Officials consider overlay district, not individual variances, for taller interstate-facing signs near Bridal 90 Plaza

Planning staff told committee members at a recent meeting that businesses near Bridal 90 Plaza are requesting signs taller than the local sign-height limit to improve visibility from the interstate, and the group discussed whether to handle those requests via variance, conditional use or a map-based overlay district.

"We are starting to see requests from potential businesses out in Bridal 90 Plaza wanting signs taller than what is allowed by our zoning code," said Staff member, Planning staff. "They want so coming from going from the East West, you generally have pretty good visibility going west to east it's limited ... We have received a variance request for that — is that the way you want to do it?"

The matter matters because allowing taller signs in one spot could set a precedent across the jurisdiction, committee members said. One member warned that approving individual variances could require permitting similar exceptions elsewhere. "If you allow it here, you have to allow it everywhere else," said Committee member 6. He suggested a geographically limited overlay district — drawn on the zoning map and applied only to selected lots near the interstate — as a way to confine any change in sign height to specific areas.

Other members pushed back on whether a land-based hardship exists, a legal threshold often required for a variance. "I wouldn't be able to see a hardship with that. No land hardship," said Committee member 5, who pointed to other resort towns that limit tall signage and expressed concern about light pollution and turning the skyline into advertising.

Staff described a local context of existing tall signs near the interstate, including McDonald's, Circle K and Coffee Cup, and said applicants argue the presence of those signs could support higher signs in the Bridal area. Staff also said one applicant has requested two signs, one 35 feet (slightly above the 30-foot limit) and another as tall as 90 feet. A committee member clarified that nonconformance (existing signs that exceed current code) is not by itself a legal basis for a variance.

Committee members weighed alternatives: treating requests individually via variance, using conditional-use review, amending the zoning code, or establishing a narrowly drawn overlay district tied to specific parcels near the interstate. Several said conditional use review would be difficult to administer without clear, objective conditions and that a variance approach could unintentionally broaden the change's application. A Department of Transportation directional-sign program also was mentioned as a separate mechanism that lists businesses on state-managed roadside signs.

No formal determination was made during the meeting; staff and committee members emphasized that any decision would await a public hearing and further research. Staff offered to draft a preliminary overlay-district template to show how a geographically limited change might look on the zoning map. Committee members cautioned staff to avoid detailed public discussion that might create the impression a decision already had been made.

The meeting ended with a routine motion to adjourn that passed by voice vote; the committee did not adopt any change to the sign code or grant a variance at that session.