Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

We have not. You're under contract. No. Looks like a beautiful church to me. Is there anything wrong with it at all? How big is um the church itself? I see 5.79 acres. Do y'all have uh like how big the building will be? like I mean when I look down like this it looks like a college when you walk into a college but I mean I don't have about 16,000

you have a completion like a timet uh not current hold you to it I won't hold you to it but no sir if we haven't purchased the land I mean purchasing the land you know 60 90 days or something like that we put in put it in today um probably a year from then, maybe a year and a half. Don't know. So, a 2027 20. Yeah.

Thank you. It looks like it's going to be beautiful. Thank you very much. Question. Are you going to try to keep the trees? Cuz that's pretty uh that's pretty Yeah, it's undeveloped. there was going to be like they had several things they were going to put on Lone Star Parkway, you know, YMCA and then they were going to put something else and u I mean I was just wondering if there's I'm a tree person so I always ask the question. We try our best um if it if it can work if it can work out with the how it's laid out like that we could try our best. Um but obviously no problem.

All right. Well, I guess we'll wait to hear from you and then we'll hear from feasibility and water and sewer and traffic and retention ponds. Um, thank you very much, Andrew. Thank you. Appreciate your time. [snorts] Uh, next up we have presentation for a proposed expansion of an existing church, Cornerstone Community Church. It's located at 14740 Liberty Street. Hi.

Yes, sir. Good evening. This is at 14740 Liberty Street. The property is existing. There is an existing church on at that location. The property is designated a historic landmark. So, because of that designation, uh their proposed expansion or changes on the property would need planning and zoning commission approval. Okay.

And what they're proposing right now, you'll see in the following pages the exterior page nine at this time is what they're proposing. And there are representatives here from the church. Do you have specific questions?

Um I do. Um on the church when we first uh were discussing the cornerstone church coming uh to McGomery and being built there it was uh there was situation of the setback from the fan the fence the vegetation the lighting the time frame the noise and uh and y'all had come for a variance for the driveways and uh it was type of a khichi type I guess rock or whatever that was on there. And uh it has since been paved and [clears throat] uh I remember driving by it and I was like, you know, when did when did that come before which which commission did it come before? I got word um prior to do I need to sorry I wasn't prepared to do any of this. I thought we were just getting approval of the ex exterior to be able to expand, but before we did any of the paving, I got with Dave with Court Indell.

This is Mr. Gerald. Hi. Thank you.

Sorry, I don't know all these formalities. Um, but I did get with Dave prior to doing that. And when we were cuz we had approval to grade um and level. In the process of doing that, we found where there was multiple stops that already had concrete, asphalt underneath the grass and stuff that was there. There was a lot of the um uh gosh, the crushed concrete already there. That was kind of what it was. When we started grading around the perimeter, we found, oh, there's asphalt here. There's concrete there. So I sent pictures to Dave and said since it already existing hard surface all in the front and in other spots then I see it reading that it falls under resurfacing like the guideline reads. So we're going to proceed with that and he understood that.

And you have that email. I probably do. I mean that was over a year or so ago. And then since then I met with him and um and this was probably six or eight months even then. Um gosh, I'd have to see who I met with um and going over that over here. We have a new city administrator. Yeah. So anyway, that's past business that I had no idea they were going to be asking about because all that was approved. They understood what it was. Um so we didn't have to proceed with getting a new permit. We just did maintenance. And just be aware that um we all ask this whole commission ask like when did the pavement how'd that come about?

Um with the change of current city administrator and just make sure that you follow all the uh that's why we're here. We drive we we drive up and down that road. I mean most of us live like here. So, I just want to reiterate to you that there is a commission that things come before and when you send emails to a city administrator, it's u more than likely put on an agenda for us to review whether it requires our approval or not. It normally comes before us. So, I'm just kind of reiterating. Yes, ma'am. I'm learning because when we bought the property to the north of us,

Yes. south of us, sorry, the quarter or so acres. We didn't we just went straight to the you Dave recommended what what um engineer we used in Conro and had them start doing the replap based upon what Dave said. Hey, this is a requirement and cleared and leveled and you know um and added grass which was really not anything special, but we didn't have to we didn't do any of this and Dave was fully in the middle of it. So when we bought the plus or minus 1 acre north of us didn't expect it to be which we did have a premeating um and in the meeting I understood as long as we were just clearing and nothing having to be done on the 1acre long as we got approval from text dot we and we weren't going to change the grade then we could proceed. So that's what we were doing but then since then we got stopped halfway through and we're here again. Um, so yes, it's a learning curve because it didn't seem like the first purchase we did or expansion was that it's my understanding on this one, what we're doing is for the planning and zoning part, and please correct me if I'm wrong, tell me what I need to do, but because it was a historical site before, though the building is not or anything now,

since we're adding to it, we need to make sure the exterior is cohesive with what you guys would want. Yes. So that we can proceed. I didn't want to have $30,000 plans drawn up if you say, "Oh, no, it's got to be a wood structure." Because three three times ago it was a wood structure. Yes. Um so that's what we're shooting for, but if there's anything more I need to do, please direct me. I would like to check with the historical society. Uh it was previously a historical place, but is it the property that's historical or is it the building? Right. So, we need to I understand that

when we purchased it and before we did the renovations um and all that was approved and signed off on and walked and inspected and everything else, that was what they deemed then when we were actually changing the existing building that was literally there. Um so now we're just adding a metal building to the attached to it to make it look cohesive to the way that the current one already is. um before we spend money on everything else, we want to make sure that that's going to be okay

the direction. The existing building is about 4,3900 ft. Um and we're looking to add probably 3 to 3500. It's classrooms and bathrooms and we're not changing the sanctuary size to increase the people. Um that was one of the discussion topics in the prehering that we did. Are you increasing the people? was told you may be having to increase the parking spaces, but because we're not increasing the sanctuary or anything else, they said that wouldn't be required. But again, I don't know if that's here or next week's meeting,

but that would need to be clarified for us because if we're looking at possibly building the expansion and having to change the parking, we couldn't afford to do it right now. But I don't think that's going to be a a problem based upon previous conversations. But how big is the expansion, you said? Well, until we draw it out and have a professional do it, it's going to be approximately 30 I'm going to say 34 to 35. It could be 36. It could be 32. Um, if it does get you do get more uh people to to join, will will you have room for parking this? You can afford it and it gets to that. Yes.

