TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Craig Harmon, Senior Planner
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: December 9, 2025
RE:Title
A25-48. Variance request to allow additional wall-mounted signage beyond the one-sign-per-tenant standard in the Community Commercial (CC/CZ) zoning district, located at 2804 Freedom Parkway Dr. (PIN # 0407953828000), represented by Lyndon Saylor of Parish Sign & Service, Inc., on behalf of Bath & Body Works #5012.
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
9 - Council Member Deno Hondros
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2025
Goal II - Diverse & Viable Economy
The request relates to Objective 2.4 (“sustain a favorable development climate to encourage business growth”) and Objective 2.1 (diversify the tax base). Additional wall signage could improve tenant visibility within a large-format retail environment, potentially supporting retail viability and customer wayfinding. At the same time, the City tracks corridor quality and business climate - e.g., satisfaction with the appearance of major corridors, vacancy rates, and overall qualify of business - as performance measures; proliferation of wall signs may also affect corridor aesthetics, which the plan seeks to improve. The Board should evaluate these factors together, as they have both positive and negative aspects.
Goal III - City Investment Planning
Objective 3.2 calls for managing future growth and strategic land use, and Objective 3.3 emphasizes a favorable development and business climate through timely and accurate construction review. Evaluating a variance through the UDO’s criteria aligns with these aims. However, the Board should assess any departures from the baseline sign standards (UDO §30-5.L) to ensure they are consistent with the strategic land-use and urban-design outcomes that the City monitors under Goal III.
Goal I - Safety & Security
Objective 1.2 focuses on traffic and pedestrian safety. While the application concerns the number of wall signs rather than sign technology or placement, cumulative sign area and distribution across multiple elevations can influence driver information load and sightline clarity at center drive aisles. The Board should check any approval parameters (e.g., maximum copy area per elevation, height placement, illumination limits) against this safety objective.
Goal IV - Live, Work, & Recreate
Objective 4.4 seeks a clean and beautiful community. The visual character of multi-tenant centers - and the degree of visual clutter or cohesion - implicates this objective. If the Board considers additional wall signs, ensure they maintain a coordinated design with elements like alignment, raceway treatments, and materials to support the community appearance goals. On the other hand, uncoordinated increases could detract from these goals.
Site & Policy Context
The subject site is in a regional shopping node (Freedom Town Center / Cross Creek-Skibo corridor). The City designates this area as a “Regional Center,” concentrating commercial activity within it. Wayfinding demands are increasing, which can inform the balance between Goal II (economy) and Goal IV (appearance) on highly commercial corridors.
The application frames the request as the minimum action to address multi-frontage visibility (four elevations). This factual context is pertinent to Goal III’s emphasis on predictable, timely reviews while maintaining strategic land-use outcomes.
Neutral Summary
On balance, the variance request engages multiple Strategic Plan objectives: it may support retail viability and customer wayfinding (Goal II), should be reviewed within the City’s growth/land-use management framework (Goal III), must avoid adverse effects on traffic/pedestrian safety (Goal I), and should maintain corridor appearance (Goal IV). Whether the request advances these objectives depends on the specifics of sign quantity, size, placement, illumination, and design coordination relative to the UDO standards and the center’s overall sign program.
Executive Summary:
Parish Sign & Service, Inc., on behalf of Bath & Body Works #5012, requests a variance from UDO Section 30-5.L to allow more than one wall-mounted sign at 2804 Freedom Parkway Dr. The applicant cites practical difficulties due to multiple exterior elevations facing different frontages, asserting a single sign limits visibility.
Variance A25-48 was postponed from the November 12, 2025, meeting due to the Bath & Body Works representative's absence caused by a civil obligation.
Background:
Owner: Bath & Body Works
Applicant: Lyndon Saylor, Parish Signs & Service, Inc., on behalf of Bath & Body Works #5012
Requested Action: Variance from UDO §30-5.L to allow additional wall-mounted signage (more than one tenant wall sign)
Zoning District: CC/CZ - Conditional Community Commercial
Property Address: 2804 Freedom Parkway Dr.
