF VANDERORIFT
o CITY OF OCOEE COMMISSIONERS
0 ►,j;' a ' DANNY HOWELL
Q 150 N. LAKESHORE DRIVE
,,,yyy,,, p SCOTT ANDERSON
r. 0 OCDEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258 RUSTY JOHNSON
1j �.T (407)656-2322 NANCY J.PARKER
F*Of G000�`
CITY MANAGER
ELLIS SHAPIRO
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 1, 1999
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
'y�dr�t
FROM: Russ Wagner, AICP, Director of Planning ✓
SUBJECT: All Women's Fitness Center Sign Permit Appeal
ISSUE:
Should the Mayor and City Commissioners uphold the Director of Planning's interpretation of
the Land Development Code relative to a sign permit?
BACKGROUND:
Mr. Bernard Palluck, the owner of All Women's Fitness Center, applied for a wall sign permit
for a retail space next to Fumitureland within the Village Market Place. This is the shopping
center located at the southeast corner of State Road 50 and Maguire Road behind Pizza Hut,
Long John Silvers and Twistee Treat. Mr. Palluck, at the time of the appeal, had not pulled a
building permit or occupational license with the City. It was the City Attorney's opinion,
however, that even though all Women's Fitness Center was not a licensed business within the
City of Ocoee, they nonetheless had a right to apply for a sign permit and subsequently appeal
its denial by the Director of Planning. Specifically, the Code permits a wall sign up to 3 feet in
height with a total of 36 square feet of area. Mr. Palluck sought a permit to install a sign that was
36 feet long and 2 feet in height for a total area of 72 square feet.
I'r atect Goer! ('t._
(c)
Page 2
The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners
July 1, 1999
DISCUSSION:
The Land Development Code permits an appeal to the Development Review Committee within
seven (7) days of an adverse decision made by the Director of Planning on any development
permit. On May 26, 1999 the Director of Planning denied the wall sign permit for the subject
property because it was twice the size allowed by the Land Development Code as part of the
State Road 50 Activity Center Special Development Regulations. On June I, 1999, the City
received a request from Mr. Palluck to appeal this decision. On June 10, 1999, the
Development Review Committee met to determine whether the Director of Planning's
interpretation of the Code was correct. The transcript of that meeting is attached to this report.
Based upon the evidence presented, the Development Review Committee upheld the decision of
denial made by the Director of Planning. Subsequently, on June 14, 1999, the City received a
request that this appeal be considered by the City Commission as provided for in the Land
Development Code.
STAFF RECOMEMNDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Development Review Committee that the Mayor and City
Commissioners uphold the decision of the Director of Planning to deny the proposed sign permit
since it is inconsistent with the requirements contained within the Ocoee Land Development
Code.
RBW/csa
Attachment: Transcript ofJune 10, 1999 Development Review Committee Meeting
O:\CALEXAN DER\A LL_DATA\CAPDFILE\Staff Reports\CC SR\SR99038.doc
� III
CITY OF OCOEE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Ocoee, Florida
June 10 , 1999
1 : 30 p .m.
ALL WOMEN' S FITNESS CENTER
SIGN PERMITS APPEAL
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS, INC.
Ns. 8612 Summerville Peace
Orlando. Florida 32819
(407, 354-335r
2
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY:
ELLIS SHAPIRO, City Manager
RUSS WAGNER, City Planner
JIM SHIRA, City Engineer
ELLEN KING, Development Review Coordinator
RICHARD FIRSTNER, Fire Department
JACKIE LEVESQUE, Fire Department
DON FLIPPEN, Building Official
ROBERT MARK, Police Chief
ROBERT LEWIS, Senior Planner
BRAD FRIEL, TranspOrtation
TONY WIERZBICKI , Engineering Department
ALICE TATE-BARNETT, Public Works Department
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER:
BERNARD PALLUCK, Women' s Health & Fitness
EDDIE PALLUCK, Women' s Health & Fitness
MARJORIE BATY, Women' s Health & Fitness
BILL BLACKWELDER
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. This is a DRC regarding the
3 sign permit application.
4 Okay. Who was the - - was it you guys who denied
5 the permit?
6 MR. WAGNER: No.
7 MR. SHAPIRO : Who was it that denied the permit?
8 MR. WAGNER: I did.
9 MR. SHAPIRO: (To Mr. Wagner) Go ahead, Russ .
10 MR. WAGNER: The situation is that these folks
11 came in, they' re intending to put in a fitness center.
12 What' s the name of that shopping center down there? Ocoeei,
13 Plaza?
14 (Several people speak at once)
15 MR. WAGNER: Village Market Place . And - -
16 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Where' s that located?
17 MR. WAGNER: That ' s the one behind Crispy Treat
18 and Pizza Hut .
19 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . Hut - - okay.
= 20 MR. WAGNER: Where the big furniture store is .
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. We' re -- okay.
22 MR. WAGNER: And this would be adjoining the
23 furniture store .
24 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Go ahead.
25 MR. WAGNER: They asked for a sign permit for a
4
1 wall sign as well as a sign to fill in the freestanding
2 sign out on Highway 50 . They do not - - just for the
3 record, they do not have a - - neither a building permit on
4 file or an occupational license --
5 MR. FLIPPEN: Right .
6 MR. WAGNER: - - on file.
7 I checked with Paul Rosenthal, the City Attorney,
8 as to whether it was appropriate for us to meet on the
9 basis of an appeal for a business that actually doesn' t
10 even exist . He felt that we were better off acting on it ,
11 than not acting on it, to give them due process even though
12 there' s not actually a licensed business that we' re dealing
13 with here presently in the City of Ocoee .
14 MR. SHAPIRO: This place is open? No?
15 MR. FLIPPEN: No.
16 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So it' s not open for
17 business --
18 MR. FLIPPEN: No.
19 MR. SHAPIRO: -- and they have not asked for a
CC 20 building permit .
21 MR. FLIPPEN: No, sir.
22 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay.
23 MR. WAGNER: Or an occupational license .
24 MR. FLIPPEN: It could be an interior remodel .
25 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay.
5
1 MR. WAGNER: Anyway, they submitted a sign
2 application to the Building Department . It was routed
3 based upon the activity center standards, as well as the
4 updated commercial industrial development standards . It
5 did not fit under the criteria for the size of sign that
6 they wanted. Basically, their sign that they' re requesting
7 is about twice as big as what would be allowed under the
8 ordinance on the building.
9 The application for the sign on the freestanding,
10 permit , I basically said that I denied it because I could
11 not tell from their drawing how it would fit within the I
12 existing vacant sign portion of the freestanding sign
13 that' s out there.
t
14 In other words, we didn' t ask them to change
15 anything on the existing freestanding sign because that
16 would be grandfathered in. There' s about a -- I 'm going to
17 say, two by six are left on that sign out there, and it
= 18 appears to me that the sign that they requested is larger
19 than that .
