OCPB agenda 050218 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

DRAFT 111 With regard to the proposed dimensions these numbers are, as you previously noted, /{an amalgamation of all 112 previous drafts" and are proposed merely as reasonable suggestions. Size limitations may not be so restrictive that 113 they do not allow sufficient means of expression and I believe the proposed numbers allow full expression of the 114 message without allowing a property owner to negatively impact her or his neighbor.115 116 Let me know if this is responsive of you need more information.” 117 118 As I have indicatedduring the ORC committee meeting, the proposed regulation(s) are necessary to ensure 119 uniformity with respect to the size and number of flags that can be displayed on property as well as clarify the 120 measurable standard that will be employed relating to the allowable height any erected flagpole. As written, the 121 amendment would clarify existing regulations to ensureadherence tothe following specific standards:122 123 1. Within a residential general use zoning district (including Rural Buffer, Agricultural Residential, and 124 Rural Residential) the amendment allows for the erection of a single flagpole with a maximum height 125 limit of24ft. A maximum of 3 flags could be displayed, with each flag being a maximum of24 sq.in area 126 (or 4ft. by 6ft. in size) on a residentially zoned parcel;127 128 2. Within all other general use zoning districts, the amendment allows up to 3 flags and 3 individual 129 flagpoles. Each flag can be a maximum of 96 sq.ft.in area (or 8ft. by 12ft. in size). Flagpoles shall be 130 a maximum of 54 ft. in height;131 132 3. In all general use zoning districts a flagpole shall be required to observe a 50 ft. setback from all property 133 lines;134 135 4. As written Section 6.12.12 of the UDO would contain an amortization provision requiring nonconforming 136 flags and flagpoles, legally erected prior to the adoption of this amendment, to be brought into 137 compliance within 1year from the Ordinance being adopted.138 139 5. As written Section 6.12.13 of the UDO contains language exempting flags, no greater than 12 inches 140 in height, displayed on individualgrave sites within a cemetery from the provisions of the Ordinance.141 142 As previously indicated the proposed language is content neutral and does not establish a ban on any specific 143 flag. I will refer you back to the e-mail authored by John Roberts for additional detail on this matter, which I have 144 previously read into the minutes of this meeting.145 146 As part of making a recommendation on this text amendment, the Board is being asked to approve aStatement of 147 Consistency for this project, making the following findings: 148 149 Michael Harvey reviewed the Consistency Statement, Attachment 2 in the board packet, and then continued his 150 presentation: 151 152 The Planning Director's recommendation on this item is to:153 154 1.Review the proposed amendments to the UDO,155 156 2.Deliberate on the proposal as desired,157 158 3.Consider the Planning Director's and County's Attorney recommendation(s), and159 160 4.Make a recommendation to the BOCC on:161 162 The Statement of Consistency for proposed UDO Text Amendment(s) (Attachment 2), and Proposed UDO Text 163 Amendment(s) (Attachment 3)in time for the May 1, 2018 Public Hearing.164 165 Randy Marshall asked the board if they had any questions. 166 12