Yeah. That was part of the reason why we wanted to buy the additional acre. Well, one to get the length of the addition we want, we would have gotten into the 15 or 25 ft um build zone, and we probably would have had um to probably do a retention pond or whatever because now we're surfacing so much of the 1.2 acres that, you know, we might have to do something different. So we bought the additional acre just to give us be able to move the setback line now 3 400 ft further north and have plenty of permeable soil to add 3500 ft. So that's our goal anyway. So, you're here today just to ask us if the aesthetics of the current building uh and what you're going to add on, which looks the same, looks to be maybe a cement pad for a gathering area and uh type type of uh retaining type of situation and fence.

Yes. in the the little courtyard area with the fence is what we would love to see if we can afford it as we go. We wanted to give you the full picture of what it may be. Um, you know, we may or may not be able to add that part in the beginning. We would love to. That's part of our plan that we would love to see. Um, but yes, and it extends out past the slope. Now, is it going to extend out where that slope starts or are you going to have to build it up to get that? We want to keep the the ex um expansion to the same grade as the original one. So it would be probably 2 and 1/2 ft up or so. That's about how much fall for the 80 or 85 ft we're looking at.

Um but if we do the courtyard, it will be recessed down. We'll build a, you know, a 3ft or so, 3 and 1/2t retention wall against the existing building to be able to have a flat surface in front of the other. Tilly and they're going to bring everything to city for permits and feasibility and water and Yes, ma'am. They have a development application in and will be proposing the escro agreement. Okay. To start that process. And are you aware? Have they contacted you with emails and corresponding following along?

All right. and confirming historicals society if they got to get more. I think that was all that we needed to be able to go to the next stage making sure because that was for really I didn't want to spend all that money if you came back and said oh no you can't do it out of metal building with a tin side even though it looks just like original building. So that's kind of why I think the only reason we need to right when we looked at it and I we can talk to the historical society again to make sure there was a bell tower in the original church. That bell tower has since been relocated to Fernland. Yes. So it isn't there anymore, but the historical landmark designation hasn't been removed from that property. Yeah. And that's a process.

And well, we actually we don't want it to be removed. I took the plaque that was originally there and we still have it mounted, you know, cuz the kids from school go through and it's part of their whole to say they're in the middle of doing that right now. Yeah. And so it's mounted on the front of the building and we don't have any desire to remove it. Um I guess maybe if we do some other stuff years and years in the future, we might actually make a nicer deal where it stands alone on this deal. But it will I think it it should always be there. I don't think it should ever be removed from this. It was a church. It's still a church. Why change it? I think the history of it is great. Thank you very much. Sorry.

Okay, we don't have any other speakers that are going to come forward. Any more presentations? We can move on to the agenda. Um Brent, right, Brent? and you're aware of what's going on and you're in correspondence because Dave's out of the picture. Okay. All right. The regular question. Yes. How long does it usually take to get the Hey, you can proceed with this kind of elevation or no, you got to change it to something different. How long does that usually take?

Well, we have to we have to go through somebody has to let us know if there's something historical that needs to be taken place. let we need to find out about the feasibility. They'll bring to us uh your plans and and all the stuff that's supposed to happen in that area and then we walk through that. Right now, you're just presenting us with what your idea is without anything in concrete telling us measurement sizes, water, pitches. You know, we don't have a feasibility. Our city engineers will go over that when you submit it. Um, they'll look at the drainage and everything that's that's associated with that as far as your elevations and things.

Okay. So, maybe I'm confused. The part that I thought we were because again, we don't want to have plans drawn up for a metal building with metal sides. I I think you're fine is your building and all of that because really what it says or what we've seen that it says that it's just as long as it matches what you already have. The historic part of it is is really the land, not the you know, you have the plaque. So I I don't foresee then we'll proceed with having our true plans drawn up. Um he told me it would take about 30 days. I mean we'll still we're still on the agenda for next week.

Um but he said even before he could do the plans he has to have a soil sample which I know that's part of the requirement anyway to build here. Um so we have to order that. So what I'm hearing is let's proceed to those so we can actually have a more intelligent so we'll have real floor plans where we can get bids and see if we can afford to build now and continue. Right. And then after that, you know, you have your your development agreement that'll all come back to these guys, you know, when we get that far along. So you're can So also on the will it be next week that we find out if we can proceed with having the engineer in Conro way to start the reflat free resone part or is there something else I need to do in the meantime? Yes. Yes.

That will be confirmed next week at council. Next week. Okay. Thank you. [laughter] Sorry. engineer behind you. So, so once we get to the next stage, you'll have professionals come and represent. Right now, we're like, we don't want to spend a ton of money until we make sure we're we looked at all that and I think I think you're fine. Uh there's not really, you know, we had to check on the the historic part of it, but it it really there's nothing. [cough and clears throat] Well, from now on, you'll get more professional people coming. No problem. Are we able to step out? Yeah. Tilly, you good?

Thank you. Nice meeting you. Okay, we're going to move on to the regular agenda minute uh uh discussion and or action. We're going to go is do we need to go in line or do we need to skip around? Okay. Number five, consideration and possible action on the P&Z regular meeting minutes of January 6, 2026. I make a motion to approve uh for consideration action of the P&Z meeting of January 6th, 2026. Second. Um, we have a motion. We have it seconded. Uh, all those in favor say I. I.

All those opposed. Motion is passed approve the minutes of January 6. Okay, we're going to move on to number six. Discussion regarding city council requests for clarification on the commission's recommendation to deny the variance request section 78-162A minimum landscape setback by the McGomery Retail Development Development number 25506. So the question I guess it's me they they wanted to know you know in the development um you know with HB with the way they built their their wall and the setbacks were changed. So they just really wanted to know what your thinking was because understandably you're going to end up with a with a wall now that jotss out another five foot and and a few of them just were asking you know I mean do you what was your intent there and I I mean we had a long discussion about different things during that so it was just really clarification John, do you want to say anything?