= 20 So those are the reasons they were denied,
21 basically that one, we didn' t have enough information and
22 it didn' t appear to fit and, two, that it doesn' t meet the
23 criteria of the sign ordinance .
24 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . But there' s two
25 different signs and one is the sign that goes on the
6
1 building itself; the other is the sign that goes on the
2 Village Mart area.
3 MR. WAGNER: Right . If they brought in a sign
4 that fit within the existing vacant panel on the street
5 sign, I wouldn' t have any problem with it . The sign on the
6 building clearly does not meet -- there' s two criteria for
7 wall signs . One is the size of the building and one -- the
8 other is the front footage of the front of the building.
9 So, in this case, they have a building that I ' m
10 going to say is 70 or 80 feet of building frontage but it' s
11 less than 10, 000 square feet . So the ordinance is clear
12 that you can' t exceed 36 square feet for a building less
13 than 10, 000 square feet, regardless of the building li
14 frontage.
15 So it' s very -- pretty cut and dried what the
16 ordinance is, and that has been applied to numerous signs
17 already in the City, so it' s nothing new and it ' s a very
18 basic application of the sign ordinance .
19 MR. SHAPIRO: Anybody in the DRC that wants to
20 ask any questions of Russ' s interpretation or question
21 regarding this?
22 CHIEF MARK: Did you say this -- that it did not
23 fit the master plan that we have?
24 MR. WAGNER: It does not meet the current sign
25 code.
7
1 MR. FLIPPEN: And in that respect, we couldn' t
2 override that --
3 MR. WAGNER: According to Paul -- I did check
4 with Paul about this -- his feeling is that the DRC -- they
5 are acting on my denial . In other words, the appeal is to
6 interpret whether I made the appropriate decision based on
7 the land development , not whether or not -- in other words,
8 this group isn' t a legislative group that you can waive the
9 ordinance, you can only determine whether I interpreted it
10 properly.
11 MR. SHAPIRO: All right .
12 MR. WAGNER: They would have to appeal this
13 further
t
14 MR. SHAPIRO: To the City Commission.
15 MR. WAGNER: -- to the City Commission to get
16 a - - in other words, they would actually have to have a
17 waiver in this case, in my interpretation of the code, to
18 get a sign that' s larger --
19 MR. SHAPIRO: Is that your interpretation or the
20 City -- or the City Attorney' s?
21 MR. WAGNER: Well , he said that this group can
= 22 determine whether my interpretation of the code is proper
23 or not , but that you cannot legislate -- in other words, it
24 depends on how cut - -
25 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . I got your point .
8
1 MR. WAGNER: -- and dried it is .
2 MR. SHAPIRO: Did you all get the point?
3 MR. FLIPPEN: Yes .
4 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . Is there any other
5 questions of Russ?
6 (No audible response)
7 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Mr. Palluck?
8 MR. PALLUCK: Yes . Before - - there' s two issues
9 and I - - and I respectfully - - to this gentleman' s points
10 that he made on that issue of interpretation, on the - - on
11 the new plan, and we' re going back to May, because I know
12 that it ' s been adjusted as of June 1st . It' s been -- it' s
`.. 13 been fine-tuned in the sense that it' s - - it' s more clear,
14 the new law. But our request was done back in May, signed
15 off on May.
r 16 And one of the issues which I ' ll let Marjorie go III
17 over, too, because it was ambiguous --
18 MR. SHAPIRO: Excuse me . You said "signed off . "
19 What do you mean by that?
20 MR. PALLUCK: Well, I -- I meant my - - my City of
21 Ocoee permit application. When I say "signed, " it was
22 certified as of May 21st, in other words, my application
23 request --
24 MR. SHAPIRO: All right .
25 MR. PALLUCK: - - was done on May 21st .
9
1 MR. SHAPIRO: And was approved by somebody?
2 MR. PALLUCK: No . But the -- my effort of --
3 of - - of trying to meet with the folks and - -
4 MR. SHAPIRO: So you don' t have an approval as of
5 May 21st - -
6 MR. PALLUCK: That -- no. That' s correct .
7 MR. SHAPIRO: You were just looking for an
8 approval .
9 MR. PALLUCK: Correct .
10 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Go ahead.
11 MR. PALLUCK: And my application was done on May
12 21st - -
13 MR. SHAPIRO: All right .
14 MR. PALLUCK: -- and I was just told today that
15 you have a new ordinance dated June 1st, that it was just
16 passed, and I just was given a copy of it not -- about 20
17 minutes ago. So I was not aware that you have a new -- a
18 new, updated ordinance which makes one of our questions !,
19 that we had originally given back in May, it corrects -- it
20 makes it very clear, because we brought that point up.
21 And then the wording on the new law is right to
22 the point whereas there' s -- there was an issue in our
23 questions -- and I think Ms. Baty will go into that in
24 about one minute -- but I wanted to jump over to the fact
25 that what motivated me, what we' re requesting is not - - you
10
1 know, when he says double the size and put it in
2 perspective, we' re asking for 24 inch letters on this
3 building. And the Ocoee Family Medical Center has 24 inch
4 letters .
5 But we have - - and we took pictures from every
6 angle, not to abort the look or anything, but we have a
7 monumental area next to Furniture Land with its four foot
8 letters, and we' re asking for 24 inch letters . The new
9 ordinance would allow us letters that are the same size as
10 Thrift and Gift which are 12 inch letters .
11 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Why don' t you let us -- why
12 don' t you pass that around to everybody. (Hands
13 photographs)
14 MR. PALLUCK: Okay. Yeah. You' ll be able to
15 see .
16 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay.
17 MR. PALLUCK: And my space that we' re going to,
18 my wife' s and I, has a monument area of eight feet . We' re
19 not asking for three foot letters, we' re not asking for
20 four; we' re asking for two foot letters to be the same size
- I
21 as Ocoee Family Medical Center.
22 And we sat aesthetically and we took pictures of
23 every single business that has 24 inch letters in that
24 center -- the pool place, the dance studio. Well , our
25 letters will be 12 inches, that is eight foot --
11
1 aesthetically will be extremely, extremely small . And
2 that ' s all we were requesting.
3 And when we came over the law back -- the old
4 law, not the new one of June 1st, there was two issues, and
5 I ' ll let Marjorie explain it , because it was ambiguous as
6 to what was the law requirement .
