Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews comprehensive rewrite of Bedford sign ordinance; no action taken
Summary
Commissioners and staff discussed a full rewrite of Bedford's sign ordinance — covering maintenance, nonconforming signs, pole/pylon restrictions, monument sign sizes, reader-board limits, and special sign districts — and asked staff to return with revisions; the item was a workshop and no vote was taken.
On March 26 the Bedford Planning and Zoning Commission held an extended workshop on a proposed comprehensive rewrite of the city's sign ordinance. Staff described the rewrite as an overhaul of the ordinance last substantially updated in 2012 and asked for feedback on substantive changes including maintenance, sign types, spacing, and temporary sign rules.
Staff outlined key goals: allow businesses to advertise while protecting public safety and the city's appearance. Among the major proposed changes, staff said the draft strengthens maintenance and removal requirements for abandoned or deteriorated signs; it would prohibit new pole or monopole signs on non‑freeway frontage and limit pylon signs to freeway frontage, and it would encourage consolidated multi‑tenant signage by setting spacing and one‑sign‑per‑development rules.
On technical specifics, staff said the proposal would limit electronic reader board area to 50% of the sign (down from provisions that allowed 100%), set a monument sign maximum area of 75 square feet and a typical height around 7–8 feet for single‑tenant monuments (with higher allowances for multi‑tenant signs where appropriate), and propose 150 feet between signs on the same property. Staff also described special sign districts (comparable to planned unit development sign packages) that would allow large developments to adopt a cohesive sign program; staff identified Gateway Village as a likely early candidate.
Commissioners pressed staff on grandfathering for existing nonconforming signs, and staff said grandfathering continues unless a sign is removed, altered, or deteriorated past a threshold (in which case the sign would lose nonconforming status and be required to comply with the new rules). Commissioners asked about amortization and compensation for removing signs; staff said amortization would require city funding and is not part of the current proposal.
Questions also covered setbacks and visibility (including concerns that a proposed 5‑foot setback from nonresidential property lines might impede sight lines in some locations), monument sign bond and insurance requirements, illumination and brightness controls for reader boards, temporary banner and feather flag limits, and enforcement procedures (code enforcement would investigate complaints and may pursue municipal court if owners disagree with enforcement actions).
Staff repeatedly emphasized that the draft is a work in progress and said it will return with edits; commissioners suggested adding an overall cap for wall signs, clearer illustrations for spacing and visibility, and tighter language to preserve free‑speech protections where required by state law. Because this was a workshop discussion, the commission made no formal changes to the ordinance at the meeting and no vote on adoption was taken.
Staff announced the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting would be April 23 and said it will attempt to circulate revisions before that date.