I'm trying to find it. Um, from last I mean too from last meeting.

Yeah. And I I think the the biggest question was the fact that it had been approved for HQB and now you didn't really want to approve it this way. I think was I mean I think just because just because we approved a variance I don't know why that one was approved honestly for the HB. I wasn't here for that one. To me that one shouldn't have been to make it the same. So that is my thing. We can't keep having that for the people that live beyond behind there especially with all those trees that are now gone.

Well and they met all the requirements to put the trees back. So the nothing changed. the 5 foot did change, but the requirements for the amount of trees and bushes and all that did not change. So they they HB did step up to meet the requirements and I mean he can answer to that. We we went back and forth a little bit and we you know discussed that with HB and they figured out a way to make it work. I think it sounded like we were giving up 5 foot of the vegetation as way we may have looked at that. I I never served me right.

And I I think that was true in the beginning because HB, you know, when they originally came to us that it was kind of, you know, really scrunching that up. But what they did was they created a way to to support the wall and add the vegetation that was required even with the shortened up distance.

So to that point, um just to kind of add a little a few details, the engineer for the HB site is the same engineer [clears throat] for this development. And so they're well aware of what we were requesting with HV, making sure that the landscaping [snorts] buffer between Havenshshire and the commercial property was intact, understanding that they're clearing out all of that area and don't want any commercial lots backing up into those residential homes. [snorts] Continuing that thought process on the SR 105 property. Again, their request was just to make it more cohesive from east to west from 2854 to the end of their property on the back side. So even if their variance request was not granted, they would still be meeting the required minimum tree planting, canopy, um, and vegetative buffer requirements in the ordinance. So from city council standpoint, they were just wanting to make sure that the reasoning behind y'all's denial of that particular variance, the from 20T to 25 ft was or rather what the reasoning was. And so if the understanding was the thought that there wouldn't be a minimum uh requirement for landscaping in vegetative buffer, that's not the case. They still would be meeting all the requirements for the landscaping on that rear just

5 ft. No. So the the vegetative buffer is just the area in which trees shrubbery would be planted. There still have the minimum required within that 25 or 20 foot section. It's just how much they offset planting within that. So whether they're at one foot throughout, 5 foot throughout, or stagger it to where it's 1 ft off the property line all the way to 25 ft off the property line, they would still meet that spacing requirement [snorts] laterally within that buffer.

I think we were trying to make sure we were being good neighbors to Haven. They got that development that they're certainly not in love with and at the same time they have another development uh to the east of their subdivision and they're kind of getting it from both directions. So I think there was some caution in not making sure that that we were doing everything we could to help them with any concern they had. Right. And then regarding that, they did decide to table u taking action on that specific variance. So this will be coming up again at their February 11th council meeting. Um, so if y'all want to make yourselves available for that, we can relay the general consensus of making sure that we're being good neighbors to Aiden and then not a clear understanding of what was being required for the vegetation um to council. But if y'all want to give direct feedback to them, feel free to attend that meeting. I think that's it. Thank you. Okay, the discussion is ended on number six. [snorts] We're clear to go to number seven. Number seven is consideration and possible action by the planning and zoning commission on the partial replat number one for more estates.

Commissioner, I would like to direct y'all to page 33 of y'all's packet. Page 33 and 36. Um on page 33, you'll see the original plat. Um what this has on it is two lots um within the more estates development. And so what they're doing with this proposed replac um is shrinking the lot count down to one and then establishing a commercial reserve where ex the previously lot 2 was located. And so just papering it up for future development. What's essentially going to be happening is that the residential development will be accessed along Louisa as it currently is. And then that commercial reserve in the future once it goes through development would be accessed via Pond Street. And so this part is just cleaning up that for when they do decide to go through with the development on the commercial side of that lot.

Do we know what commercial planned or anything? We have not had any conversations regarding the future uh designation of that commercial whether it's fast food bank or what have you with the developer but they did say that they wanted to continue with at least the replatting process so that when they do decide it'll be a pretty seamless uh transition from replatting to then development process. [clears throat] Did the size change

the overall size? No, they did not they did not acquire any additional uh property within this. Um the only thing that's changed is the um accompanying building lines, vegetative buffers surrounding the property. And so the available area of that commercial reserve did shrink because 25t building lines, 25 ft vegetative vegetative buffer uh against residential lots on the west and north side of the property and south side for that matter. [clears throat and snorts] But no, they cannot purchase any additional land. [snorts]

Well, what type of uh consideration are they wanting from us? Like the okay to do it, the okay to do a drive-thru, to okay do food. This is just for this is just for the plat. Okay. So, if anything else comes in um regarding um the development that would require planning and zoning input aesthetically or otherwise, we will come back to y'all for discussion and action on that. I make a motion we go ahead and approve the partial repl for number one more estates.

I'll second. I have a motion and a second for the consideration and possible action by the planning and zoning commission on the partial group plat number one for more states. All in favor say I. I. All those opposed. The eyes have it. The motion passes. Uh we're going to move on to number eight regarding item number eight. Before you start, okay, we will need to pull this item. Um it was not ready for P&Z. So we'll bring this back to you at a later date. [clears throat]

Thank you. Item number eight has been pulled. We're moving on to item number nine. [snorts] Consideration and possible action on a variance request regarding the required tree assessment for the Caroline Court, formerly known as Villages of Montgomery, development development number 252.

Good evening again, commission. Um, so what y'all have in front of y'all today is a variance request from the developer Parkside Tide Capital for their Carolina Court development. Y'all remember the few months ago um over the actually over the course of several PNZ meetings, we've come to y'all with development agreement, variance request um for lot sizes on this development agreement, etc. for this villages of Montgomery as it was previously known, now Caroline Court development. And so now that everything's been executed as far as the development agreement uh process goes, they're trying to move forward with the platting. And so one of the requirements for planning is that with every subdivision plat preliminary, a tree assessment has to be submitted to the city engineer and city board. And what the developer is asking for is a variance from requiring set assessment um due to financial hardship of taking on that task.

