Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-19-2015 - C2
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2015
>
Agenda - 02-19-2015 - Quarterly Public Hearing
>
Agenda - 02-19-2015 - C2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2015 8:38:31 AM
Creation date
2/18/2015 11:12:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/19/2015
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
C2
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
19 <br />ORANGE COUNTY <br />BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND <br />PLANNING BOARD <br />QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT <br />Meeting Date: February 19, 2015 <br />Action Agenda <br />Item No. C.2 <br />SUBJECT: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment - Sign Regulations <br />DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes <br />ATTACHMENT(S): <br />1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified <br />Development Ordinance Outline Form - <br />Sign Amendments (UDO /Zoning 2015- <br />01) <br />2. Future Land Use Element Map <br />3. Matrix of Sign Regulations <br />4. Proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) <br />INFORMATION CONTACT: <br />Michael Harvey Planner 111,(919) 245 -2597 <br />Craig Benedict, Director, (919) 245 -2585 <br />PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on Planning Director initiated Unified Development <br />Ordinance (UDO) text amendments regarding sign regulations. <br />BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the Comprehensive <br />Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Outline Form (Attachment 1) for this item at its <br />January 22, 2015 regular meeting. <br />There has been an increase in inquires and interest with respect to development of large -scale <br />commercial operations within the county. Staff is concerned current sign regulations do not <br />offer a suitable distinction between allowable signage for projects developed in urbanizing areas <br />versus rural areas and do not take into consideration the size of the parcel being developed or <br />the amount of road frontage the parcel has. <br />There is also a noticeable lack of clarity within the UDO addressing the development of large - <br />scale properties with multiple tenants necessitating the need for a larger, freestanding sign, <br />advertising local businesses, and on what constitutes a blinking /flashing sign leading to <br />enforcement concerns. <br />The proposed amendment seeks to address these concerns. For more background information <br />please refer to Section B.1 of Attachment 1. <br />Staff has provided a table outlining how other surrounding jurisdictions address signage in <br />Attachment 3. Proposed amendments are contained in Attachment 4. <br />FINANCIAL IMPACT: Please refer to Section C.3 of Attachment 1. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.