Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

What's up, skis?

Of course, when you have a 500 meter rain, you know, whether it's that many inches all at once, it's just a little bit of work.

But it's kind of challenging, honestly.

October 6 is Faith and Lou, right?

So we either have to do it 7th, 8th. i didn't print nothing out so i'm going blind also

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Thank you. Okay, alright. Alright, it is 6 p.m. August 4th, 2026. I hereby call the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of Montgomery, Texas to order. The next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Texas flag. Honor. Texas flag.

I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.

Next item is citizen's comment. Is there anyone out in the audience who would like to have any public matters they'd like to discuss? Anybody written in? Okay. Item number four is the presentation and discussion regarding the proposed residential development located at 900 Caroline Street in the Historical Preservation District, including a proposed lot split, rezoning from R1 single-family residential to R2 multifamily residential, setback variance request, and construction of two new homes. Family dwellings.

Good evening, Commissioners. Just as you had stated, this is a presentation by CNC Partnership Limited, and that's Mr. Cheatham, Mayor Cheatham, they're here for the presentation. Following this presentation, there will be a discussion in reference to the design of the proposed buildings that they'll have.

Good evening, everyone. Chris Cheatham and Gary. We've been around the building for 32 years now. A long time. Developed lots of property down over the years. Care a great deal about the city, living in the city, working in the city every day. This particular lot is a seminal day to me and my mom and dad coming to this lot years ago. And one of the first ventures that my father was involved with was building the accident in Houston many years ago. So I hope they're looking down and they're okay with this project we have tonight. But over the years, I've worked in many two-family dwelling units. This one particularly attracted me because it looks like a single-family dwelling, which is really important to me. So it's a southern living plan. It's produced by them. So it's, I think it's appropriate for the historical district, and we're, you know, some things that we think about with regard to housing in Montgomery. Housing is in the news every day. How difficult for a lot of families to afford a place to live in. So this is a little more affordable housing that we'd like to provide in Montgomery. And with respect for the location, historical district, many years ago i sat on the commission important district here it's a beautiful location across from the park and so we we uh we'd like to so these would be rental properties okay all right that's okay how many total families Two families per unit, to be two units.

So two people drove eight cars?

We were number five garage per each unit.

A garage per three plants, sorry.

We developed the neighborhood next to the west. I've always been fond of the idea of rear-loaded residences. So these would be on the rear of one private entrance into the property, and then the garages would be behind the residences.

So they will go past the house and drive behind. Is that the entrance you're trying to call?

Yes, they're on the other side of the lot. One entrance for both units. So what's the total parking spaces? Is it eight or is it four? Each dwelling will have two parking lots. So a total of eight spaces. Well, you'd have one covered space. Okay. Are they one story?

Yes ma'am. Okay. And what is the square footage?

Each unit is about $1,120. Okay.

And so one family would get $550 and the other one would get $550?

No, it would be each unit is about $1,120.

Are there any variances for ordinances?

There is one we're looking at. On the west side of the lot are two old growth, very mature, beautiful trees. So we need a little bit of rain to make our fence fit on the side lot line. So that's our request for that. We can make them fit within the ordinance, but we'd lose those trees.

That would be the only ordinance, would be to move the line for the trees. That's the only setback you're asking? Yes.

Is it going to be similar to the house that's sitting there now that Bonnie lives in? Is it going to fit along those historic-looking lines, or is that...

The house that comes around are the ones that are on College Street.

Okay.

I mean, the White House has been there for over three years. So that's, that's the color. Okay.

I know another agenda was discussing the looks of it, but I think the general concept is a great development and it's a market we don't really offer much in Montgomery, so I think it's a great idea. And a great location. I don't know if you can beat that park right now.

So you are talking about long-term rental, not Airbnb? Okay, you're talking about meet the family, go to school. Okay. And it is rent, not rent-to-own or anything like that? Okay. I think that's a good concept as well. They are talking about, when it gets into further discussion, right, we'll be talking about rezoning and the setback variance and the construction of the two family dwellings. So that's, right now, you're just asking, hey, what do you think about it? Okay. And you are considering, because of the design, to take those two trees down?