7 (To Ms . Baty) And do you want to explain that to
8 them, Marjorie --
9 MS . BATY: Certainly.
10 MR. PALLUCK: -- the issue?
11 MS . BATY: How long have we been dealing with
12 this, since April?
13 MR. PALLUCK: Since April .
14 MS . BATY: Since April .
15 And the ordinance that we were dealing with in
16 April that I have here, Item Number 4 which is wall signs,
17 has an A, B, C, and D, E, and F subsection. So in the ',
18 "A" section it just says, "Individual wall signs shall not
= 19 exceed the following standards . " And then it gives you the
e �
20 building size of the square foot and the maximum area of
21 sign that you can have .
22 And then you go over to "D" and then it says,
23 "For wall signs for individual businesses located within
24 shopping centers - - which is us -- shall be computed based
25 on the building frontage of each store that has an outside
12
1 public entrance and faces a public street or public parking
2 area. "
3 Okay. This is clearly us . And it says that our
4 size is computed on the building frontage not this how many
5 feet we've got behind the door. And so this is the whole
6 premise that we've been working on since April . This is
7 what -- why we had this meeting, because we feel that this
8 is what it is .
9 Now, in the meantime, they were changing the
10 ordinance . Nobody notified any of us that it was in the
11 process of being changed, had no idea that it did change
12 June the 1st . And so that was what, ten days ago, and here
13 we sit --
ww
14 MR. PALLUCK: See, our point was -- our space is
15 84 and 50 square feet . And the frontage, aesthetically,
16 the 24-inch sign would have been -- under this section,
17 "D" , would fall in. Well , if you read the new law, it ' s - -
18 it' s clear. They -- they -- it' s -- the wording is totally,
19 clear, which we've been talking to folks here since April
20 and expressing --
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Are you trying to say -- so that we
22 can get it down to --
23 MR. PALLUCK: Uh-huh.
24 MR. SHAPIRO: Are you basically stating that
25 because you applied for a sign prior to June 1st --
13
1 MR. PALLUCK: Yes, sir.
2 MR. SHAPIRO: -- that the interpretation of the
3 City staff should have been under the old law --
4 MR. PALLUCK: Yes, sir.
5 MR. SHAPIRO: -- and that the old law basically,
6 in your mind, gave you the right to the square footage that
7 you asked for?
8 MR. PALLUCK: Yes, sir; yes, sir.
9 MR. SHAPIRO: Is that basically your case?
10 MR. PALLUCK: Yes, sir.
11 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. And do you - - and is
12 there -- that' s - - that' s the wall sign?
13 MR. PALLUCK: Yes, sir.
14 MR. SHAPIRO : All right . Now, what about the
15 other sign?
16 MR. PALLUCK: The other sign is going to be
17 exactly a duplicate of what ' s there now.
18 MS . BATY : It goes in the space .
19 MR. PALLUCK: It goes in the space, which I don' t
= 20 think there was any issue of it --
21 MR. SHAPIRO: So this one, is there any issue of
22 it' s in the --
23 MR. WAGNER: Well - -
24 MS . BATY : It is (inaudible) .
25 MR. WAGNER: It is -- yeah. I understand that .
14
1 But going simply by what was submitted -- where the heck is
2 that? This says seven foot - -
3 MS . BATY : By 30 foot .
4 MR. WAGNER: -- by 30 --
5 MS . BATY: And if you go measure the panel --
6 MR. WAGNER: -- 30 inches . li
7 MS. BATY: -- like we did, that' s what you' ll
e find.
9 MR. WAGNER: Okay. If it fits in there --
10 MS . BATY : It does .
11 MR. WAGNER: That didn' t appear to me to be this
12 size .
13 MR. SHAPIRO: So all you' re saying - - all right .
14 So, for the record, you don' t have a problem with -- I�
15 MR. WAGNER: As long as they fit in that panel .
16 MR. SHAPIRO: -- that sign as long as it fits
17 into that -- that area?
18 MR. WAGNER: Correct .
19 MR. SHAPIRO: So that' s -- so, therefore, this
20 DRC is no longer ruling on that issue as long as it meets
21 that criteria?
22 MR. WAGNER: Correct .
23 MR. SHAPIRO: So let' s go back to the wall -- the
24 wall sign.
25 Does everybody understand what Mr. Palluck is
15
1 saying? Does everybody -- does everybody want - - does
2 anyone want to take a look at the pictures or anything?
3 MR. WAGNER: Well, let me state, Ellis, that the
4 old ordinance, the activity center ordinance, which did
5 apply to this site as of that time, like all ordinances,
6 you can' t just go by one section of the code .
7 In other words, there are numerous citations for
8 any sign in the City. There might be five or six or eight
9 different sections in the code that apply to one sign.
10 They all can' t be identified in one place . You have to
11 always look at ordinances in combination, maybe even in
12 different parts of the book. That ' s part of the difficulty
13 of being a reviewer, to know where all those are .
14 In this particular case, I - - and, again, we did
15 talk, and Robby has talked to these folks, and I believe
16 the Building Department has talked to them, and we made
17 that interpretation right up front to them that the intent '..
18 of the ordinance was -- and I should know because I wrote
19 it - - was that that first section of the code having to
20 do -- and I think it' s fairly clear that there is only one
21 type of wall sign -- this is clearly a wall sign -- and
22 that it says very succinctly that it "shall not exceed the
23 following standards, " and that' s how you lead off the whole
24 section. The other parts of the section only tell you how
25 to compute .
16
1 Now, what we did in the new ordinance, the
2 tweaking
, was to add a few more words here and there just
3 to strengthen it . In other words, we thought it was clear
4 to begin with, but just so that there was absolutely no
5 possibility anyone would interpret it differently, we added
6 a few words that strengthened the idea that that was the
7 only criteria and that was the maximum.
8 But I can tell you that from day one the intent
9 was, these are the maximums and that' s how we felt that we
10 had it written right up front .
11 MR. SHAPIRO: Anything else you want to say?
12 MR. PALLUCK: Well , the only thing is, is - - and I!,
13 like I said, I - - I 'm glad I got to -- your knowledge that �!
14 you wrote the original ordinance, but even you' ll have to
15 acknowledge that you even -- like you just said, you used
16 the word "tweaking, " using different wordage [sic] because
17 of this situation in the old ordinance .
18 Well, you know, when we have the frontage, we !,
19 have the aesthetic of eight feet and everyone else has 24
20 inch letters and I -- and no one has -- no one in that
21 whole center has anything below 18 inches and we' ll --
22 MR. WAGNER: For the record, you can put -- you
23 can have -- what does it say? It says you can have up to
24 three-foot high letters .
25 MR. PALLUCK: Well , I - -
17
1 MR. WAGNER: There' s nothing that limits you from
2 having 24 inch letters .
