Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves special sign permit for Walmart pole sign outside allowed district
Summary
The Independence Planning Commission voted 6-0 to allow replacement of a pole-sign cabinet at the Walmart in Blue Ridge Crossing after staff determined the work requires a special sign permit because the sign lies outside the designated pole-sign district.
Get email alerts on the Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Independence Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve case number 256003, allowing replacement of the cabinet on an existing pole sign at the Walmart in the Blue Ridge Crossing commercial subdivision. Staff said the Walmart pole sign lies outside the city's designated pole-sign district bounded by Lee's Summit Road and Interstate 70 and therefore qualifies as a legal nonconforming sign. Gabe, planning staff, told commissioners that city code (section 800 of chapter 14) permits maintenance and face replacement for legal nonconforming pole signs but that removing and replacing the cabinet triggers the need for a special sign permit. The move to replace the cabinet is not intended to increase sign area, staff said; Greg, city staff, noted removal of a decorative 'sunburst' element on top of the existing sign could make the new cabinet slightly smaller. Commission discussion focused on whether the work constituted routine maintenance or a change that required review. Commissioner Nesbitt moved approval; the motion passed on a roll call vote with all six commissioners voting yes. Why this matters: pole signs are regulated differently in districted areas; treating the project as a special-permit matter subjects the replacement to planning review and public notice rather than allowing it as routine maintenance. The applicant may proceed under the special sign permit as approved by the commission. The action was limited to the sign permit; no other site changes were considered as part of case 256003.

