Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA split on sign height; one 20‑foot sign request fails while a multi‑tenant sign is postponed
Summary
The board split on a request to increase a detached sign from 10 to 20 feet—motion failed after public opposition—then later postponed a separate multi‑tenant sign request while awaiting a survey and additional information.
Get email alerts on the Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of Knoxville Board of Zoning Appeals deadlocked on one sign height request and postponed a separate sign application pending further documentation.
For PCA260004, the applicant sought to increase the maximum detached sign height from 10 feet to 20 feet, citing difficulty seeing a 10‑foot sign from Western Avenue due to grade and a state right‑of‑way. Tom Allen of Allen Sign Company and other applicant representatives said replacing the existing sign "pretty much like for like" would improve visibility for an incoming tenant. Public commenter Joyce (Joyce Phoem) disagreed and argued the sign is not located on Western Avenue and that a 10‑foot sign is visible from 21st Street. She told the board: "This applicant does not have any legal hardships at specify by the ordinance that justifies not complaint." The board debated visibility, the state's right‑of‑way cutout and whether moving or using attached signage would address visibility. A motion to approve the 20‑foot request failed on a split vote.
Shortly after, a separate application (BZA260006) asked to place a detached multi‑tenant sign two inches from the property line and set the height to 15 feet. Board members expressed concern about the lack of a precise survey, potential utility conflicts and safety clearance; the board moved to postpone that item for 30 days and requested a survey and additional information before reconsideration.
Board members cited the 2015 sign ordinance and Article 13 as the governing standard for sign replacement and noted that replacing an older sign does not automatically create hardship under the current code.

