Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Code Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs countywide master sign plan process for very large developments
Summary
The Commission voted to forward a dual-ordinance package (Article 3 and Article 7 changes, ZON260006) that creates a 'master sign plan' process for unified large-scale developments (minimum 2,000 acres), adopting definitions, administrative review timelines and board review scenarios; staff recommended approval and the commission forwarded the ordinances to the Board of County Commissioners.
Staff and the applicant presented a proposed change to Clay County's sign code (ZON260006) on April 7 that would add a master sign plan (MSP) process for unified large-scale developments and create new sign definitions, administrative review procedures and amendment rules.
Chief Planner Dodie Seelig told commissioners the MSP concept establishes a unified sign-control framework for very large, multi-phase projects and that staff finds the zoning amendments meet the required criteria and recommends approval. Under the proposed code, a "unified large scale development" is a comprehensive, master-planned multi-phase project of not less than 2,000 acres and the MSP would require a boundary map, sign locations, a sign schedule and documentation of unified control for all properties in the plan area.
Key code features discussed included directional and gateway feature signs (with limits on advertising and minimum text), a 2,000-foot spacing provision near intersections, administrative review of MSP applications within 15 business days, limits on flashing or pulsating lights, and an amendment process that would prevent reducing an MSP below the 2,000-acre threshold. Staff also explained that signs removed from an MSP must be brought into compliance or removed within 180 days.
Applicant Frank Miller said the concept initially came from the developer community as a way to provide cohesive signage and aesthetics across very large developments such as Saratoga Springs. Commissioners pressed on enforcement (staff and possible HOA or CDD recorded covenants), the 15-business-day review period, lighting definitions and how waivers would be capped; staff and the applicant said the administrative timeline parallels other plan review timelines and that documented covenants and recorded documents would notify future owners that the MSP "runs with the land."
After discussion and brief public comment, the commission voted to forward the two ordinances (Article 3 and Article 7 revisions) to the Board of County Commissioners for final action; staff noted minor textual tweaks remained to be inserted before the board packet.
