Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board defeats motion to deny 50-foot sign variance request for Highway 92 site
Summary
A proposal for a 50-foot, 232.75-square-foot pylon sign and expanded wall signage at a new convenience store site on Highway 92 prompted disagreement: applicant representatives argued unique site visibility constraints; board members said the sign is out of character and raised precedent concerns. A motion to deny the variance failed.
A proposed variance to allow a 50-foot pylon sign and expanded wall signage for a convenience-store/fuel station at the southeast corner of Highway 92 and Ramsey Road drew prolonged discussion at the Cochise County Board of Adjustment meeting.
Staff explained the request (docket VAR26-07) would increase pylon height to 50 feet and ground-sign area to 232.75 square feet where the zoning regulation allows a maximum of 24 feet and 80 square feet on arterial roads. Staff said the request complied with or partially complied with some variance factors but failed others and noted the proposed height and area are inconsistent with existing signs along Highway 92.
Jay Shaw, representing the applicant Sierra Vista Marketplace, said photographic drive‑survey evidence and site factors create a visibility problem specific to the parcel. "A sign that cannot be seen by people is meant to serve is not functioning as a sign at all," Shaw said, arguing the parcel's finished grade sits below the traveled surface and existing overhead utility lines obstruct sightlines; he said the requested 50-foot height was chosen to clear utility infrastructure and achieve an unobstructed view from approaching traffic.
Board members questioned whether planned development and driveway construction or clearing of brush at the site would address visibility, and several expressed concern that granting unusually large signage would set an undesirable precedent on Highway 92. One board member stated: "That sign's just out of character with all the other businesses in that whole quarter." Another urged caution about creating a corridor of larger signs.
Following discussion, a board member moved to deny the variance; the motion was seconded but the board recorded votes that resulted in the chair announcing "motion denied," indicating the motion to deny failed. Transcript does not show a subsequent motion explicitly approving the variance, so the final administrative status beyond the failed motion is not recorded in the meeting minutes.
Why it matters: the exchange highlights the tension between site‑specific visibility claims made by developers and the board's desire to preserve corridor character and avoid setting precedents that could change the appearance of Highway 92. The record shows substantial argument on both sides but stops short of a clear recorded approval of the variance.
