Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Code Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates overlay‑district sign rules, asks staff to simplify façade math
Summary
Commissioners spent the bulk of the April 2 meeting debating draft sign‑code changes for the overlay district, including whether to measure allowed sign area by lot frontage or by building façade, how to treat curved frontages and multi‑tenant buildings, and whether to cap individual signs at 200 square feet; staff was directed to redraft language using cardinal‑side allocations and to return for further review.
Brandon Planning & Zoning commissioners spent an extended portion of their April 2 meeting reviewing draft changes to the overlay‑district sign regulations and asked staff to simplify the draft wording before a public hearing.
Staff presented a draft that offered two measurement approaches: a per‑lot frontage calculation and a per‑building‑façade calculation. Staff asked whether the commission preferred an angle‑based definition (for example, a 45‑degree threshold) to break complex façades into separate sections. Commissioners raised practical enforcement concerns and examples in which façade‑based calculations would create large allowable signage — especially for businesses with extensive frontage such as gas stations.
"I struggle with gas stations with signage anyway," one commissioner said, noting that multiple frontages could yield high aggregate signage even if each single sign is limited. Commissioners discussed limiting individual signs to 200 square feet per side and using conditional‑use review for any larger requests. Staff flagged technical questions for curved street frontages and said staff previously addressed similar allocation problems by bisecting curves at midpoints when splitting frontage segments.
Using the large multi‑tenant Sunshine/Lewis property as a case study, the commission debated whether to treat contiguous exterior walls as one cardinal‑side allocation (east/south/west) rather than many small façade jogs; several commissioners said aggregating by cardinal side would be simpler to administer and avoid unintentionally granting excessive signage. Commissioners also discussed legal nonconforming signs already present and asked staff to research permit history to determine whether existing signs have grandfathered status.
Direction to staff: commissioners asked staff to redraft the ordinance text to (1) limit single signs per side unless approved through conditional use, (2) prevent transferring façade allocations between different sides of a building, and (3) adopt a simpler approach—aggregating signage by cardinal side—to reduce ambiguous calculations for curved frontages and complex buildings. Staff will return with revised wording and the commission will consider formal public hearing scheduling after that redraft.
Next step: staff will prepare revised draft language for a future meeting and confirm whether specific existing signs are legal nonconforming installations before finalizing any new limits.
