OR 91500-A-740 Old Town MuralsAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
ORDINANCE NO. 91500-A-740
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, AMENDING
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE
28A, "H" HISTORIC DISTRICT, SECTION 12-28A-5, "STANDARDS OF
CONSTRUCTION", AND TO PROVIDE FOR NEW SUBSECTIONS (7)
AND (8) UNDER 12-28A-7, "SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS"; TO
ESTABLISH REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE DISPLAY OF
MURAL SIGNS IN THE "H" HISTORIC DISTRICT; TO PROVIDE FOR
APPROVAL BY THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AND APPEALS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION;
PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY
OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS
($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Coppell finds that allowing the installation
of mural signs in the Historic District is consistent with the values and aesthetics of the area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to optimize communication and quality of mural
signs while protecting the public and the aesthetic character of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that these regulations aim to enhance the Historic
District community by minimizing visual clutter along public rights-of-way that are potentially
harmful to the aesthetics of the community, traffic and pedestrian safety, property values, business
opportunities, and community appearance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COPPELL, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 12 `Zoning' of the Coppell Code of Ordinances be, and the
same is, hereby amended by amending Article 28A "H" Historic District, Section 12-28A-5(18),
Standards of Construction, Fences and walls, to provide exceptions for murals, which shall read
as follows:
1
TM 106839
"CHAPTER 12 - ZONING
ARTICLE 28A, "H" HISTORIC DISTRICT
Sec. 12-28A-5. Standards of Construction.
18. Fences and walls:
(B) Wood board fences for privacy shall only be located in rear yards; generally
no taller than six feet; set back from the front facade (wall plane) of the structure
at least half -way back from the front to the back walls, and shall be stained or
painted to blend with the structure, except as permitted in Section 12-28A-7; and
of a design compatible with the structure.
SECTION 2. That Chapter 12 `Zoning' of the Coppell Code of Ordinances be, and the
same is, hereby amended by amending Article 28A "H" Historic District, and Section 12-28A-7.
`Signage Requirement' to add new subsections 12-28A-7(7) and (8) to provide for mural signs and
regulation thereof in the "H" Historic District, which shall read as follows:
"CHAPTER 12 - ZONING
ARTICLE 28A, "H" HISTORIC DISTRICT
Sec. 12-28A-7. Signage Requirements.
2
TM 106839
7. Mural Signs - for purposes of this provision, mural signs shall be defined to include
a work of graphic art painted on or attached to an exterior structure, which is visible
from the public right of way, and which does not contain advertising symbols,
slogans, or trademarks and does not directly or indirectly advertise or call attention
to a product or service that is available for sale. Mural signs shall be permitted in
the "H" district, provided the owner submits an application and complies with the
following:
(A) Shall be limited to one (1) exterior surface per site and shall cover no more
than 75% of the space on that surface;
(B) Shall not be displayed on any fence, nor any building, or any portion of a
building, which is used for residential purposes;
(C) Shall not include any commercial element, logo, trademark or any facsimile
thereof used to advertise services or products available for any commercial
purpose;
(D) Should the mural become faded, peeled and/or severely weathered, the
owner or person or firm maintaining the same shall, upon written notice
from the Director, repair and/or repaint the mural within sixty (60) days.
8. Approval and Appeals.
(A) All signage and murals shall require approval from the Director of
Community Development to ensure compliance with the regulations
contained herein. The Director shall either approve or deny any sign or
mural application with regulations provided herein within five (5) business
days of submittal of the application or revised resubmittal.
3
TM 106839
(B) Appeals from a denial of the Director of Community Development may be
taken to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
(C) The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the denial and either
grant or deny the same under the regulations as adopted herein."
SECTION 2. All ordinances of the City of Coppell in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance shall be, and the same are hereby, repealed; provided, however, that all other provisions
of said ordinances not in conflict herewith shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. Should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or
section of this ordinance or of the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby, be adjudged or held
to be void or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of
said ordinance or the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby, which shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION 4. An offense committed before the effective date of this ordinance is
governed by prior law and the provisions of the Code of Ordinances, as amended, in effect when
the offense was committed and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose.
SECTION 5. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms
of this ordinance shall be subject to the same penalty as provided for in the Code of Ordinances of
the City of Coppell, as heretofore amended, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not
to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and
publication of the caption as required by law.
4
TM 106839
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas, this the ay of
Aak,m- 1 , 2019.
ROBERT E. HAGEJf CITY ATTORNEY
(TM 106839) (/
5
TM 106839
Argyle On a case-by-case basis in conjunction with a site plan or amended site plan application.
Must provide a scaled color illustration of the proposed wall mural on the building elevation.
The City shall determine if the size and character of the mural is consistent with surrounding development and the Comprehensive Plan.
