5.A.
Board of Adjustment
- Meeting Date:
- 01/07/2026
- From:
- Tiffany Antol, Zoning Code Manager
Information
REQUEST:
PZ-25-00241: A request by Blair Sign Programs on behalf of Burlington Coat Factory, for a Zoning Code Variance from Table 10-50.100.060.A, which allows one square foot of signage per one linear foot of storefront or building frontage. The applicant requests a variance to increase the maximum allowable signage for their tenant space from 86 square feet to 366 square feet.
The subject property is located at 1514 S Riordan Ranch Road (APN 103-19-001W) and is zoned Community Commercial (CC).
The subject property is located at 1514 S Riordan Ranch Road (APN 103-19-001W) and is zoned Community Commercial (CC).
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment deny the requested variance to allow 366 square feet of signage where 86 square feet is permitted, based on the findings presented in this staff report.
INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION::
The subject property (APN 103-19-001W), known as the Varsity Shopping Center, is a multi-tenant retail shopping center constructed in 1982. The property encompasses approximately 8.6 acres and contains a mix of large and small tenant spaces. Several tenants have occupied the center for multiple decades, and as a result, some signage may have been permitted under prior zoning regulations.
Each tenant space is eligible for wall signage based on the length of its individual storefront frontage. While the shopping center appears to be associated with Milton Road—one of Flagstaff’s primary commercial corridors—the subject property does not front Milton Road. Instead, it fronts Riordan Ranch Road and is located behind a group of properties that directly front Milton Road.
The applicant is replacing a long-standing tenant and proposes to rebrand the storefront. A sign permit application has been submitted for new wall signage that exceeds the maximum signage area permitted under the currently zoning code.
Each tenant space is eligible for wall signage based on the length of its individual storefront frontage. While the shopping center appears to be associated with Milton Road—one of Flagstaff’s primary commercial corridors—the subject property does not front Milton Road. Instead, it fronts Riordan Ranch Road and is located behind a group of properties that directly front Milton Road.
The applicant is replacing a long-standing tenant and proposes to rebrand the storefront. A sign permit application has been submitted for new wall signage that exceeds the maximum signage area permitted under the currently zoning code.
ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS:
Table 10-50.100.060.A: Standards for Permanent Signs by Use, allows one square foot of signage per one linear foot of primary building frontage for nonresidential uses in multi-tenant buildings within commercial and industrial zones. In shopping centers, signage allowances are calculated based on the frontage of each individual storefront.
The subject storefront measures approximately 86 linear feet, allowing a maximum of 86 square feet of wall signage. The applicant proposes 366 square feet of wall signage, requiring a variance from the applicable standard.
The subject storefront measures approximately 86 linear feet, allowing a maximum of 86 square feet of wall signage. The applicant proposes 366 square feet of wall signage, requiring a variance from the applicable standard.
VARIANCE CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to A.R.S. Section § 9-462.06, the Board of Adjustment is authorized to consider variances from the Zoning Code subject to specific findings. Division 10-20.70 of the Zoning Code establishes the procedures and criteria for variance approval. The Board’s review is limited to the four criteria outlined below. It should be noted that the Board of Adjustment may only consider and apply arguments pertaining to the findings.
A variance may only be granted if the applicant demonstrates that all the following findings are met:
Staff Analysis:
The applicant does not directly address this finding but instead provides information related to visibility constraints, which they characterize as a hardship. The subject tenant space is located in the northern portion of the shopping center, with another building positioned in front of it, making it less visible from certain directions. However, the least visible tenant space in the center is located directly north of the subject space and is currently occupied by a physical therapy business.
The applicant asserts that the setback from Milton Road limits signage visibility. However, the property does not front Milton Road, and the applicant does not address visibility from Riordan Ranch Road, which is the frontage and address for the site.
The applicant also notes that other tenants have larger signs. In some cases, this is due to larger storefront widths, which allow greater signage under the code, or because signage was permitted under previous regulations. The most comparable tenant space is located immediately south of the subject space and has approximately 200 square feet of signage; however, that signage was likely permitted decades ago under different standards.
Staff advised the applicant to consider a request comparable in scale to similar tenants. Instead, the proposal seeks signage exceeding the allowance of all tenants within the shopping center, which would constitute a special privilege.
Staff Analysis:
The proposed signage significantly exceeds the permitted allowance for the subject tenant and all other existing signage within the development. Staff finds that the request is not the minimum necessary adjustment and would constitute a special privilege.