Size: 14.28 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Multi-tenant commercial (Freedom Town Center); Bath & Body Works retail space
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
• North: CC/CZ - Commercial retail/parking within Freedom Town Center
• South: CC/CZ - Commercial retail/parking within Freedom Town Center
• East: CC/CZ - Commercial retail/parking within Freedom Town Center
• West: CC/CZ - Commercial retail/parking within Freedom Town Center
Letters Mailed: 21 within a 300-ft. buffer of the subject parcel.
Issues/Analysis:
This request departs from the updated Sign Code’s base, content-neutral standards for Building-Mounted Signage in General Non-Residential Zoning Districts (UDO §30-5.L.8.b.2; “Permitted Number of Signs,” “Permitted Copy Area Calculation,” and related wall-sign standards). The application states the City’s base standard allows one (1) wall sign per tenant, and seeks relief to place wall signage on all four building elevations at 2804 Freedom Parkway Dr. (CC/CZ zoning).
What the code requires (base rule)
• UDO §30-5.L (excerpt attached to packet):
o Section 30-5.L.8.b.2.a - Building-Mounted Signage, General Standards, Permitted Number of Signs (Multiple Occupancy Buildings):
§ “No more than one (1) building mounted sign, excluding window signs, may be displayed per tenant space; provided that a projecting sign mounted on the corner of a building shall not count toward the maximum number of building mounted signs per frontage.”
• The regulations specify the location and size of building-mounted signs in §30-5.L.8.b.2 (General Standards) and §30-5.L.8.b.2.b (Wall Signs).
What the applicant proposes
• Number and Placement: Four exterior wall signs - one on each of the front, side, and two rear elevations - rather than a single wall sign. The submittal sheets label these as A1-A4.
• Copy area per sign (approx.): A1 = 91.11 sq. ft., A2 = 132.93 sq. ft., A3 = 59.2 sq. ft., A4 = 85.08 sq. ft. (aggregate ≈ 368.32 sq. ft. of wall-sign copy). Elevation widths are roughly 63 feet on the front/side/rear conditions shown.
• The application also reports sign-face areas of 131.94, 59.4, and 84.98 sq. ft. among the proposed wall signs.
Exact points of divergence
1. Number of wall signs per tenant - The request seeks four tenant wall signs, where the base code allows one (1). (+3 wall signs beyond base allowance).
2. Wall signs on non-primary elevations - Because only one wall sign is allowed by right, the additional signs on the side and rear elevations necessarily deviate from the base standard’s single-sign limit. (Relief is requested to display identification on each elevation facing different site approaches.)
Clarifications/context
• The site is located in the CC/CZ - Community Commercial (Conditional) district, and the relevant standards for building-mounted signs can be found in §30-5.L.8.b for General Non-Residential Districts. The freestanding signage at Freedom Town Center remains unchanged by the variance.
• Freedom Town Center previously received an Alternative Sign Plan in 2016 for freestanding signs, including pylons and ground signs. However, that approval did not address the quantity of tenant wall signs; this request specifically concerns wall signs for Bath & Body Works only.
• The applicant is seeking a variance under UDO §30-2.C.14 to deviate from the signage standards outlined in §30-5.L. A variance may provide relief from §30-5.L if the criteria for hardship are satisfied.
In sum: The variance seeks permission for four exterior wall signs (front, side, two rear) totaling about 368 sq. ft. of copy area, which exceeds the base code’s single-wall-sign allowance per tenant under §30-5.L for this multi-tenant site.
The Updated Sign Code
The City’s updated Sign Code (§30-5.L, as adopted June 23, 2025) reorganizes and revises the prior sign regulations in several key areas. The revisions are content-neutral, consolidate standards by sign type, introduce clearer dimensional and placement controls for both temporary and permanent signage, and strengthen administration by tying most allowances to objective measurements such as frontage length, wall area, and spacing. All statements in this subsection describing intent or policy rationale are conjecture based on the logic of the changes and not on legislative findings.
