Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Zoning Appeals denies variance for enlarged Panda Express wall signage at 3422 Tom Austin Highway
Summary
The Springfield Board of Zoning Appeals voted Jan. 14 to deny a request to increase wall signage to 142 square feet for a restaurant at 3422 Tom Austin Highway; staff had recommended denial because the request exceeded the ordinance limit and did not meet variance standards.
SPRINGFIELD — The Springfield Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 14 rejected a request to increase wall signage for a restaurant at 3422 Tom Austin Highway, voting against a proposal that would have raised the building’s total wall sign area to about 142 square feet.
The board’s decision followed staff recommendations that the request be denied because it exceeded the sign-area limit in the Springfield zoning ordinance and did not meet the legal standards for a variance. Staff told the board the property’s zoning (commercial services) allows a maximum of 75 square feet of wall signage; staff said it had previously approved 70 square feet under a prior application.
The applicant’s representative, calling in to the meeting, said the restaurant sought two additional wall signs and argued visibility problems justified extra signage. “We are asking for a favorable [decision] for those,” the caller said, citing tree growth that he said blocks sight lines and the roadway speed as reasons drivers cannot see the building in time. The representative also pointed to nearby businesses, saying a Chick-fil-A location has multiple wall signs.
Planning staff — identified in the record as Lori and Candace — told the board that the requested total exceeds the ordinance and that the Board of Zoning Appeals lacks jurisdiction to approve a request that would conflict with the sign ordinance or set a precedent for similar requests. Staff recommended denial because the applicant had not demonstrated the hardship required by the ordinance and the request did not satisfy the board’s nine variance standards.
Board members discussed alternatives during the hearing. Members and staff suggested options including trimming or pruning the trees to improve sight lines, consolidating wall signage into a single sign that would not exceed the 75-square-foot allowance, or enlarging approved freestanding/pole (pull) signs — some of which staff said already had approval and could be adjusted if they met regulations.
A motion to approve the variance failed on a roll call vote. Members Briggs, Simmons, Porter, Sherrod and Rockhacker voted no; the motion did not receive any recorded yes votes and failed. The board directed staff to notify the applicant by email and entered a statement into the record that the denial was because the application did not meet the required criteria.
The board adjourned after the vote. The applicant may revise and resubmit the sign application to conform with the zoning ordinance or pursue changes to other permitted signage on the site.
