Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Signage topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Discussion begins on taller highway signs at Brandon 90 Plaza; staff offers overlay-district template

2623207 · February 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planning staff and meeting participants discussed requests from businesses in Brandon 90 Plaza for highway signs taller than local zoning allows. Staff offered to draft a preliminary overlay district as an alternative to case-by-case variances; no formal decision was made.

Planning staff and meeting participants discussed requests from businesses in Brandon 90 Plaza for highway signs taller than the local zoning code allows, and staff offered to draft a preliminary overlay district as an alternative to handling requests as individual variances.

The discussion focused on whether taller signs should be treated through variances or by creating a mapped overlay that would allow increased height for selected properties near the interstate. "Correct. So we are starting to see requests from potential businesses out in Brandon 90 Plaza wanting signs taller than what is allowed by our zoning code," a staff member said. The same staff member said one applicant is seeking two signs, one at about 35 feet and another at about 90 feet, and that sight-line calculations indicate a sign might need to be "well over a hundred feet tall" to be visible to drivers traveling in one direction.

The staff member said research is under way to determine whether existing tall signs in the area — including those for McDonald's, Circle K and Coffee Cup — were permitted under the current code or allowed by earlier variances. The staff member also noted that "a nonconformance is not a basis for issuing a variance," indicating that an existing out-of-code sign would not automatically justify new exceptions.

Other participants questioned whether the applicants had shown a land-based hardship, which is typically required for a variance. "I wouldn't be able to see a hardship with that. No land hardship," one participant said. Several speakers raised concerns that approving variances in individual cases could create a precedent, prompting broad requests across the city; others raised potential nuisance effects, including increased light and visual clutter along the skyline.

As an alternative to individual variances, the staff member asked whether the body would be interested in a preliminary overlay district: "Would you be interested in me writing up a very preliminary overlay district that we could fill in kind of a template that would overlay probably the GB in that area or HI or whatever?" The staff member described how an overlay could be applied to selected lots on the zoning map rather than allowing exceptions everywhere.

Speakers also noted that interstate directional signage and multi-business panels (for example, state or federal and Department of Transportation-managed signs listing several businesses) are separate from local off-site sign regulation. A participant cautioned against appearing to predetermine an outcome before a public hearing: "Just for clarification purposes, just so any opinion expressed is just an opinion at this point until it's the public hearing. No determination is actually made."

No formal amendment to the zoning code, conditional-use approval or variance was adopted during the discussion. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn, which passed by voice vote.