Council denies appeal of sign variances for proposed fueling center at Third Creek and Middlebrook

Knoxville City Council on Thursday denied an appeal of Board of Zoning Appeals approvals that granted two sign variances for a proposed travel fueling center at 1415 Third Creek Road, leaving the variances in place. The vote to deny the appeal passed 5-4 after the mayor cast a tie-breaking vote in favor of denial.

The issue centered on two variances: reduction of the minimum required frontage on the street of address from 250 feet to 192.5 feet to allow a changeable-price electronic message sign, and an increase in maximum height for a detached pole sign from 10 feet to 20 feet. The appeal was filed on behalf of Scenic Knoxville.

The appeal hearing included testimony from opposing and supporting parties. Appellant Kevin Murphy argued that the council adopted the 250-foot minimum to prevent proliferation of intrusive electronic signs and that the applicant had created a “self-imposed hardship” by orienting the primary building toward Third Creek Road. Murphy also warned that “granting the variance would add to visual clutter which is contrary to the purpose of the sign ordinance.”

The applicant's representative, Taylor Forester, said the lot's current configuration resulted from a past road expansion and addressing changes, not a developer decision: “This was not something that was requested by the original property owner.” Forester and the applicant argued the site's grade changes and the truck-heavy traffic on Middlebrook Pike made the taller pole sign and the electronic, changeable-price sign necessary for safe visibility and access.

Developer Alan Bell of Racetrack said practical visibility was the core issue: “we're just trying to get up a little bit higher, especially in that westbound traffic on North Middlebrook ... if we have a standard ... sign that is a 100 square feet and only 10 feet tall ... the bottom of the digits are only 4 feet tall. And if you've been out there, you've seen all the fuel trucks that are going through there. If there's anybody at the light at Third Creek, they're gonna completely block our sign.”

Council members debated whether the standards for granting a variance were met. City planning staff and BZA materials were cited repeatedly, including the sign ordinance sections referenced in the agenda packet (articles 13.6.G.1 and 13.9.F.3 table 13-2) and the variance criteria (Article 16.3) read into the record.

Council Member Roberto moved to approve the appeal (to overturn the variances); that motion initially resulted in a tied vote and failed after the mayor declined to break the tie. After additional motions failed or were postponed, council later took a final vote on a motion to deny the appeal, which the mayor broke in favor of denial; the council recorded the final decision as a 5-4 vote to deny the appeal, leaving the BZA approvals intact.

Council members who voiced opposition to the appeal cited the ordinance's strict variance standards and multiple existing access points and sign options at the site, while others said the addressing decision by E-911 and the site's topography created practical access and safety concerns for motorists. Several members urged staff and the BZA to be explicit in future proceedings about the variance criteria.

What changed hands legally: the council's denial of the appeal leaves in place the Board of Zoning Appeals' earlier approval of the two variances for the proposed fueling center. No council direction for further study or amendment of the sign ordinance was enacted as part of this vote, though multiple council members said the sign ordinance may merit review.

Background and context: The changeable-price sign rule (250-foot minimum frontage on the street the property is addressed to) dates to the city's 2009 ban on new electronic message centers and a later 2015 sign ordinance update. The applicant's materials note the property has three frontages; only the frontage associated with the official address fell under the 250-foot threshold after an addressing change during permitting.

Council did not direct staff to take new action on addressing policy or to remand the matter to the BZA. Any subsequent changes to the sign ordinance or addressing rules would require separate ordinance or administrative action.

Outcome: Appeal denied (motion to deny appeal carried 5-4 after mayor cast deciding vote).