Architecture Review Board urges smaller, color‑aligned options for Mattress Dogs sign; defers final choice to Board of Adjustment

The Wildwood Architecture Review Board on Feb. 13 reviewed a variance request from Mattress Dogs for a new wall sign at a Town Center storefront and recommended the Board of Adjustment consider alternatives that reduce the sign’s size or change its color to better match neighboring businesses.

Board members said the proposed sign facing the Plaza Drive parking lot exceeds the sign code’s per‑frontage allowance and uses much larger lettering than local rules allow. The department told the board the site’s permitted wall signage under Chapter 415,400 is 1 square foot for every linear foot of building frontage — 16.25 square feet in this tenant space — and the applicant is requesting 50 square feet with 60‑inch lettering; the code’s lettering limit is 24 inches.

The recommendation came after staff presented the request and applicants showed examples of the sign at other Mattress Dogs locations. Ray Martin, representing Mattress Dogs, said the design was intended to increase visibility at the corner frontage and that the proposed sign would be externally lit by existing downlights.

Board members expressed concern about proportion and visual consistency in the Wildwood Town Center. Several members noted most existing signs at the center are muted (black and white or white lettering) and suggested options that would make Mattress Dogs’ sign less visually dominant, including a smaller overall sign, white lettering with a colored accent, or using only the “Mattress Dogs” wordmark rather than a large “MD” logo.

Planning staff and the board noted the city is reviewing sign‑size methodology in March; staff said a change back to a percentage‑of‑area model (roughly 5 percent of the facade area) could alter permitted sign sizes in the future. For this application, staff said the current per‑linear‑foot method controls the calculation and would still limit the sign to the 16.25 square feet unless the zoning text is changed.

After discussion, the board voted to forward a memorandum to the Board of Adjustment asking that board to review alternatives submitted by the applicant that consider adjustments to size, color and location. The board’s motion (seconded by Member Parsons) authorized the Board of Adjustment to act on alternatives the applicant may submit; the motion passed with all members voting aye on the record.

The applicant was invited to submit mockups that implement the board’s suggestions; the petitioner agreed to provide several options (for example, two‑thirds scale and a black‑and‑white palette) for staff and the Board of Adjustment to consider. Staff told the applicant that if the Board of Adjustment prefers, it may return the case to the Architecture Review Board for additional comment and that postponing for an additional month would require re‑advertising for the Board of Adjustment hearing.

The board’s comments will be sent in a memorandum to the Board of Adjustment, which will conduct the formal variance hearing on the sign. The Planning Department also offered the applicant a city sign‑code survey link to provide input on current rules.