Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cedar Springs Sign topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cedar Springs Church wins limited sign relief; board denies larger height and area increases
Summary
The BZA approved recognition of a secondary sign/site frontage for Cedar Springs Church but denied requests to increase sign height and area after Scenic Knoxville argued the applicant did not demonstrate a legal hardship.
The City Board of Zoning Appeals approved one element of a three-part sign variance sought by Cedar Springs Church but denied requests to raise the secondary sign’s height and area.
John Thurman, representing Cedar Springs Church, said the campus at 9132 Kingston Pike functions as a large campus with sports fields, daycare and worship, and that the church sought an updated, modern sign to match surrounding development. Thurman said the proposed sign would replace an existing secondary brick entry feature and would reflect the campus scale.
Joyce Feld, president of Scenic Knoxville, opposed the height and area increases and told the board the applicant had not demonstrated a legal hardship under the ordinance. "In order to be granted a variance, an applicant must have a legal hardship as defined by our ordinance. The applicant in this case has not claimed a legal hardship," Feld said.
Staff noted a prior voluntary variance (filed 04/1530, with a board vote in 2010 recorded in hard copy files) that had allowed a secondary sign at the intersection; the applicant argued the campus size and prior approvals justified recognition of the secondary sign as part of the site’s signage. After debate, the board voted to approve item 1 (recognition/allowance of the secondary sign based on frontage and previous approvals) and to deny items 2 and 3 (increases to height and area) for lack of hardship; the board recorded 3–1 votes on those items.
The board's action means the church may proceed with the permitted secondary sign recognition but must revisit design if it intends to seek larger height or area allowances in the future. The board did not approve the larger height or area relief, citing insufficient demonstration of the legal hardship required by the code.
The meeting record shows the board considered past variances at the site and discussed whether the existing brick entry feature constituted a sign that could be repaired or refaced rather than replaced. Board members suggested the applicant could explore renovating the existing sign structure or pursuing an easement/covenant-based solution if larger signage is critical.
