Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Signage Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Colleyville Board of Appeals denies variance for oversized orthodontic signs after motion lacks second

3310274 · May 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Colleyville Board of Appeals denied a request to allow two oversized wall signs at 5708 Colleyville Boulevard after a motion to grant the variance failed for lack of a second. Staff said the signs exceed Chapter 7 sign-size limits; the city offered a matching grant to help compliance.

The Colleyville Board of Appeals denied a request to allow two oversized wall signs for an orthodontics business at 5708 Colleyville Boulevard after a motion to grant the variance failed for lack of a second.

City planning staff told the board the application (Case SC25-002) seeks relief from the city’s sign rules in Chapter 7 of the Land Development Code, Section 7-125-d, because the installed wall letters measure about 27 inches where the code allows a maximum of 24 inches and the business logo is substantially larger than the 24-inch limit. "The letter height for this the 2 wall signs that are up is too big," planning staffmember Miss Rafe told the board during the public hearing.

The staff presentation said the signs were installed after a former city employee approved permits in error. Staff said it had met with the applicant and offered a city grant to help pay to bring the signs into compliance; board discussion clarified the city’s grant is a matching grant and would not necessarily cover the applicant’s full cost. The applicant was not present at the hearing.

No members of the public spoke during the hearing. Board members debated the precedent that approval might set and whether the city should absorb removal or replacement costs because of the earlier administrative error. The board also discussed appeal rights: "They could appeal to city council," planning staff said when asked about next steps.

Member Valerio moved to grant the variance; the motion "failed for lack of a second, and consequently the request for a variance is denied," the chair said. Because no second was offered, the board did not take a roll-call vote on the merits.

At the start of the meeting the board unanimously approved amendments to the April 8, 2025, signed Board of Appeals minutes.

The applicant may appeal the board’s denial to the Colleyville City Council as allowed under the city’s sign-board appeal procedures.