Laserfiche WebLink
M M M <br />3 public meetings in the fall of 1994 and used the Port Orange <br />corridor plan as a framework. He expressed the Task Force's thanks <br />for the opportunity to develop the Plan. <br />Commissioner Eggert questioned the "prohibited uses" on page <br />152 of the backup and wanted to be sure bulk display and showrooms <br />were not prohibited. <br />Director Boling confirmed that was correct. <br />Commissioner Eggert then suggested it would be useful to <br />insert "outdoor" in front of the prohibited use <br />"automobile/motorized vehicle display, sales or rentals". <br />Commissioner Bird questioned staff's conclusion that the only <br />increased development costs were enhanced landscaping requirements, <br />and Director Boling responded that the information available was <br />that the development community did not see any significant <br />difference in designing. <br />Commissioner Bird then questioned the location of Port Orange <br />and Director Boling advised that it is a suburb of Daytona. <br />Commissioner Bird wanted to know if the new development <br />regulations will be effective in older areas, and Director Boling <br />advised that staff is recommending decreased setbacks in older <br />established areas. The Port Orange Plan requires a 50 foot buffer <br />setback which staff is not recommending. <br />Chairman Macht felt the monument signs are no guarantee of <br />aesthetics and are as ugly as home-made soap. He wondered whether <br />the aesthetic requirements could be increased and how much control, <br />short of architectural review, would remain on signs. <br />Director Boling advised that the only controls would be in <br />landscaping but voluntary compliance could be sought. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Brian Berklew of 1029 Easter Lily Lane, a commercial real <br />estate broker, felt that there are a few points which need to be <br />fine-tuned. He felt that the front buffers consisting of a 4 foot <br />opaque barrier would hide a sign in a shopping center from <br />occupants of a car and felt that 3 feet would allow someone in a <br />car to recognize the structure. He also felt the increased <br />landscaping requirements, rather than a proposed $700 additional <br />cost, for a 1 acre site, 200' x 2001, would increase the cost by <br />$4200. As a developer, he felt that additional cost could be <br />absorbed. The next objection he had referred to the roofing <br />requirements on Page 15 of the Plan. He felt it would not be <br />necessary to wrap the entire building but only the facade and a <br />NOVEMBER 21, 1995 <br />43 <br />Boa 96 PrAcE 646 <br />