HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-1995 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1995
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Switzer at 7:44 p.m. followed by a moment of
silent meditation and the pledge of allegiance. A quorum was declared present.
PRESENT: Chairman Switzer, Vice Chairman Bond, Members Hopkins and Miller and
Alternate Members McKey (arrived at 8:45 p.m.) and Williams. Also present
were Planning Director Wagner, Building and Zoning Official Flippen, Assistant
City Attorney Formella and Deputy City Clerk Green.
ABSENT: Members Jones (away for medical tests), Landefeld (vacation) and Rhodus.
CONSENT AGENDA
The consent agenda consisted of approval of item A:
A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held Tuesday,
August 8, 1995.
Chairman Switzer, seconded by Member Miller, moved to a I grove the Minutes of Tuesda
August 8. 1995 as submitted. Motion carried 4 -0.
Chairman Switzer announced that the Planning and Zoning Commission would be acting as the
Local Planning Agency as it considered the Sign Ordinance Amendment.
NEW BUSINESS
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Planning Director Wagner said an earlier draft of the proposed ordinance had been considered
by both the Planning and Zoning Commission (on September 12) and the City Commission (on
September 19). The ordinance now under consideration incorporated the changes recommended
by both boards and would be presented to the City Commission along with any recommendations
of P & Z.
Building and Zoning Official Flippen, whose department enforces the sign regulations, had led
in preparing the ordinance and was present to answer questions. He said the ordinance had been
prepared at the direction of the City Commission and with the aim to include provisions which
would be both enforceable for the City and fair to the builders, developers and realtors who
needed the weekend signs.
Chairman Switzer opened the public hearing.
Lou A. Armesto, 1029 Southern Oak Lane, Apopka, spoke on behalf of the Home Builders
Association (HBA), and as chairman of a task force for HBA which works with municipalities
and counties on sign ordinances within the four county area. She thanked City staff for all their
work on the ordinance, their understanding that the signage was needed, and their effort toward
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
October 25, 1995
Now
compromise.
Ms. Armesto said there were four areas in which they felt the ordinance needed further work:
1) Fees and permitting - She said the $10.00 permit fee per sign was too high and that other area
cities were having about 70% to 80% compliance from builders with a charge of $10.00 for a
yearly permit. She was concerned about the requirement for stickers on each sign, as the
mechanics of having them would be a burden on builders. She suggested marking the back of
each sign with a permit number.
2) Size of signs - She suggested a pole height of four or five feet instead of three feet so that
directional signs could be seen from the road.
3) Number of signs - She said they could "live with" a provision for ten signs per subdivision
if it meant ten signs per builder, but, in the case of master plan communities in which there was
more than one builder, ten signs per total subdivision would not be acceptable.
4) Time period for use of signs - She explained that presales were critical for a development and
that signage played an important role in them. She asked that they be allowed to permit and to
start signage when a sales trailer was placed in the community instead of waiting until the first
building permit was issued.
Chairman Switzer asked Ms. Armesto if the signs were the only source of advertising, if a
marketing survey were not normally done by developers, and how they were currently handling
the situation in Ocoee without this ordinance.
Ms. Armesto answered that, while they also used Sentinel ads and billboards, the signs were
by far their most cost effective advertising medium, and that road signage brought over 50 % of
customers on the weekend. She said the more expensive ads or billboards would drastically
impact the cost which would be passed on to the customer. She said that, while marketing
surveys were done by developers, having direct contact on the property often yielded more
helpful information than the marketing study. She said signs were now being placed on and off
of right -of -way for approximately the time period as written in the ordinance. The task force,
through the HBA, has asked their membership to act responsibly even without local legislation.
As no other citizens wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Vice Chairman Bond said she had a number of concerns and asked Mr. Flippen if real estate
directional signs would be restricted to Friday afternoon to Monday morning.
Mr. Flippen confirmed that the Friday, 5:00 p.m. and Monday 8:00 a.m. limitation for
*try 2
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
October 25, 1995
Now
temporary directional signs applied to everybody - builders, developers and realtors.
Ms. Bond said she was very much opposed to limiting the posting of real estate directional signs
to the weekends only. Speaking as a broker /owner /realtor, she said that, as was the case in
subdivisions, the majority of sales on resale homes came from signage, from drive by traffic.
She explained how difficult it was to handle these sales under the current sign restrictions. She
said she was sometimes compelled to place signs where they should not be because of pressure
from the homeowner. She had resorted to asking property owners who live on corners for
permission to place directional signs in their yards. She said the only exposure for the more
remote listings was through MLS (Multiple Listing Service) and advertising. She said "brokers'
opens," which would attract brokers and agents, were one of the most effective marketing tools
for local realtors and custom home builders. She described the challenge of providing adequate
signs for such an event under the present restrictions and said that some of these issues needed
to be addressed because it was difficult to do business.
