the problem is, you have a highway going through knoxville that is itself raised 25 feet off the ground in many places, and often 8 - 10 drive lanes in width. do elevated highways have dispensations, or are there topography/visibility issues with the rise and fall of kingston pike? in other words, why do they want 50 feet?

I too would be interested in the developers/company's explanation for the need of a 50 foot sign.

The location will not draw from the interstate, 1/2 mile away. It is on a fairly straight and not too hilly section of Kingston Pike, right between Cedar Bluff and Seven Oaks on the South side across from the Market Place shopping center that includes a Kroger. How tall is the sign, or whatever you call it (the large brick, four-sided tower) leading into the Market Place shopping center?

I've asked one of the neighborhood leaders why the developers are requesting a 50' sign and the answer seems to be "because they can."

Here's a graphic that shows the relative sign heights of nearby signs for comparison:

The development is surrounded by residential subdivisions and there is no way the sign could be seen from the interstate. There are 136 private homes within 300 feet of the development and the neighbors strongly object to this gigantic lighted sign.

Also, from the website:

The stretch of Kingston Pike between Cedar Springs Church and Franklin Square has consistently been a good example of community commercial development during the past 15 years. Developers have kept signs to 35 feet or less, with the median height being about 20 feet. A 50-foot lighted plastic and metal pole sign in this area would set a very negative precedent for future development and would change the community character.

It's being reported that City Council voted to require this specific sign high to be lowered to 30 feet.

Good job, citizens!

Afterward, Seymour said he was "disappointed" in the council's action "in not being sensitive to business interests and that it "endangers the rest of the project."

Seymour is very good at what he does and I understand his job. I have to wonder some times if even he believes what he is saying.

Did Councilwoman Brenda Palmer really say "When this group came here, 50-feet was the maximum height. That was the rule. We may not like the rule. The bottom line — a set of rules was in play"

Wow. How's that for abdicating on your legislative responsibility? A situation comes up where a bad rule is identified and impacts citizens, but we don't want to fix the rule because people are trying to play by the rule?

The process of approving zoning and development is the way it is so that problems / issues can be identified and resolved. MPC looks at it, then the legislative body. The rules get interpreted differently all the time during those hearings because we all WANT some flexibility in the process.

Things worked like they were supposed to.

I do wonder what would happen in somebody else on City Council, during a hot discussion, makes a motion to "Suspend the Rules". Yes - parliamentary procedure allows you to get RID of the rules entirely if you feel like it :-)

I heard Brenda Palmer say that and I am sorry I voted for her.