[clears throat]

We have had conversations with the engineer and developer. Engineer uh is here to answer any specific questions, but they are um wanting to adhere to the general requirements for landscaping within the city. It's just they were not expecting to take on this financial burden of what they're quoting to be $120,000 for that assessment. Uh if you driven by the property, it's pretty well wooded currently. And so understanding that they'll have to take pictures of multiple angles of every single tree over I want to say eight inches in caliber um on the site that does present some uh financial hardship to them. So, but again, if there are any specific questions, I'll expand on that.

Yeah, you don't mind. Um, and just to kind of piggy back on what Zach was saying, um, never like to, you know, try to resent it's a financial hardship, but the way that we look at it is that the tree assessment plan has you just do survey photograph of every single tree above a certain caliber, but there's nothing in the actual ordinance that says when you remove said tree of said size, this is how you mitigate it. There's actually nothing in the current ordinance that says the tree preservation plan has a requirement of replanting what you remove. And so it seems that the tree assessment does not do anything to help us figure out how we're supposed to mitigate the preservation or the required plantings. There's no minimum required plantings in the ordinance right now. The previous version had all that in there and it's just not there. So we're tasked with having to do tree assessments and I do have a proposal here to look at if it's $120,000 for a tree assessment.

How many acres? uh it's roughly 50 plus. Um so $120,000 to do a tree assessment and there's nothing the ordinance tells us when that we have that information. What does that benefit what does that have us do? And so our proposal would be to not do the tree assessment and to revert back to the previous or ordinance that would allow us to do a tree preservation plan based on previous ordinance which I believe was 20% total canopy whether by preservation or by planting and the additional residential um requirement within the current ordinance in the previous ordinance requires two trees per lot um on each home. And so we would like to do something that makes a little bit more sense because that had been vetted for the years. We've done it for a long time. This new ordinance just doesn't give us any information on how do we actually like

what's the diameter of the two trees that you'd be putting? Uh the ordinance calls it should be uh each building permit for new one or two family dwelling shall require preservation or planting of at least two trees. At least one tree must be located in the front yard of the dwelling have minimal caliber of 2 in um and be classified as a large tree species. The remaining tree um in the front or rear or side has to be at least 30 gallons in size. So 2 in and 30 gallon. When was that taken out?

This was done with the chapter 78 amending ordinance that was approved back in February 25th. Yeah, February 25. So, we've been going back and forth with KKC and staff on trying and legal for that matter, trying to get the gaps of what was removed and in our mind working for developers and engineering. Um, making sure that the product that's being presented to the city is of substantial standard. Um, and so we're working with KKC very closely on trying to add that back into the ordinance. We're trying to meet the intent. We know what y'all are looking for, but we're just trying to we can't get past the platting without

I think the fact that they're requiring a tree survey is almost egregious. We went from paying no attention to trees to just now killing the development people to make have that kind of a cost. I think we have a re a reforestation ordinance that we need to maybe improve, but we do have a reforestation ordinance in place to take care of the trees. I think that somehow another we've uh got ourselves in a tight spot with the creating the need for a tree survey.

Yes, sir. And I know there was a tree survey requirement at one point in time. It was removed at one [clears throat] point in time was added back in with this. But again, there's the reforestation is not clear at all in the ordinance currently. There's there's nothing that says you have it says that you have to have a permit to remove remove a tree above a certain caliber and then mitigate it per this section. And then if you go to that section, there's nothing under mitigation of how to mitigate that. So you things that we've done in the past over years and years and years. I don't know things you can improve. But the 20% has been something that worked for a long time. I've done a lot of developments in town. Uh hopefully they didn't things that we all be proud of, but we would like to pitch something similar to that. This developer did sacrifice. He's got a large boulevard, brought everything except for the previous land plan, but um that's in your packet.

Perfect. So boulevard land plan. He's going to, you know, do a streetscape style. Um make it really pretty. Uh there's a ton of topography on this site. Um it makes it extremely difficult to be able to grade from house to house and then preserve trees at the same time. The intent is still going to be to try to plant another aspect of accessibility around the pond. Again, plant the treecapes, plant around the ponds on the east side, try to create some aesthetics there. But

if you do put trees, um I've always wondered who's responsible. I've drove driven through uh quite a few of the neighborhoods and the trees that they put up takes years for them to grow to any stature whatsoever and then some of them die. So, is that responsibility on the homeowner or is that the developer or does the developer develop and leave the site and it's up to the uh homeowner to

so the single homeowner um unless I'm mistaken but those two trees are required to go to see you once you remove once they're in they can do whatever they want with the tree if they want to take it out for a pool they can take it out for the pool and then I go to Condor's ordinance because it's one of the most strices around I live in Condro resident of condra. I haven't took my two trees out and stuff. So, I understand how that works. But, um, you know, these trees aren't growing fast. They're typically small little white oaks. Um, but that's why they have required now minimum plantings for each lot plus a minimum tree stand. And that's why y'all have as well minimum tree stand plus the additional trees that are required on a per lot basis. the trees and rideways and BMS of detention ponds and things like that, those will be owned, maintained by the HOA, usually required to irrigate it. If anything in the city right away, we can do an encroachment agreement that would clearly indicate that that would be our responsibility or HOA's responsibility, not the city's responsibility.

Uh on the reforestation ordinances, it does state something in there for you to go through there of a certain capacity or size. So, are you still willing to do that? to go in there and find a hundred-y old tree that's going to live for another hundred years or a 30 year old tree that you're going to keep for the next 60 years or and and then even though we don't have any what we do in the in the event of we're having to cut this tree down, maybe we can do a variance of adding in there. this is what you're going to do if you find a tree of that stature and we're asking you to keep it because of the reforestation ordinance and you know what I'm saying like what what is your plan that if we all of us go nope we're going to stick to reforestation ordinance and then we're going to come up with a backup plan if we can't [music] do that. So, I don't I can't speak for the extent of what's been done today, but I know that the developer had consulted and sent out an urban tree forester on site. He identified a handful of trees that he said, "I want to save." Um,

who said, "I developer or the urban developer?"

