Committee forwards Wildwood sign-code survey results to planning and zoning after mixed feedback from businesses

The Wildwood Economic Development Committee on March 25 voted to send the results of a city-conducted sign-code survey to the Planning & Zoning Commission for formal review and possible changes to the city’s sign regulations.

City staff told the committee that 25 responses were received before the survey closed, with 12 respondents providing business names. Of respondents who answered the question on whether the existing sign regulations were restrictive, staff summarized that a majority (about 68% of respondents) described the rules as somewhat or very restrictive. Respondents most frequently raised three issues: sign size and letter height limits, sign visibility, and restrictions on internally illuminated lettering.

Planning department staff described how the current sign formula (a fixed square-foot allowance calculated by storefront width and a 24‑inch maximum letter height) can produce very small-looking signs on large facades. Staff used a local example — a two‑story facade where a proportional calculation would permit up to 58 square feet (the board of adjustment ultimately allowed 50 square feet in that case) — to illustrate why a percentage‑of‑façade approach is under consideration. “If we would have calculated the sign allowable size based upon 5% of the facade’s area, they would have been allowed up to 58 square feet,” planning staff said during the meeting.

Lighting and illumination emerged as another frequent concern. Several business respondents requested permission for internally lit (channel‑letter) signs; staff and the committee discussed light‑pollution controls and a design constraint cited in the survey synopses: staff said an LED color temperature (Kelvin) limit of 4,000K would be used as an upper bound to reduce stark blue/white lighting. The committee also discussed temporary signage, monument signs near right-of-way areas (the city noted public‑safety and MoDOT sight-line issues for some locations), and the board-of-adjustment process businesses must use for sign variances.

Staff reported several follow-up items: the department mailed a physical survey and provided QR-code access; staff will contact businesses that installed signage without permits; an April 7 Planning & Zoning work session on electronic message boards and related code items is scheduled; and a fuller Planning & Zoning review is expected in May. Council member Mabry moved that staff share the survey results and materials with the relevant parties (planning and zoning and other stakeholders) so the code revision process can proceed; Council member Preston seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote.

Committee members and staff emphasized that the sample size (25 responses) is small relative to the total number of commercial businesses in the city and that survey respondents may overrepresent businesses with grievances. Staff recommended treating the survey as initial feedback to inform targeted amendments to the sign code (for example, switching to a façade‑percentage approach or adjusting letter‑height standards) rather than wholesale deregulation of lighting and size standards.

Planning staff said they will present a proposed code revision schedule and additional materials to the Planning & Zoning Commission and that staff can produce guidance materials to help businesses navigate the variance/board-of-adjustment process. The committee approved forwarding the survey results and analysis for Planning & Zoning consideration.