Planning commission reviews broad Chapter 7 sign-code amendments, targets oversized commercial real-estate signs and adds mural language

The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to Chapter 7 of the Colleyville code, which governs sign regulations. Staff described multiple changes ranging from small wording edits to new standards for obsolete commercial real-estate signs and mural approvals.

Key proposed changes discussed at length included limits on commercial real-estate "for lease/for rent" signage: staff proposed restricting temporary lease signs to 3-by-3 feet (9 square feet) for wall or window signs and allowing a ground sign of the same size up to 4 feet tall only when the space is more than 100 feet from the nearest right of way. Staff said the proposal would substantially reduce the large ground signs (sometimes up to 64 square feet) that have proliferated in shopping centers and can give the appearance of high vacancy. The code changes would also require ground signs to have an issue date and an expiration (30 days from the permit issue date) and remove overstayed or dilapidated signs through enforcement procedures.

Other changes include adding curbside pickup, reserved parking and to-go signage to the exempt sign list; clarifying permit and administrative roles (changing references from "building official" to "administrative official"); adding an institutional/school exception to electronic message-sign timing (schools/institutions allowed 15-second changes versus the standard 30 seconds); specifying monument-sign allowances for multifamily developments (44 square-foot maximum monument size noted in the updates); clarifying that awning signs require a permit only when signage is proposed; and standardizing colors and cabinet sign treatments so cabinets are opaque except for channel letters or logos.

Staff proposed language to address obsolete and dilapidated signs: the new text would allow the city to contact property owners to remove signs that no longer identify an active tenant and to issue citations if signs are not removed. Staff said enforcement could include daily citations and, ultimately, municipal-court action; staff also noted existing code provisions that allow liening or other remedies where signs are unsafe or dangerous.

The proposed amendments add administrative review criteria for public-art murals, with a requirement that murals be noncommercial (no lettering or logos that function as signage). Applicants would receive administrative approval through the community-development office, and applicants who disagree could appeal to the sign board of appeals and then to city council.

Commissioners raised several practical questions: whether staff capacity exists to inspect and track short-duration signage, how to enforce removal for dilapidated signs, the apparent inconsistency between residential and commercial real-estate sign size/height and setback provisions, and whether signage allowances should be revised by frontage or building face (corner buildings). Staff said they would refine language and consider enforcement logistics, duration mechanisms and setback/size parity between residential and commercial real-estate signs before the regular meeting.

No formal adoption occurred at the work session; staff said they will bring a redline of Chapter 7 and clarified that many changes are minor edits but include new language for murals and obsolete signs.