Ms. Bond said she wanted the City Commission to consider allowing realtors to have signs
seven days a week. In order to avoid a junky or haphazard appearance, she suggested that the
City might consider selling to realtors small signs (8" x 12 ") which read "Home for Sale" and
included a directional arrow. She said something needed to be done for the resale market, as
it was hurting the homeowners and the realtors' businesses.
Now Ms. Bond disagreed totally with Ms. Armesto's suggestion for markings on the back of signs.
She preferred the sticker. She has silk screened signs, as do many local realtors and custom
home builders, and would be appalled if the signs were marked with black magic markers.
She said she was not opposed to charging a fee for each sign authorized by a Temporary
Directional Sign Permit (page 3, item B 7), as she understood how important it was to maintain
control.
She suggested that the City have a right -of -way map available for sale to assist with "legal" sign
placement. (page 4, item B 16)
She noted the disparity between the ten temporary directional signs allowed to developers per
each separate subdivision and the maximum of three signs allowed to realtors. She explained
the difficulty in directing customers to some areas with only three directional signs. She said
realtors who took over a subdivision when the developer was ready for final phaseout of homes
would be handicapped. She asked for consistency in requirements.
She said major special events were allowed to post signs for seven days. She said the signage
requirements should be consistent whether for business or pleasure, and that she would be totally
opposed to anything that was not consistent.
* 3
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
October 25, 1995
Member Miller pointed out, in regard to Ms. Bond's comment on page 5 concerning
developers, builders, and realtors, that realtors sign limitations in a subdivision were the same
as those for developers and builders. Ms. Bond responded that realtors typically do not have
a subdivision and reiterated the difficulty in directing customers to some properties, and
suggested the City consider sale of "arrow" signs.
Member Hopkins asked for clarification on page 5, item C (3). She asked if the ten signs for
realtors were in addition to the ten signs the developers /builders were allowed for a total of 20
signs. Mr. Flippen confirmed the total would be 20.
Mr. Wagner directed attention to page 4, item B (17), which provided "The maximum number
of developer and builder temporary directional signs approved by the City shall not exceed thirty
(30) per each subdivision. Temporary directional signs for realtor signs are not included in this
thirty (30) signs."
Member Hopkins agreed that a three foot stake for the signs would be too short.
Mr. Flippen explained that the intention was that the sign should not exceed three feet above
grade.
Chairman Switzer asked what the sign ordinance would do to other businesses within the City,
*olo' and expressed his concerns about a proliferation of billboards over the City. He said he
understood some were grandfathered in, but that he did not want to see more. He specifically
objected to signs such as those on poles on Silver Star near Brentwood and on Highway 50
between Scotty's and Health Central.
Mr. Flippen explained that this ordinance did not apply to permanent businesses with a fixed
location, such as a hardware.
Assistant City Attorney Formella explained that off -site billboards were prohibited in Section
8 -5 of the Land Development Code (LDC), and from a legal standpoint, this ordinance would
not change the regulations with regard to billboards.
Mr. Wagner said it was hoped that regulations which allowed people to find their way to the
subdivision would decrease the need for developers to use billboards.
Ms. Bond asked how board members felt about real estate signs.
Chairman Switzer said he liked the new ordinance concerning garage sale signs and
commended Mr. Flippen for his handling of that issue. He said he understood the importance
of and the need for the directional signs as they affected the livelihood of many people and were
*ow 4
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
October 25, 1995
Now
necessary to assist in the sale of homes, but he did not want streets cluttered all the time trying
to get somebody to the house.
Mr. Wagner reminded members that two different kinds of signs were being considered -
temporary week end signs and new home guide signs that are permanent signs. He also said that
this was not a complete sign ordinance, but an augmentation to that which already existed.
Regular real estate signs were not covered in this ordinance because they were already covered
in the existing code.
Ms. Armesto pointed out that realtors would have three directional signs in addition to the
listing sign on the house,and that the builders' ten signs would be marketing 25, 50 or 200
homes. She suggested that a "brokers open" might have signage as a Minor Special Event.
Ms. Bond said she had not related that provision to her business. And Mr. Flippen said that
it might be interpreted that way.
Ms. Armesto said, with regard to New Homes Guide signs, that a kiosk sign could provide a
clean, uniform, organized look to signage and yet move traffic and could result in a decrease
in temporary weekend directional signs.
Ms. Armesto said she would like to hear board members thoughts on the permitting issue /the
low cost and mechanics of the permitting. She said putting the City in the sign business would not
be the best way.
Member Hopkins asked for clarification on page 5, item C (1) (a) and asked if the clock started
running from the first building permit issued or from the start of the whole process, the clearing
and grubbing, etc.
Mr. Wagner confirmed it was the start of the development itself, not the actual homes.
