OCPB agenda 030216 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 residential project on a larger parcel of property. Existing regulations must also be refined to address a recent US Supreme Court decision. 2. Analysis As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: ‘cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis, prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners’. There has been an increase in inquires and interest with respect to development of large-scale commercial operations within the County, with an emphasis on property located within the: a. Commercial Transition, b. Commercial-Industrial Transition, and c. Economic Development Transition Activity Nodes (please refer to Attachment 2 for additional detail). Current sign regulations limit the total allowable square footage for freestanding and wall signs for most non-residential general use zoning districts to 32 square feet (8 feet by 4 feet in size) regardless of the property’s location (in or outside of an Activity Node), size of parcel, or amount of road frontage. The ‘one-size fits all’ sign limit may, in fact, be a deterrent to non-residential development in the aforementioned Activity Nodes. There is also a noticeable lack of clarity within the UDO addressing the development of large-scale properties with multiple tenants necessitating the need for a larger, freestanding sign, advertising local businesses and on what constitutes a blinking/flashing sign leading to enforcement concerns. Recent court decisions, most notably Reed versus Town of Gilbert, also impact the County’s current sign regulations. In this case the US Supreme Court sign regulations cannot be seen as allowing/disallowing a sign based on its content. For more information on the case and its potential impacts please refer to the following: http://canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=8167. The amendments are necessary to address current concerns over advertising needs for non-residential development on larger parcels within the County and clarify the prohibition on the use of blinking/flashing signage by incorporating new definitions into the UDO. Existing regulations also need to be revised to ensure our standards are ‘content neutral’ and consistent with the findings of the Gilbert case. To this end staff will be recommending maximum allowable signage area for various general use zoning districts including residential districts (i.e. RB, AR, R-1, etc.). 3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives) Land Use Goal 4: Land development regulations, guidelines, techniques, and/or incentives that promote the integrated achievement of all Comprehensive Plan goals. 17 17