Well, not this variance I'd like to keep.

Oh, you want to keep it? Oh. That's what the variance is. I just... I just want to clarify, I've got to protect the trees.

I know every time you see a tree, you go, oh, where's Marion at? Every time you see a tree. Yes.

Everything you're seeing looks good, correct? I mean what you're seeing here.

How much greenery, how much yard will they have? Is it a yard big enough for like a swing set or is it going to be like just kind of like a garden type area? No, there's a good size lot. Okay.

And I don't know if y'all have your package, the slight angle that she has.

Yes. Yes, it does.

To carry on that sidewalk, right? Oh, that would be so nice for downtown. And it would be city water. Okay. So it looks like the green area, it's common space, right? For the most part. Is picture. you could say a commoner porch there but there is a separation in the corridor that runs between the two units so you get there's not a real pressure to get it on the wall there's no common wall to get it on the wall with the grand tree that comes in through the corridor and then they can reach in through the saddle but there's no separate fenced off the green space is all sugar yeah

Are you thinking of any fences or anything? Or is it going to be kind of like the metal? Are you thinking?

Along the lines of the... Yes. All right.

I'm just wondering, you know, it's right across from the park, so kids come and go. And to be honest with you, people are walking around that street all the time because they feel safe. They are. Yeah. So...

Right.

any other questions for now I like the way it looks

there's no action item on this one right now it's further than that okay thank you thank you so much for your presentation okay item five uh consideration possible action in the plane zoning meeting minutes of july 7 2006.

I'll make a motion for approval on the P&Z July 7, 2026 meeting minutes. I second it.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for the approval of the July 7, 2026 meeting minutes. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Ayes have it. Motion passes. Item number six, consideration of possible action on the request for approval for the proposed design for two new two-family dwellings to be constructed on the property located at 900 Caroline Street. legally described as Montgomery Township Townsite 07 lot 8A-1 within the Historical Preservation District, development number 2608.

The applicant and C&C Partnership limited their request to review the approval of their proposed architectural design whether to nearly two family buildings that's going to be constructed at that 900 caroline location. Because it is located in the historic reservation district, we're following the section 98-347 of the city code of ordinances that says that the Planning and Zoning Commission would review this against the design guidelines for the city. I went through some of these items. provide the building validations, the architectural details, and the site design. They should be in your packet. They're available for your review. I compared it to some of the notes that I had in the design guidelines. And I don't know if you want me to share this with you all. I guess I haven't had a chance to share it well before. But I have a little cheat sheet that I use that talks about the 1830s to the 1941s. design, structural design of Montgomery that these design guidelines are going off of and I did see that the style does reflect that general area. The building placement and form looks like it's compatible with all of the surrounding neighborhood. The setback of the other single family buildings in that area. They will be going through a lot split of that larger lot. They'll be rezoning from an R1 single family to an R2 multi-family zoning district. The variance request is because of that lot split in the center, it'll be five feet on either side where it's going to be split equal between the two lots. And it is because they'd like to preserve the trees on the west side of that property. The Pujols Dragway is going to be along the east side of the property, and it will go behind the two structures. And that's where the two-car garage will be located. So you'll have one vehicle per unit in the garage. And then there'll be parking space available for a second unit. Our ordinance does require for at least two parking spaces for single-family residential, but I think as soon as it goes into the multi-family, I believe it's 1.5, is that right, 1.5? But they'll have that parking that's going to be available. We'll check to make sure when we do go through the review process of their plans. The color, so based on the watercolor picture that you received, it looks like the white is going to stay as the color of the exterior. We do have the property owners here, so we can always verify with them. The shotters will also be that same color there. The building official did look at the plans to verify that it can qualify as that two-family detached because the roof is a single roof line and the fire separation will be in that that roof area other than that no property fencing as of this time is proposed and the staff does recommend approval of um based on the design guidelines the architectural design of this and again approving These design guidelines does not constitute approval of their . The reason or anything like that is specifically for the architectural design of the structure.