3 MR. PALLUCK: You' re right . I would have to
4 misspell "Women' s. " In fact, I made a joke to my wife,
5 we' d have to call it "Men' s Fit, " you know, to get -- to
6 get -- in other words, we could make it tall if you can
7 misspell -- I was trying to say how do we abbreviate like
8 "extra"? They put an "X" and misspell extra and little
9 tricky things . How do you say "Women' s Fitness"?
10 Okay. We eliminate the word "Club. " It brings
11 it down to -- all we come up with - - we said if we really
12 worked it -- and we played with computers and everything --
13 we could work to 14 inch letters on an eight foot
14 background that would be -- eliminate the word "All" and
15 forget the "S" in Women' s and bring Women - - in other
16 words, we were trying to say "Fit" -- it got to the point
17 of, you know, we've been in business ten years and - - and a
18 certain image you've created on TV and some marketing,
19 well, it' s - - how short can you make -- you know, we' re not
20 a ma - - we are a ma and pa, but we' re not just pool, we' re
21 not just dance.
22 But we feel that we' re an all-women' s fitness
23 club, a quality club and a nice facility, and we should be
24 able to put the name of our corporation on the building.
25 And if it' s 12 inches, there' s nothing in there that ' s 12
18
1 inches . And that ' s why I wanted to show you and say - - you
2 know, because I think -- I think the thrift place next door
3 that rents a thousand square feet or whatever it is, it' s
4 really small .
5 That' s all I 'm going to tell you, folks . If
6 that' s what it' s going to be, I told everybody, I have to
7 appeal to that reasoning. And the only thing I 've got to
8 stand on is the old ordinance because - - and, respectfully,
9 it is ambiguous because he corrected it as of June 1st .
10 MR. WAGNER: No. Let me tell you, we already had
11 a brand new building built, this is the building where the
12 medical -- what' s the name of it? Florida Hospital what ' s
13 it called?
14 MR. SHAPIRO: Centra Care .
15 MR. SHIRA: Centra Care .
16 MR. WAGNER: Centra Care was built right across
17 from the mall ahead of this and the same interpretation as
18 made on their building. They are less than 10, 000 square
19 feet ; they are in the seven or eight thousand square foot
20 range, the same size as your business, and they were
21 limited to 36 square feet .
22 So it' s not that we didn' t use this --
23 MS . BATY: But they didn' t challenge it, did
24 they?
'Nr.
25 MR. WAGNER: No, they did not, because it was, to
19
1 them, very clear. And, as a matter of fact, their street
2 sign also meets the activity center standards .
3 So, when I tell you -- I could tweak ordinances
4 all day long because everyone that reads it is going to
5 interpret it slightly differently, and we tweaked a number
6 of things in this ordinance to make it clear. But that
7 doesn' t mean that the basic intent was not evident when we
8 first created it, in my view.
9 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . Let me ask you a
10 question. I ' m not either opposing it or not opposing it,
11 but just for the -- just in all fairness .
12 When you' re starting out with a new building and
13 you have two or three clients in that building, and you all
14 start out even in - - in how you letter a building, it would
15 seem to me that that ' s not, in fact , deleting or receding
16 back one business versus another, okay, because everything
17 along there has the same size because you' re - - it a new
18 building, okay.
19 When you got a building that has two or three
= 20 different codes over a course of ten or 15 years, and the
21 first - - the first one goes over -- has a sign based upon a
22 code you passed in 1988, and the next one has code where
23 you changed it in 1995, and the third one is a code in
24 1999, then to some degree, you' re changing - - you' re
vow
25 changing it but you' re competing against businesses within
20
1 your own shopping center that are flashing at you with a
2 larger sign.
3 I mean, you' re basically imploding the ability
4 for someone to see your place because over the course of
5 photographing in your mind as you go by, you' re looking at
6 this size sign here, this size sign here, that size sign
7 here, this size sign here.
8 And it seems to me, to some degree, one of the
9 reasons why a lot of cities, when they do sign ordinances,
10 give you a period of time, based upon the cost of the sign
11 or the size of the sign, to be able to replace it or change
12 it just for that purpose - -
13 MR. WAGNER: Well -
14 MR. SHAPIRO: -- and make everybody along in that !�
15 shopping center change it over a period of time, so that
16 one person isn' t being put in a situation where they' re
17 competing - -
L.
18 MR. WAGNER: You just answered your own question,
19 Ellis . If you look at this --
20 MR. SHAPIRO: Well , I 'm glad you' re giving me the
21 answer to my own question.
22 MR. WAGNER: No. Well, I mean, what I'm saying
23 is -- what you've pointed out is exactly what has happened
24 on this shopping and it happens on every shopping center;
25 that is, as ordinances change, yes, you do change the sign
21
1 standards because obviously you wouldn' t pass the ordinance
2 if you didn' t want to change something .
3 And it ' s obvious if you look at all these
4 different sizes --
5 MR. SHAPIRO: Uh-huh.
6 MR. WAGNER: -- and I will tell you that I would
7 bet there' s three or four signs along here that meet 36-
8 foot standard even if they didn' t follow this current code III
9 because they didn' t have enough frontage to have more than
10 that .
11 The obvious reason for the code, what you said is
12 yes, some ordinances do provide for a grandfathering or a I'I
13 replacement . There is no sign on this building presently,
14 on this space, and this ordinance was written, frankly, not
15 to give that ability because it was meant to get to this
16 size of sign quicker.
17 In other words, when you -- it was -- it was
18 considered up front whether we should have some type of
19 lead-in period and specifically set up not to have that ICI,
20 lead-in period so we more quickly got -- as businesses
21 change, and they do in shopping centers, that all the
22 businesses will conform to the new ordinance more quickly.
23 So -- so, yes, I mean, your issue is correct .
24 But what I 'm saying is, it' s in there intentionally and the
25 ordinance doesn' t give any ability to grandfather anybody
22
1 in. It says what it says and it says perfectly.
2 MR. SHAPIRO: Does anybody else have any
3 questions and does anybody on DRC want to see that -- what
4 the Pallucks brought in?
5 MR. SHIRA: Let me ask a question about this .
6 This is the - - I guess the old ordinance, Russ?
7 MR. WAGNER: Yeah.
8 MR. SHIRA: The old ordinance . Where it says
9 that -- when they were quoting "D" , "Wall signs for
10 individual businesses shall be computed based on the
11 building frontage. "
12 Is there something more somewhere later that
13 defines how that computation is made? I don' t see it in
14 here .