First, the new code replaces the former “signs allowed without a permit / with a permit / by special approval” structure with standardized, named sign types and district-based rules. Temporary signs are now organized into five defined types (Types 1 through 5), each with expressly stated limits on size, height, placement, frequency, and duration. Under the prior code, temporary allowances were scattered across categories such as political, grand opening, development/construction, real estate, and special event signage, creating a patchwork of exceptions. The new format consolidates those varied allowances into a repeatable rule set that can be applied regardless of message. Conjecturally, this appears intended to reduce content-based distinctions and allow staff to review temporary signage requests using measurable physical criteria (sign height, frontage, duration) rather than purpose or message.
Within that structure, several temporary sign categories are more clearly regulated than before. “Type 1” yard-style signs are permitted in limited numbers tied to street frontage, with a defined maximum height, but the code also includes an express suspension of certain quantity limits during the election window (30 days before the start of early voting through 10 days after the election) for household living parcels. “Type 2” and “Type 3” temporary panel/banners carry explicit square-footage and time limits per display and per year, and “Type 4” (A-frame/sandwich board) signs are now tied to business hours and sidewalk clearance standards (including a required 4-foot pedestrian clear zone and a 50-foot separation between signs for tenants with multiple entrances). In the prior ordinance, similar devices (for example, sidewalk A-frames or feather flags) often required case-by-case administrative approval or were treated as special-display signage in certain districts. Under the new code, these are expressly by-right subject to quantitative controls. Conjecturally, this appears intended to make enforcement more predictable in commercial corridors and reduce the need for ad hoc interpretations.
The new code also introduces supplemental temporary allowances tied to defined circumstances such as active construction, a new business opening or closure, federal holidays, campus promotion in University/College (UC) areas, and special events. These allowances specify the number, size, and duration of additional temporary signs that may be displayed beyond the base Type 1-5 limits during those defined windows (for example, an additional banner and wall sign during business commencement/cessation for up to 30 days, limited to one occurrence in a 12-month period, excluding “sham closures”). In the previous ordinance, comparable situations such as “grand openings,” “sale events,” or “under construction” signage appeared but were less uniformly structured and more reliant on descriptive language rather than measurable thresholds. Conjecturally, the new approach appears intended to narrow temporary surges in sign activity to specific, time-limited scenarios while preserving some flexibility for active tenants and development sites.
With respect to university and institutional corridors, the new code creates a standing allowance for UC-zoned properties to install pole-mounted banners and additional feather-type signs subject to spacing and size controls, without requiring special discretionary approval. The prior code treated such campus-oriented displays more as a special-approval item. Conjecturally, this appears intended to acknowledge that these districts function as self-contained environments with internal wayfinding and branding needs, and to regularize what had previously been handled through exceptions.
Permanent building-mounted signage in general non-residential zoning districts (OI, NC, LC, CC, MU, BP, LI, HI) has also been updated. The revised standards now define how many building-mounted signs are allowed (one per street frontage for a single-tenant building, or one per tenant space in a multi-tenant building, with a corner-mounted projecting sign not counting toward that maximum), how those signs are sized (the greater of 1 square foot per linear foot of tenant frontage or 10 percent of the wall area, subject to district maximums of 50 square feet in OI/NC/UC and 500 square feet in other non-residential districts), and how they must be constructed (projection limited to six inches; prohibition on painted wall signs; and disallowance of wall-mounted digital readerboards or manual changeable-copy panels). The prior code allowed wall signage largely by tying copy area to linear frontage and did not explicitly prohibit painted wall signs or wall-mounted changeable copy in the same terms. Conjecturally, the newer standard appears designed to (a) give tenants in taller buildings a clearer path to visibility by allowing the “10 percent of wall area” calculation, and (b) reduce visual clutter and on-building electronic messaging by restricting digital/changeable-copy content on wall faces in favor of cleaner, shallower, channel-letter or routed cabinets.
The new code also links window signs on the same frontage. Window signs may cover no more than 50 percent of the glazing on that frontage, and the total area of those window signs may not exceed the installed wall-sign area for that frontage. Previously, window signage allowances were stated in terms of individual maximums and percentages of window area but were not expressly tied back to an installed wall sign on that same elevation. Conjecturally, this appears intended to reduce cumulative sign saturation across storefront glass and building walls, especially in multi-tenant centers, and to maintain clearer sightlines in higher-volume commercial corridors.
