Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

But right now it's it's still in the planning phase. So there's not much. Yes. Yeah.

Sure. I know it's 6 o' um waiting on one more member to make a quorum. U I haven't heard from Miam. I don't think anybody else has. So we'll just wait pulled out here for a little bit to see if uh she shows up. This is why we we need people on the committee. This forms this is the second time in this happens. The second time in three weeks we had to call a meeting because we didn't have I guess they have a seat currently. Sure.

I was thinking probably

I was excited about some point. She may be in one show. I had to come. I came tonight. They have

both. Yeah. Right there. Golf. No, I come from the south 149. That should be here in just a few minutes. Okay.

Number five, two members. If a member leads reducing the count to two, the qual is lost. But when you only have three seats, 50% it's two members. She's coming. You guys can talk. It's not official yet.

I thought I got rid of reason for me text Yeah, I think you sent me that.

Well, I was trying to get he lives in the city. Well, you've got it perfect. I'm over

I'm not I don't want people to It would expire six miles

and we were just, you know, we just bought the HVAC in whatever now.

Yeah, I know. You got you got

you know I've been watching when you put those things on cost

the kid broke down on the side of the road. Family first. Hey, how are you? I'm I'm running. I am kiddo is uh broke down on the side of the road and he has been all day. Drive sh

Have we started?

All right, we are all here. So it is uh 609 uh April 7th, 2026. Uh I hereby call the order uh the meeting of the uh regular meeting of the planning and zoning commission to order. Next item will be the pledge of allegiance. flag. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Texas flag.

Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas. One state under God, one and indivisible. Next item, cit citizens comments. The plan and zoning commission will receive comments from the public on any matter within the jurisdiction of the city of Montgomery, Texas. Speaker will have three minutes each. Um person wishing to participate during the public forum portion of the meeting must sign in participate prior to the meeting being called to order. Uh is there anyone is anybody okay so we'll get by that right now. Okay, move on to regular items. Um, going into a public hearing, uh, the plan and zoning commission will receive comments from the public on the below listed items. Speakers will be limited to three minutes each. Persons wishing to participate or speak during the public hearing portion of the meeting must sign in to participate prior to the meeting called order. Did anybody want to participate in any of the open you got? Okay. Want to bring it up?

You can open up each one individually and then people will do each individually.

Okay. Uh the uh first public meeting be item number four, convene into public hearing on the preliminary report for a reasonzoning request submitted by Cornerstone Community Church in Montgomery, development number 2510 related to two tracks located within track 11 and 12, John Former Bay, abstract 8 that is currently zone R1, single family residential to be reszoned. I constitution. Yes, sir.

Okay. Tyler Cooper. Okay.

All right. Well, I appreciate it. I prepared a statement here, but uh good evening members of the planning zoning commission. My name is Tyler Cooper. Uh and my family and I live at 118 Anna Springs Lane. I'm here today to speak regarding the proposed reszoning of the church property to the north of us and to the shared concerns based on what we've already experienced with prior development on the adjacent church property. Few years ago, after the church purchased, cleared, sawed, and paved the neighboring lot directly behind our home, we began experiencing significant flooding issues on our property, something we had never encountered the first several years of living there. During heavy rainfall events, our drainage ditch and French drain system would be overwhelmed, resulting in our pool flooding with mud and debris and contributing to the deterioration of our driveways. All of these issues began after October 2023, which strongly correlates to the development of our of that property. To the church's credit, after we raised concerns, a representative visit our property to assess the situation, then cut a drainage ditch between our properties. While that has helped, we have not yet had a major rain event to fully validate whether the issues has truly been resolved. My concern today is that we are now considering additional reszoning and expansion without fully addressing or verifying the impacts of the previous developments. Previously, I raised these concerns with the city and was told that this was a civil matter. However, based on my review of the planning and zoning city council records, the development of that property should have been subject to multiple ordinances, including drainage site development and engineering approvals. So respectfully, I believe this is not just a private matter. It is also a matter of ensuring that the city uh processes, approvals, and oversight are being fully uh properly followed and enforced. As you consider this new resoning request, I would ask the committee and council to ensure that the following uh before any future development proceeds. That all required plat uh permits and engineering approvals are properly submitted and verified. That drainage studies are conducted and reviewed by the city engineer. that downstream impacts

adjacent to residential properties are fully addressed before construction begins and that there is clear accountability if those systems fail. In addition to drainage, I would also like to address the lack of adequate buffer between the church property and neighboring homes after the significant clearing of vegetation. Currently, the visual uh barrier and vegetative setback is insufficient which has resulted in increased light and noise pollutions impacting our property as well as my neighbors properties. As this expansion is considered, I strongly encourage the council to require a properly desired and maintained buffer zone, including trees, fencing, or both. Measures to mitigate light spillover from the parking areas and building facilities and consideration of noise impacts and uh from expanded use of the property. I want to be clear, we are not opposed to the church or its presence in our community. We simply want to ensure that any development is done responsibly, transparently, and in the way that it does not negative negatively impact us or the homeowners who live directly next to it. We've already experienced the consequences of development that may not have been fully accounted for in those impacts. I respectfully ask that we not repeat the situation at this next phase is considered. Uh if anybody wants to come and look at it at our property, you're more than welcome to. I'd be happy to show you around. I have lots of uh documentation from the first goound back in uh October 23 through May, June of 24. Um so if anybody wants to see that, I'd be happy to email it to you, provide that. It was with the previous administration, so don't know if it matters anymore, but nonetheless,

what did you say? Said you submitted it to the previous administration. Yes, sir. Miss uh it was at the time Mr. Mccorad Doll and um I can't remember the city administrator's name at the time, but he was the one who came and visited the place and told me it was a civil matter. And then that's where I went a little dug a little deeper and don't think that all of the processes were followed like they were supposed to be according to what the ordinances state and then the state what the charter for the uh m municipal government charters follow. I don't think any of that was done. It feels like it was just rubber stamped with no approvals and and then you know we have problems later down the road.

So that's it. Thank you.

Uh I do have I I just want you to be aware as a homeowner behind cornerstone. Uh I was actively involved in questioning. I did ask about the 25- ft vegetation. I did ask if it was going to cause a drainage problem. I also asked if the lighting was going to uh bleed over into the neighbor neighboring families. And I just want you to know that we were assured that the 25 ft vegetation was going to be adhered to, that the lighting was not supposed to shine over into your neighborhood. and we have an engineering department that works here in the city and they saw no problem at the time.

Okay. Uh we'd have to go back to our records when we discussed this.

Uh the addition that they're that Cornerstone is asking for. We've not yet quote unquote approved, right? They brought it to us as a suggestion with pretty pictures, which you know, pictures are always looking good, but they have to bring to us a plan, a plot, a whatever they're going to do for us to approve that. And I know tonight we're talking about, you know, reszoning it. And I get that. But I want you to feel comfortable when you leave here that the planning and zoning did question. Now, the we do have a new administration. We did not get a notification from said neighbor to let us know that this is something that we need to be looking at.

No, I appreciate and and you mentioned that so I you know I mentioned I had records. Um I do I did quote you from the minutes and agenda saying just that and to be aware that there was a parking variance there as well. Um and that I don't know what that you know what all goes into that but you know that was no longer in place because it's now been paved and sawed. So, in my understanding and reading this, like you're supposed to get all kinds of approvals to do that and nobody could I put in a foyer request asking for that and nobody could give me their information saying that that was done or not. So, I that's why I say I feel like it was just rubber stamped that everything was good.

