Minutes - 19840123 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

i. ~ ~ 19 referer;ce may be a. full service station or quickie-mart. Another inciivic:ual noted the absence of prices caith logo signs. john Bivens cited the benefit raaleaed through outuoor advertising or. I-05 to the Colonial Inn. aim Paliourus, Chris' Restaurant c-.nd Sunoco,' indicated that ouL-door advertising signs are invaluable and account far 10; increase of his business. Lloyd inquired about legal ramifications oL- the proposed regulations. - Giechill responded the five year amcxtiaatian period speci;ied in the ordinance already with regard to removal of non-conforming signs was -- constitutionally proper. Le noted a recent T?orth Carolina Appellate court case sungests that three years is a proper period and another that allows zoning solely on the basis of aesthetics. Smith clarified that the five year period for removal or compliance is appliable upon application of the standard and a finding that a sign es non-conforminc. Proposes: Text Amendments to Article 22 Definitions Presented by Sn.eth This agenda item is to receive public comment on the proposeu te~.t amenr~ments to Article 22 ~;j,~~•j,Qy~, associated vvith the establishment of the i•iTC District. The proposes: sicn requirements associated with the i=_TC district limits signs within the district to enfarraational and incidental signs. Definitions of these tyro sign types are not presently contained within the zoning ordinance. The amendments to Article 22 Definitions are as follows: 5i.n. I~2~1?~~~s~~i9~~ Cn-premise sign identefying a business person, service, activity, commodity or produc4. ~I1 , incidental - on premise sign providing information for the convenience and necessity of the public, such as "exit" "no admittar:ce", "parking", etc. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Te::t Amendrents - Landscaping and Screening 'steauirements. This agenda item is to receive public comment on proposed te~:t amendment to the Orange County zoning Drcinance regarding landscaping and screening requirements. Presented by Collins. Pir. Olive incuire.d if Chapel hill had a landscaping ordinance. kle noted there should be compatibility between Chapel k?ill's and Orange County's ordinances on landscaping. xe further stated that carunents and suggestions on th proposal should be received from landscape architects. Commissioner :iarshall nntec that Chapel Hill, through e:cperience, found it desirable to tie the landscape provisions to the planting seasons with regard to the certificate of occupancy. T•~il:e j•~oods, developer, insuried if an engineer must do the site plan or if there vrere guidelines that could be handled by a layman. Collins responded yes, the site plans do not rec:uire an engineer. T•:oods also inquired about screens. Collins responded givir_g a list of screen types. i7oods enquired about the cost oz a 20' tree. Collins responded the last word he had was X125.00 per tree. t?oocs noted this vvould cause a delay in acquiring buelding permits. Collins respon~ec that review anc: approval of landscape plans should only rake 1-2 days.