Seguin council delays sign-ordinance changes after hours of public comment and proposed amendments

The Seguin City Council on second reading delayed final action on a rewrite of the city's sign rules after multiple business owners and residents urged exceptions for long-running banners and a council member offered broad amendments.

The ordinance would add chapter 6, "Sign Regulations," to the Unified Development Code and replace the current sign rules in chapter 82 of the code of ordinances, including changes to fees and Appendix C. Pam, a city staff presenter, said the draft tightens definitions and clarifies downtown restrictions, noting that "digital signs are only allowed on monument and pole signs, and those are not allowed in the downtown district." The draft keeps a 60-day limit for many commercial banners as a temporary sign.

Why it matters: Small retailers and nonprofit tenants at the Seguin School Yard and other multi-tenant sites said the 60-day limit would effectively bar the banners they use as their primary street-facing advertisement. Council members wrestled with whether to preserve citywide consistency or allow site-specific exceptions and time to pursue permanent signage.

Business owners at the Seguin School Yard described the banners as essential, low-cost advertising. Rachel, who runs a local running store at 225 North Sanders Street, said she counted "well over 50 banners" near the school yard and that the 60-day rule would hurt small tenants: "We really can't afford a big fancy sign ... most of them are here to talk about that as well." Lorelei Crenshaw, owner of Homemade Haven at the same location, told council, "we rely on that drive by advertisement" and asked council to consider alternatives such as shape or upkeep requirements rather than a strict time limit.

Resident Jay Williams urged caution about a strict ban. After walking the area with pictures, he warned that the ordinance language on "excessive signage" is subjective and asked council not to "put an undue burden on our small business community." Another speaker, Jenny Beasley, said her nonprofit at the School Yard quadrupled income after moving there and that losing banner visibility would reduce community impact.

Council debate focused on enforcement, equity and precedent. Pam explained that banners are currently classified as temporary signs and that making them permanent would require moving them out of the temporary-sign section and allowing them across the city. "If council's direction is to allow banners as a full time sign and as permanent signs, you would need to move it out of temporary signs because that's a permanent sign now," she said.

Council member Jason Biesenbach offered extensive amendments that would remove several numerical limits across decorative flags, banners, feather flags, ground signs and portable signs. Several council members said they needed time to review those proposed edits. After discussion, one council member moved to table the item to the next council meeting so members could study the amendments; the motion carried on a voice vote with a second by Council member David Veil.

Council gave no final approval to the ordinance changes; the current temporary-banner limits remain in force while staff and council consider alternate language and possible site-specific solutions for locations such as the Seguin School Yard. City staff said they could extend temporary allowances for a limited period while council explores permanent monument signage or grant support for multi-tenant identification.

The council directed staff to return the item at the next meeting with additional options and clarifications, and the formal amendment proposals offered by Council member Biesenbach will be included in that follow-up.

A closing note: Pam said the draft sign rules are a "living document" and can be adjusted after additional feedback and further council direction.