Yes. Everything you've mentioned I know I said it. No, I appreciate that. Thank you. Parking lot, the whole nine yards. Excellent. Um, part of the reasonzoning, Zach, can you answer this? Uh, being a com basically going into institutional or almost commercial. Are they going to have to have a drainage study?

So, not necessarily a drainage study. They would have to account for the amount of impervious cover that they are proposing on the site. And so, as was previously stated, we would the city engineer would be reviewing all these plans for compliance with city ordinances and county ordinances regarding drainage. So, those have they would have to be approved by you, correct? Before any any of that permitting would correct. Yes, sir. How about uh I know we're running into this up the road. Um the elevations all the elevations

site grading. So yeah, as a part of their submitt, they'll have to submit um the grading kind of outlining how they're going to mitigate for that with the, as you said, grade changes between, you know, the high point of the property and the low point, knowing that the low point is towards the northern portion towards the creek. Um all of that would have to be submitted and approved by the city prior to any addition to the site being made. So that would be looked at also, correct? Changes, gray, drainage, all that including lighting. lighting as well. If they are proposing any additional um lighting outside with their improvements, all that would have to be submitted and approved by the city prior to they have not there's no

No, they're still going uh through or with their design team and confirming all that they want to propose within the site. But to date, we have not we have not seen any design plans for the proposed expansion. And if we go through with this, they would have to come back with us for all that for approval. correct to the city? Yes. For planning and zoning specifically, I know there was mention uh during their presentation about the historic preservation of the site. There may be some that has to go back with planning and zoning for that aspect, but generally speaking, they would have to at least come back to the city for through us before it goes to council. Correct. If there if there are any historical components of the development that they are proposing. Go.

I would like, excuse me, I would like to see, as I don't know about you all, I would like to see the drainage study, the elevation studies, anything that goes on there. I would like to see prior to being approved approved if that's possible. Do you want to say that before we uh reszone? And just a reminder, this is the public hearing component. So, separate agenda item for the reasonzoning. Um, but yeah, we can make note of that request. And the whole crux of me being here is the the first set that was the purchase that was supposed to be resolved. Everything you said that was supposed to happen then?

My whole being here is questioning was that actually done? And so if if this moves forward, fine. No problem with that. But make sure because the people down the line that are here are going to experience the same thing. And I would love it to retroactively go back and fix what wasn't right the first time, but that's neither here nor. So,

uh, Miss Tilly, um, did you receive any calls and about this situation? Did you go and look at anything that might affect the ordinances? And um are you currently looking at the cuz I know I've asked for the reforestation ordinance to come back to us circle back because we don't have a good enough one for me as far as I'm concerned. Uh I mean do have you addressed any of these issues with this particular spot? We have I have visited the site. I submitted a report to the previous administration and that's where it went from there. Okay. Do we have that on record the report? It is now.

So you know the current administration is BR. Yes. Yes. I have not met met um yeah my dealings were in the past for like I said they they they did cut a ditch. You know I'm not I'm not going to say it's approved or not but it has helped but we also haven't had one of those three or 4 inch type of rainfalls that typically overrun our drainage system. So until that happens, I don't know if what they did will truly have fixed the problem or not. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, that concludes the public hearing for item number four, the reszoning request of Cornstone Community Church of Montgomery Development 2510. Uh now we'll move on to number five. convene into public hearing preliminary reporting requests submitted by SPT McGomery LLC development 2215 related to 5.7 acres of a western portion of Griggsby Benj track 46H-3 and all of Riby RBY Benj track 39 that is currently zoned B commercial to be zoned high institution. Does anybody

just a reminder when when you're in these the public can speak but you really shouldn't talk to them until it's on the agenda.

Right. Right. Right. Any public comment on item five. All right, we will close item five, public hearing on preliminary report for the resoning submitted by SPT McGomery LLC development to 2215 related to the 5.7 acres of the western portion of Rigs BBBJ track 46H-3 and all of RI rigs BBBJ track 39 is currently zone B commercial to be reszoned by institutional. All right. Uh we'll open up public hearing convene at the public hearing on preliminary reports for the reasonzoning request submitted by Lquar Engineering related to the 3.252 252 acres of corn and John track 57-d investments uh 01 Resile 20007006890 that is currently zone PD plan development to be reszone I institution No. Okay. All right. We will uh close this public hearing for preliminary report of the resoning request by LJ

L squ engineered engineer related to the 352 acres of John track. All right. Now we will convene into the recorder uh meeting agendas. Item number seven, consideration and possible action on planning and zoning regular meeting minutes of March 16, 2026. The only item I had was that I didn't presside last month. So, Phil was present. He's smart as

you can approve it. Yeah. And I'll recommend uh approval of the minutes of tomorrow meeting agenda. Uh I recommend approval of the PNZ regular regular meeting minutes of March 16, 2026. Uh Bill Simpson present. Second. Okay. I have a motion and second for the approval of the uh regular meeting minutes uh 2026 with the amendment of me being present actually. All righty. All in favor say I. I.

All no say no. Motion passes. Okay. Go to item number eight. Uh consideration possible action on the acceptance of John Fox's resignation. John was a how long was he on the commission? A couple years. Oh, he was on

my Anyhow, he sat in that chair and he has just helped kind of just uh stepping away for a little while. So, uh he has put in his resignation letter. So, we have to go through the acceptance portion of it. I'll make a motion of the acceptance of John Fox's designation under commission. I second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for the acceptance of John Fox's regation. All in favor say I. I. Oppose say no. Motion passes. Uh just want I do want to thank John for all his wisdom business with the city that uh he was able to put some light on some things for us. Uh item number nine, consideration and possible action to recommend appointment to the PNZ commission as commission members. Okay. somewhere in my stack here. Are you Michael or Danielle here?

Are Lisa, Michael, or Danielle here? Danielle, would you like to speak or Oh, I didn't know I was supposed to. Oh, you don't have to, but just for the my application. Yeah. Uh just tell us a little about yourself. We do have your application. I'm just curious know you a little bit more of how long you've been in Montgomery.

Okay. Um my name is Danielle Felton. I live on Steuart Street. Uh we moved to Montgomery almost 10 years ago uh for the school districts um uh from Spring. So, school districts have been awesome for our kiddos. Uh, we have one left. She's a junior. Um, I am a realtor at Topens Real Estate and um I've been there probably I think we're going on two or three years uh at that brokerage. Um, we love Montgomery. We love the small town feel and um it's just been a great little little town for us. So, and we want to keep it that way. You know, we love living in downtown. We lived in Waterstone when we first moved here and I don't know if you know anything about that, but it was a a fun little

time. So, we got out of there and then we moved downtown and we love it. Um, so we just like to keep Montgomery, you know, small town feel and we love, you know, go to the grocery store, see everybody that that you know. So that that means a lot to us to to have that small town feel and and life, you know, you don't you don't get that in Houston anywhere. So Okay. So, have you ever uh served on any other commissions with state or anything like that? Anything in the school district?

No, ma'am. I worked for uh real estate attorneys for over 25 years. Um and then I got kind of bored of that job. So, I got my real estate license because I already knew pretty much everything except, you know, how to sell a house. So, um I've been doing that for since 2018 and it's been great. Uh no regrets on changing my career kind of sort of. So, great.

