Board of Adjustments says yes and no to Raising Cane's

During its June 06, 2016 meeting, the Forney Board of Adjustments met and (this is a preliminary report, subject to revision):

  • Held a public hearing to consider a request from Raising Cane’s for approval of multiple variances from the City of Forney Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Signage requests include a variance from Section 48, “Signage,” to allow for a mural sign and a variance to allow for a wall sign to be greater than the maximum size restriction of fifteen square feet on two side façades. A variance is also requested to the Section 39, “Landscape Requirements,” requirement for an eighteen foot landscape buffer. The request property is the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 80 and F.M. 548.
    Mr. Morgan briefed the board.
    staff is in favor of the Landscpe buffer variance, as there is 50 feet of TxDOT Right-of-way adjoining.
    Staff recommends denial of the two sign variance requests.
    Staff sent notices, received no responses.
    An architect rep. presented a slide show about the landscape request.
  • The board approved the landscape buffer variance.
  • Ms. presented a slide show about their mural. They fly in an artist to paint them. This would be facing the coming Taco Cabana - it will not be visible from 548 or the access road. It is primarily for the drive-through customers.
    Mr. Gale asked about maintenance of the murals - the company has a plan to keep the mural fresh.
    Mr. Gale moved to deny it - other members wished more discussion.
    Mr. Hendricks asked about the company - Raising Cane's is international. He asked if any other locations had denied their request. She offered to make changes to the mural and/or sign sizes.
    Mr. Morgan said they could not negotiate in the public hearing - it would require public notice and another hearing.
    Mr. vanHosier said he didn't know how a mural could improve public convenience.
    Mr. Price did express some favor, but it is a sign. If it didn't have the name, would it be a sign? Mr. Gale said it would have been better if it did face the road.
    Mr. Price gave a lengthy discussion of pros & cons.
    Mr. Hendricks also stated passing it would set a precedent.

    Mr. Gale asked about the front sign - it is 32 sq ft.
    Mr. Gale talked about the prevelance of Cane's on the sign.
    There was a lengthy discussion about sign placement, size and visibility.
    Mr. said the monument sign won't be on the most visible side. The lot is oddly shaped and placed. So many of these businesses, the question could be what is the front of the building.
    Mr. asked if needed larger sign so it could be read, or for uniformity - both.
    Mr. Gale asked if any location had modified the logo - no.
    The board expressed their understanding of applicants wishes, but the ordinances are clear.
    The motion failed 0-3

  • The meeting was adjourned after 40 minutes.
Monday, 2016, June 6