Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables proposed interstate‑signage expansion after debate over area, height and number of signs
Summary
Ordinance 2001, proposing to expand allowance for taller ‘interstate’ signage on land near the new bypass and East‑West Connector, drew significant council debate and was tabled for further study and direction; staff will return with options on area size, sign height, and limits on number/distance between signs.
Crestview City Council opened a lengthy discussion on Ordinance 2001, which would amend the land development code to allow taller interstate‑style signage in a commercially targeted area between the interstate and the East‑West connector. Council did not act to adopt the ordinance and instead voted to table the item so staff could return with alternatives addressing council concerns.
What the proposal would change: Staff proposed expanding the area that qualifies for taller signage—currently allowed within a limited zone near I‑10—to include a larger swath generally bounded by the interstate, the East‑West Connector (Fallen Heroes Way), U.S. 85 and the city’s spray fields. Staff said the change is intended to attract commercial development that seeks visibility from the interstate and the new connector.
Council concerns: Several council members expressed concerns about the proposed area and potential visual impact. Councilman Capps said the expanded pink area on the map would “dot” South Crestview with tall signs and harm community character; he favored a smaller area closer to I‑10. Others asked whether signs would be visible from the interstate given topography and tree cover and whether signs could reach several hundred feet in height at lower elevations. Council members proposed alternatives including limiting the expansion to within 1,000 feet of U.S. 85, limiting the total number of signs, requiring minimum distances between signs (similar to billboard spacing), or capping sign height relative to local topography.
Staff direction and next steps: The council voted to table Ordinance 2001 and asked staff to return with further research, including sample signage from other municipalities, options that reduce the district size, proposals that limit the number or spacing of signs, and calculations of potential maximum sign heights based on topography. The motion to table carried 5‑0.