15 MR. WAGNER: Yeah. Okay. Up in --
16 MR. SHIRA: This is the preceding page and it ' s
17 just got the - -
18 MR. WAGNER: Yeah.
19 MR. SHAPIRO: That was going to be my next
20 question. Where else is it? If that' s all there is --
21 MR. WAGNER: Yes .
22 MR. SHAPIRO: -- is there anymore anywhere else?
23 MR. WAGNER: In other words, you would use the
24 same formula that' s outlined in "B" and "C" .
25 MS . BATY: Which is one foot per street frontage .
23
1 MR. PALLUCK: One foot . It comes out
2 differently - -
3 MR. SHIRR: Okay.
4 MR. PALLUCK: -- on the frontage than it would be
5 on the computation that ' s --
6 MR. SHAPIRO: So -- so --
7 MR. WAGNER: But we --
S MR. SHAPIRO: - - "A" and "B" is okay to you, but
9 "B" isn' t?
10 MR. WAGNER: Well , it' s ignoring "A" , though.
11 You can' t just pick the one want .
12 MR. SHAPIRO: So you decide that you can do "B"
13 and "C" -- and "A" and "B" or "B" and "C" but you don' t do
-
14 "A" or "D" .
15 MR. WAGNER: You got to do all of them.
16 MR. SHAPIRO: But is it "A" -- are all - - are
17 they in conflict?
18 MR. WAGNER: No.
19 MR. SHIRA: Okay. So, for example, if you
20 have --
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Who' s never read this before?
22 MR. SHIRR: Till this moment I hadn' t .
23 MR. SHAPIRO: All right, Jim. Then you' ll be
24 the -- you' ll be the guinea pig. You' re coming in --
25 MR. SHIRA: No. I've read it a lot of times
24
1 before.
2 (Laughter)
3 MR. SHAPIRO: You' re coming in to do a sign and,
4 all things being equal, even though you've just heard at
5 least an explanation for it, I want you to read that and
6 tell me whether you know what kind of sign you need.
7 MR. SHIRA: Okay.
8 MR. SHAPIRO: Even with an P . E . as an engineer
9 you might be able to figure this out .
10 MR. SHIRA: And then where I was going with my
11 question, it appears that if my building is 10, 000 square
12 feet or less, by Section A, my maximum sign area is 36
13 square feet .
14 But I think, Russ, then what you' re telling me is I'I
15 that' s the maximum, but one or the other -- let ' s see.
16 This says if it is a stand-alone business, then I would
17 calculate it based on "B" up to this maximum; is that
18 right? And if it is a stand-alone building on an out-
19 parcel or a separate tract -- let' s see, this says two - -
20 then I could have a sign not exceeding two by twelve and it
21 would still be less than this maximum.
-
22 And if I have a wall sign on a business within a
23 shopping center, then it would based on the building
24 frontage at one square foot per linear foot of building
25 frontage but not to exceed 36 ; is that -- okay.
25
1 That sounds like that' s the - - well, you' re
2 right . It doesn' t say that right here . It says it will be
3 computed and the computation in (inaudible) place, it says
4 how to compute is one square foot per linear foot although
5 the very first sentence of wall signs does say, individual
6 wall signs shall not exceed the following standard: Max
7 building size up to 10, 000 ; max sign area of 36 feet --
8 square feet .
9 And I haven' t read through the new one carefully-
10 carefully, but what you' re saying is that that potential
11 ambiguity is now cleared up?
12 MR. WAGNER: I believe what we did was -- I don' t
13 have it here .
14 MR. BLACKWELDER: Here' s the new one here, sir.
15 MR. WAGNER: We added, I believe -- where' s the
16 new law?
17 MR. SHAPIRO: While you' re doing that, let me ask '..
18 you a question. Have you already ordered these signs or
19 are they up or - -
20 MR. PALLUCK: No, sir.
21 MR. SHAPIRO: So you have not -- you've not
22 created automatically a financial hardship --
23 MR. PALLUCK: Not at this time, no.
24 MR. SHAPIRO: -- from this standpoint yet .
25 MR. WAGNER: The only thing we changed was - - we
26
1 added "regardless of building frontage, " so that - -
"" 2 MR. SHIRA: Will not exceed the following - -
3 MR. WAGNER: -- you know, there was no question
4 basically.
5 MR. SHIRA: - - regardless of building -- yeah.
6 MR. WAGNER: So that that was the tweaking so
7 there was no question that this is the guiding factor.
8 MR. SHIRA: All right .
9 MR. WAGNER: Now, I will tell you that we
10 didn' t -- we didn' t fix that , as far as identify the one
11 foot , that you' re still relying --
12 MR. SHIRA: Okay.
13 MR. WAGNER: I ' d have to read this whole thing,
14 but - -
15 MS . BATY: You could probably --
16 MR. WAGNER: -- it was hopefully made clear that
17 it was one foot for everything. I mean, I --
18 MS . BATY: You could probably just eliminate the
19 rest of those, just leave that one paragraph, 36 square
20 feet' s all you' re going to get .
21 MR. WAGNER: No. That' s not true because you
22 could have a building that was very small --
23 MR. SHIRA: You wouldn' t even get to 36 .
24 MR. SHAPIRO: You wouldn' t get there .
25 MR. WAGNER: You wouldn' t get there .
27
1 MR. SHIRA: That ' s what I 'm hearing, is up to 36,
2 but you' re not guaranteed the 36 .
3 Let me ask then if - - so part of the argument
4 then revolves around timing, whether or not they should
5 be - -
6 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah, yeah.
7 MR. SHIRA: -- considered under the old ordinance
8 or the new.
9 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. The -- right . That ' s the
10 first issue .
11 MR. SHIRA: Yeah.
12 MR. FLIPPEN: That is the only one . !!i
13 MR. SHIRA: Yeah. And -- right . This is the old
14 ordinance . And they brought in a permit request for a sign
15 under the --
16 MR. SHAPIRO: Before the ordinance changed.
17 MR. SHIRA: -- before the new ordinance went into
18 effect . So then it becomes an issue of is the verbiage in
19 the old ordinance -- you know, would a reasonable person
= 20 and understand that the maximum you' re going to get
21 regardless of building frontage, based on what the City' s
22 interpretation had been, would be 36 square feet .
23 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. That ' s -- although --
24 although if Paul' s correct in his - - what he said, the
25 question would be, "And if so, what could you do about it?"
28
1 This may be one where -- where, you know, there' s
2 some question in my mind off the top of my head how the DRC
3 has control over saying what it meant, although I think you
4 can. You know, I would think one of the questions you
5 would have, does the DRC feel comfortable in superceding
6 the director' s purview or would they feel more comfortable
7 in having a city commission do it .
8 MR. WAGNER: Well - -
9 MR. SHAPIRO: But that' s -- that ' s an issue you
10 all have the right to discuss .
