Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sign board denies rear-facing wall sign variance for Perspire Sauna Studio
Summary
The Southlake Sign Board unanimously denied a request from Perspire Sauna Studio to place a rear-facing wall sign at 2251 E. Southlake Boulevard, citing precedent and consistency with the master sign plan; the applicant was told they may appeal to city council.
The Southlake Sign Board on Jan. 23, 2025 denied a request from Perspire Sauna Studio to place a rear-facing wall sign at 2251 East Southlake Boulevard, Suite 100, voting 6-0 to reject the variance (agenda item SB 24-0016).
Staff presented the application and site plans showing several sign options labeled A–D and noted the tenant's proposed wall sign would face Kimball Drive. Planning staff said the applicant proposed letter heights in multiple options, described as roughly 25½ inches and 30.5 inches in alternate drawings, and that other signs for the tenant (a front/west elevation sign and a panel on the existing monument sign) did not require variances.
The board’s discussion centered on consistency with the Kimball Oaks master sign plan and concern about setting a precedent that could encourage similar rear-facing signs across the shopping center. “I have a hard time breaking precedent on this,” one commissioner said during deliberations. Several board members said while they appreciated the applicant including multiple design options, they were reluctant to approve a sign that would be inconsistent with adjacent buildings and the existing sign plan.
Applicant Mike Prezioso of Fort Worth described the tenant's location as “in the corner” and said visibility from the pylon sign was limited because it is “hidden behind trees,” arguing the larger wall sign was intended to maximize business visibility. Planning staff and the chair advised that the applicant may appeal the decision to city council if they choose; staff suggested showing a reduced-size option to council to increase the chance of approval.
A motion to deny the variance (SB 24-0016) was made by a commissioner and seconded; the board voted 6-0 in favor of denial. Board members reiterated the option for the applicant to take a revised proposal to city council and suggested preparing alternative, smaller sign designs for that hearing.
The denial means the requested rear-facing wall sign will not be permitted as presented. The applicant may pursue the issue at the city council level or submit revised plans that better conform to the master sign plan.
