Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission backs I‑84 corridor sign rule changes, sends amendments to county commission
Summary
Morgan County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend a highway signage text amendment to the County Commission with limits on height, width, setbacks, on‑premise placement and a 10 p.m. lights‑out provision after a public hearing and staff and applicant presentations.
The Morgan County Planning Commission voted unanimously Sept. 11 to recommend that the County Commission approve a text amendment to the county's sign code allowing one additional freestanding sign per defined shopping center along the Interstate 84 corridor, subject to a package of limits and clarifications. The commission attached changes including a 35‑foot maximum height, 12‑foot maximum width, 5‑foot setback from the property line, a requirement that highway signs be on‑premise, a definition tying eligibility to I‑84 frontage, removal of text describing the amendment as limiting sign proliferation, and a requirement that sign illumination turn off at 10 p.m.
Commissioners moved the change after hearing a presentation from the applicant and staff and taking public comment during a formal public hearing. The applicant's representative said the amendment would allow one multi‑tenant, illuminated freeway sign to serve several businesses and reduce duplication of individual pole signs. Josh, the county planner who presented the staff report, said he had modified the applicant's draft to reduce square footage limits and found similar language in other Utah municipalities.
The amendment's nut graf: the change would permit a single multi‑tenant freestanding sign facing I‑84 for qualifying shopping centers, while the commission tightened dimensions and operational rules to address visual impacts and nighttime lighting. Tina Kelly of Mountain Green, a former county council member, urged caution, citing safety and "night sky" concerns and saying she feared the amendment could set a precedent for more signage. Chad Fowers of RISE Sign Company, representing the developer for Canyon View Commons, said an I‑84 sign would serve commuter visibility and house an anchor tenant panel above tenant slots.
In the hearing staff explained that the county's existing sign code allows one freestanding sign per defined shopping center, typically placed along Old Highway Road, and that the proposed text would add a second freestanding sign permitted specifically along I‑84 frontage. Staff said the change arose after an earlier applicant sought a freestanding sign and county staff placed a temporary stay while the text was clarified so a single first‑applicant could not dominate the shopping‑center panel.
Commission discussion focused on how many additional signs the amendment might allow (staff estimated two existing commercial subdivisions in development could be affected), whether allowing a highway sign would improve or worsen visual clutter, and how to ensure compliance with illumination standards and the county's night‑sky goals. Staff noted that site plans for any sign would require a photometric plan showing lumens/foot‑candles and that the county requires sign lighting to be zeroed at property lines and turned off after 10 p.m. or one hour after final business hour, whichever is later; commissioners asked staff to make the 10 p.m. cutoff explicit for highway signs.
After questions about the code text's definitions and enforcement, a commissioner moved to recommend approval to the County Commission with the listed changes; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The planning commission's action is a recommendation; the County Commission will take final action at a later date. Staff said they would carry the planning commission's recommended edits forward and can refine language for the County Commission packet.
The public hearing portion included comments from one local resident and former council member who requested careful review of safety, flashing illumination and visual impacts. The applicant and staff addressed electronic message centers, saying the county allows electronic messaging in limited circumstances but prohibits flashing/blinking that distracts drivers. Staff also noted that off‑premise signs remain restricted and that the proposed highway signage provision can be drafted to require the sign be on the shopping‑center premises.
The commission's motion and findings will be forwarded to the County Commission with staff's redline reflecting the changes the planning commission requested. The County Commission will consider the recommendation and the finalized ordinance language at a subsequent meeting.
