700 sqft Billboard purposed for El Rancho Area say it isn't so

So, to play Devil's Advocate, I read through the proposal and Cover Letter and four things stood out to me as positives for this proposal.

1. When they held the community meeting, none of the neighbors (at least according to documents filed) voiced any opposition or had any issues with the signs. These are the people living in the adjacent vicinity who would be impacted the most and they voiced no opposition.

2. Re-zoning this property will allow Alpine Rescue to realize their future vision for the property.
"A representative from Alpine Rescue stated that approving the application would be of great benefit to his organization because it would allow Alpine Rescue to train on the property."

3. This proposed sign replaces one that is already there, looking quite the eye-sore, but no one is able to do anything about it because of the zoning on the empty property upon which it is located. When asked about the lighting, manufacturer of the digital sign replied "the lighting would be regulated by CDOT, the replacement sign would automatically dim based on ambient lighting conditions, there would be no animation, and each image would remain for at least 8 seconds...it uses energy efficient LED bulbs and baffling to limit light spillage. Steve Richards from Mile High explained that digital signs often benefit small business more than regular billboards because small businesses can better afford to purchase one 8-second rotation rather than an entire month's worth of static advertising."

4. The replacement sign is designed to face I-70 only and to be placed in such a way as to minimize visibility to surrounding neighborhoods.

I understand the sentiment of not wanting to approve something because it "opens the door to further development", but I believe each case should be considered on its merits and just because this one makes sense doesn't mean that future ones in other locations will. This sounds like the re-zoning could do a lot of good, replacing the sign fixes an eye-sore already there (which I hadn't realized until reading this, it's not a brand new thing going in where nothing had been before), and it doesn't seem to bother those living closest to it. If future signs are proposed and don't make as much sense, then fight against those as they come about.

I can't say that I approve of putting in a lighted sign myself because, regardless of the fact that it uses LEDs it is still adding energy consumption over the zero amount prior, I do very much approve of the opportunity for area small businesses to have a new opportunity to advertise within their budget. The fact that it dims in ambient light and is designed to eliminate light spillage is great for reducing the energy consumption to as little as possible and being conscientious of the neighbors' desires to reduce light pollution in the mountains.

Your thoughts in light of those points?

Here are virtual renderings of what the sign would actually look like: