Minutes 05-23-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to: a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3). VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich that staff make a presentation to both Board of County Commissioners and Planning boards, before the next public hearing, on their investigation of their TDR programs and is it viable in Orange County. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government- initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding signs. Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, reviewed the background information below: BACKGROUND: As the Board may already be aware, staff has been working on amendments to existing sign regulations for approximately 1 year. Originally staff focused on expanding advertising needs for non-residential development on larger parcels of property and establishing uniform standards for digital signage. During the course of working on the amendment package the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in Reid versus Town of Gilbert impacting the regulation of signage by local governments. During the summer/fall of 2015 and spring of 2016, staff worked with the County Attorney's office to modify the proposed amendment package to address the Court's findings. Several iterations of potential sign amendments were reviewed and discussed at the Planning Board's Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) with the plan for eventual presentation at the May 23, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing. Please refer to Section B of Attachment 1 for more background information. At the recommendation of the County Attorney's office, amendments designed to address the impacts of the aforementioned US Supreme Court decision will not be included as part of this process. The Attorney's office would like more time to work with staff and discuss the impacts of the Gilbert court case before proceeding with a comprehensive amendment package. As a result staff has proposed an amendment package, as contained within Attachment 3, which does the following: 1. Eliminates superfluous sign regulations contained in Section(s) 5.5.4 and 5.5.6 of the UDO; 2. Corrects identified grammatical errors and contradictory language in Section(s) 6.12.1 and 6.12.3; 3. Establishes standards defining what constitutes an electronic scrolling message sign in Section 6.12.6; and 4. Recommends the adoption of new standards allowing for larger signage within specific non- residential zoning districts based on the size and road frontage of a parcel of property. Work to address the impact of the Gilbert US Supreme Court case will be presented at a future public hearing once a new Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outline Form is reviewed and acted upon by the BOCC.