Yeah, I know. Um before the meeting, Officer Tilly handed me this and I wish I would had this when I when I signed up. what I was getting into. But, you know, we do uh zoning ordinances as you as you see this evening. Uh subdivision ordinances. We're kind of oversee the historical preservation district. So, you know, there's a lot involved in the planning zoning commission. We just don't make all this stuff up. We have ordinances to follow and um with Zach's advice and the city administrative advice. So, it's uh it's there's a lot to it. And u like I said, I wish you know I would have had some of these insights when when I I

came into the woods and it took me about 6 months to figure out actually what was going on. So, well, I sold 415 Houston Street. You know, it's a historical home and Okay. That was um it was an honor. I was really wanted to sell a historical home. So, I got that opportunity and um it was great. Cheryl told me all the stories about that house and um I just love the history of, you know, Montgomery and Texas and all of that stuff. So, um and with my real estate background, I've you know, familiar with reading surveys and, you know, title commitments, deeds, and all of that stuff as well.

All right. Thank you. Will we um uh Mr. Walker, will we be able to meet anyone or do you want us to blindly vote or recommend people for the two positions? Are we just doing the one position now? Are we doing both?

You can do both. Uh it's going to go to council cuz that's the way it works. So you if you want to pick one and pick two, fill both spots, you can do it either way. Um since Danielle was here this evening, Lisa, that was the wrong one. You s Danielle? Danielle. Sorry. Okay. Don't confuse me. Uh, you showed up. That's that's that's the huge huge thing there. Now,

can the other ones is is this a the other two is are they still somewhat finished or can they You can recommend them either way. Okay. Um I I don't personally know them. I don't know if Kelly had met any of them or not. No. Can I see? I didn't know if if we since Danielle was she came here and showed up. We spoke with her if we could vote on her this evening. Yeah, you can recommend her. Okay.

And if you want to recommend one or the other, you can. Uh I'll fill both your seats. You don't have to. All three are going to the city council or no the ones you recommend.

I'll say I prefer to meet both Danielle and Lis. It's Daniel and you said Lisa. No, then I'll make a motion to recommend uh to city council for the appointment of uh members commission as commission members. Uh is this correct? Uh Lisa Gregory and Danielle.

I second. Okay, we have a motion and a second uh to recommend appointment to the PNZ commission to the city council uh Daniel Pilton and Lisa Gregory. All in favor say I.

All oppose say no. Candidates pass on up to the city council. All right. Item number 10. This goes back from our public hearing. Consideration of possible action on the preliminary report for the zoning a reszoning request submitted by Cornerstone Community Church of Montgomery. Number 2510 related to the 1 acre tracks 11 and 12 of John Corner survey abstract 8 currently zone R1 uh single family residents to reszone to institution.

Good evening commission. Uh in front of you y'all have the reasonzoning application. Um, if y'all have any specific questions for me, uh, I will be glad to answer them. Again, to kind of just summarize what is going on with this development, they are currently going through the resoning process. So, first step is getting in front of PNZ and presenting public hearing and consideration of possible action, which is happening tonight. They will still have to go in front of council with the same timeline pres uh, public hearing and consideration of possible action. So, their earliest that they'll be able to get reszoned would be May um based on the timeline having to submit uh requests for a public hearing and then separate meeting for the public hearing and reszoning. Um again, to kind of summarize, the developer is uh seeking to expand the uh building footprint of the property as we currently understand it. Um with that they will be required to plat the additional portions that they have purchased as well as complete uh design sealed engineering sealed plans for our review and approval uh in adherence to all the city ordinances regarding lighting vegetative setbacks um grading etc and would have to get approval from us prior to any additional cos for that building being approved. um the historical part of cornerstone, right? When they make that addition to it, does that go in with the pot or is that additional not historical? Is it just the property there where the church is located, not the actual church? As I understand it from the last uh planning and zoning meeting, it was the building portion. So if that is the case, then that would I don't know this would be my first historical review, but I believe that would get encompassed with the entire review. They could run concurrently or

separately, but I believe you would have to approve regardless. Civil is approved first and then your building review. So prior to any historical component being approved by uh Rick and his team, the civil component would have to be approved, which would again be the foundation and everything below ground. Um so grading, landscaping, etc. And then you would have to go in for a building approval. But again, that may run concurrently with the historical preservation component. The historical portion of that building was actually the bell, the bell tower of the church, which is no longer on that property. So, um, that landmark designation kind of stayed there. That's

And when we go do our search, we go from that sign over to where the bail is because the kids get still get confused about that. Yes. Yes. So, it is a historical. It is still designated the property itself. Not not the property that's being reszoned or anything. It's the property where the the actual building is located right now is historical landmark, but the actual landmark was the bell that is no longer there. To the other church.

So, um, in the public hearing, can we talk about the public hearing? What we said in there? H. So any considerations that the um neighboring house houses house is are we going to consider anything about that before we change or is that going to change any kind of if we change it from industrial to resident from residential to industrial is it going to change anything for the surrounding properties that have uh exper experienced some issues with the grading, the light, the noise, which we've already mentioned. In the future, we meet once a month. You can just bring it to us and we can bring it to Miss Tilly's attention and you can go out there at whatever time and look at it. And a lot of people don't come to our meetings. Uh, but are we taking into any consideration like the retroactive or anything? So, we have discussed that with the property owner and that's kind of one of the reasons of going through this resoning process is making sure that we're reviewing against one set of plans or one set of ordinances for the development. If it were partially residential and partially institutional, we would have to review against both sets and then that would just make it a little bit more confusing for everybody. So, as a part of this resoning, we will be uh reviewing against institutional requirements of putting single family uh residential. So all of those are consistent from or throughout the newly purchased property as well as the existing. We have also been in conversation with staff on the retroactiveness of what was already completed. And so making sure that whenever we do get the submittal from the developer that we're including everything within that as far as our review, but we would have

we have noticed we did take notice that uh they started tearing the trees down and that's so yes that's a no no and now we don't know what the 25 ft vegetation is or will be now because of what's gone. We have I don't know if it's stopped. Has it stopped? Okay, it's stopped.

Yeah, we have addressed that with the developer. Uh, Miss Tilly, oursel and Angel, our inspector have been again very close conversations with them on what is required and what would not be allowed. Um, what was our understanding of underclearing uh brush clearing from the development turned into something a little bit more so understanding that that was uh issued stop work from Tilly and her office. So again, making sure we're all on the same page and playing from the same playbook as to what's required.

Find what is our fine or do we have a fine for our ordinances? I mean, in order to put this stuff, we have enough people in here. We're talking, but we hear this stuff once a month, and we're just like going, well, how's how can we make it stop? We had a house removed, right, and tore down and no slap on the wrist. Nothing happened. And there was a penalty for that one.

But I'm just saying though, it was after the fact and we have to address it. I mean, the city needs to understand that we're trying to keep the city a certain way, historical, quaint, and you just can't go and say, "Hey, you know, I'm going to take down about five or six trees and not be concerned about the vegetation." So, so there is no fine for what they did?

No, not at this time, but we did do a stop work on it. Um, we allowed them to clean up what was taken down. Um, but we are watching it closely and we're making sure that drainage patterns haven't been affected because of it. Um, we're being church is aware. Yes, they're very Yes. Zach. Yes, sir.

