Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sdmp Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses tall tenant signage in Royal Holiday Hills SDMP amendment; no vote taken
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a proposed SDMP signage appendix for the Royal Holiday Hills master-planned development, including requests for multiple 20-foot tenant signs, setbacks, landscaping standards and concerns about temporary banners already installed; staff emphasized massing, setbacks and the uniqueness of granting taller sign allowances not available to neighboring zones.
Commissioners reviewed a proposed signage appendix to the Royal Holiday Hills Site Development Master Plan (SDMP) during the Oct. 28 Holladay planning meeting but did not take final action.
Staff described the applicant's request: an SDMP appendix to regulate massing, size, setbacks and landscaping for entrance and tenant signage. Staff told the commission "Massing is what you wanna take a look at" and said design details are largely left to the developer but that the commission should examine heights, setbacks and landscaping. The applicant seeks about 20-foot tall signs for primary project and tenant identification; staff noted the 57-acre scale of Royal Holiday Hills is a material consideration for whether a distinct signage package is warranted.
Commissioners and staff discussed temporary signage that is already installed on the site and whether it complies with the city's temporary-sign definition. Staff said the current ordinance defines temporary signage as 30-day banners and that the long black‑fence banners at the site met the ordinance's definition for temporary signs in the staff report. Commissioners questioned visual massing and suggested setbacks could be used to offset height; one commissioner suggested requiring greater setbacks for taller signs.
On materials and illumination, staff said the proposed signs would be fabricated from painted aluminum with internal lighting behind perforated panels. Commissioners asked for visual simulations along Highland Drive to judge cumulative sign impacts and noted the proposal could create signage allowances not available to adjacent commercial properties.
No formal motion or vote on the SDMP signage item was recorded during the Oct. 28 meeting; staff said the applicant/owner would appear at the public meeting to explain the signage further and that commissioners could include specific standards for heights, setbacks and landscaping in any recommendation.
Sources: staff presentation and commissioner questions at the Oct. 28 Holladay City Planning Commission meeting.
