My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/18/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
7/18/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:14:19 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:42:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/18/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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
matter. <br />Through the SR 60 Task Force's process of working with affected business owners, the concern of <br />eroding and lowering the corridor's aesthetic standards was balanced against the advertizing needs <br />of business owners, particularly small businesses. After two field meetings and two workshop -style <br />meetings, a compromise was reached that should protect the corridor's aesthetics and allow a <br />reasonable amount of window sign advertising. <br />The proposed amendment follows the approach established in the SR 60 corridor free-standing sign <br />and facade sign area restrictions, whereby the countywide allowance would be halved. Therefore, <br />the proposed amendment would allow 10% window sign area coverage, not to exceed 50 sq. ft., <br />within the corridor. This is half of the county -wide 20% allowance. Also, especially as a help to <br />small storefront businesses, a 4 sq. ft. exemption for "open", "closed", hours of operation, and <br />identification signs would be allowed in addition to the 10% coverage allowance. No increase in <br />facade sign or free-standing sign area is proposed with this amendment. <br />The Chamber of Commerce, participating business owners, and the SR 60 Task Force support the <br />proposed amendment. <br />RECOMMENDATION• <br />Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed LDR amendment <br />and authorize staff to update the SR 60 Corridor Plan document to correspond with the LDR <br />amendment. <br />ATTACHMENTS: <br />1. Window Sign Regulations Comparison Chart <br />2. Existing SR 60 Window Sign Regulations <br />3. Correspondence <br />4. Proposed LDR Amendment Ordinance <br />5. Minutes from May 18, 2000 PSAC Meeting <br />6. Minutes from the June 22, 2000 PZC meeting (DRAFT) <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this <br />Penny Chandler, representing the Chamber of Commerce, thanked Director Boling, the <br />chairman and members of the Task Force for allowing the business community an opportunity to <br />work with them to develop this compromise. She reported that the business community agreed that <br />some standards are necessary, however, when the regulations were developed there was still some <br />need to determine what would work and what would not work when the businesses opened. She <br />July 18, 2000 <br />41 <br />BK 1 14 PG 249 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.