Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Buda planning commission denies variance for oversized pylon sign in Sunfield
Summary
The Planning & Zoning Commission denied a variance request for a 15-by-35-foot, 256.73-square-foot off‑premise multi‑tenant pylon sign proposed in the Sunfield area near I‑35, citing process concerns and uncertainty about future tenants; staff had recommended approval with conditions.
The City of Buda Planning & Zoning Commission on Sept. 24 denied a request for a variance that would have allowed a 15‑foot by 35‑foot multi‑tenant pole (pylon) sign in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) near I‑35 in the Sunfield area.
Planner Alejandro Hernandez told commissioners the sign as proposed would total about 256.73 square feet and that staff was recommending approval of a post/pylon sign if it met the standards for B‑3/LI/HI zoning districts and other UDC sign regulations. "Staff has reviewed the request and recommends the planning and zoning commission approve of the request for assigned variance to allow a pole and pylon sign on the property located in the ETJ," Hernandez said during the presentation.
Applicant representative Carter Thurman of Comet Signs said the sign is intended to attract drivers into the Sunfield/City Limits Subaru driveway and argued it would improve safety and reduce congestion at a nearby intersection. "It's very critical that the owners... get the attention of the drivers to get them to turn into that area instead of exiting 3 miles ahead," Thurman said.
Commissioners focused on the absence of a common signage plan, the off‑premise nature of the proposal, precedent from a prior Subaru variance, and uncertainty about what future tenants might occupy the adjacent lots. Several commissioners said the city has processes to ensure cohesive signage across a development and that approving an off‑premise sign without a common signage plan could permit advertising for unrelated businesses.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to deny the variance and the motion was seconded. The chair called the question and announced the motion carried; the commission denied the variance for agenda item G1.
The denial leaves the applicant able to pursue alternatives: staff noted the applicant could resubmit with a common signage plan, redesign the sign to meet dimensional limits, or seek annexation and B‑3 zoning where different sign rules apply. The commission did not set a new hearing date; staff and the applicant may follow up with revised materials if they choose to return.
