Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43. <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />Excerpt of Minutes <br />MIIVt1TES <br />ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD <br />SEFrEMBER 3, 2008 <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />A1'Q.CJ1 rnen t 3 <br />Approved 10/1/08 <br />MEMBERS PRESENT Renee A Price, Hillsborough Township At-Large (Vice Chair); Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough <br />Representative; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Brian Crawford, Eno Township At- Large; Joel Forrest <br />Knight. Little River Representative, Judith Wegner, Bingham Township At- Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove <br />Township At- large <br />MEmBERs ABSENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative (Chair); Michelle Kempinsid, Cedar Grove Township At- <br />large; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At-Large:, Cheeks Representative, Vacant Eno Township, Vacant <br />STAFF PRESENT: Tom Allied, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Michael Harvey, AICP, Planner 11;.Glenn Bowles, <br />AICP, Planner II; Robert Davis, AICP, Planner III; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II <br />OTHER ATTENDEES: Rita Leadem, Representative for Comprehensive Plan Coalition; John Bugg, Applicant -The <br />Forest at little River <br />AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL <br />AGENDA ITEM 11: SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT <br />To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this proposed amendment heard at the <br />May 19, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing. <br />Presenter. Michael Harvey, Planner II <br />Michael Harvey: As we discussed previously the existing ordinance is too far out of date and we wanted to do a <br />comprehensive redo of the .whole document The existing article made major modifications to how we deal with <br />political signage. The concern was that if we change the rules before the November election we could create <br />confusion as to what regulations applied. Unfortunately, we still have inconsistent sign regulations for parks. We <br />took the standards we reviewed out and we will do a separate amendment to cover those. We have proposed <br />amendment for Article 9 and for Section 6.29.3, the Design Manual. There was a concern over what was interpreted <br />as being a typo in this- ordinance proposal on page 288, number one, subsection 2, reads the freestanding sign <br />should be limited to 20 square feet of sign area. In the EM standards we are recommending 32 square feet The <br />question was why you are treating them differently. Basically Article 9 has three different sections that state you can <br />only have freestanding at 20 square feet <br />MOTON made by Judith Wegner to approve. Seconded by Bernadette Pelissier. <br />VoTE: Unanimous <br />Juditf Wegner. Can you give us an idea of what happened with Buckhom? <br />Michael Harvey: The Board of County Commissioners accepted the planning board's recommendation for review <br />and that was it <br />Larry Wright: On page 8 the sentence at the top regarding the Plexiglas, metal, etc. are strongly discouraged. Some <br />of these are illuminated from inside and have their logo on either side of the awning or top, would that discourage this <br />type. <br />Michael Harvey: That is not part of the amendment. <br />Larry Wright: Thank you. <br />11 <br />