Okay. Since they've got this, they bought the property for reszoning. So, any new civil drainage or whatever will have to tie in to the old. The old's going to have to meet and account for what was existing, what's being added. So, all that will get broken. Yes. Re redone to make it all work right together. Yes sir. Okay.

Yeah. They would have to address and make sure that what is existing today can be supported by what is being proposed for the future. And again they're still working out the proposed improvements whether you know the size of the building and the layout and etc. So their grading is you know to be determined but we would be making sure that the grading drainage all of it works from existing to post improvements of the development. So if they have to readjust the old, they would Yes. They'll have to do that. Correct.

Cuz that addition, what they told us was two bathrooms at least, which two bathrooms, I don't know how many stalls and how many sinks are in those two bathrooms cuz it is a church. And that there would be uh educational rooms. So that's quite a bit of water. We've discussed capacity, parking, landscaping buffers, um, vegetative buffers, all of that with the developers. So, they are aware of what we are expecting with their cement. I think they're just trying to refine what they are actually going to be proposing. Will the storm drainage be off the current established improvements or off the previous?

So, they and their site's a little interesting. Portions of it drain to Tech 149 to their west. portions of it drain to the creek which is to the north. So depending on how their proposed drainage works from my previous conversations they were saying that they were completely drained to text dot they would have to obtain text approval. If they are splitting it between text dot and Montgomery County which would be the creek they would have to adhere to both Montgomery County and text dot. So it kind of just depends on what they're proposing at the end of the day. But whatever they are proposing it would be whatever the current specifications are for drainage criteria. So let me real quick how many homes are affected by the the the property the battery lines

based on the current zone. It looks like the church is abuing three homes. The proposed additional two lots would add three additional homes to that. So six total homes based on just abuing property lines. So the new drainage or the civil that's going to get the water past all the homes in Buffalo Springs. Correct. I would have to look at the drainage plans. I was not aware of the I'm not going to let somebody down here on the end

get the meat of the exact. So based on all our civil review has to show that there's no detrimental impacts to downstream residents or development. So they would have to prove within their plans whatever we're proposing as far as drainage goes is not impacting negatively any other development upstream or downstream of where they're uh located. Right. My my on to that note my question was um the the grading that you referenced there for that property

was that you said it drains to the north and to the west towards 149. was that prior to the tree removal of everything that was there? Um because I think that the tree removal and then the subsequent imperous asphalt is now what has caused the water to go east which is where our houses are. We would be looking at historical documentation. So plans for Buffalo Springs subdivision as well as whatever we have for the Cornerstone Church historically. We'll be looking at all of those and determining how it was proposed previously. And so we'll be addressing all of that with our all that would be corrected at that Yes sir. The old parking lot, the old and the new would all be corrected to work

based on what uh historical information and documentation that we can find. Yes. Okay.

Anybody else? So once they So once they bring it into us and everybody's happy, what happens if the land changes with the development of what else is going around? What is the safety net for this resident and those residents if the current when we when and if it's approved, it falls down and it starts flooding or it's not working well. Will who who do these people go back to the city text dot county who are the you know just say three years from now right three years from now and that's that's not very long

and the rain happens and it tears something up or it starts flooding again. Who where do where do these people go now that have invested all that money in their in their land and their homes?

Depending upon how the drainage works. Um, again, I know there was a mention of a a ditch being made and depending upon the location, it could be on both properties. So, there may be an easement that needs to be dedicated from either property owner or both property owners. Um, outlining the maintenance and future maintenance of that would be a part of our review. Historically, there's been numerous uh areas within the city where water drains into creeks. All the creeks are controlled by the county. So there's no um recourse for the city to implement but obviously understanding that you know these are city residents, city developers, etc. There's going to be instances where the city will step in and try to make things right. Okay.

But again, it's all kind of uh determined based on what's been reviewed, approved, and constructed by the city contractor and developer and what the court the current ordinances are allowed. Correct. Yes. And the plan development and whatever is coming up later. Correct. They all have to talk to each other. You got to stay here long enough in order to make sure you fulfill what you're promising the people in our neighborhoods. Yeah.

Well, the the church owns the land, so they're institutional, right? It's not a residential. like it'll always be institutional and it's all the way down to the gas company or the prop the propane tanks. Correct. And right now they're just interested in that small uh the 1acre track 11 and 12 just directly to the north. Correct. So we're only going we're looking at just those two. So anything past that they'd have to come back again if they wanted to. Okay. And really the way that lays out, it's more strict than it is residential. So yes. Yeah,

it's it's so far not a negative thing. And and with good review, it it should be a positive. It's residential. They wouldn't have to present us with a that's Yeah, that's the point. It's single lot, single home. It gets reviewed, approved. That's it.

Okay. Uh, I will make a motion to um uh to pass the reszoning request submitted by Cornerstone Community Church of McGomery development number 2510. It's related to 1 acre of tracks number 11 and 12 John Corner survey abstract 8 currently zoned R1 single family residential and I am making a motion to pass to reszone it to indust in institutional not in not industrial recommend to the city recommendated recommendation the city council

second we got a motion and a second uh for formal recommendation to the city council uh for reszoning uh the property of uh Cornerstone Church McGomery development 20 I mean 2510 related to the 1 acre tracks 11 and 12 a job survey abstract 8 currently zone R1 single family to residential I mean from single family residential potential to reszone to I institutional. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. No. Motion passes on the city council. Item number 11 from our public hearing. Uh consideration of possible action on the preliminary report for reszoning request submitted by SPT Montgomery LLC development number 2215 related to 5.1 acres of western portion of Rigsby Ben J track 46H3 and all of Riggsby Ben J track 39 which is currently zoned B commercial to be reszoned I institution. Good evening again, commission. If you have any specific questions for me, I'll be glad to answer them. Uh again, this is for the Superior Properties development that is going on on uh Lonear Parkway and 149. Uh this is the middle portion of development that's going on. Uh they're proposing a church. Um included with this uh agenda item, you'll see uh preliminary layout of the

site as well as uh the proposed interior as well. So they are proposing a church. Yes, ma'am. Is that what they decided? Okay. Are they still um trying to do storage

and houses behind it? As I understand the they've kind of gone away from the storage. Um that was what was being proposed in this middle portion of the development, but now it's going to be all um the church. So they're still doing the multif family duplexes on the west side and then the small box commercial on the hard corner of 149 and uh Lonear Parkway. Um, as far as tenants for those small box commercial, we haven't heard anything, but those were more retail than storage as previously discussed. Um, and then the multif family duplexes are in review right now for

on the um the 5.78 acres in the middle of reserve B. Um, 79. Yeah. Oh, I see it. Okay, that's I just seen commercial on this and then I looked over here and then Okay, that's what I was asking. I was sorry. Yeah. Yeah, it needs to be in Okay.

And in when we change when we put this before the commission and we uh vote on it, uh they still have to submit the plans. We're going to go through the same thing as Cornerstone has to do and all that. Okay. Uh, I know that we're going to discuss both these areas, but I just want to mention again, uh, on Lawson Street, there was Lawson High School. It was an all black high school. It was historical and no one is mentioning anything of it and, um, there's been a little research done. So, I just want to make sure that the historical society has maybe reviewed it or talked about anything that might be historical within that area where that Lawson High School was because I mean the older people here in McGomery, the few that are left, they they know about that school. So, I just want to say it again so it's on record. So,

yes, I do remember the public hearing or I guess the I forget the agenda item. may have been the development agreement overall on um that sentiment being presented. We did put them in contact with the developer. So any conversations outside of that I'm not aware or privy to, but that connection has been made and accounted for. Okay.