The urban tree forester said, "Do everything you can to save." Um, it's actually on the west side of the commercial reserve. if you'll have that on your packet um by the lake in the tension pond for having to put in the little retaining wall around them to be able to preserve them. Whether he walked every square inch of that site, I highly doubt it because nobody could do that. It's so thick. Um it would take quite a bit of of going in and chopping down and cutting lines even to be able to try to look at the whole site. But from my understanding is he tried to see as much as he could and only identified a grouping of trees in that one location. Um, so some money has been spent on doing some research on what they could reserve on um what I'd say [snorts] on a more rare older um you know premier style tree, but I'm not sure if they if they have or would want to go do every square inch of that side of the city. To that point as well, the comm planning and zoning commission would have the opportunity on the preliminary plat to see all the existing structures, trees that will be laid are remaining on site with the proposed development. And then likewise, we'll be going through and reviewing the landscaping plans once we get to the point of civil plan review for for that.

Yeah. Usually the preliminary plot is approved without getting into trees. Obviously, the new ordinance requires this to be within because that's some old land. Like you're coming out west and they've already demolished up to 2854. You drive into McGomery and it's just buildings and cement and all the beautiful trees were knocked out. All of them. Now you come through and we're going west. The cowboy church did a real good job leaving up some trees and we still got some trees around our park. But now

Grove is beautiful. I love it. I mean, we're moving to the west of Montgomery now and, you know, we put the stadium up and, you know, we got the high school there and and then it kind of just dies off and now we're working down Lonear Parkway and you know, how many trees are you going to take down? Like, I mean, we're trying to keep the the aesthetics of Montgomery where it's pleasing to the eye to come in. John, do you remember what the ordinance uh backup plan was to the reforestation ordinance that No, I don't because uh we had uh had engineers come out and rewrite those ordinances before they were codified and so it's changed. You know that someone made an change. I'd like to say one thing, you know, that type of $120,000 to do a tree survey. I'd like lot hell lot rather have you plant $120,000 worth of trees. You know, we we've done a poor job. There's no doubt about it. And it's one tree in front, one tree in the back. That that that's not good. I mean, uh some some homeowners don't like trees. I've I've had closings where I literally had the homeowner show up after closing and cut down the trees in the yard. Didn't want them. Didn't want them there in the first place. As far as planting and hailing trees, there's a lot more science to planting a tree than just dig it in there.

And if you lose trees, it's normally because you hired a landscaper that doesn't know how to plant it. He's he's dealing with some tree he's bought commercially that's in a container and he's not going to sand it in. He's not going to water it. He's not going to do anything to it. You really need to spend more time reforestation. Uh, I can hear George Mitchell's ears right now. I can hear in my ears. Yeah, I went through that with with Mitchell forever. And they, you know, they always had this idea about saving trees. Well, saving trees is wonderful, but what what happens when you get the first major storm come in? You blow the trees down on your house or your garage or your car. There's a lot to be said about how close you put these trees to your imperments. You know, there is such a standard as the 1978 HUD minimum property standards that at one time they said you couldn't put a house within the drip edge of a tree. So, uh, you know, there there's some things to be learned. And as as I say that, I'm sitting here thinking also that&m has a wealth of information on the in the real estate department how much these trees increase the value of these houses. A h a house they have surveyed in survey after survey and can prove that a decent reforestated house will bring 15 or 20% more retail at three years. Now, the trees now may not be mature. They may not be grown. And what most of the time you have a bad situation with trees don't look good is because the the builder skimped on the tree and bought some junk. But, uh, I I I just don't know how I think we need to look at that ordinance that pay that kind of money out to survey the

trees. Yeah, I that was never meant to stay that way. We're trying to get something that works, you know, both ways with the ideas and everything. So,

I don't think we have a too many situations in town where we run into a site that's that is that wooded for the 100% of it. I mean, even if we found a random tree in the middle of the site that we'd want to reserve the topography is so much there and you know, we're having to drop house pad to house pad. There's only much only so much we can drop. We're already having to put in I think it's a 18 inch or two foot retaining wall house pad to house pad. because it falls so much and I'm still overfilling like 10 feet on the west side. So saving a tree in the middle of it, we didn't put a it'd be sitting in a hole that we'd have to build around it. Wouldn't probably last. But we tried to save the tube a pizza shack and 5 years later the one died and the other one's holding on for dear life.

You try to save a tree like that. When's it going to die? 15 years the homeowner's in the house and the tree is laying on his roof. Yeah. I'm talking about them old sturdy trees. I think we really need to take a look at that ordinance. Was that was that 120,000 based based on the size of the property? Is it charged per per acre? Like how how I mean, honestly, they they said they had a really hard time. Uh and obviously a survey is not going to lose money, you know, trying to figure out a price. Um but they took away a look at how dense it's going to be. Had to assume amount of trees that they were going to find that were going to be over certain caliber that they would have to because they have I think they have to photo from all four directions. Mhm. [clears throat]

And so imagine that deliverable with a preliminary plat. I'm going to give you four pictures for 2,000 trees, 8,000 photos, you try to identify each one. I mean, it's it'd be a mess.

Kind of like photos. So certainly, you know, if if you want to entertain the variance request, I would, you know, encourage to entertain it, but say that we'd like to refer back to the old uh requirements to say that we plant 20% or have 20% of canopy overall based on the previous version of the ordinance plus the two trees for home. Just to kind of do a standard that everybody agreed with for for a while. And you're saying over by this uh detention pl pond over on the west side.

Can I right in here? There's like four or five trees that we're doing a little retaining all around the pond. That's the plan currently. You got a little grouping. They just told us we really want to preserve this. So I think that would Did you say that we would in the prelim saving? Is that what you're saying? Existing existing structures to remain which I don't think there's any instructors on sites there may I have to double check but I don't know if there's anything there but I think in your ordinance that there's any existing structures cons features we have to show that on the plat. Okay. [snorts]

Okay. I'm not familiar with the old ordinance so I would defer to to you two if that is something that's feasible.

