Browse
Search
OCPB agenda 010616
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Agendas
>
2016
>
OCPB agenda 010616
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2018 11:40:56 AM
Creation date
3/8/2018 11:37:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
1/6/2016
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OCPB minutes 010616
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Minutes\2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
83
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
Michael Harvey: This item is scheduled for your review at the January Planning Board meeting. This item will follow the new <br />process so you will be reviewing this and making a recommendation to the BOCC prior to presentation at the February <br />Quarterly Public Hearing. <br /> <br />Paul Guthrie: Do you expect any push back on this? <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: No sir. The push back I expect is that they need to be larger than 64 square feet. <br /> <br />Craig Benedict: We are planning to provide pictures and examples of signs in the county that are in compliance and are not <br />in compliance with these standards. This will give a perspective of what’s allowed now and what will be allowed with the <br />proposed changes. <br /> <br />Patricia Roberts: That is a great idea to determine what a good example is. Why are we limiting sign size? Is there a <br />reason? <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: To control visual clutter along roadways. To ensure uniformity with respect to the display of the message, <br />so that one property owner is treated differently than another. Also, to encourage and promote the clustering of signage to <br />avoid unnecessary erection of multiple signs for larger projects. <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: If you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me. <br /> <br />Craig Benedict: When we were creating the Unified Development Ordinance there were many sections including signage <br />that we wanted to review and modify. At that time the Commissioners requested to just organize those sections at that time <br />and to come back later with amendments. We are noticing that with the development of water and sewer lines along the <br />interstate and increased interest we do not want to provide the ability to promote development in every other place in the <br />UDO until they get to the sign code and they face issues or problems for these projects. We are trying to be more flexible. <br /> <br />Patricia Roberts: These corporations have signs already worked out that they have to have that is always the same size. <br /> <br />Michael Harvey: Yes and no. If you look at Asheville as an example, you have chains that have adapted their signage to <br />accommodate a very restrictive sign code. <br /> AGENDA ITEM 3: ADJOURNMENT <br /> 6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.