Uh is the entrance as coming from Lonear Parkway, right? Yes, ma'am. They are proposing um padto pad uh entries as well. That would have to be a separate uh access easement between the property owners, but that would be worked out separately from this freezoning application. So there's no buffer. It's just going to be turned in there. There would be as far as a vegetative buffer. Yes. Yes, there would be a vegetative buffer between the institutional and commercial, institutional and multif family, and then institutional and single family. um on Lawson and Simon, correct?

All that would still have to be adhered to based on the terms of the terms of the development agreement. You'll be able to see it's not clearly shown on what it is, but it's uh patched over with the the colors um the 25 ft building line and vegetative barrier between the residential and proposed institutional. And is there still an emergency entrance in the back for remember we discussed that too?

That would all be determined by Montgomery County. The latest that I've heard is no. Um but again, if McGomery County requires that emergency access, then we would have to allow for that to be constructed. But yeah, currently there's no connection to Lawson at this time. I make a motion to uh present to the city council that uh we uh consider the reasonzoning from zone B commercial to uh institutional I uh requested by SPT McGomery LLC development number 2215 related to the 5.7 acres of a western portion of Rigsby bin J tracked 46H-3 and all of Rrooksby bin J track 39.

I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second for the uh formal recommendation to the city council for the reszoning of the uh by SPT McGomery LLC development number 2215 related to the fivepoint 7 acres of the western portion of Griggsby McBen J track 46H-3 and all Griggs McBen J track 39 that is currently zoned B commercial to be reszoned I institutional. All in favor say I. I oppose. No.

Um motion carries to recommend to the city council. Thank you.

Okay. Item number 12, consideration of possible action on preliminary report for reszoning request submitted by L Square Engineering related to the 3.252 252 acres of car John track 57-d ward investments uh 01 uh res file 20007006890 that is currently zone PD plan development to be reszoned by institutional Good evening, commission members. This is the uh gym's hardware location. Uh this is just to make it or clean it up so that it's no longer planned development. It will now be occupied by the municipal complex and police station. And it will be designated institutional so that it meets that type of use our municipal use.

What was the plan development originally was there? Um the multiuse plan development multi-use

it has to be in institutional in order to be municipal. Well, if you look in the ordinance, the municipal parks and um municipal buildings are all under the I institution. It doesn't um separate us into being allowed to be in the residential district, being allowed in the commercial district or in the industrial district where typically in other cities, municipal buildings can be in those other districts. But right now, our ordinance just states the institution. It does make it easier to review it for

setbacks, um, landscaping, visual screening, parking requirements, signage, and that'll come before us as well, right? The design, the plans, and all that good stuff. Or no, is that city council? Okay. Yes, that I don't even think that that's city council unless we have to go for variances. Sounds good. And if it's variances then yes you would yeah like the sign will probably require variance. I don't think parking will record, but I I don't know if we haven't received the final plans to review.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval to city council uh commission on the for the reasoning request made by L squ engineering related to 3.252 to buy two acres of corner corner John track 57D investment 01 GPS signal lost number 2000700680 is currently zoned PD development to be reszone I second

I have a motion and a second for the recommendation of the city council for the reszoning Uh submitted by L squared engineering related to the 3.252 252 acre corn track 57D board division 01 res 20007006890 that is currently PD plan development to be reszoned to I institutional. All in favor say I.

I say no. Motion passes. Item number 13, consideration of possible action regarding the request for special use permit to establish a new financial advising office at 15325 Summit Park Drive, Sweet 107.

Good evening again. So, this is item number 13. Miss Mary Davidson is a representative of this financial advising group and she's on the line here with us. I guess I could just introduce us a little bit. Miss Mary, can you hear us? I'm Did you want to go ahead and do an introduction on business? I'm not. It's touching.

I could read the letter that you submitted if that's all right.

I don't know if the sound Yes. Oh, yeah. Miss Mary, are you playing are you playing the the video right now?

I'm on it. Oh, there you go. That's much better. I think that's what was causing

the reason now. So um we at King believe that the Summit Park Road is becoming a retail restaurant and service based area. We noticed that a cafe and nail salon also applied for a special use permit. So this is being completed that we are in the right place at the right time before space to fill up and also to be included in these other businesses hoping for the same outcome. Um we would great appreciate your consideration and approval of our special use of grant application. When we view this site, we realized that there were Montgomery accounting on some of our um road and dirt road and village cafe. And so upon viewing it, we had no idea that Disney's permit. So, I'm glad that for you reached out to me and started this process and I really appreciate you allowing me to join you. So, commission members, this is similar to the last two special use permits that we did last month. Again, the property is zoned industrial. And if you look on your industrial use table, the type of use isn't specifically stated as a permitted use in the industrial district. The first uh zoning district that it would be permitted in is the B commercial. And this is what the special use permit is for then is to allow the planning and zoning commission to make a determination and see what kind of effect it has on the surrounding neighborhood. what kind of fit it could possibly be in the industrial zoning district and does it meet the

comprehensive plan. Kind of laid it out again similar to uh last month how this service type of business could possibly help in that industrial uh business park for all of the other businesses that are there. Um I listed a few of the conditions again that you can definitely review, modify, um adjust it, see as what you see fit and then we'll go from there and then it can be recommended to city council then for final approval. This this has all this has see what what it's a sweet 107.

Yes. Has this been divided off yet? So it has So what you have is 106 is the nail salon. Okay. Sweet 107 is would be the financial advisory. Okay. Then skip 108 um right now it's vacant. It appears to be vacant. And then 109 is a coffee shop in that one building. Does it have restrooms? And they they have their own facilities in each of the suites. and adding all this to the the water and the restrooms is I mean all that's been designed for this building anyhow. Correct. Yeah. This has been previously accounted for in the engineering studies for the overall development overall.

What type of financial advising is it? Is it like an ad for Jones or what? Oops. So um I believe that we are retirement planning, assistant planning, business plan, investment management, insurance, financial planning act. And her special use is because it's zoned industrial and this is not covered underneath that. Okay. Uh, Mary, do you have intended hours of operation?

Yeah, I should be able to do probably 8:30 May 3rd at the most. Monday through Friday. Yeah. Monday through Friday. 8:30 to what? 5:30. 5:30. 8:30. Uh most of our offices are just a straight 95 but daily. Okay. Okay. And then do you have a what's the terms of your lease? How long is your lease? How long is your lease? The term of the lease one year I am looking right now.

She's looking it up. Okay. taking this. The term of the lease is 2020 well um through 33 35 12 3131 so it's it's about 6 years

okay I'm able to do that. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Yep. I'm very sorry you're here.

It still has the same um criteria as we did the others, right? That's what I was thinking. I I think adding financial advising good.

It's our comprehensive plan. Before I make a motion, just so we're on the same page, I was concerning the same change of ownership, termination of business, or change in operations. Yes. time. Yes. Then I'll make a motion to recommend uh approval for the request for a special use permit to establish a new financial advising office at 15325 Summit Park Drive, Sweep 107 uh with the recommendations of uh city staff uh with the hours of operation from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. uh until such time that either a change in ownership, termination of business or a change in operations in the set time period.

Okay. I have a motion. I have a second. I mean, I'm seconding.

