Commission approves site-specific sign allowances for Jinx Landing along Highway 75
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
The commission approved a minor amendment to signage rules for Jinx Landing that allows larger monument signs adjacent to Highway 75 while limiting pole/pylon signs; staff and the developer framed the change as a site-specific compromise tied to safety and historic PUD allowances.
The Planning Commission approved a minor amendment to signage standards for the Jinx Landing development (southwest corner of 114th Street and South Union Avenue), granting site-specific allowances for larger monument signs adjacent to Highway 75 while prohibiting pole/pylon signs within the subdivision.
Planning staff explained that older PUD approvals and the updated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) created a conflict for previously allowed sign sizes, and staff proposed a compromise that would allow larger monument signs at this site because of Highway 75 adjacency and sight-distance considerations. Staff described a measurement convention (a sign base must be at least 25% of the sign face to qualify as a monument rather than a pole) and recommended approval of Exhibit A (the Jinx Landing sign) and an OCCU single-tenant sign as submitted.
Staff noted typical limits and the negotiated adjustments: single-tenant monument signs up to 200–275 square feet by frontage calculation (with specific caps for this project), multi-tenant monument signs up to 50 feet in height and area tied to linear street frontage (maximum 275 sq ft), and a ban on pole/pylon signs. Staff also compared the requested sizes to historic allowances under the prior code and explained the safety rationale for not making the allowances citywide.
A consultant for the owner and Mr. Bell explained the site's historic PUD context and stressed that the requested allowances were site-specific. One consultant emphasized visibility and safety on Highway 75 and that the allowance should not set a citywide precedent. Commissioners expressed general agreement and moved to approve the amendment as presented; the motion passed unanimously on roll call.