Yeah. I you know the the old ordinance was not really was not enforced was not really uh and never was even codified. So it was not really enforceable in the first place, but we did have at one time I had bl came in and they were to rewrite most of the development ordinances, chapter 78 and that was one thing they were supposed to address along with the city sidewalk ordinance and a couple things. Never happened. But uh uh I think we, you know, to do a tree survey like that, it just doesn't make any sense. Yeah, that's a little,

you know, ownorous. You got a subdivision here with real tight lots and builders going to do what builders do, put the biggest house they can get on that lot and there's nothing left there. Not any place to put a damn tree. [snorts] So, uh I think we need to address it somehow. And I agree with John that the price is ridiculous but what's the alternative? So if we consider forgoing that I just I don't know what the old ordinances to what you know what's the

So the previous ordinance outlined that per zone residential multif family commercial there was a certain canopy requirement per zone. 20% would be what it would be for single family residential. And so 20% of the gross property area would have to be canopied landscaped with trees. And so [snorts] they could meet that requirement with individual locks. So the individual locks are each post are all supposed to have two minimum trees, one in the front and then the other one can be in the back is what we typically see. And then their reserves uh which are dedicated to open space detention would be the remaining portion right away as well would be the remaining portion of what's landscaped and canopied and that's what they are proposing. So meeting the previously outlined standard of 20% minimum uh canopy coverage throughout the entire development.

Yeah. So you take let's say it's 20 acres of the residential development. Well, there's 20% of that and that's what your overall can you kind of credit yourself for per lot trees find your remaining and then you're going to go plant everything else. And your ordinance today clearly identifies you this large tree is worth x amount of square foot medium tree is x amount of square foot and you have certain species. So they have to demonstrate, you know, a minimum amount of plantings and sizes and then ultimately landscape architect will design it. But we just show what the minimums are.

But that 20% is the developer's percentage that he has to adhere to with this ordinance. But once the prop once the developer is done and they leave the 20% of those two small tree which is two small trees or a part of that 20% they die. they get cut down the 20% decreases of the right it decreases the canopy right go towards that credit or not cuz I don't remember that coner allows the the the trees go towards the 30% is what they do I can't remember if these trees do or not

but you see what I'm saying like we got these beautiful trees and oh you find some and they come in a cluster and and it's great and then you account for these two trees that are quote unquote going to grow and then John moves in and cuts down one. I move in. I right. You have none. So, I'm concerned about that 20%. Now that it's here and now that we're talking about it, now that we're going to get better ordinances, we need to address it. It's just sad that you have to come forward and it's time, you know, we're having to question our ordinances with you're trying to get

Sure. And and we're not here to try to, you know, throw shade on the ordinances and say how bad they are. We're just saying this is making it really difficult to get get past the preliminary plat process and we can continue to the conversations on what we need to do to get past that and then after we show you what our preservation plan or painting plan will be you know hopefully somewhat reasonable cuz right now we're just kind of in the holding pattern we can't do anything else I think our class probably pretty close to being ready to be approved and coming off for approval for stuff. So, if you know by chance, so those two trees per house, what what percent of that 20% is that? Could it be?

Just to go off what she's saying, if everyone took them out, what are we left with? Or can can we up it to 25% and 30%? Don't include don't include the houses. The houses, but so if it's a 5,000 lot um and you did two trees, 800 foot a piece of 1,600 ft. Obviously, 5,000 is 32% of credit. Now, I don't think the intent of the ordinance to say it's like, well, if I just plant two trees, I don't have to plant a single

other tree. And I don't think that that's the intent of the developer either is because they want a beautiful streetscape. They want, you know, nice street lights and they're front loaded or rear loaded houses. So, you're actually seeing this kind of it's kind of like Westside Park, you know, pretty houses, quite big fences, landscape boulevard in the middle, you know, two lane median, you know, huge roadway for such a small development. So, you know, I know that they were going to landscape it, but if there's a, you know, a minimum of 10% plantings beyond uh the lot plantings, you know, maybe that's something I could be considered. I'd have to go run the numbers, honestly. I'm just throwing something out, but

I'm just throwing that as an option. I don't I'm not just saying maybe just for that consideration because yeah, I 32 in the 32% is only for that lot. You still have the road, right, and other things to consider. So you really wouldn't get, you know, just planting those. You wouldn't get the whole thing. I think what happens is a lot of people drive into town from the east to west and they see all that cement you're describing and no one realizes that particular all that area as cement and there's more to come was all ranch land. There were no damn trees there at all. Was never any trees there. And and the de developer always liked I quote him saying open vistas.

Yeah. He liked open vistas. So he didn't play it. But

I have lived here long enough where 28 people get [cough] to come out to and the flashing light was in the middle by that by that. Yeah. Um, well, we're we need to either decide if we're going to table this or if we need to speak to you about the ordinance and and [clears throat] try to get it more description into it so that if the reforestation doesn't work, you know, the 120,000 does call that's that's a lot of money to do what it is that they want to do and it is holding you up. But the previous ordinance is not complete, right? And we're we're going off verbiage that we're all talking about. He's not written down anywhere. So, we can't I mean,

there was an adopted one that was there for a while. I think Jack Gage is actually the one who put it into place. He tried to make it pretty close to to Conro and Dave had some some say so in that as well. But, you know, I guess we would just want to get over the hurdle. in good faith like if if there's a discussion item we want to come and do with y'all the next meeting to say okay y'all y'all can consider the primary plat you can approve it but this is we want to establish the requirements of the trees here now and then [snorts] and that could be handled during civil plan review that would be a request I have just to let us keep moving forward um because I think there's something on the agenda at the table the next meeting so if we can't bring the preliminary plat to y'all until April that you know continues to push back our timeline substantially especially if we can come to decision.

And if you look at most of our current developments, they're working on that same ordinances. So, it's not un it would not be abnormal for you to give them a variance to proceed. So, they're not being held up. Um, you know, as you guys are well aware, we're working with KKC and doing all of that. Just trying to get all this together.