Okay. and a second for the special use permit uh for the new a new financial advising office at 15325 Summit Park Drive, Suite 107 um with the terms of um hours of operation 9 to5 Monday through Friday uh and the lease or the uh special use permit being uh subject to change of um business, termination of business, or change of ownership. May I just clarify? I think the first motion was 8:30 to 5:30. 9 to 5,

or are you saying 9 to 5? Request 8:30 to 5:30 because 8:30. Okay. 8:30. 8:30 to 5:30. Okay. All right. Change that. Go. Oh, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say I.

I. Post say no. Motion passes with the special use permit. Okay. Item 14, consideration of possible action on the preliminary plaque for Carolina Caroline Court, formerly known as Villages of Montgomery development number 252.

Good evening again, commission. Uh, so in front of y'all today is the preliminary plat for Caroline Court, formerly known as Villages of Montgomery. If you remember uh over the past year or so um they have been coming back and forth with uh variances for the development um side uh front yard setback, sideyard setbacks, lot width, depth and area and then most recently they came earlier this year for a request um to vary from the requirement of providing a tree assessment on their property and being withheld to the 2024 landscaping ordinances which outline canopy requirements for residential development for all developments but in this case residential development. Um the plat has addressed all of our comments. Uh just kind of give you an overview of where we are in the project. We're currently reviewing their mass grading and detention. Um in that plan set they are proposing tree protection as previously stated by uh the engineer for the uh development. Um and they're currently proposing more than the minimum requirement for um the gross property area being landscaped and canopy requirement for such. So canopy requirement for residential areas are 20% minimum canopy for total reserve acreage. They're currently hovering around 33% um over the entire de uh excuse me over the entire development. Um we're still going back and forth on some comments regarding match grading and detention, but again just letting y'all know that they are um well above what they are the minimum requirement is for landscaping and tree preservation and canopy requirement.

Who will be assessing the 33% of the vegetation left? So, as far as what's shown um on that, we'll go back and forth and between site survey and what we're inspecting when we go out there for the actual building of the plans. We'll see you do a topography or do we do a it's all site investigation. Um and essentially what they're showing as far as this area of tree canopy is being preserved. will go out on site and make sure that there is protection and adequate uh tree preservation being as proposed on the plans. And that's the old reforestation that we had back in correct. Okay.

And again, uh just to clarify, y'all would have the opportunity to review the final plat as well. Um they're currently going through the design process for the sections of development. That sure is some pretty land they're fixing to put a bunch of houses on. Did Did they get the uh the old barbecue place and then it was the electricity plate? Solomon. Yeah,

they that too or I believe that's still existing today. What about that brick house that sits back in the last the landscaping people owned it before? That one I believe is included within this development. They going to tear that house down and those Yes. And that's proposed um the front obviously that's a budding 105 is going to be commercial. Then everything behind that would be residential. Yes. Miss Tilly, you want to call me whenever you go look at trees? I can help out with that.

33% is much on as much property as they're going to clear out and put houses on. I do understand the concern and I will say from the reviews that we've had, the what they're proposing as far as landscaping, it does look quite nice. Again, the boulevard of what's extending for Caroline, it's all landscape, large trees being proposed. Um, so I do believe the overall product would be something that the city would enjoy. Okay. Any retaining walls? There are retaining walls on the site just due to the elevation changes between east and west. They're right in the middle of two large uh drainage reserves and the creeks as well. So beautiful.

They are working against a lot of grain. Exactly.

Is that as high as we can go with three for station? We can always request for more. That was actually one of the comments that we have on the latest round of review is is there any way to protect any additional trees that are existing based on what's being proposed and where open space is. So we are fighting for cuz I have walked through there not once, not twice, but a whole bunch. It is heavily forested. Yes, I will agree. And so we're doing our best to make sure that they can preserve as much as they possibly can. Is it possible when we get the final flat to see what they're protecting? we can make that uh included and so essentially it'll be uh their landscaping plan but just for us to see on

separate yeah we can definitely make that um happen I know that's outside the requirements of the final plan and we do have interested to see that

rely on what we do have as far as ordinances without overstepping the governing I'll make a motion to recommend approval on the preliminary plat for Carolina Court, formerly known as Villages of Montgomery development number 25502. I have a motion for the consideration uh approval of the preliminary plaque for Caroline Street, formerly known as Villages of Montgomery development number 25502.

I second.

I have a motion and second. Uh item 14 passes for the approval of the preliminary plat for Carolina Court. Item 15, consideration of possible action on a variance request regarding the placement of the vegetational setback and allowing landscaping within the flood plane for the FM 1097 retail plaza development number 255. Good evening again. Um, so this development is the development that's just adjacent to the textile improvements that are going on on 1097. Um, they're the property directly southwest of that bridge. Um, so what they're requesting currently is uh variance from the vegetative setback um requirement that outlines if a subdivision wall or fence is being proposed as a part of meeting your visual barrier. In addition to that, you have to plant x amount of trees or x amount of shrubbery um along with that fence. They are asking that just a fence be installed um to to provide that visual barrier from any addition or any adjacent excuse me any adjacent residential lots that may come in the future. Um there are currently no existing residential lots to the southeast of the property, but that is planned for future development of um single family homes.

Is that trees fence trees? It would in line with each other. So it would depending upon how you want to uh configure it, it would be trees, fence or tree um shrub. If you go to page, excuse me, my uh is there going to be that? My question is the variance is what we we say 25 foot. So what are what variance are they asking for? The 25 foot would be maintained. It's the what they're proposing as that education.

Right. So they're just proposing a fence whereas the ordinance reads that you have to provide a fence if you're providing a fence a fence and shrubbery trees or a combination thereof. And so they're just asking instead of doing both the tree and the fence that just the fence be considered. Generally speaking, um again the in the agenda packet you'll see an outline of what they're proposing. My PDF is lagging behind so excuse me for not having that page number ready and I am here to speak on that behalf as well.

Landscape architect is here if you have any specific questions. Um and that's part one of the variance request. The second part is by ordinance landscaping is not considered within the flood plane. And so that obviously understanding that their proximity to the flood plane 100-year flood plane. They're asking that vegetation, landscaping, all of that be considered as a part of meeting their minimum landscaping requirement for the development. And so the development by ordinance outlines that a minimum of 12% of the gross property area has to be landscaped. Whether that's sod, whether that's trees, whether that's gravel, some type of landscaping must be provided. And they're asking that that portion of that falls within the flood plane be added to their count. Um, so they're currently proposing, I believe, one tree in the flood plane.

That's correct.

One tree and then additional soding. Again, soding is very minimal. It's the tree that I would imagine people have concern with. There is no issue. It's in the 100redyear flood plane. And so that's all about conveyance. So as far as any cut or fill mitigation, they wouldn't have to adhere to that because they're not in the flood way. Um and again, they're just planting that tree to meet their minimum requirement for landscaping. And when they bought the land, we got when we talked about this, they knew about the flood plane and now they're compensating for the flood plane now, right? They're adding additional. They already knew they had the flood plane and and within the first plan that they submitted to us, they didn't think about events or setback or special use or is this now coming up? This was all I don't want to speak for the landscape architect but I believe this was all considered as a part of their initial design. It's just due to the site constraints and understanding how that creek has changed over time.

It's not or wasn't um acknowledged to be that big of a deal as it was today. And so understanding that and trying to get ahead of it um with these variance requests that are in front of you today. So, is the tree on the property or is it off the The tree is 100% on the property within, you know, 50 ft or so of the property and it's actually upwards of the retaining wall that is the wall for the pond. Okay. So, the the owners would have to maintain the tree. I mean, it's their their property, their tree,

and right now the you're asking for just a fence.

