Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff proposes narrow text amendment to allow taller highway‑facing signs near I‑70 for new convenience store
Summary
A zoning text amendment was discussed to permit taller freestanding signs near Interstate 70 where current sign standards prevent visibility of a newly constructed convenience store; staff said the change would be narrowly written, legal review is in progress, and a public hearing will be scheduled
Planning staff presented a proposed zoning text amendment Oct. 13 to permit higher freestanding signs for highway‑oriented commercial properties near Interstate 70.
The proposed amendment was submitted after an applicant sought a variance for a tall sign at a new convenience store adjacent to I‑70 and was advised by the administrative variance judge to pursue a zoning text amendment instead of a variance. Staff said the proposed wording would be narrow and targeted to properties immediately adjacent to Interstate 70 (the draft includes a 350‑foot buffer from the I‑70 right‑of‑way to pick up similarly situated properties) to allow signage comparable with other interstate commercial corridors.
“Why would you have a highway commercial zone but not allow highway commercial signs?” the administrative judge was quoted as saying in staff notes summarizing the prior variance denial. The applicant’s attorney and staff said the requested sign is consistent with signage commonly found along I‑15 and other interstates and is needed both for business viability and roadway safety so motorists can locate services.
Staff said legal review of a proposed ordinance is underway and planned to present a public hearing on the amendment at the next Planning Commission meeting, followed by a County Commission hearing if the Planning Commission forwards a recommendation. Commissioners asked staff to confirm the geographic extent of the change by measuring distances to similarly situated properties (for example, a gas station north of the subject parcel and a Thompson‑area facility) so that the amendment does not inadvertently affect distant commercial corridors.
The Planning Commission did not take a final vote; staff will return the draft with legal input and clearer mapping of affected parcels for the public hearing.