In the downtown districts (DT-1 and DT-2), the code continues to recognize projecting and wall signage as the primary identification method but tightens how these signs are mounted and illuminated. The updated standards limit ground signs to smaller, pedestrian-scale monument-style signs (for example, a 20-square-foot / 7-foot-high cap for DT-1, with material and illumination controls), and require consistent sign type per frontage and manual-only changeable copy for most tenants, reserving digital or dynamic components for certain assembly/entertainment venues. The prior code allowed a broader mix of wall, window, projecting, and sandwich-board signs in downtown but relied more heavily on historic/overlay review processes rather than a uniform, frontage-based performance standard. Conjecturally, this appears intended to reinforce a walkable, pedestrian-oriented visual environment in the core by controlling ground sign height and illumination while maintaining tenant visibility along narrow street frontages.
Billboard regulations (off-premises signs) have been refined. The new code continues to allow off-premise billboards only in specified industrial districts and maintains limits on area, height, and spacing (including a 2,000-foot separation requirements and minimum setbacks from residential uses), but it now expressly incorporates a landscaping requiring around the sign base. Under the previous ordinance, billboards were already restricted to higher-intensity districts and subject to maximum copy area and height, but landscape treatment at the base was not specified in the same terms. Conjecturally, the added landscaping standard appears intended to improve visual screening and corridor appearance while acknowledging that billboards remain a permitted off-premise sign type in limited industrial contexts.
Finally, the Alternative Signage Plan (ASP) procedure remains in place but is more clearly framed. The new code documents its purpose, eligible use contexts (for example, large unified developments of civic/cultural sites), submittal requirements, and approval criteria in a single section. Under the former ordinance, comparable relief mechanisms existed, but standards and findings were not consolidated as explicitly. Conjecturally, this appears intended to create a predictable path for coordinated multi-tenant or multi-building sign programs (for example, large centers or campuses), so that recurring corridor-identity or wayfinding needs can be addressed comprehensively rather than through repeated variances.
In summary, the updated code keeps many of the same broad objectives as the previous ordinance - regulating sign area, height, placement, illumination, and visual impact - but it moves from a purpose-based system toward a form- ad performance-based system. It establishes defined sign types and quantified limits for temporary signs, adds a frontage- and wall-area-based sizing method for permanent wall signs, prohibits certain wall-mounted digital and changeable-copy displays, links window coverage to wall signage, narrows and conditions downtown freestanding signs, and formalizes campus and multi-tenant flexibility either by right (UC supplemental allowances) or through an Alternative Signage Plan. Conjecturally, the overall pattern suggests a coordinated effort to balance business visibility and wayfinding needs with corridor appearance, pedestrian conditions, and administrative clarity, using repeatable, measurable standards rather than case-by-case exceptions.
Insufficient Justifications for Variances (UDO §30-2.C.14.g)
The UDO clearly specifies what does not qualify as valid grounds for a variance:
1. “Other properties in the area have this feature,” referring to comparisons with nearby sites.
a. Referring to conforming or nonconforming uses or structures in the same district or elsewhere does not justify granting a variance. Each variance should be based on the specific conditions of the applicant’s site, not on the circumstances of others.
2. “We desire a usage that is not permitted in this place.”
a. A variance cannot authorize a use prohibited by the zoning district, whether explicitly or implicitly. Use permissions are determined legislatively, while a variance is restricted to dimensional or similar standards.
3. “It costs more and would be more profitable with a variance.”
a. Economic hardship alone, or the expectation of increased profitability if relief is granted, does not constitute a valid basis for a variance. The UDO clearly states that a land-based hardship is required, not a financial preference.
Related limits as outlined in the Variance Standards
Although not included in the section titled “Insufficient Justifications,” the approval standards of the UDO specify that hardships caused by the landowner or shared by others in the neighborhood or community cannot be used as a basis for relief. Hardships must result from the unique characteristics of the land itself, such as its size, shape, or topography, rather than the applicant’s personal circumstances.