Also, I'm sorry, but hills 2, three, four, and five. um Town Creek and Legacy Grove were all completed. All projects I did Lonear Hills um all were done on the ordinance that I'm asking to defer to. So that's what six or seven subdivisions that I've been involved in here in town that have used that seems to have worked. I guess from previous

it works if that's how your developer wants to develop. But it as a as a a homeowner and a citizen of McGomery, uh to see trees and then they're done, they're gone and then you see little bitty piney trees take up in its place, you know, it's it's hard to swallow that pill. So, um I I can't make a motion. Well, I I I mean, I would consider foregoing the the $120,000, you know, charge there, but I just want something in concrete to do. Um I'm not familiar with those other projects. If those did work, we're not going to control a homeowner for that. So I, you know, if you go above and beyond, you know, the homeowner percentage that was disgusting and and still handle it, I would have no problem making a motion, you know, to approve

that and [clears throat] the old words if we still have the, you know, is there something that y'all could recommend on taking action and then requiring something to be provided at a later date, possibly when the preliminary plat or final plat, whatever y'all want to see happens. So it's not holding up this process of that act. I think we need to go ahead and approve this variance and then we should look to city council and our engineers to rewrite that tree survey ordinance uh soon before meeting the developers.

I I would second that. I second it.

Okay. What I hear is a um a motion uh a first and a second. And what I hear is that you would like to uh approve the variance request requarding the required tree assessment for the Caroline Court, formerly known as Villages of Montgomery development, development number 25502. And you were referring to the old ordinance of reforestation. And we're talking about 20% canopy and replanting two trees per lot. Uh, one of which is 2 in a large tree specimen and the backyard being a 30 gallon. Did anyone want to put in there uh up the up the 20% to 30% like you had mentioned that Conro had done or are we leaving it at 20%.

I think we just need to go issue the variance and let council and engineers work that out. You going to have to change the entire uh we need to come back. It takes some time to get that piece [clears throat and cough] formally adopted and we're selling come back and say look this is what we've considered. It's just going to take time to go through the red tape and come back to me and say this is what we'd like to do and that way this doesn't continue to slow us down because you know time is money for these developers and you know I hate to say that but you know it does take some time.

Okay, we're I have a motion. I have a second for the variance referring to the reforestation ordinance with the 20% canopy and the trees in the in the yards. And the approval needs to come from uh this is in contingent of city council and the engineering uh addressing the reforestation ordinances and getting it where it's clear to the developer what is and isn't uh acceptable. So just to confirm, yes, our action from this development perspective providing council with what they're going to be designing towards in their development. Okay, just making sure. Okay,

thank you. Is everyone um can I hear an I for all those who agree? I all those opposed? Motion is passed. Okay, we're going to move on to number 10. consideration and possible action regarding a request for a special use permit to place a temporary construction trailer on a residential lot located at 702 Gunnar Court in the Redberg Meadows development known as Briarly.

Good evening. I think you're probably familiar with the special use permit for another construction trailer. This will be the fourth one of five builders out at Brier League. Um 702 Gunner Court is located in R1 single family residential. The builder is Chzmmart Homes and they did submit the request to have the copy of their application also their building permit application and the location for that uh construction trailer. I don't know if you all have been by the other three construction trailers there. Um they look they're not occupied yet. At least it doesn't appear to be. But it looks like they're put there well placed and keeping it fairly clean and organized.

I make a motion we go ahead and approve the location of the construction trailer at 702 Gunner Court. Second. I have a motion uh and a second to uh consideration possible action regarding a request for a special use permit to place a temporary construction trailer on residential lot located at 702 Gunner Court in Redberg Meadows development known as [clears throat] Bryley. All of all agreements say I. All those opposed motion passes. Uh move on to number 11. consideration and possible action on the request to cancel or reschedule Tuesday's March 3rd, 2026 PNZ regular meeting.

Commission, we have um an election being held on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026 here in the council chambers and this room will not be available for you to have hold your meeting. So the request is to either cancel or reschedu and I believe there was a recommended date for reschedu to March 9th if you were open to that. Is that a Monday? 6 days later. I can look.

Yes, it's a Monday. 6 o'clock. Yes. Anybody want to make a motion? I I'll make a motion to uh approve the scheduling Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026 PN meeting to March 9th. I second it. I

have a motion first and second on moving our regular scheduled meeting March 3rd, 2026 PNC regular meeting to March 9th at 6:00 p.m. here at city hall. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. Motion is passed. Moving on to number 12. consideration and possible action on the request to cancel rescheduled to Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026 PNZ Red River meeting.

Commission, the same thing. We have another uh election being held on November 3rd here in the council chambers in the meeting room will not be available for your meeting and the recommendation is to cancel or reschedu to the November 17th, 2026 date, which would be a Tuesday. That doesn't conflict with any other Tuesday meeting? Not at this time. No. Okay. And if we get first dibs. Wait, hold on. What do you mean?

Hold on. Here we go. Yeah, the 17th is fine. I'll make a motion to consideration possible action to request cancel and reschedule Tuesday, November 3rd through [cough] 26. [clears throat] I second that. We have a motion and a second to consider an possible action on the request to cancel or reschedule Tuesday, November 3rd, 2026 PNZ regular meeting to November 17th, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. All those in favor? I.

And all those opposed. Uh motion passes. Move on to number 13. Update on the wayfinding signs program citywide [clears throat] downtown historic district. Good evening again. [clears throat] I assume it's been a while since you all have heard how wayfinding signs are going and we're progressing pretty well. And since wayfinding signs were addressed in the comprehensive plan, the 2020 comprehensive plan, you should definitely be involved in um what's being approved or what everyone is saying about the design and the location proposed locations of these wayfinding signs. So on page what is that 57 you'll see one of the proposed gateway signs this sign here will be located at all entry points of the city of Montgomery what you see the the green uh Montgomery with the population on there from I I think it's from Texas this will replace that sign kind of welcoming it's it when we drove around and checked locations at the entry points. Um, this would make everything visible, kind of welcoming to the city of Montgomery. If you look at the next page 58, that is a monument kind of gateway sign and that will be located at the corner of 149 and 105 or Eva and Liberty Street. Also more welcoming. It'll replace the existing electronic message board sign. We're looking at a possibility of

putting an electronic message board on top of this this monument sign. And then you go on to the next page, you'll see a daylight view and the nighttime view. On page 60, this is the look of the actual way finding signs that are directional pointing towards the historic downtown. um maybe even the high schools that that one on page 60 is a singlesided sign. But if you're on the roadway where you can see it on both sides, you'll see page 61 and you'll see the wayfinding sign showing it on both sides. And I'm hoping that you all like the design because they kind of have a similar design aspect with the star on top and red, white, and blue. Then you'll go on to page 62. That's the information sign. You don't see a picture of it on here, but the parking sign will be similar to that. So the information sign has the letter I on top. parking sign will have a letter P. There'll be maps. It'll um show where the shopping is going to be located, where the restaurants might be, where you can eat,

and they plan to put it right there by that pavilion where the bands usually go. That is a possible plan for for that. Um when you look at the redesign, uh I assume that's going to be proposed here sometime soon. the downtown Macau uh redesign. It'll probably be relocated a little bit, but yes, there'll be signs throughout. Uh but the information and the parking signs kind of will go along with that whole Macau uh redesign.

