Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43. <br />44 <br />4S <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />Excerpt of Minutes <br />MINUTES <br />ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING 130ARD <br />SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />~~~ rn~n t 3 <br />Approved 14/1/08 <br />MEMBERS PRESENT: Renee A. Price, Hillsborough Township At-Large {Vice Chair); Craufurd Goodwin, Hillsborough <br />Representative; Bernadette Pelissier, Bingham Township; Brian Crawford, Eno Township At-Large; Joel Forrest <br />Knight, Liftle River Representative; Judth Wegner, Singham Township At Large; Larry Wright, Cedar Grove <br />Township At Large <br />MEMBERS ABSENT: Jay Bryan, Chapel Hill Representative {Chair); Michelle Kempinsld, Cedar Grove Township At <br />Large; Jeffrey Schmitt, Cedar Grove Township At Large; Cheeks Representative, Vacant; Eno Township, Vacant <br />STAFF PRESENT: Tom Alfieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, Michael Harvey, AICP, Planner II;.Glenn Bowles, <br />AICP, Planner II; Robert Davis, AICP, Planner (II; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II <br />OTHER ATTENDEES: Rita Leadem, Representative for Comprehensive Plan Coalition; John Bugg, Applicant-The <br />Forest at Little River <br />AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL <br />AGENDA ITEM 11: SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT <br />To consider a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this proposed amendment heard at the <br />May 19, 2008 Quarterly Public Hearing. <br />. Presenter. Michael Harvey, Planner II <br />Michael Harvey: As we discussed previously the existing ordinance is too far out of date and we wanted to do a <br />comprehensive redo of the .whole document The existing ar8cle made major modifications to how we deal with <br />political signage. The concern was that if we change the rules before the November election we could create <br />confusion as to what regulations applied. Unfortunately, we stiu have inconsistent sign regulations for parks. We <br />took the standards we reviewed out and we will do a separate amendment to cover those. We have proposed <br />amendment for Article 9 and for Section 6.25.3, the Design Manual. There was a concern over what was interpreted <br />as being a typo in this ordinance propose! on page 288, number one, subsection 2, reads the freestanding sign <br />should be limited to 20 square feet of sign area. In the EDD standards we are recommending 32 square feet. The <br />question was why you are treating them differently. Basically Aficle 9 has three different sections that state you can <br />only have freestanding at 20 square feet <br />MOTION made by Judith Wegner to approve. Seconded by Bernadette Peiissier. <br />VOTE: Unanimous <br />Judith Wegner: Can you give us an idea of what happened with Buckhom? <br />Michael Harvey: The Board of County Commissioners accepted the planning board's recommendation for review <br />and that was it <br />Larry Wright: On page $ the sentence at the top regarding the Plexiglas, metal, etc. are strongly discouraged. Some <br />of these are inuminated from inside and have their logo on either side of the awning or top, uuould that discourage this <br />tYpe• <br />Michael Harvey: That is not part of the amendment. <br />Larry Wright: Thank you. _ <br />~~ <br />