11 MR. WAGNER: Yeah.
12 MR. SHAPIRO: I got -- I 've got some heartache
13 with - - you know, the one part I 've got a heartache with is
14 twofold. One, I have a heartache with the fact that I
15 don' t -- not sure that I think it ' s legally under the new
16 code because I think that every -- every court case I 've
17 ever seen says if you don' t display the new code prior to
18 the - - to doing it, then the old code prevails until the
19 date -- that, you know, if you've given a permit on April
20 21st , the fact that you don' t get to it until May 1st is
21 your problem not theirs, unless you've displayed that
22 permit -- that ordinance proposal at the place you do the
23 permitting.
24 MR. WAGNER: I have a question, though. Can the
25 Building Department legally grant a sign permit for a
29
1 business that doesn' t exist?
2 MR. PALLUCK: Well , can I - -
3 MR. WAGNER: I mean, what I 'm saying is,
4 there' s - - to me it' s a moot point because had they had an
5 occupational license at this time --
6 MR. SHAPIRO: Well , I don' t think you can -- I
7 don' t think it' s fair to say that at this point only
8 because of what the attorney said. If the attorney said,
9 "Don' t take it to the DRC, " you know, the minute he said
10 basically, "Take it to the DRC because an inaction' s worse
11 than an action, " then I think the -- your argument then
12 becomes null and void because he' s already told you to do
13 that .
14 To come in here and say --
15 MR. WAGNER: No. He only said - -
16 MR . SHAPIRO: -- we' re going to have --
17 MR. WAGNER: - - they have due process .
18 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. But -- but what you' re
19 saying here, if you go in, walking in the door saying that,
20 then to a degree you should have never had this meeting to
21 start with.
22 MR. WAGNER: Well, I personally disagreed with
23 the City Attorney.
24 MR. SHAPIRO: Well , I --
25 MR. WAGNER: Let me tell you this .
30
1 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah.
`� 2 MR. WAGNER: The City Attorney first told me --
3 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah.
4 MR. WAGNER: -- that we didn' t have to have a
5 meeting.
6 MR. SHAPIRO: You see, but I 'm going to state --
7 MR. WAGNER: So he' s not even quite sure - -
8 MR. SHAPIRO: Well , but if he --
9 MR. WAGNER: -- of the legality.
10 MR. SHAPIRO: -- told you to have a meeting, then
11 if you get to the point of logic, then you can' t use that
12 logic . You can' t use it against them if he' s already
13 said --
14 MR. WAGNER: No. I understand, and that' s why
15 we' re here today.
16 MR. SHAPIRO: Well , that' s -- yeah. But that' s
17 why I 'm just arguing the point that I think your point' s
18 irrelevant the minute the City Attorney said that this DRC
19 should meet on it . That relevancy then became a non-
= 20 argument, sort of like in law.
21 If you go to a court, the court would have
22 said -- somebody would have gone, "Objection, " "Sustained, "
23 because you can' t have the attorney say to you this is a
24 relevant argument to go to DRC and then you turn around and
25 say the irrelevancy of the argument as if the place didn' t
31
1 exist after the attorney said to go to DRC.
"ow 2 MR. WAGNER: Well , it' s clear, it' s clear now,
3 and I don' t know if you' re leading to this, but if you go
4 to the City Commission now, now the new ordinance is clear
5 what the intent was -- which it has been all along because
6 I 'm, for the record, stating to you that I felt, because I
7 wrote it, what the intent was, and now we've only tweaked
8 it to be more clear -- so now the City Commission is in a
9 position -- and in my view, if you read the new ordinance,
10 it just leaves - -
11
MR. SHAPIRO: Somebody wrote the Bible, too,
12 but --
13 MR. WAGNER : There' s interpretations.
14 MR. SHAPIRO: - - there have been five million-
15 zillion people --
16 MR. WAGNER: That' s right.
17 MR. SHAPIRO: - - who over the years have been
18 scholars of what the Bible says . And that' s -- to those of
19 you who are real fundamentalists, I 'm sorry, I 'm not sure
= 20 it' s God' s word. It' s man' s version of God' s word, and
21 there' s millions of versions .
22 So the point I 'm trying to make is, is the fact
23 that you write it is irrelevant necessarily as to the
24 intent . You know, if -- I guess if you were God, I guess
25 you would have relevancy if you wrote the Bible . But , you
32
1 know, I - -
2 (Laughter)
3 MR. WAGNER: Well , that' s my point .
4 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay.
5 (Laughter)
6 MR. FRIEL: Is the question here, though, that
7 we' re to make a decision on whether the Planning Director' s
8 interpretation of the code is correct or not?
9 MR. FLIPPEN: That' s the only thing we can
10 determine .
11 MR. SHAPIRO: I think that' s the only thing Ali
12 you've got . The problem is, is I think that ' s the only I'I
13 thing you got . I 'm -- you know, I 'm uncomfortable with -- ��
14 I think the DRC has a problem doing anything more than
15 that . I 'm glad we settled part of this issue just by being
16 here . And I 'm not suggesting - - you know, those of you
17 that are allowed to vote, vote as you see fit .
18 I have - - I guess I have -- I have a problem with
19 how you compete in space. I mean, I guess I 'm having a
20 bigger problem -- I 'm not having problems with your
21 interpretation, I 'm having maybe a bigger problem with the
- 22 ordinance .
23 MR. FLIPPEN: Couldn' t they go for a variance?
24 MR. SHIRA: What is their remedy if his
25 interpretation is upheld?
33
1 MR. SHAPIRO: It goes to the City Commission and
`" 2 the City Commission says, "After reviewing it , we agree to
3 waive it and allow them the opportunity to equal -- to have
4 equal-sized sign to other businesses in the area . "
5 And -- but what -- what they' re going to be up
6 against is, is Russ is smart . He' ll go to them and say,
7 "If you do that, you might as well not have signed the new
8 ordinance because now you've created a - - an automatic - -
9 you know, for everybody to ask for that same waiver - -
10 MR. WAGNER: Well - -
11 MR. SHAPIRO: - - and what was the reason for this
12 one versus another?
13 MR. WAGNER: Yeah.
8
14 MR. SHIRA: Only if everyone who asked for a
15 waiver is --
16 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. April 21st .
17 MR. SHIRA: -- an existing subdivision that
= 18 already has large-letter signs .
19 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. And I think that' s going to
0
= 20 be - - and that , I think, is probably -- I ' ll put it to you
21 this way: I do not think - - for the record, I don' t think
22 you can overturn his opinion, but I also think, also for
23 the record, that I probably would not have let this
24 ordinance go if I thought it was in - - I have a problem
8.8
25 with the size of signs competing in a -- on a same -- in
34
1 the same subdivision/shopping center on a different level .