In summary, variances are intended to address site-specific, land-related hardships. They are not meant to align with the conditions of neighboring properties, enable prohibited uses, or enhance the economic viability of a project.
Subsequent Development
If a variance is approved, it only allows for the specific deviation described in the decision and the accompanying exhibits (for example, the number and placement of wall signs for this tenant). All other provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) remain in full effect. Approval of a variance does not eliminate the need for any other required approvals or permits (such as sign permits or building/electrical permits). It does not commit the City to approve any future applications for this site. Any future modifications, expansions, or new phases that go beyond the scope of the variance must comply with the UDO in effect at that time or seek separate relief. The conditions attached to the variance continue to govern any subsequent work, and any deviations from those conditions require new approvals. The current application does not propose any additional development.
Findings of Fact Statements (neutral prompts for Board use)
The following statements organize the record impartially. The Board must base its decision on competent, material, and substantial evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing.
1. Practical challenges and unnecessary hardships (details in the records):
• The tenant bay features four exterior elevations that face different internal driveways and parking areas.
• Measured façade widths: approx. 63’ 6 5/8” (primary elevation), 63’ 4 7/8” (side), 63’ 2 ¼” (rear 1), 34’ 6 7/8” (rear 2).
• The main entrance for customers is located on the front elevation of the building.
• Exhibit References: Staff Photos; Sign Plan Sheets A1-A4 (Ruggles set, June 25, 2025); Application #1828873.
2. Circumstances related to land that are unique and not self-created.
• Site-specific conditions, such as tenant bay orientation within a large multi-tenant building and multiple internal approach paths to Freedom Town Center, are documented in exhibits.
• Evidence of hardship, if any, must pertain to the land or building itself, rather than issues related to branding, the business model, or conditions that are common to other tenants in the shopping center. Staff notes that the UDO prohibits hardships that are common in the neighborhood or that arise from the applicant’s own actions.
3. Minimum action required for reasonable use:
• Determine if the requested number and placement of wall signs, as indicated on Sheets A1-A4, represents the least deviation necessary compared to fewer elevations/signs or a reduced copy area.
• Cite specific exhibit pages that demonstrate any alternative approaches considered and explain why the proposal represents the minimum action needed.
4. Maintaining harmony with the ordinance while preserving its spirit.
• Discuss how any relief aligns with §30-5.L’s purpose, focusing on content-neutral regulation, safety, and corridor appearance, as well as aligning with adopted Strategic Plan objectives, specifically Goal I for safety and Goal IV for appearance. Use measurable conditions if necessary.
5. Public safety, well-being, and the pursuit of justice.
• Document any evidence regarding driver information loads, sightlines at central drive aisles, illumination methods, raceways or cabinets, and compliance with NEC Article 600; include references to plan notations and any expert testimony received.
Budget Impact:
This variance request is for additional wall-mounted signage at 2804 Freedom Parkway Drive in Freedom Town Center (Bath & Body Works #5012). The proposal pertains solely to private on-building signage; there is no involvement of City infrastructure, equipment, or maintenance.
The routine staff time needed for application processing, public notice, agenda preparation, and the quasi-judicial hearing is included in the Planning & Zoning Division’s adopted operating budget. Sending required mailed notices to property owners within the 300-foot buffer is a standard part of the variance procedures for this area. These noticing activities are managed as part of normal workflows and do not require any additional funding.
All applicable variance and sign-permit fees (required under Section 30-5.L.2) help to offset administrative and inspection costs, so no changes to the fee schedule are necessary for this action.
The applicant/tenant and their contractors are responsible for the fabrication, installation, power supply, and ongoing maintenance of the proposed signage. The plans indicate compliance with NEC Article 600, and it is noted that the sign vendor does not provide primary electrical services. As a result, there is no financial obligation for capital outlay or ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) from the City associated with the approval or denial of this signage.
A granted variance does not guarantee any entitlement to other permits. All subsequent approvals must still meet existing standards and processes, and the applicant is responsible for any associated costs. This approach helps limit any potential budget exposure to routine permit reviews and inspections that are already considered in the department’s workload.
