The City of Washington Board of Adjustment considered a request from Mattress Dogs to increase permitted building signage at 1086 Washington Square on Oct. 27. City staff described the request as variance file 25-1001, noting the city code limits total building sign area in the C-2 Commercial district to 5% of the principal building face and that the applicant proposes allowing up to 7%.

City staff presented measurements and photos showing the applicant's storefront tucked behind other buildings and partially obstructed from certain views on State Routes 100 and 147. Staff said the proposed front sign would be about 88.8 square feet and the side sign about 71.9 square feet and provided engineering details for attachment and lighting.

Richard Kossmeier, identified in the record as a co-owner of Mattress Dogs, told the board his business is family owned, recently opened its fourth location and emphasizes local charitable work. "When you buy a mattress from us, the money 70% stays here in this community," Kossmeier said. He said a professional designer produced the proposed signs but did not check the city code before producing the designs, and that the company signed a 15-year lease for the location.

Board members questioned whether the situation meets the standard for a variance. The code language read into the record requires a showing of specific hardship — "exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property" or "exceptional topographical conditions" not generally prevalent in the neighborhood. Several members said they did not see those conditions in the application and cautioned against a "slippery slope" of expanding signage allowances if this request were approved.

Members also discussed alternatives raised during the hearing: revising logo colors to increase contrast, using space on the shopping center's tenant directory signs, and relying on temporary banners that are currently visible from the highway. Kossmeier said the proposed signs were designed to improve legibility and reflect the store's branding and that the proposed signs would be lit and tastefully mounted. He told the board the sign package cost about $20,000.

A resolution was read into the record stating that the request to vary the maximum total sign area to 7% of the building face "is hereby granted" and directing the city planner to issue a sign permit in accordance with the resolution. The subsequent roll call, as captured in the transcript, recorded multiple "nay" votes (Kevin Creedy — recorded as "No"; Mark Skornia — "Nay"; Laurie Struburg — "Nay"; Samantha Wacker — "Nay") and an unclear or inaudible vote for Gwen Montel. The transcript therefore records both the resolution language directing issuance of a permit and a roll call that is inconsistent with the reading; the record does not clearly reconcile that discrepancy.

After the vote reading, Kossmeier thanked the board and left. The meeting then moved to other business and adjourned.

Why it matters: Variances to sign regulations can set precedence for other property owners in the same commercial areas. Board members repeatedly cited concern about allowing exceptions where the code is otherwise clear about limiting sign area to preserve consistent appearance and prevent incremental increases across a retail corridor.

What’s next: The transcript records the resolution language directing the city planner to issue a sign permit; the roll call recorded in the meeting transcript is inconsistent with that reading and does not clearly show the final, auditable vote tally. Any permit issuance or enforcement action should be verified against the official minutes and signed resolutions on file with the City of Washington.