City delays sign ordinance vote for broader review

Bandera City Council began the process of revising the city’s sign ordinance on June 23, with officials considering amendments that would grandfather existing projecting signs used by local businesses. However, Council Member Debbie Breen said the proposed changes should be part of a broader review of the ordinance.

Under the current ordinance, projecting signs are effectively prohibited through several provisions, including restrictions on variances, prohibitions against unauthorized sign types, and regulations governing nonconforming signs.

The issue first surfaced during the May 26 council meeting, when Council Member Lynn Palmer criticized the ordinance as overly burdensome for local businesses.

“I don’t know why we have to make it so hard for our businesses in the city of Bandera to get a sign up,” Palmer said. “I don’t know why it’s such a huge hassle.”

Palmer argued that business owners should not have to visit City Hall and seek a variance simply to install a sign.

“They should be able to put up a sign without even coming,” she said.

City Secretary Jill Dickerson agreed and asked the council to direct staff to draft an amendment that would grandfather existing projecting signs, including one located on the J&S Liquor store building, for future council consideration.

At the June 23 meeting, council members reviewed proposed amendments that would formally define projecting signs, establish size regulations for such signs in both single commercial buildings and commercial complexes, and address how nonconforming signs are treated under the ordinance.

The proposed definition describes a projecting sign as one attached to a building wall, canopy, marquee, or similar structure that extends more than 12 inches from the surface to which it is attached. Such signs are typically mounted perpendicular to or at an angle from a building and are designed to be visible from multiple directions.

Before moving forward with a vote, however, Breen urged the council to take a more comprehensive approach.

“I think we should go ahead and do this, but I think it needs to be taken further,” Breen said. “The whole thing needs to be reviewed. I think we’ve put too many inconvenient requests on it.”

City Administrator Toni Kunz told the council that businesses affected by the ordinance had already been informed of the proposed amendment. She also suggested postponing formal action until a broader revision of the sign ordinance could be completed.

Council members agreed to delay the vote. Kunz is expected to work with the city’s legal counsel to revise the ordinance and address restrictions that council members believe may be unnecessarily burdensome to local businesses.