This is just approval to proceed with everything? Yes, to proceed with their design.

Okay, so I see here facing the buildings on Long Carolina Street. The first duplex will be 10 feet off of the existing neighbor, that white fence right there. And then off of Bonnie's side is 17 feet.

Because of the trees.

Right. So we usually talk about what's on the side of the buildings and houses with their air conditioning and all that. So is that enough?

room and will there be the air conditioner or generator or whatever on those sides of the homes you see what i'm saying okay good good that's what i was wondering correct me if i'm mistaken it's 15 feet from the way off the other side isn't it the road is 10 foot wide but the the dimension i'm seeing from the property line is 15 feet to the house yes to the house yes okay And then rear fed. Yes.

And it's pretty small unit.

Yeah. To feed that. It's not going to take a ton of money. So right now the cycle kind of shows 17 feet on the west.

And you have the two family dwelling units. You have 10 feet in between the two family dwelling units. And I'll leave five feet on one side of that property line and blanking on the other. And then you get over to the driveway. The driveway will be 10 feet wide, but the actual setback from the side property line is 15 feet on each side. And the setback from the front is 25 for the section of the house that's closest to the road is 25 feet. And again, that's from the property line.

How close are you, will you be, I mean I see the measurements, but you're gonna be continuing that drive right from the other homes. How close are you to the existing families that are behind that lot? Is it still a 25 foot setback for vegetation? Or what would that be? You know how you, there's the green lot and then in behind you is houses. Right? Okay. There it is? Okay. Okay. So if you're looking at the plan, it shows 75 feet. Yes. Yes.

To the garage.

Okay.

So that's a pretty good distance.

I was just wondering because you're going to lay cement, right? Are you going to pave it back there? I was just wondering.

But it doesn't look like all of the pavement is going to go all the way out.

Okay. Okay. That's what I'm wondering is the burning space. And that roof looks to be tin? Or is it metal?

Right now, the watercolor is just showing tin, but you're going to do copper.

What type of material is this? The porch or deck? The porch or deck? What type of material is that? Is that a hardy? It's probably a hardy.

Hardy then makes use of about everything. Soft material with everything. Sorry.

Just comparing the watercolor to the site plan, there is vegetation in front of the house. I do like that on the watercolor. It's not on the site plan. Is that something you guys were planning to incorporate?

Is it pure in being?

It is. No, it's slag. Okay.

I can just pick. It's not too bright.

Okay.

So I'll make a motion for approval of the proposed design for two new, two family dwellings to be constructed on the property located on the Carolina community, describing the Montgomery town site, 07 lot A-1 within the historic preservation district.

I second it.

Okay, we have a motion and a second for the approval of the quest for the approval of the proposed design for the two family dwellings, 900 Caroline Street. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. That motion has passed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number seven. Discussion regarding the capital improvement advisory committee CIAC requirements and the recent Texas impact fee legislative changes.

Good evening. We'll go through this. There's no action on it. This is more of an update. There's some new members of the commission, so we'll give you an update on what this is in the background, and then we'll have an action on it as we come after this and future meetings. Back in 2016, the city adopted impact fees. The whole intent of that was creating a mechanism for development to fund capital improvements to allow for the expansion of water or sewer infrastructure and have that cost be borne by developers instead of existing residents. That was the genesis of the impact fee. Those were adopted in 2016. You'll see a copy of the ordinance in your packet. Those were then put into place in 2017. There's a one year kind of wait before those were started to be collected. And so they've been collecting, assessing and collecting impact fees ever since. So to date, we've collected roughly $3 million in impact fees between, with all the development and growth between now and this time next year, I think they expect to have collected six and a half or so million dollars in that piece, which goes a long way because you can use that not only to directly pay for infrastructure projects, but also pay for debt. issue to fund infrastructure projects so we're able to in the last specific obligation of the city issue for the major water and wastewater projects the goal is to be able to utilize some of those impact fee revenues toward those debt service payments to soften out the flow on potential other revenue sources to fund those projects especially since a lot of these projects have to get done prior to development and the taxes and everything that comes along with it during what we see. So, originally when this was set up, there was a separate committee that served as the capital impact advisory committee. Based on the original rules, 40% of the group had to be made up of people in the real estate and development world who did it, and the rest of it would be anyone else who did all that. So that was a separate group that was meeting when all of this was going down. It was pretty labor intensive.