Right now, based on what's going on at the rear, um the new information for this second round was that the residential was going in. So, that easement at the back is what it's going there. So, we already have 10 ft of that. that's gutted by a public easement. So, the way that this property is laid out and completely constrained, I mean, you can clearly see they're putting parking spaces and fitting anything anywhere that they can. Um, and so in looking at what's occurring at the back and allowing the site to to function and have multiple tenant spaces, uh, the rear limitations are pretty significant. So uh there's also a a functioning drainage that's split. It has to function and half of it has to come back to our property and the other portion can go towards the pond in the other way. Uh and so for that whole drainage is meant to function. I don't want to uh plant anything to be an obstruction in that as well as that is the reason we designed the fence with an open in the middle to allow for that. um access for public change anytime.

Can you call that up on the screen? Can you be able to I can stand up and share exhibits as well. Whatever it works for you. No, I see it. I just want it bigger. That's all. I can see it, but I want to see bigger. So, it's page 94, 1116.

And again, uh, as Nicholas was stating, what they're proposing is essentially two separate fences. Between those fences is a existing utility easement that houses sanitary sewer line as well as a drainage easement. Um, both of which would have to be obviously accessible for public access, i.e. public works to perform any maintenance on set sanitary sewer. And so the variance from the landscaping in addition to the fence would allow for them to minimize any future maintenance thereof. If they had to dig up those trees, dig up those shrubs, the developer will be responsible for replanting them. So instead of going through all that, they're just proposing the fence. What kind of

um we're actually proposing uh it's going to be a wood fence, but there's actually an existing retaining wall that's required at the back as well. So, we're proposing the fence on the retaining wall and the wood fence, but they're both max out at 6T height. So, visually at an elevation, they'll be about the same from both sides. And just for kind of clarity sake, 94 for clarity sake existing today there is a BM on the other side of their property. So today there is no actual they are proposing an additional visual barrier that's already existing outside of their property.

Mhm. And you said the adjacent property southeast is zoned PDU currently zoned residential single family residential. So that would be the future sections of waterstone. Um again they've been you have to back up to the back. Yeah. We haven't heard any uh there's been open records request on kind of what future is planned for that area, but as far as anything submitted to us for review, we haven't seen anything in years. On that flood zone side, is that where that fence with no uh cement barrier? My concern is we'll just get a gush, right? We've had it happen before. We're all standing around going, "Why is it flooding?" Can you show me where you're

That Nope. Go to the wooden fence right there. Is that is that a flood zone right there or is it a So this is where the wooden fence starts and stops. So this little bit basically from about here we're drained swailing back to a catch basin over here and then the rest of this is making its way to the pond through this same channel. That's what was requested. So that's so we don't we're not worried about the witnessing that fence. all you know just if it is in a flood zone and it may or may not get wet on a continual basis you know the rotting of the fence

this section is not in the flood zone the the flood zone starts here okay and this entire portion of the fence so bottom the bottom 4 ft of it is a concrete retainer so it should not have any contact with drainage flows and who's in charge of that gas That would be the property owner. Property owner. The person that owns that property. And there is a I guess HOA in this. Is there an HOA in commercial? So it's just Yeah. All private property. Okay. So on the I guess left side of the property 25T right there. It's all adjacent to commercial.

Okay. That is what I was asking. And you know, this is our entire private easement giving all of our utilities back to the property. I can't even play there. So yeah, along uh 1097, it's all resident or commercial, excuse me, behind these rows of commercial lots is all residential. So the only portion that would have the visual barrier would be on the back side. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. So adjacent to that existing BM that's there. doesn't really have much choice.

Who's the engineer? Um, Amanda or Bucks in Land Nicholas Cosmos. Cosmos. We appreciate you coming and at least presenting this to us because absolutely it is a very constrained site. So, you know, just cuz we just never know like I mean the places that don't have water now have water in McGomery in the last 26 years, 27 years. It's completely, you know, changed. I I recall when this property first came to us and what was going on over here, they had no idea what was going to happen. So, we were just kind of like, wait till tech stop tells us what to do. Yeah.

And they're wrapping up in the next few months. Um, so hopefully what they're proposing as far as improvements will aid with all downstream development. Are you all able to share? Are they getting some good erosion control measures in there or what? We can send the plans. So you're proposing a fence. So yes, we're proposing a fence because we are unable to plant back there to because of the public easement. And on the other side, that's that's the 25 foot is gone with the fence. Yeah. I mean, the 25 foot line is from here to here. Yeah. This first 10T is is public easement. Mhm.

Um and I actually I can't recall what that one is. Is that the drainage? Yeah. 30 foot drains easement. So, our 25T landscape falls within the 30oot drains. So, at least you have a solution. Mhm. Our presenting one.

I'll make a a motion that we recommend approval on the variance request regarding the placement of the vegetative setback and allowing landscaping within the flood plan for the FM 1097 uh retail plaza development development number 255. I second.

Okay. Okay, we have a motion and second for the formal res uh recommendation to the city council on the variances related to 778-162 and 78-18 uh for the uh landscape and flood plane for FM 1097 retail plaza development uh number 255. All in favor say I. I oppose. No. Motion carries. Number 16, consideration and possible action on the final plaque for Superior Properties Development number 2215. Good evening again, commission. Um so in front of you all as a hard copy, we have the revised uh final plat for superior properties. As mentioned in the earlier agenda item, um this is inclusive of multif family reserve, a middle track that is zoned um currently zoned commercial, and then another tract to the east of that zone commercial as well. They've addressed all of our comments that you see in the agenda packet um digital copy that y'all have and the hard copy that is in front of y'all. So, we are recommending approval um of the final plat um by planning and zoning and this would go to city council for review and approval as well.

Remind me please. Did we have a public hearing for anyone and everyone that lived in and around this area? We did and that's where the high school uh came up in say that out loud. Thank you because there's no one in the room right now. Yes, ma'am. We're fixing to approve it. Notices. I'll make a motion that we recommend approval for the f for the final class for superior properties development number 2215. A second.

Uh have a motion and a second for the approval of the final plat for Superior Properties Development number 2215. On all in favor say I. I I all post say no. Um item 16 passes.

Item 17, consideration, possible action on a variance request regarding the tree assessment outlined in section 78-167 of the city's code or ordinances for the Bryley development number 206. Good evening again commission. Um so in front of youall today is a varian request for the Rley formerly known as Redbird Meadows development. Um again this development consists of 50s 60s and 70 foot lots. Um what they're proposing or requesting today is that all future um preliminary plat submitted to PNZ and council. So sections seven and eight which are currently in review and then future section 9 which will be forthcoming um in the next few months I'd imagine. um not be adhered or not require a tree assessment be completed on those uh sections. What they're um quoting and saying um excuse me, what they are proposing within the development is the preservation of existing tree canopy throughout the development consisting of about 65% of what was pre-existing before they got there. So between sections one and the final last section of the Redbird development, they're proposing maintaining 65% of the existing canopy as well as proposing additional canopy with their development throughout the site.

