What Buda commissioners debated about common signage plans and off‑premise advertising

A key thread in the Planning & Zoning Commission’s Sept. 24 deliberations was whether a common signage plan should be required before allowing an off‑premise multi‑tenant pylon sign in the extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Staff explained that a common signage plan ties sign placement, size, design and the parcels that may be advertised together; when adopted it allows multi‑tenant signs to advertise only for properties inside that common area. "We just need a common signage plan identifying... the general locations of the signs on the property, the shape, the size, the colors, and the general design of the sign," staff told the commission.

Commissioners raised two related concerns: approving an off‑premise variance as submitted could create a broad advertising right that might be used by unrelated advertisers on I‑35; and approving signage without knowing future tenants risks visual clutter or logos that conflict with community design goals. The chair noted legal limits on regulating content for off‑premise sign copy, citing a high‑court precedent that restricts content‑based regulation of speech on signs.

Staff and commissioners discussed potential conditions that might be attached to a variance if the commission wanted to mitigate risks — for example, limiting advertising to directly adjacent parcels or defining permitted sign uses in the variance — but commissioners noted such conditions may require legal review and clear definitions. In the end, concerns about process and lack of a common signage plan contributed to the commission’s decision to deny the variance for G1.