| OCR Text |
Show Signs of trouble on 1-80? Editorial What is the proper sign of the times? Summit County may have to rethink its rules about signs under the Snyderville Basin Development Code. This week, The Park Record is carrying two stories about businesses that want to erect signs that do not comply with county code. In both cases, we think a fair case can be made that the restrictions on them should be relaxed. Item No. 1 : The proposed McDonald's Restaurant at Landmark Plaza has proposed a large sign to attract the attention of freeway travelers. Under the code, the restaurant is allowed a sign that would rise 25 feet above the nearest adjacent freeway grade. But as it happens, the site is already 20 feet above the nearest highway grade. This means the restaurant can only post a 5-foot sign. This circumstance might not call for an ordinance change. A variance might be considered. McDonald's is asking for such a variance at the Summit County Planning Plann-ing Commission meeting next week. Item No. 2: A businessman wants a double-sided real-estate real-estate sign along Interstate 80 with a total of 256 square feet of display space. Unfortunately, the county code limits all real-estate signs to a maximum of 6 square feet. We don't want to see a profusion of signs along the Interstate. In-terstate. But commercial and industrial signs are allowed allow-ed up to 180 square feet on 1-80. There seems to be a reasonable argument for saying real-estate ads, pitched at the freeway traveler, can be just as large. In this instance, however, the "reasonable argument" i"! polluted, by political factors. First of all, the double-ign double-ign has already been erected, in violation of county coun-ty code and without county approval. Secondly, the businessman stuck with an illegal sign happens to be county commissioner Tom Flinders. Next Tuesday, the county planning commission will have a work session discussion on real-estate signs. The commission should address the issue. But it's too bad it didn't didn't do so sooner, because now the effort takes on the appearance of trying to resolve the embarrassment embarrass-ment of a public official. Flinders is a realtor who is the commission's liaison to the planning commission. He should have been at least vaguely aware that under the year-old code which he helps administer large real-estate signs of that size are not allowed. How the sign came to be built is a matter of dispute. Flinders said he referred his sign builder to the county planning office to ensure the sign was within code. But planning director Jerry Smith says he has no recollection recollec-tion of speaking to the sign builder. Maybe Flinders hasn't read his copy of the Snyderville Code lately, but by his account, he behaved responsibly. If the planning commission is going to look at sections of the sign oxdiftanpie aext week, perhaps it should give the entire wdinjancjs a close second look. And if any citizen has a complaint about the sign code, next week's meeting in Coalville might be a good time to speak up. It's better to spot problems now to make the code workable, enforceable and fair. And as for the McDonald's sign we merely pray that the sign approved doesn't have a huge golden arch. |