From a fiscal stewardship perspective, this request does not materially impact the City’s fund balance or capital program. It aligns with Goal V (“Financially Sound City”) - managing core services within existing resources.
In summary, no new City funding is necessary; expected impacts are confined to routine staff time and standard noticing/permit processing that is already budgeted.
Options:
The Board has the authority to approve, deny, or approve with conditions. It must base its decision solely on the record and the five required findings of fact. Approval is appropriate only when the record contains competent, material, and substantial evidence supporting each of the five findings. If any single finding is not supported, the correct action is to deny the request.
A member who believes that the evidence satisfies all findings may move to approve the request and should briefly recap the evidence that supports each finding. Conversely, if one of more findings are not met, the motion to deny should specify the particular finding(s) that are lacking and explain why, with reference to the record.
When granting approval, the Board may attach reasonable, related, and evidence-based conditions to ensure that the findings are met. Deliberations should focus on a concise discussion of the evidence related to each required finding.
Case A25-48 - Possible Motions and Required Findings (Bath & Body Works #5012, 2804 Freedom Parkway Drive):
Motion to Approve as Requested.
Motion: Approve a variance to allow additional wall-mounted signage for tenants, exceeding the one-sign-per-tenant limit stated in UDO §30-5.L, for the Bath & Body Works tenant space located at 2804 Freedom Parkway Dr. (Freedom Town Center).
Findings of fact required for approval must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.
1. Strict application of the Ordinance may lead to practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships, as evidenced by the following information:
2. Unique land-related circumstances that are not self-created. Any practical difficulties or hardships that arise from unique circumstances related to the property must not result from the applicant’s actions, as demonstrated by the following evidence:
3. The variance is the minimal modification needed for reasonable use of the property or structure, as demonstrated by the following evidence:
4. The variance aligns with the general purpose and intent of the UDO while preserving its essence, as demonstrated by the following evidence:
5. Ensuring public safety, welfare, and substantial justice is essential. Granting the variance promotes public safety and welfare while achieving substantial justice, as demonstrated by the following evidence:
Motion to Approve with Conditions
Motion: Approve a variance to permit additional wall-mounted tenant signage exceeding UDO §30-5.L under the following conditions (e.g., maximum number, locations/elevations, aggregate area, illumination limits, installation/permit compliance, etc.):
Findings of Fact needed for conditional approval must have all five supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.
1. Practical difficulties / unnecessary hardships (see above):
2. Unique land-related circumstances / not self-created:
3. Minimum action (as conditioned):
4. Harmony with the Ordinance; spirit preserved (as conditioned):
5. Public safety, welfare, and substantial justice (as conditioned):
Motion to Deny
Motion: Deny a variance that would allow additional wall-mounted tenant signage beyond UDO §30-5.L for the Bath & Body Works tenant space at 2804 Freedom Parkway Drive.
Identify the findings that support the denial of the request. Clearly specify which criteria are not met and provide reasons for each.
1. There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that strict application leads to practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship because:
2. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that any hardship arises from unique circumstances rather than the applicant’s own actions, as evidenced by:
3. There is insufficient evidence that the request is the minimum action necessary to allow reasonable use, because:
4. There is insufficient evidence that the request aligns with the Ordinance and maintains its intended spirit, because:
5. There is insufficient evidence to assure public safety and welfare, and to ensure that substantial justice is served, because:
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
Staff does not provide recommended actions for variance cases because variances are considered quasi-judicial decisions. The Board must make its decision based solely on competent, material, and substantial evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing. Due-process requirements prevent staff from advocating for either approval or denial. Instead, staff’s role is to compile the record, outline the relevant standards and required findings, present pertinent facts and exhibits, and, when appropriate, identify conditions that are legally connected to the evidence. The burden of proof lies with the applicant, and it is the Board - not the staff - that must make the findings and final determination.
end
Attachments:
1. Variance Application
2. Sign Package
3. Aerial Notification Map
4. Zoning Map
5. Future Land Use Map
6. Subject Property Photos
7. Surrounding Property Photos
8. Mailing Affidavit
9. UDO Variance Standards
10. Sign Code Excerpts
11. 2016 Planning Commission ASP Approval