Commissioners approve larger building signs for U-Haul center after applicant offers to remove road-front monuments

The St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 to approve a nonzoning variance allowing expanded building-mounted signage at a proposed U-Haul center, after the developer agreed to remove several road-facing monument signs and add vegetation.

The applicant's representative (Mr. Whitehouse) told the board the main building spans about 125,000 square feet and occupies a prominent intersection along County Road 16/16A. He said the project's PUD currently authorizes monument signs on the state and county roadways but argued that removing the road-facing signs and allowing larger signs on the building facades is a reasonable exchange given the scale of the buildings and future landscaping. "We are willing to give those up and that would be a condition," he said, referring to the road monument signs.

Why it matters: The decision changes how businesses on large PUD parcels may use wall signage in exchange for foregoing multiple rights to freestanding signs along road corridors, which county staff said is consistent with the PUD's spirit and intent.

Commissioner discussion centered on visual impact and existing landscaping. Commissioner Joseph asked for increased plantings; staff and the applicant said they had already discussed additional landscaping and would bring crews back to review and meet the county's landscaping requirements. Neighbors who spoke during public comment gave mixed testimony: one resident said the cumulative wall sign area (described in staff materials as 636.14 sq ft on Building A and 576.91 sq ft on Building B) felt excessive compared with the code's typical maxima; another resident living near the intersection said the building's size and visibility justify prominent signage so motorists can find the facility.

The motion, made by Commissioner Arnold, overturned the Planning and Zoning Agency decision and approved the applicant's nonzoning variance request with five conditions, including additional vegetation commitments the applicant confirmed on the record. Chair and staff clarified that a "yes" vote would overturn the PZA decision; the motion passed 4-1.

The board and applicant repeatedly emphasized that the final sign placement would be limited to specific facade areas rather than covering entire building sides. Staff pointed to the PUD provisions that originally allowed monument signage along SR 16 and 16A, and to the code language that treats large multi-tenant or large single-occupant buildings differently than typical strip-mall storefronts.

Next steps: The approval is conditioned on the added landscaping and the applicant's commitment to remove the monument signs referenced in the PUD. Any building permits or sign permits still must meet technical review by staff.