Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs revisions to Wilberty sign code; staff to return with calculation options
Summary
City staff presented proposed amendments to Chapter 3 (Building Regulations) clarifying attached signs: separating single-user and multi-tenant rules, allowing allocation of total sign area across multiple attached signs on a facade, counting interior signs visible from outside, and removing outdated letter-height references. Commissioners asked for alternative calculation methods (percentage of facade vs. linear footage) and directed staff to return with options; no vote was taken.
City staff presented proposed revisions to the City of Wilberty sign code that would clarify how attached signs on buildings are regulated and give the commission options for measuring allowable sign area.
Staff recommended separating single-user and multi-tenant provisions in Chapter 3, Article 308102 of the City of Wilberty Code of Ordinances, allow applicants to allocate their total permitted sign area across multiple attached signs on the same facade, and clarify that signage visible from the outside (including interior signs seen through windows) should be counted toward the permitted area. Staff also recommended removing leftover references to letter-height restrictions that were eliminated from the code roughly 15 years ago and cleaning up inconsistent cross-references.
In response, commissioners questioned whether allowing multiple attached signs would reduce the number of variance requests that had previously produced sizable exceptions for businesses such as Academy and O'Reilly's. Commissioners asked staff to return with one or two concrete calculation approaches for the commission’s consideration — for example, (a) the existing linear-foot-based allocation (three-quarters of a square foot per linear foot, up to a stated maximum) adjusted to account for multiple signs on a facade, or (b) a percentage-of-facade approach that caps sign area at a set percentage of the building face (commissions discussed examples in the 5–10% range for smaller buildings).
City staff described how signs are measured (by the smallest enclosing polygon that fits the sign) and explained that the proposal would not automatically increase total allowable sign area but would permit distribution of the allowed area across multiple sign panels on the primary facade. Staff also noted special cases — corner lots, multi-tenant buildings without distinct street-facing storefronts, monument signs and speed-based sizing rules — and said staff can craft alternative language for those situations.
No motion or formal vote was taken on the sign-code amendments at this meeting. Staff said they will refine the draft ordinance and return to the commission next month with the requested options and cleaner code language.
