Littleton plan commission debates limits, scale for proposed master sign plan amendment

The Plan Commission discussed a proposed text amendment to the Unified Land Use Code (ULUC) on Feb. 24 that would establish a Master Sign Plan process allowing an entire site or development to apply for a coordinated signage package rather than permitting signs parcel-by-parcel. Planning staff proposed an administratively approved process with maximum signage parameters, fronting calculations, and an appeal period, and asked commissioners for guidance on size, height, corridor applicability and owner/parcel thresholds.

Why it matters: The amendment would change how multi-tenant centers, campuses and larger redevelopments present signs along Littleton’s corridors (Santa Fe, Mineral, Broadway and Littleton Boulevard). Commissioners said the rules will affect visual character, pedestrian orientation and potential roadway distraction across commercial corridors.

Planning staff said the project team (including George Chipman, Andrea Vaughn and Monica Roy) researched other communities such as Centennial, Lone Tree and Westminster and propose drafting purpose statements that would make master sign plans consistent with the city’s design standards, promote economic development and balance consistency with regulatory compliance. “We intend to create a process that fits, [and] enhances the current sign code,” Planning staff Jared said, presenting the draft approach and noting the staff recommendation that approval be administrative if the plan meets the parameters set in code.

Key draft parameters discussed included: - Applicability: staff proposed allowing a subject property that is at least 1 acre to apply, and limiting use to certain zoning districts (examples discussed included corridor mixed and industrial park districts). Staff said the 1-acre trigger might be increased after further review. Commissioners questioned whether 1 acre was too small and noted Westminster uses a 3-acre threshold. - Freestanding signs: staff described calculating the number of allowed freestanding signs from linear frontage (one example divided total frontage by 500 feet), and discussed incentives that would allow fewer but larger signs if an applicant removed other signs from the site. - Attached/wall signs: staff proposed changing from a linear-foot calculation to a maximum percentage of the building façade (staff noted a working range of 12–15%). Jared said staff would return with images illustrating how percentages look on building facades. - Height and sign type caps: commissioners and staff discussed existing height limits in the ULUC (staff described 15 feet as a typical limit for monuments and poles, and cited pylon signs up to 25 feet in some districts) and emphasized that any new approach should keep maximum caps. Commissioners opposed incentives that would let applicants trade sign count for unlimited height. - Wayfinding and drive-through signs: staff proposed exempting small wayfinding signs and drive-through directional signage but placing maximum size caps on those exemptions. - Process: staff proposed an application completeness review, referrals to other entities, an administrative decision with an appeal period, then building permit completion. Staff also suggested an MSP could be required at time of Master Development Plan (MDP) submittal for new development, while allowing existing centers to apply for sign‑package updates.

Commissioner remarks centered on scale, corridor context and community character. “Signs are now used more in a billboard fashion to advertise,” Plan Commission member Tim said, adding that signage that is large and bright can make corridors feel generic rather than “authentically Littleton.” Tim urged conservative limits on size, height and brightness and said downtown’s small, pedestrian-oriented sign standards contribute to place identity. Another commissioner warned against a formula that rewards removing signs in order to build taller, more visible pylons.

Commissioners also pressed staff for more concrete examples and case studies. Staff said they have spoken with current developers, real estate representatives and specific site applicants (including a developer for the southwest corner of Mineral and Santa Fe and the owner/operator of a multi-tenant center near Panda Express) and noted the hospital campus and Streets at Southglen as examples with campus-scale signage needs. Staff said they have a consultant doing research and will share draft ordinance text for public and stakeholder review.

Next steps: staff will present a high-level summary at the March 11 joint City Council–Plan Commission meeting, distribute draft text amendment language to stakeholders, and then return to the Planning Commission for a recommendation before City Council readings and adoption if approved. Planning staff emphasized the proposal is not finalized and that staff will adjust thresholds, frontage calculations and other parameters based on feedback.

No formal motion or vote was taken during the study session; commissioners gave staff direction on issues to refine.