Mr. Switzer asked and Mr. Flippen confirmed that the height of the signs was to be 3 feet, not
the length of the stake.
Milo J. Mannino, 5075 Bamegat Point Road, Orlando, a sales consultant for Maronda Homes,
spoke in support of the proposed ordinance. He suggested, instead of a sticker for each sign,
having a permit issued to each builder for a certain number of signs. Mr. Flippen explained
the sticker on the front of the sign was needed to facilitate code enforcement.
Chairman Switzer asked why the City should erect the new homes guide signs. (page 7, section
8 -9 A.) He said many of the subdivisions entrance ways had the name on large signs and he
thought that was sufficient. He said he thought the additional signs would be littering.
,,,,, 5
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
October 25, 1995
Iftsir
Mr. Wagner said the staff was concerned that the kiosk signs could get out of hand if the City
did not maintain strict control over them. He said the developers or whoever was advertising
on that sign would be responsible for the payment of the cost of the structures, etc. and for any
repairs or replacement that might be needed. He said exactly how they would be regulated was
yet to be determined, but staff felt that the City should decide the location of the kiosk signs and
that would be a decision made by the DRC and ultimately the City Commission. He said kiosk
signs controlled within certain parameters would limit the visual pollution yet accomplish the
purpose of helping people find the subdivisions by which they would not normally drive.
Ms. Bond asked if they were supposed to make a motion, or just give a list of their ideas.
Mr. Wagner said, based on this discussion and on the assumption that the citizens who spoke
would come before the City Commission, it would be best to provide detailed minutes of this
meeting identifying the main points that were discussed and perhaps the motion should be to
recommend approval of the ordinance conditioned upon those comments unless board members
have some very strong opinions about certain items which they wanted to place in the motion.
He said he thought it would have to go the Commission in general form, and he expected that
they would make some modifications to it as well. He said the ordinance might have to be
redrawn after Commission considered it.
Chairman Switzer suggested that each Commissioner sum up their feelings on this.
Member Hopkins noted (page 5, item C (2) (b)) that it was the builder, as opposed to the
developer, who could not place the sign until a building permit had been issued, and asked if
there were a definition of the terms elsewhere.
Mr. Wagner said he understood her point - the developer was allowed to place the sign as soon
as the subdivision was underway, but the builder could not place a sign until a building permit
for the construction of a building had been issued. While in many cases the developer was the
builder, he agreed that this provision and the distinction between a developer and builder needed
clarification.
Mr. Flippen said he had no objection to changing the ordinance so that the regulations for
advertisement would be the same for the developer and the builder.
Attorney Formella pointed out that the Code included a definition of developer in Article II,
but there was no definition of a builder. She said, essentially, a developer was anyone
undertaking development, and development included a number of different activities (clearing,
etc.)
Chairman Switzer asked Mr. Flippen if he could not address that, and he asked what was the
*ow 6
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
October 25, 1995
Now
pleasure of the board.
Ms. Bond said she thought it was excellent the way it stood, but that builders and developers
should be treated equally, and Chairman Switzer agreed with her.
Ms. Hopkins said she agreed, unless a builder was defined as one who built one piece of
construction - one house on one lot, not in a subdivision. She said the meaning was vague, and
that she found the fees to be vague.
Mr. Switzer asked Mr. Flippen if the fees would not be set by the City Commission. He
confirmed they would do so by Resolution.
Ms. Armesto said they were not opposed to the stickers, but they were opposed to an individual
fee for each sign. They were much more amenable to payment of a flat permit fee in order to
receive the assigned stickers.
Ms. Bond asked if a set number of stickers could be issued at the time a yearly permit was
issued.
Mr. Flippen said, as written, they were only allowed ten signs /ten stickers, and the only way
they could get more stickers would be to come back in with the number of the sticker for the
sign which was stolen, damaged, or destroyed.
In response to a question from Chairman Switzer, Mr. Flippen said they had not yet determined
a fee.
Ms. Armesto said a survey of the homebuilders revealed they thought that a reasonable fee
would be between $10.00 and $125.00 per yearly permit. And she further suggested that the
first time that they abused their permit in any way, they would receive a warning, the second
time they would lose their permit and could not apply for another one for the remainder of the
year. And if an additional amount was to be charged per sign, on top of that fee, then they
wished them to be levied by subdivision (i.e. location).
Chairman Switzer said the Planning and Zoning Commission would not be taking any action
or making any recommendation on the fee. He said City staff and the City Commission were
attuned to the needs of the community and he was sure that a solution would be reached that
would be satisfactory to both parties.
Mr. Wagner said the fee needed to be sizeable enough to be an encouragement for the builders
to pick up their signs.
7
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
October 25, 1995
''fir..
Alternate Member McKey asked if the report of 25 stolen signs was a realistic number. If so,
he wondered who would steal them and for what purpose. (An unidentifiable voice responded -
that it was a very realistic number.)
