Planning commission postpones decision on Albany County Courthouse electronic sign after safety, precedent and sizing concerns

The Laramie Planning Commission postponed action on a variance request for an electronic messaging center (EMC) at the Albany County Courthouse after commissioners raised concerns about driver distraction, historic-character compatibility and the potential precedent a large EMC might create in the downtown commercial (DC) zoning district.

Jake, a planning staff member presenting the item, told commissioners the variance had been approved previously but its building permit was not pulled within the six-month window required by city code, so the request was before the commission again. He also said the proposed sign design differs from the earlier submittal and that the illuminated display area on the plans is about 70.08 square feet while the overall framed sign is larger.

Why it matters: The proposed EMC would be on a state highway approach and visible to motorists entering downtown. Commissioners debated whether the sign’s size, location and dynamic content could distract drivers and whether approving the sign on a courthouse parcel in the DC zoning district — adjacent to B2 zoning where EMCs are permitted — would invite similar requests along Grand Avenue.

Commission discussion focused on several recurring points: • Size and visibility: Commissioners noted the proposed display area (approximately 70 square feet of illuminated panel) and overall dimensions would make the sign a prominent feature on the block. One commissioner said the display felt "too big" for a Grand Avenue approach and suggested exploring smaller dimensions such as a 5-by-9 panel or setting an explicit square-footage cap. • Driver distraction and safety: Multiple commissioners raised the possibility that a dynamic sign could distract drivers on the narrow approach into downtown. Questions were asked about the sign’s setback (staff estimated roughly 15–20 feet from the curb and an illuminated display beginning about 7 feet 9 inches above grade) and whether dimming or shut-off schedules could mitigate nighttime distractions. Jake said the sign would include automatic dimming controls and that the county’s IT department would operate the sign. • Historic and neighborhood character: Commissioners debated whether an EMC was consistent with the courthouse’s historic setting and the intent of the DC zoning district. Staff noted the property occupies essentially an entire city block, sits on a state highway, and faces a B2 zoning district across the street where EMCs are permitted; staff also said letters to property owners within 300 feet were sent on May 24, 2025, and no public comments were received. • Precedent and code interpretations: Several commissioners warned that approval could invite more EMC variances near downtown and that future applicants might rely on this action as persuasive precedent. Staff reminded the commission that variances are considered case-by-case and that code contains on-premise/off-premise distinctions for signage; staff also referenced the code section on permissible light levels for EMCs. • Technical characteristics: Commissioners clarified that the proposed sign would not run full-motion video but would display static messages that change at intervals (the code distinguishes changeable copy from animated displays). Staff also acknowledged an inconsistency between the panel area shown on the drawings and the width/height numbers printed in the packet and advised the commission to seek corrected dimensions if they continued consideration.

After extended discussion and requests for alternatives (smaller size, different placement on the block, concrete specifications for message dwell time and dimming), the commission voted to postpone the variance so the applicant could return with additional information and possible revised designs. The item was postponed to the July 14 meeting.

The staff packet noted the prior approval on May 13 of last year (variance recorded as 24-03) and reminded commissioners that a building permit must be pulled within six months of an approval for a variance to remain valid. Planning staff also said the variance requires a majority of the whole body (four affirmative votes) for approval. No formal approval or conditions were adopted at the meeting; the commission asked staff and the applicant to provide clearer sign dimensions, operational controls for illumination and potential alternate locations or reduced-size designs for further consideration.