Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wildwood review board backs comments supporting variance for Mint Dim Martini signs despite permitting breach
Summary
The Wildwood Architectural Review Board recommended the Board of Adjustment consider a variance for three large, internally lit wall signs at Mint Dim Martini after discussion about permit violations and signage standards; the board asked staff to include conditions addressing lighting and proportionality in its memorandum.
The Wildwood Architectural Review Board on Sept. 11 discussed signage installed at Mint Dim Martini, 2490 Taylor Road, and agreed to forward comments to the Board of Adjustment recommending the body consider a variance for three existing wall signs.
The discussion matters because the signs exceed several provisions of the city's sign regulations and were installed without permits, prompting a municipal-court citation that staff said would be held in abeyance if the Board of Adjustment grants a variance.
Staff member, the planning presenter for the meeting, told the board the restaurant is in the downtown district of Wildwood Town Center on the western edge of the Dierbergs shopping center and that the property lies in the C-8 planned commercial district. "This new business is requesting variances...for the purpose of maintaining 3 permanent flat signs that are already affixed to 3 out of 4 walls of the building," the staff member said, and noted the signs' lettering measures 36 inches where the code allows 24 inches. The presenter said the signs are internally lit whereas the governing ordinance specifies external or backlit illumination for wall signage, and that the signs use a band-style mounting that does not provide the one-inch separation the code requires.
Board members raised two related concerns: the substantive code departures (size, illumination, and mounting) and the fact the signs were installed before permits were sought. "It seems we're having a problem with people following the established guidelines prior to putting signage up," said Vice Chair Jones, pressing for better education and enforcement. Director Bunich told the board that staff and City Administrator Tom Lee had met with the business owner, Miss Patel, to explain the occupancy and permitting process and that the city had paused the court case pending Board of Adjustment action. "The citation would go away if the board of adjustment grants the variance," Bunich said.
Several board members said they found the signs acceptable on aesthetic grounds given the scale of the building. "With the size of the structure they have, I found them kind of generally appealing," Member Parsons said. Still, members said any recommendation should note the permitting breach and include conditions so the variance would not be used to relax other sign standards. One board member suggested the memorandum recommend the signs be proportionate to the wall and meet all other city sign requirements not covered by the requested variance, including limits on light intensity.
No formal vote on the signs was taken by the Architectural Review Board; the body's role in this case is advisory. Staff said it will summarize the board's comments in a memorandum to the Board of Adjustment and deliver the memo for board members to review prior to the Board of Adjustment hearing. The municipal-court matter remains on hold pending that Board of Adjustment decision.
Background details provided during the meeting: the three signs are each roughly 3 feet tall and 10 feet wide, with approximately 3 inches of depth; the property parcel totals about 17.42 acres and the site fronts on Taylor Road. The staff presentation referenced Chapter 415.400 (sign regulations) as the governing provision for the city's signage rules and noted that the Dierbergs center has site-specific allowances from an earlier ordinance, which differs from the general standard for the district.
The board's comments to the Board of Adjustment will include: the board's disappointment that permits were not obtained before installation; acknowledgement that the signs are large and internally lit contrary to the general ordinance; and recommended conditions including proportionality to the wall and adherence to all other city sign requirements (such as light intensity limits) not waived by a variance.
The Board of Adjustment will make the final determination on the requested variances. The Architectural Review Board's memorandum will be circulated to members by staff before that hearing.