I would look into that being on that pavilion cuz that's it's made out of wood. Who knows if it's going to stay there and how long and right it blocks the view of Yeah. Anyways, that's my table now. And then page 63, the very last page, you'll see on there what the parks will look like. Memory Park, Cedar Break Park will have something similar to that. We're keeping the large uh corner Cedar Break sign that's going to stay there, but we're thinking that um the similar look is going to go over over towards Shepard,

introducing Cedar Break Park from there. So just two corners, right? The main monument sign at Cedar Break and then this smaller um Cedar Break sign and then at our other parks as well.

On the other parks as well. Yes. And the last page, it's an interactive map, but I wasn't going to print all of those pages because some of the the dots that you'll see on there where you see the red and it looks like a flag, those are the entry points where you will see that first gateway sign that you saw on there, page 57. So everywhere where you see that red flag, that's a an example of where those gateway signs are going to be located. So it's just kind of an update. Hopefully you like the design. They I don't know in our opinion they flow.

Um are we doing anything for the city hall for the new city hall? That will be like gym sign is there but right. Well, it's not there anymore. You noticed. I guess I haven't noticed. I've been looking at the big trucks in front of me. Yeah, it isn't there anymore. Okay. But there will be a proposed monument [clears throat] sign at um And what about our historical signs? Like how do we draw attention to like it says, "Hey, you can come get wine here or you can come shop here or here's our community center." Is there anything that's going to say, "Hey, you can see the historical churches or the cemeteries?"

So, if you see the go back to the wayfinding sign, page 61 and page 60, those are the directional signs and we'll be able to mark what you want to be able to see. You want for it to point to the historic cemetery, I think. Yes. Yeah. the next EDC, we're going to kind of go through all of those, but it's pretty well mapped out and we're just going to make sure all the words are right, pointing to all the different parks or cemeteries or or any of that. Okay. The high school. Yeah,

that was the biggest part of the project is making sure you you get all those things because there's a lot of things on there. Well, we still have that little scan QR code as well, right? That interacts. I don't know. I know that we were talking about the QR code because there's a QR code that the kids were using. Yeah. In the information sign probably in the [clears throat] parking sign also. Yeah. You know, I mean it it'll be the map that that we're putting on there. You'll be able to scan and take that with you. Okay. All right.

And I know you said they're considering an electronic sign above a new monument sign. I hope they would consider that cuz that's a lot of I think it's just good good information for people to be reminders. So hopefully that does happen. Getting it to the right height because right now the only vehicle that can see it is a vehicle that's right in front of it. I'm so glad someone addressed that. I was

Mr. Walker was definitely saying that because he was looking from all angles coming from 149, 105, every which way uh whether you can see that sign or not. So elevating it and yeah um also uh when we do the Christmas uh cookie walk is anything related to that in that QR code like the historical homes because there's a historical home tour. So, I don't know. I'm just making that suggestion. They QR code the, you know, your tour for school, but I'm I'm not quite sure if they do I know you can buy a ticket to tour the homes, but I don't know if there's a QR code for the historical homes. Anyways, just put that out there because that's big. That's something we do huge here.

You have any other questions about the signs? All right. [snorts] Thank you. Thank you. Uh that was just uh discussion. Okay. Discussion is done on item 13. Uh we're going to move on to item 14 of the agenda, refresher training for planning and zoning commission members session one. [clears throat] And I didn't know if you wanted to delay it since two of our members are gone. [snorts] I was going to maybe suggest that, but I don't know what the It's up to you guys. I'll second it.

It's delayed. Okay, there's been a motion and a second uh to delay the refresher training for the planning and zoning to a full uh commission is here. Uh [snorts] all those in favor say I. All those opposed. We um p uh all the eyes have it. Um we're going to reschedule this and Miss Tilly will tell us when we're going to do that on our agenda again.

Yes, ma'am. Um okay, closing agenda. Um items to consider for placement on future agendas. Anybody have any suggestions and something they want on the agenda? Miss Tilly, I've got something that I want to ask you if I could from here. My wife's going to probably shrink when I tell you this. I walk out of the room. I don't hear all. Yes, sir.

We are becoming a very, very loud city. We have constant sirens 24 hours a day. Mix in the Jake breaks of everybody coming through here in the middle of the night as soon as they can get by with it. And then you add that to the teenagers with the uh sound systems in their truck and car that you can hear very clearly from my house to the gas station. And I mean, it's just, you know, it it's not it's not Montgomery anymore. It's too damn much noise.

But I did hear that plane go over as I was out the backyard and it was really loud. [laughter]

I do I do know that there are cities who have some type of an ordinance dealing with just exactly what I'm talking about. You know, they can ask, you know, the EMTs, they got somewhere to go. Hell, they might be coming and getting me and they want to run their siren. Think about it before you just run it 24 hours a day all the way through town. You know, and I know they've asked in Conro. It's not anything new to anybody uh in McGomery County. They've had it in Conra. Will you please investigate that? See what can be done about it.

Thank you. Any other suggestions? Yes. I make a motion to to adjurnn. Uh second it. Have a motion and a second to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed. The motion to adjurnn is passed. Meeting is done. Time. Oh, the time is 7:21. Never mind. Want us to leave these here? Oh, yes.

Thank you. Good job. Thank you.