Colleyville council reviews proposed revisions to sign regulations, gives direction on digital displays and real-estate signage

Colleyville city staff presented proposed changes to Chapter 7 of the Land Development Code on May 13, 2025, asking the City Council for direction on digital message areas on monument signs, spacing between monument signs, attached-sign rules for awnings and wall signs, and tighter limits for commercial real-estate signs.

Ben Bridal, director of community development, told the council the packet focused on the portions of the sign code that “require a little bit of direction” and that the draft changes targeted digital display allowances, commercial real-estate signs that tend to remain indefinitely, obsolete signs, and mural or public-art signs.

Council members and staff discussed several specific proposals. Staff said the existing code allows digital or changeable copy on monument signs up to 50% of the allowable sign area; the council debated whether to keep 50% or reduce it (members suggested 10%–20% as a possible range). Councilors and staff also discussed whether digital portions should require higher quality standards, minimum display durations, limits on scrolling, and whether a special-use permit (SUP) should be required for displays that exceed the base allowance.

Council members emphasized safety and aesthetics while acknowledging business needs. One councilor noted that roadside signs are intended to convey quick location information rather than long narratives for passing drivers. Staff and several councilors suggested treating the digital portion as an ancillary element unless an applicant demonstrates high display quality and maintenance. Time-based limits were discussed: staff recalled an 8-second standard used for some larger billboards and suggested 20–30 seconds as a possible minimum display duration for changeable digital messages; councilors proposed exempting schools or allowing a different cadence for school messaging.

On appeals and review, staff said sign-board review and appeals to council would remain available. Council direction included keeping the 50% baseline in place for existing code language but treating any request in excess of that percentage, or any request for a faster change interval than the baseline, as subject to SUP review; high-quality digital installations could be considered under SUP. Staff also was directed to examine removing scrolling (continuous motion) and to consider shortening minimum on-screen time for messages (discussion ranged around 20–30 seconds); the council asked staff to return with clearer draft language.

Other proposed amendments covered monument-sign spacing and size: the existing code sets a 100-foot minimum spacing between monument signs on the same lot and allows one monument sign per street frontage (an additional monument per 250 feet of linear frontage). Councilors discussed whether to keep those spacings or allow one larger and one smaller sign per property, with SUP as an option for exceptions.

Attached and awning signs: the draft keeps a limit that awning text be no more than 20% (and no more than 50% of awning length or 10 feet, whichever is more restrictive) and proposes that awning graphics be limited to the business name or logo rather than multiple repeated words or promotional copy. Staff said existing awnings and signs would remain legal nonconforming; if a sign or awning is damaged beyond a set threshold (staff referenced 50%) and rebuilt, it would need to meet the new standards unless relief is granted by the city process.

Projecting (blade) signs: staff recommended reducing the current 20-square-foot maximum for projecting signs in pedestrian areas (the village) to something smaller (examples discussed included 8 square feet) because those signs are intended for walkable contexts rather than highway visibility.

Commercial real-estate signage: staff proposed limiting large, freestanding “For Lease/For Sale” commercial signs and encouraging smaller, building-attached signage or window signage, with specific setback and size limits for signs placed in the public right-of-way. Councilors said real-estate signs are proliferating at some corridors and recommended staff return with visual examples of alternative sizes and placements.

Window signs and storefront coverage: councilors reviewed the current 25%-per-pane limit on window signage and discussed whether to tighten the window-sign rules, restrict promotional messages in storefront windows, or require permanent, nondisruptive window graphics for identification and hours rather than large promotional decals.

Next steps and staff assignment: the council gave staff direction to refine the draft ordinance language, prepare visual examples and sample sign dimensions for review, keep the sign-board appeals process in place, and return for additional review before any ordinance is placed on a Council hearing agenda. No formal ordinance vote was taken at the work session.

Impact and timeline: staff said the draft changes would apply to new signs and to major repairs/replacements of existing signs (legal nonconforming signs would remain unless rebuilt beyond the damage threshold). Councilors asked staff to return with refined language, examples, and proposed findings to guide consistent enforcement and to limit unintended burdens on small businesses.

The council paused the sign-code discussion to take up a separate agenda item on the Northern Gateway enhancement; staff will return with revised ordinance language and visuals for further council review.