2 MR. SHIRA: I don' t think it ' s so much a question
3 of is the ordinance okay as is, but is it applied from the
4 owner' s -- the business owner' s standpoint, is it applied
5 properly or fairly within a shopping center that already
6 has --
7 MR. SHAPIRO: That' s already got a whole bunch of
8 stuff in it and, therefore, they can' t equally compete .
9 MR. SHIRA: Right .
10 MR. SHAPIRO: It' s like saying you can have a
11 quarter-inch page ad but everybody else in the place has
12 got a half-inch page ad, because they decided to take the
13 first half inch.
Nor
14 MR. SHIRA: Well , that' s a new shopping center
15 and they want space in the shopping center.
16 MR. SHAPIRO: That' s a different story. I don' t
2
17 have a real problem with the ordinance if it was a new
18 shopping center because everybody' s got the same amount of
19 space and, frankly, it may have something to do with your
20 rent or your lease agreement as to who gets most of it .
21 But when you' re sitting in a shopping center
22 where you' re allowing some guy to have a 100-foot wide
23 letters, like Furniture Land then or something, and then
24 turn around and have a -- you know, God forbid if your name
25 isn' t Smith; you know, how the hell do you put your name on
35
1 the side of the building? You know - -
`' 2 MR. WAGNER: But the reverse argument is,
3 Ellis -- and again I mentioned this -- if you always allow
4 that to occur, then you will never meet the new sign
5 ordinance because they' ll always have the right to --
6 MR. SHAPIRO: Absolutely right . And - -
7 MR. WAGNER: And I specifically wrote it not to
8 allow that .
9 MR. SHAPIRO: And I absolutely understand that .
10 But I 'm not sure that you --
11 MR. SHIRR: I don' t -- I don' t understand it .
12 MR. SHAPIRO: What he' s saying is, is that if you
�.. 13 don' t eventually stop it , all you' re doing is creating the
14 same sign pollution over and over again in that whole --
15 MR. WAGNER: Now you've got old shopping
16 centers --
17 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah.
18 MR. WAGNER: - - that always have great big
19 signs - -
20 MR. SHAPIRO: Right .
21 MR. WAGNER: -- and new shopping centers that
22 have to conform.
23 MR. SHAPIRO: Right .
24 MR. WAGNER: And it' s an equitable situation
25 because you' ll never meet or reach the point where
36
1 everyone' s equitable .
2 MR. SHAPIRO : Yeah. But you see -- and my
3 argument is that you write an ordinance that says within
4 five years everybody meets the same thing and you allow
5 everybody to have the same even playing field as opposed to
6 starting with an uneven playing field.
7 MR. WAGNER: But then you' d have to make the
8 people that aren' t even ready to change their sign, change
9 their sign.
10 MR. SHAPIRO: Not if you -- you know, you give
11 them the time, you give them a certain amount of time so
12 that they have the --
13 MR. WAGNER: But every new business -- what I'm
14 saying --
15 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . Well , we' re
16 MR. WAGNER: We could argue that all day.
17 MR. SHAPIRO: I won' t argue with you.
18 All right . Any other questions?
19 (To Mr. Palluck) Do you have any other comments?
20 MR. PALLUCK: The only thing I -- what I want to
21 add -- because, you know, I understand the dilemma and I
22 understand that you want to start - - and the word "sign
23 pollution. " But what we' re requesting was 24 inch letters,
24 to keep things in perspective here. We' re requesting not
25 something like Furniture Land.
37
1 We' re requesting what - - about - - other than
2 Furniture Land, everyone else pretty much has - - I mean,
3 the pool place, the dance studio that rents 1, 000 square
4 feet , and we' re the second largest person in that shopping
5 center, and we' re going to have 12-inch lettering on eight-
6 foot background, you know, as big as Furniture Land' s
7 background, if you look at the -- the look of the building
8 aesthetically.
9 So we' re not asking for three-foot letters where
10 my other locations have 36 inch, one has 42 inch letters on
11 it . All the other ones have 36 inches. I 've actually
12 said -- I took -- I looked at the center aesthetically, I
b.. 13 said I ' ll request exactly what the center has that looks
14 aesthetically with the building.
15 So I didn' t ask for -- the only -- Furniture
16 Land' s the only one that ' s -- not even really -- I don' t
17 want to discuss them, but their sign' s not a sign, it' s a
18 paint-on. But other - - everyone else has what I ' m
5 19 requesting; that' s all I 'm saying.
20 And the ambiguity of the - - of the old regulation
21 was such that the gentleman who wrote it altered it .
22 That ' s all I 'm going to say at this time officially, that
23 he' s -- he actually felt there was something because he
24 changed it .
25 You know, and the fact that he' s changed it since
38
1 our conversation and which he said he' s talked to
2 everybody, we've talked to different -- and, all of a
3 sudden, we -- I get here ten minutes ago and here' s the new
4 law. It' s the wording on the very thing that we brought up
5 to their attention.
6 MR. SHAPIRO: Well, I don' t -- I'm going to be
7 truthful with you, I don' t think that your discussion was
8 the reason he changed it . I mean, I know --
9 MR. PALLUCK: I respect that .
10 MR. SHAPIRO: I mean, the fact of the matter is,
11 I know what happened and -- and as a -- and I know that
12 this was being proposed --
13 MR. PALLUCK: I see .
Now
14 MR. SHAPIRO: -- or, you know, I don' t think he
15 said, "Well , damn, what are we going to do about these
16 folks so they don' t get that sign. "
17 MR. PALLUCK: No. I don' t believe that . But I
18 just believe that I think he understood that it was --
19 there was some ambiguity and to direct in his own mind that
20 he wrote it, that he -- I got to -- I got to some wording
21 in there .
22 MR. SHAPIRO: I think what -- yeah. I think what
23 happened is --
24 MR. PALLUCK: Not against us or anybody.
25 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. And I don' t think that it
39
1 was any discussion he had with you that made him
2 cognitively think of it because what happens is we' re - - as
3 we' re going through and reviewing different ordinances --
4 MR. PALLUCK: Pick up on it .
5 MR. SHAPIRO: - - we pick up on things that we,
6 over the period of time, have seen that have had -- other
7 people had problems with and we try and change it .
8 Right now we've got a land use code that will
9 take a year to do, that we've got an expert doing, that' s
10 trying to pick up on everything that' s in competition with
11 one another.
12 So, I mean, I -- just for the record, I don' t �,
13 want anybody to assume that - - I 'm going to tell you, just
14 for the -- I don' t normally do this, but I'm going to make
15 a motion to deny this request . I 'm going to back him on I'I
16 this only because I think we have to.
