New Braunfels Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting - December 18, 2025

The New Braunfels Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on Thursday, December 18, 2025, at 6:00 PM at City Hall. Chair Brandon Mund presided over the meeting, which was adjourned at 6:58 PM. The primary agenda item was an Alternative Sign Plan request (CS25-0351) by U.S. Signs on behalf of Kahlig Enterprises Inc., doing business as Bluebonnet Motors, for a property located at 1310 IH-35 South.

Consent Calendar

• The Board unanimously approved (5-0) the minutes from the September 25, 2025 regular meeting, following a motion by Member Ranft, seconded by Member Avary.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Chair Mund opened the public hearing for item CS25-0351. No members of the public spoke in favor or opposition of the request.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation (Colton Barker): Staff introduced the request for an Alternative Sign Plan to allow two freestanding pole signs that deviate from the established sign standards. The property is zoned C-3 and has 531 linear feet of frontage along IH-35, allowing for one pole sign. The proposal included a combined 40-foot by 25-foot brand and electronic message sign (cap sign with electronic message center) and a second 35-foot pole sign. Staff noted that a hardship is not required for an alternative sign plan and recommended a condition of approval restricting any additional freestanding signage on the property.
• Applicant's Position (Lydell Toye, U.S. Signs; Wes Studdard, Bluebonnet Motors): The applicant argued the signs are necessary for visibility on IH-35 where traffic moves at 70 mph. The combined sign size mirrors existing signage at their nearby Ford and Jeep dealership, which was installed prior to the city's sign code adoption in 2008-2009. The second pole sign is mandated by corporate brand standards for Stellantis (Chrysler, Dodge, Ram, Jeep). The applicant stated the property is elevated and requires larger signage for adequate visibility, and expressed concern that the requested deviation was being scrutinized when larger, non-code-compliant signs exist elsewhere in the city.
• Board Deliberation: Board members voiced concerns over setting a precedent for large signs under the current sign code, the 'billboard-like' scale of the proposed sign, and opposition from some members to electronic message signs. Discussion examined the feasibility of alternative configurations, including a monument sign at the entrance in lieu of the second pole sign, and relocating the signs. Staff clarified that under current code, the presence of an electronic message sign on the property strictly limits the property to a single freestanding sign.

Key Outcomes

• Motion 1 (Jaeckle/Mund): To permit the electronic and cap sign at the southbound corner of the property and allow a monument sign at the entrance in place of the second pole sign. Failed (2-3) , with Members Avary, Reichenau, and Ranft in opposition.
• Motion 2 (Mund/Jaeckle): To permit the electronic and cap sign with a reduced width of 20 feet (down from 25 feet), move the pole sign to the corner of S. Mesquite Avenue and IH-35, and reduce its height to no higher than 20 feet. Failed (2-3) , with Members Avary, Reichenau, and Ranft in opposition.
• Final Decision: The Board took no final action on the item. The Board requested the applicant return with a revised proposal for consideration at a future meeting. The applicant agreed. Staff clarified that as an Alternative Sign Plan (not a variance), a revised request could be brought back without the standard six-month waiting period required for re-application of denied requests.