Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Signage topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission approves extra monument sign for Dean Martin Business Center, denies other sign requests

5734367 · June 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Commission approved a request to increase the number of monument signs at the Dean Martin Business Center and denied other signage requests including a proposed freeway-facing electronic sign and reduced setback for a freestanding sign.

The Clark County Planning Commission on June 3 approved a modification to the Dean Martin Business Center sign program that allows three monument signs at the project's street corners but denied other proposed sign design reviews, including a proposed electronic message unit and a freeway-facing freestanding sign.

Applicant Jay Heller, speaking for Dean Martin Business Center, asked the commission to allow three monument signs (rather than two) given more than 1,900 linear feet of frontage, to reduce a freestanding-sign setback from 10 feet to 2 feet, and to permit a freestanding freeway sign with electronic messaging. Heller said the proposed freestanding sign would be roughly 38 by 18 feet and about 700 square feet per side; he said the project is within Title 30 allowances of 2,438 square feet for freestanding signage overall and that the proposed sign is shielded by the building.

Staff recommended approval only of Sign Design Review number 4 (the increased number of monument signs) and denial of sign design reviews 1, 2, 3 and 5. Commissioners asked about visual clutter and safety concerns tied to electronic message displays at highway speeds; staff explained that frontage-road context and clustering of off-premise signs informed the recommendation. Commissioner Millhica said the applicant had limited options to relocate the freestanding sign and moved to approve SDR25-304 (the increase in monument signs); that motion passed.

Discussion vs. decision: commissioners discussed visual-clutter and safety implications of an electronic sign as discussion; the formal decision approved only the monument-sign increase (SDR25-304) and denied the remaining sign requests.