17 But I ' m also, for the record, going to tell you
18 as City Manager, I intend to go ahead and make my point
19 clear that I don' t like this ordinance . And the reason I
= 20 don' t like it is I don' t think it' s a fair, even playing
21 field when you' re in competition with other places in a
22 mall or in a shopping center.
23 And I think we should have had some kind of a - -
24 like many sign ordinances do, a meltdown period or a period
25 that allows you to play on an even playing field with
40
1 everybody else .
2 So if -- when you take this to the City
3 Commission, the only thing I can tell you is you are going
4 to have the City Manager' s -- some support from me on this .
5 MR. PALLUCK: Okay.
6 MR. SHAPIRO: But I don' t think that the DRC -- I
7 think what - - his interpretation is correct, and I don' t
8 think there' s anything - - in my opinion, I don' t think
9 there' s anything that this group can do other than get it
10 through to the next level who does have the correct
11 opportunity to be able to say they want to waive it or they
12 want -- or that wasn' t their intent or that they' re
it
�.. 13 creating a hardship. But I don' t believe it' s at our level
14 to do that .
15 So I 'm going to make the motion to deny it .
16 MR. FLIPPEN: I ' ll second.
17 MR. SHAPIRO: It' s moved and seconded.
18 Any more discussion?
19 MR. FRIEL: I do have one question, Ellis, with
= 20 regard to if it does go to the City Commission, are they
21 requesting a waiver and, if so, a waiver -- I guess the
22 question is, is at some point applicant needs to be sure --
23 MR. SHAPIRO: No. I 'm going to tell you what
24 I --
25 MR. FRIEL: In other words, what they need to
41
1 prove .
2 MR. SHAPIRO: -- what I 'm going to suggest to
3 them, and I was going to do that as soon as this motion was
4 made --
5 MR. FRIEL: Okay.
6 MR. SHAPIRO: -- Brad --
7 MR. FRIEL: Yeah.
8 MR. SHAPIRO: -- and I appreciate you thinking of
9 it, is that -- is that I would go to them and appeal to the
10 City Commission that there be a change made that -- that
11 there should be a time schedule for these signs to be
12 removed.
13 In other words, I think that -- that when this
14 was done on a -- is there a fire or something going on?
15 (Referring to electronic tones)
16 But I think there probably should have been - - I
0
17 don' t like the uneven playing field and that probably
18 that -- I don' t know that the Commission understood that
19 when they passed it . And if they did, then you' ll lose the
20 appeal because I think that' s the only thing you've got
21 going for you in this thing.
22 CHIEF MARK: By adding an addendum on to five
23 years or ten years .
24 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. I'm saying -- I 'm saying
25 there' s a way of being able to make everybody that' s --
42
1 that' s there required to have the same sized sign based
2 upon that interpretation over a period of time. And that
3 way you still get the pollution gone but at least you' re
4 doing it on an even playing field across the board.
5 CHIEF MARK: If someone' s hurt, it' s beginning at
6 the -- he knows or she knows at the end there' s a
7 resolution.
8 MR. SHAPIRO: Well , no. I think the issue isn' t
9 the resolution; I think the issue is to try and create a
10 difference of sign pollution.
11 But at the same token if -- you know, you may
12 have a situation where it could be a ma/pa business that
13 never gets anybody to come in, because when your eye roves
14 through there, the only thing you see is Furniture Land and
15 that' s the only thing, because they happened to be there
16 and no one was watching or they took all the signage.
c
17 And I think that there' s some rights - - there
18 should be some rights to it and in a lot of cities they
19 give that -- that freedom of time, you know, where they
20 say -- how much does it cost to put sign up?
21 Let' s say it' s $2 , 000, and you give them five
22 years' worth of time so it' s not - - so you get at least the
23 cost of the sign enough time to where you can declare it as
24 part of a five-year right-off under advertising and then
25 make everybody come to meet the code and that kind of
43
1 stuff .
2 (Ms . Levesque leaves the room. )
3 MR. SHAPIRO: And some sign ordinances go as
4 far -- it' s like those 200-foot Shell gas station signs,
5 sometimes they' re 10, 15 years because they' re $100, 000,
6 you know. But they' re -- and they have a whole pattern of
7 that .
8 MR. SHIRA: Well , I - - I - - you asked me earlier
9 whether I understood and I -- with all respect to the
10 applicants, I don' t think that I would have had the
11 interpretation that you ended up with. I mean, it does say
12 no more than 36 square feet .
13 However, like you were saying, I think that in
14 this case that that' s - - and it' s not what I would
15 personally have liked to see apply in this - - in this sort
16 of an instance, I ' d hate to have them have to start
0
17 chopping up their name. I mean we don' t have Fur Land out
18 there .
19 (Laughter)
20 MR. SHIRA: Why should they have to butcher their
21 name in order to make it fit? So I agree --
22 MR. SHAPIRO: Yeah. If you were - -
23 MR. SHIRA: -- that Russ' s --
24 MR. SHAPIRO: -- Snickelbritches (ph) --
25 MR. SHIRA: -- interpretation is correct .
44
1 MR. SHAPIRO: If you were Snickelbritches, you' re
2 really in bad shape . What part of "Z" (ph) or Snickel (ph)
3 do you take out?
4 MR. SHIRA: I think Russ' s interpretation is
5 correct - -
6 MR. SHAPIRO: And either --
7 MR. SHIRA: -- it' s just that I think it needs to
8 go to the Commission.
9 MR. SHAPIRO: All right . Anybody else have a
10 comment on it?
11 (No audible response)
12 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. All in favor of denial of
13 the appeal say "aye . "
Now
14 (voice response)
15 MR. SHAPIRO: All opposed? ,I
16 (No audible response)
17 MR. SHAPIRO: Okay.
18 [The proceedings were concluded at 2 : 30 p .m. ]
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 STATE OF FLORIDA:
3 COUNTY OF ORANGE :
4 I , Louan Roe, Court Reporter, certify that I
5 reported the foregoing proceedings at the time and place
6 aforesaid, and that pages numbered 3 through 5, inclusive,
7 constitute a true, complete and accurate transcript of said
8 proceedings .
9 I further certify that I have no personal ,
10 professional or financial interest in the outcome of
11 this action.
12 DATED this 21st day of June 1999 .
13
14
15 j ^
16 0ulgg 111
\\ ua. oe
17 ; cPLLJ? O
:�F' *.IC‘
••• i Ot 9N. /
Ek : [
18 ee.Via• #CC71 98(1 :¢r
19 $99p.4 aneea1`1 , p�•
'' /b41111111110 ,
20
21
22
23
24
25