Staff Analysis:
Staff acknowledges that certain site conditions affect signage visibility; however, these conditions do not justify exceeding the signage allowance for all tenants in the center. Additionally, the zoning code provides design incentives that allow modest increases in signage area when specific criteria are met. The applicant has not attempted to utilize these incentives. Even if applied, the incentives would not support the 425 percent increase requested.
A variance may only be granted if the applicant demonstrates that all the following findings are met:
- That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of these regulations will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zone;
Applicant Statement:
The requested variance aligns with the intent of the sign code—to allow reasonable and effective communication of a business location without creating visual clutter. Providing modest additional sign area simply restores a fair level of visibility comparable to other tenants and does not constitute a special privilege.
The requested variance aligns with the intent of the sign code—to allow reasonable and effective communication of a business location without creating visual clutter. Providing modest additional sign area simply restores a fair level of visibility comparable to other tenants and does not constitute a special privilege.
Staff Analysis:
The applicant does not directly address this finding but instead provides information related to visibility constraints, which they characterize as a hardship. The subject tenant space is located in the northern portion of the shopping center, with another building positioned in front of it, making it less visible from certain directions. However, the least visible tenant space in the center is located directly north of the subject space and is currently occupied by a physical therapy business.
The applicant asserts that the setback from Milton Road limits signage visibility. However, the property does not front Milton Road, and the applicant does not address visibility from Riordan Ranch Road, which is the frontage and address for the site.
The applicant also notes that other tenants have larger signs. In some cases, this is due to larger storefront widths, which allow greater signage under the code, or because signage was permitted under previous regulations. The most comparable tenant space is located immediately south of the subject space and has approximately 200 square feet of signage; however, that signage was likely permitted decades ago under different standards.
Staff advised the applicant to consider a request comparable in scale to similar tenants. Instead, the proposal seeks signage exceeding the allowance of all tenants within the shopping center, which would constitute a special privilege.
- That a grant of a variance will be subject to conditions to ensure that the adjustment authorized is the minimum variation needed and that it will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located;
Applicant Statement:
The request does not seek excessive or unnecessary signage. It proposes only the amount of relief needed to achieve visibility comparable to other tenants and to meet the basic intent of the sign code: clear and effective communication without adding visual clutter.
The request does not seek excessive or unnecessary signage. It proposes only the amount of relief needed to achieve visibility comparable to other tenants and to meet the basic intent of the sign code: clear and effective communication without adding visual clutter.
Staff Analysis:
The proposed signage significantly exceeds the permitted allowance for the subject tenant and all other existing signage within the development. Staff finds that the request is not the minimum necessary adjustment and would constitute a special privilege.
- The special circumstances applicable to the property are not self-imposed by any person having an interest in the property; and
Applicant Statement:
The hardship is not self-imposed, as the building’s location, existing landscaping, and absence of monument or directional signs were all determined by the site’s original design and zoning layout.
The hardship is not self-imposed, as the building’s location, existing landscaping, and absence of monument or directional signs were all determined by the site’s original design and zoning layout.
Staff Analysis:
Staff acknowledges that certain site conditions affect signage visibility; however, these conditions do not justify exceeding the signage allowance for all tenants in the center. Additionally, the zoning code provides design incentives that allow modest increases in signage area when specific criteria are met. The applicant has not attempted to utilize these incentives. Even if applied, the incentives would not support the 425 percent increase requested.
- The variance will not allow the establishment of a use which: (1) is not otherwise permitted in the zone, (2) would result in the extension of a nonconforming use or structure, or (3) would change the terms of the zone of any or all of the subject property.
Applicant Statement:
We respectfully request consideration of a hardship related to the City’s current sign area limitation of 86 square feet for this tenant space. While this allowance meets the technical code requirements, it creates a practical hardship due to several unique site conditions shown on the following pages.
Staff Analysis:
The requested variance does not affect permitted uses within the Community Commercial zone, does not extend a nonconforming use or structure, and does not alter the zoning designation of the property.
We respectfully request consideration of a hardship related to the City’s current sign area limitation of 86 square feet for this tenant space. While this allowance meets the technical code requirements, it creates a practical hardship due to several unique site conditions shown on the following pages.
Staff Analysis:
The requested variance does not affect permitted uses within the Community Commercial zone, does not extend a nonconforming use or structure, and does not alter the zoning designation of the property.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
The applicant has provided notice by mail of the Board of Adjustment hearing for this application to the property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and has placed a sign on the property. Staff also placed an ad in the Arizona Daily Sun on December 20, 2025.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any public comments.
As of the date of this report, staff has not received any public comments.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment find that the required criteria for granting a variance have not been met and deny the variance application as submitted.