Flagstaff planning panel forwards simplified sign-code amendment to City Council

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. — The Flagstaff Planning and Zoning Commission on Dec. 10 voted to forward a comprehensive sign-code text amendment (PZ2300134) to City Council after a staff presentation and brief commissioner discussion focused on temporary 'feather' banners and enforcement.

Planner Wesley Welch told the commission the rewrite "clarified that the design handbook for downtown is not meant as a regulatory document" and "we significantly reduced the amount of minor stipulations required for specific sign types" to streamline administration. Welch said the amendment reorganizes the sign standards in zoning code division 10-50A-100, corrects a typo that had allowed extra signage for businesses with secondary frontage, and aligns with recently adopted outdoor lighting standards.

The amendment makes several numeric and structural changes to the code. Welch said multifamily building-mounted signage limits were adjusted from an effectively unusable cap (4 feet, 2 square feet) to allow up to 24 feet in height and 16 square feet of area. He also described a correction to nonresidential area measurements (fixing a typo that previously allowed double the intended square footage) and an increase in multi-tenant freestanding sign area from 24 to 32 square feet. Building-mounted sign width allowances were changed from 60% to 80% of the building element to allow more design flexibility. Other changes include consolidation of many sign-type definitions and tables, removal of some subjective or hard-to-enforce standards (including certain landscape requirements for freestanding signs), and the consolidation of temporary and portable sign rules into a single table to simplify compliance for small businesses and sign contractors.

Commissioners praised outreach on the amendment but raised questions about enforcement of temporary or blade signs. Commissioner Christine Sheehy argued such signs can deteriorate and create hazards, saying, "In windy situations, they can hit people walking on the sidewalk." Welch responded, "We do have code compliance staff who enforces it," and noted the city's enforcement is largely complaint-driven and focused on the most egregious violations.

On procedural points, Welch clarified the amendment does not retroactively require businesses to change existing legal nonconforming signs; those signs remain grandfathered. After discussion, Commissioner Christine Sheehy moved to approve and forward PZ2300134 to City Council. The motion was seconded (the transcript does not name the seconder) and carried on a voice vote with no recorded opposition.

The next step is City Council consideration of the text amendment; the meeting transcript does not specify when Council will take up the item. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at approximately 4:27 p.m.