Who's keeping in char? Who's in charge of watching that? Because the trees I live close

and I drive very often down there. Um there is some trees that they kept and and they are nice trees. Uh but some of the trees that they're placing throughout the subdivision, they die and then they'll replace them. But again, in my mind, I know they're developing their building. So, they're going to make it pretty for those people that are going to drive in there. And they've had some trouble with their irrigation and the water coming off the grass and washing it away. They've had to re put some trees and redo some grass. Um I that that property was beautiful and it was just decimated. So for us to give the okay for them to go ahead with three more sections, you know, without coming to us for us to observe and to monitor what they are and are not doing in that subdivision. Um, personally, I I I just don't think that's a good idea for us to just, hey, wave it away and say, hey, yeah, you've been doing a good job. You know, let's let's go ahead and do your next three sections without, you know, having any uh, I guess, governing hand over it. I understand that they're agreeing to do what they've previously done, but we personally I've sat here long enough where what they've agreed to do and what's being done is two different things sometimes. So that's all I'm going to say about that.

Just just to address your concern, um understanding I guess this is twofold. The development doesn't want to promote any type of subpar product. So to your point, they will go in and replace at no additional cost or additional cost to them, but at no request from the city those dying trees and solding and landscaping that are again subpar.

On top of that, we as the city engineer do inspect these subdivisions regularly and are monitoring landscaping, irrigation plans, all of the nine um to make sure that they are in accordance with what the city's ordinance are requiring. Um and so we keep a running count from section to section on the building setbacks, the landscaping being promoted and provided as well as the canopy as well. So there is a running calculation from section one to their final and last section as to what's being proposed and provided within the subdivision. And again, you would have the opportunity to review the preliminary plat final plaque and at your request, you can request landscaping plans to accompany those um if you see so fit. And just to there's a quick memo or that was included by the district engineer for these um quoting that the landscaping investments that they're doing per section total $325,000. So again they are providing and trying to maintain a product that again they would be proud of as well as the city. That's how much uh the Woodlands Township I think little small section there in the Woodlands that's what they spent for their reforestation actually uh I was part of that um getting those trees in there and making sure throughout that Woodlands Township that little small area over there by one of their high schools deep in the woods. Uh that's about it was about a $400,000 job with all the uh gas and traveling and stuff. So that does sound with that area coverage where Bryley is at.

Yeah. Understanding that right there nine section. So that's almost $3 million in just landscaping. So,

so they've completed a tree assessment of the entire property of just not per section

of the entire property and then portions of the existing sections 1 through six. So, some portions, section 7 for example, doesn't have existing trees, so there's nothing to submit. And again, the argument uh that's been made by other developers as well as them is that what would the city do with this assessment? And so we're asking them to take these photographs, document all the trees that are on the site, but again, what are we doing after that? And there isn't any stringent enough language to allow us to say, okay, this tree is good, this tree is bad, replant that tree. But like they are Ryland in particular with their uh submitts, they have kind of outlined that exact thing. table providing what the current condition of the tree is, the name, size, etc., and their plans on either replacement or mitigation, keeping the health of those existing trees in line.

Have you seen what have you been done that they Yeah, there's an entire park that services sections 1 through six that they're proposing maintaining the tree canopy coverage. And that's they did a real good job where the graveyard is. Like I I'm very pleased with that. I'm just real hesitant to say yeah variance and again you can make caveats to the variance request. Um just the recommendation needs to be to council with those caveats outlined

cuz the more we give variances away, the next developer comes in and makes that comparison and then they go, "Oh, well, you know, we we don't want to set a precedence of, oh yeah, you've been doing a great job. You know, we're going to go ahead and just give you the whole approval before actually done." So if we do find something that uh when we get the landscaping reports when we look at that final plat there can be something that we can suggest to take to city council. Hey, look, we just don't feel like that last section or the last next to the last section has what we we think is reforestation in it or the proper caring of the plants or whatever. We can we can uh instruct them that the variance hasn't been met or

something to that effect. So, city council would uh end up reviewing and approving the subdivision plans, civil um the civil plans for each of these sections. So they would have an opportunity to again make those additional caveats as well again before um or after city approval of the plans. There is still a construction phase that's going on where we go out and inspect to make sure that what they're proposing on their plans matches what's out there on site and nothing is accepted until those punch list items have been addressed. So they're doing section seven, section 8, and section 9.

Section seven and 8 are currently in design. Section 9 is a future section. And whether or not they split section 9 out to be section 9, 10, and 11 remains to be seen. But based on the current land plan that we have and confirmation from the developer, the last section would be section 9. And it would consist of all 60s, 50s, and 70s on their uh lots. Again, excuse my um digital PDF here, but I believe the last page page shows what that final section layout would be and then the pages before that. So from pages 112 to 116 show all proposed individual lot um landscaping which each individual lot is required to have two trees with at least one in the front. Um and then the last page being that future section which is still conceptual um what that layout would look like. If they were to buy another property and add a like you said another section would that have to go through this that would not be subject to this variance.

It's believe it would not be but they would also have to go through a whole development a development agreement amendment for that additional land acquired. So there would be stop gaps before any approval of plans would be provided. Right now the last section is nine, but it could be if they wanted to make it 10 and 11, right? So the to be specific, their variance request is for all future sections. So it doesn't say so if they come in here and they want to do 10 and 11, we won't know the difference. We just said yes to the future

between the original development agreement outlines the property boundary of the development. So if they're purchasing land outside of that, that would come back to y'all for review and approval of that amendment to the development agreement. So outlined currently, the preliminary plat for future are only confined to what's currently owned by Johnson Development, which is the Briley development. I'll make a motion that we recommend approval to the city council. requesting uh sorry on invariance request regarding the tree assessment outlined in section 78167 of city's code ordinance for the Brierly development um sections I'm going to say under the current development um development number 20006 I just feel real strongly about giving an open book not to do Well, you kind of have to look at their track record. It's not it's not a a new development coming in.

That's what I'm considering. I'm like, man, I just feel that open book and open brought us is something I not a fan of. I will second it based what Bill said is consistently see consistently they have been doing what they said they're going to do and making it right and making it fix. Uh but I'm saying second it to section seven 8 and the final nine. I'm being specific just in case they decide to do 10 and 11 later. 7 8 9 Yes. stick to what they verbally said so we can or written down. So you're second.

Yeah. The current. We don't want a landslide. Yeah. Oh, they approved that. Let's do the rest of them. Okay. So, I have a a motion and a second for formal re recommendation of the city council for variance related to section 78-167 um for the Bryley development number 20006 for the current and future second uh section 78 and nine. Is that correct? Yes. Okay.

Not current. Yes. Okay. So I have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. All no. A motion passes. Okay. Thank you. All right. We get down to the closing agendas. Anything commission inquiry? I'll make a motion we hold on. We got to get to 19 first. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. I've been doing good so far. Sorry.

Nothing there. Item 19. Uh any uh consider placement on future agendas? You want anything on future agendas? I do have a question. Our new our new proposed uh commissioners. It goes to city council next. So when would we say the oath and have them here for a full panel? that it be on the April 28th city council for resolution. So it would be the May meeting. So we So can we and you'll automatically put that on the agenda to get some new members in here? Yes.

Okay. Next meeting motion. I'll make a motion. Okay. I second that motion. We got a motion and a second to adjourn the April 7th planning and zoning commission meeting. I do apologize for being late, but I do have a child on the side road. I need you before you leave. Yes, sir.

Thank you. You coming to the meeting and I was like, I'm on my way. You see the swarming turning around. Thank you all so much for being patient.