Carrollton Define murals as non-commercial pictures painted on or attached to the exterior walls not advertising https://library.municode.com/tx/carrollton/code
Allow murals on 50% of total exterior elevations. s/code of ordinances?nodeld=TITXVLAUS CH15
1SIRE SPSIRE 5151.87WASI
Dallas Murals are part of their sign ordinance defined as: any painting, design, or image, including incidental copy, that is applied directly to the exterior of http://www.ci.dallas.or.us/DocumentCenter/Vie
a building for artistic, informational, historic, or aesthetic purposes, and does not contain advertising, w/3172/Sign-Code?1bid1d=
Flower Mound Allow murals only if they are part of a Comprehensive Sign District. https://library.municode.com/tx/flower mound/
Have approved one application for the Prairie Commons project. codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=SPBLADE RE
CH86SI ARTIIRE DIVIGE 586-44COSIPA
Fort Worth According to the Planner, as long as there is not any advertising in the mural, then it is considered art and they do not consider it a sign or require a
permit for it.
Grapevine With the exception of a Historic Wall Sign, the City of Grapevine does not allow wall murals.
Wall signs are limited to 15% or 25% of the wall.
Irving Regulates them as signs: limits to 1 exterior wall surface per building and shall not be used to advertise services or products. https://Iibrary.municode.com/tx/irving/codes/la
Require a permit and approval prior to installation. nd development code?nodeld=PTIDESTBUCO C
Should the mural become faded, peeled and/or severely weathered, the owner/person/firm shall repair and/or repair/repaint mural within 60 days H7BISI S7-3SPPR
upon written notice from the director.
They don't have a huge number of murals in Irving. The Building Inspections Director is not aware of many concerns or complaints relating to
murals.
Lewisville Within the Old Town center design district and the Old Town design district, the issuance of a letter of design approval reflects appropriate design https://library.municode.com/tx/lewisville/codes
under the Old Town design standards and is required as a condition of the following: /code of ordinances?nodeld=PTIICOOR CH9.5O
• The installation of outdoor murals, decorative clocks or street/sidewalk lighting features which will be visible from the adjacent public LTODE ARTIIIARAPPR 59.5-44LEDEAPRE
rights of way.
Richardson If they are for advertisement, they are the same as any wall sign, otherwise, it can be approved with the facade. https://library.municode.com/tx/richardson/cod
They have a large Public Arts Master Plan as well. es/code of ordinances?nodeld=PTIICOOR CH18
SIRE ARTIINGE 518-21DE
A content -neutral regulation is much more likely to be upheld than one that is content -based.
In Complete Angler, a city's application of a regulation concerning a mural painted on a fishing store was
struck down. The court found that the City's application was content -based, in that the City stated the
mural of fish on a fishing store was commercial speech, but a mural of children running in a field was not.
A regulation that is not content based may be upheld if it is narrowly tailorto serve a government interest
(i.e. aesthetics, traffic safety), and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication.
Complete Angler, LLC v. City of Clearwater, Fla. 607 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1333 (M.D. Fla. 2009)
In Wag More Dogs, the court found that the plaintiff was "barking up the wrong tree" in challenging the
city's application of the sign ordinance to a mural which depicted its mascot dog. The court found that
the City's ordinance, which required a permit and provided guidelines for "any word, numeral, figure,
design [or] display [which] is used to direct, identify, or inform the public while viewing the same from
outdoors." The Court noted that, in this case, the Zoning Ordinance merely imposes certain restrictions
on "signs," on the basis of their size and location, along with whether they are commercial signs directed
at advertising to and attracting customers or not. In doing so, the court found that the ordinance was
content -neutral, and thus it was upheld.
Wag More Dogs, LLC v. Artman, 795 F. Supp. 2d 377, 384 (E.D. Va. 2011), aff'd sub nom. Wag More Dogs
Liab. Corp. v. Cozart, 680 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2012)
Cities may have a substantial interest in restricting commercial speech
In Architecture Art, the Court found that the City's regulation of commercial speech was not
unconstitutional. In this case the stated purpose of the sign ordinance is to optimize communication while
protecting the aesthetic character of the City. The Court found that the City was asserting a substantial
interest justifying restriction on commercial speech.
The restrictions to advance this interest include: (1) the requirement that all signs get a permit, and (2)
only signs with on -premises or public interest messages are allowed. These restrictions directly advance
the stated interest. Communication is optimized, while limiting outside off -premises advertising to
protect the aesthetic character of the City.
Arch itectu reArt, LLC v. City of San Diego, 231 F. Supp. 3d 828, 839 (S.D. Cal. 2017), reconsideration
denied, No. 15 -CV -01592 -BAS -NLS, 2017 WL 1346899 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2017)
Providing unfettered authority to a Director or Council to review and approve/disapprove of murals
may be viewed as a prior restraint.
In Mahaney, the City of Englewood's sign regulation was found to impose a prior restraint, in that it gave
the City Manager unfettered authority to approve or disapprove of a mural. The Court noted that
Englewood's special review procedure is unconstitutional under the First Amendment unless it contains
the following two essential procedural safeguards to ensure expeditious decision-making by the city
manager:
(1) any restraint prior to judicial review can be imposed only for a specified brief period during which the
status quo must be maintained;
(2) expeditious judicial review of that decision must be available.
Therefore, to pass constitutional scrutiny, Englewood's special review procedure must require the city
manager to decide whether to issue a permit within a brief, specified time period during which the status
quo is maintained, and there must be the possibility of prompt judicial review in the event the permit is
erroneously denied.
Mahaney v. City of Englewood, 226 P.3d 1214, 1219-20 (Colo. App. 2009), as modified on denial of
reWg (Jan. 21, 2010)