Mr. McKey questioned the wisdom of the City getting into the sign making business again, and
asked (referring to Page 8, item B (3)) in what capacity would a homeowners organization desire
to utilize the new home guide signs.
Mr. Flippen answered that they might want to put up a sign about the subdivision.
Mr. McKey commended staff's efforts on the ordinance as he thought they haddone a terrific
job in trying to control "a very big octopus."
Ms. Miller said the permit fee issue was a separate issue and did not want to address it. She said
she did not agree with the City getting into the sign business. She said this was her only big
concern, and explained that, once begun, it might be difficult to stop. She said she thought that
was what private business was for.
Ms. Bond said that overall she thought Mr. Flippen and his staff had done a really good job,
and that she agreed with Member Miller and Chairman Switzer. She stressed the need for signs
during the week. She asked, if the City did get in the sign business, if they would also help the
*my local realtors by having small signs as mentioned earlier in the meeting. She said she felt there
was more concern for builders and developers than for realtors.
Chairman Switzer asked what was the pleasure of the Commission. He said he thought Mr.
Wagner had addressed that issue that we make a motion that we either approve or disapprove
and if it is approval that it be forwarded with the comments in the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Wagner added, "for additional consideration based on those comments."
Mr. Switzer asked Attorney Formella if that motion was acceptable.
Ms. Formella said it might be helpful to determine which issues had been explained to their
satisfaction and which issues were still outstanding in order to determine the areas the board
would like the staff and the City Commission to focus on. She asked if anyone felt the sticker
issue needed to be revisited.
Mr. Switzer said he thought that the sticker was a control device and he had no problem with
whatever would be workable /feasible so long as it was approved by the City Commission.
Ms. Bond said, "and as long as it keeps control."
'— 8
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
October 25, 1995
Mr. Wagner said that Mr. Flippen could identify their concerns from his notes and the minutes
and could include them in his staff report to the City Commission. He said the HBA
representatives would give their presentation before Commission as well. He said some of the
small details would be worked out, and that Commission might direct that portions be rewritten
before the ordinance was adopted.
Mr. Switzer said he thought the ordinance was certainly a good first step, even if it was not the
answer.
As it was unclear from her notes, Ms. Formella asked if board members had concerns about
builders having a limit of ten signs per subdivision.
Mr. Switzer said that after entering the subdivision it was easy to find the home that was begin
offered. Mr. Flippen said the individual signs on the individual lots inside the subdivision were
not covered in this total.
Mr. Switzer said as he drives down the road on week ends, he sees 20 signs between Bluford
Avenue and Good Homes Road directing him to homes that are for sale by various builders, and
he does not want to see 20 signs seven days a week.
Ms. Bond said she hoped she had made it clear that she wants her feeling to be transmitted to
the City Commission that she wants realtors resale signs to remain up during the week. She said
a realtor's needs were different from those of a developer.
Mr. Switzer asked Ms. Bond what would be her answer to the problem.
Ms. Bond said she would like staff to look at realtors having signs during the week for resales.
She suggested unobtrusive, uniform, conforming small signs as mentioned earlier in the meeting.
She said realtors should pay for the signs and should follow all the other guidelines that were
set up - i.e. stickers, charges.
Mr. Flippen said they had been directed by the City Commission to address weekend directional
signs and if it were to be changed to have signs seven days a week, he would have to have
direction from Commission.
Ms. Bond again stressed that the needs of a realtor on resales differed from those of a
builder /developer. She said up until two years ago they could put their signs anywhere they
wanted to. She said she agreed with the enforcement that had been done to clean up the sign
problem, but it was making it difficult for the realtors.
Mr. Switzer said Ms. Bond's point was well taken and asked if it would be feasible to add a
,,,, 9
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
October 25, 1995
paragraph to include realtor signs on page 5.
Mr. Flippen said it would be necessary to rewrite that section in order to deal with it.
Alternate Member McKey asked where the homeowner who decided to sell his own home fell
under for the signage.
Mr. Switzer and Ms. Bond recommended that a section be added for individual homeowners
to be permitted to have signs as for realtors.
Chairman Switzer seconded b Vice Chairman Bond moved to recommend a • . royal and that
it be forwarded with the comments in the minutes of this meetin . for additional consideration
based on those comments. Motion carried 4 -0.
Ms. Formella said, just to clarify for the record, is your motion that you "move to recommend
approval subject to consideration of the concerns raised in the Planning and Zoning Commission
minutes "?
Chairman Switzer responded, "Absolutely."
Above motion was voted upon after this comment.
Islay
OLD BUSINESS - None.
OTHER BUSINESS - None.
COMMENTS - None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
a rold Swi C :n
k a_n L.....)J ..01,t- )
Marian Green, Deputy City Clerk
tir 10