Were you able to say anything?

It was labor intensive, a lot of meetings, because it was going through not only what projects, but how it was structured and everything else. Once that was in place and it was working, the city decided to switch the separate committee to have PNZ serve in that role. So PNZ acts as the capital impact advisory committee, which is one, you know, kind of like we did for board of adjustments for city council. Instead of having a separate board of adjustments, city council serves that capacity to help move things along. So that kind of brings us to last year. The legislature of the state adopted new rules that put a lot more restrictions on impact fees. Those are summarized in your packet that you'll see. There's five main points to the revised rules. Number one is every time you increase the impact fee, you have to have an independent financial audit performed. This isn't just the city's general audit that they do every year, and it can also not be performed by the same firm who did the audit for the city. So there has to be a completely separate audit that is done. They have changed where you can now only increase every three years. So where it could have been, we were doing it generally on an annual basis, or sometimes there's a fly list. Don't run around. that now it's changed every three years. So the last update was done right before the new law went into effect, so in August of 2025. So the next time that the city is allowed to increase the impact fee would be August of 2028, would be the next time. So that's a new rule that went into place. Governing vote, it now requires a two-thirds vote of the body to approve changes. Public land use assumptions, this one's pretty easy. It just has to be made available at least 60 days from or before a public hearing, and the review period gets extended to 120 days. So it just lengthens out the time for the public to have time to review. And then the final change was the industry representation. The advisory committee has to be made up of at least 50% from real estate development and building industry. So the law will meet that rule. So, the next things, one of the other things that has changed more in practice is the way that it was set up, there was a biannual review of the database, which you would review the projects and the costs and any changes, and did we have any annexations, et cetera. Didn't recommend making changes to the database. Now it's more cursory because you can't change it for three years, but we'll still do that annual review, which is why we're talking to you about this now because that's going to be either on the next agenda or the following. It's to go through and review, so review what has been collected on impact fees, what are the funds being used for, what's the status of the projects, the status of development that you're looking at. So again, y'all's role as CIAC is to review that list of projects, kind of ask questions on the reasonableness and what they're for and why it's a form of growth and development. You cannot use impact fees to just take care of infrastructure. It has to be for expanding capacity. So we've got a lot of water line replacement. If you want to replace a water line the same size, you can't use those funds. If you're upsizing that water line to accommodate future growth, then you can use those funds. So in your packets, you'll see the original ordinance, followed by the latest update that was done back in August of 2025. In there, you'll see your current impact fees, which are up to a total amount for a single family home of $47.88. And that goes, and it goes up from there. This is all based on the equivalent number of units that can be served. And so for a single, you know, five-inch meter, you're looking at 4,800 bucks, all the way up to a full eight-inch meter for a large apartment complex or something like that, it's $500,000 bucks, give or take. And so, again, it's true dollars, it makes an impact, but again, it's a way for the city to complete these projects to be able to continue to serve the development. So we also, in the packet, you'll see a list of those projects and those estimated costs that made up that I found. So any questions you'll have on what the committee, no actually just more of updating y'all on what the committee does and what the rule changes are and what to expect kind of coming up here in the next month or two when we'll do our review of the projects that they use.

Are we guided along this journey that we're now associated with? And who's guiding us? Us. Okay.

So we'll produce a, we update the report each time we walk through the steps of what changed and why. Typically the things that change the most are the land use assumptions. and the project cost is driving the achievement. So I think it's project cost as we go, as well as, especially when we annex or there's a major shift in the use of a property, and we expected this to be commercial, it turns into multifamily. Our single family is something else that changes. This is all, when you look at the document, it's all about what is the total cost of all the projects divided by the total number of increase in units or increase in equivalent connections. And so we're either changing the numerator and the cost and scope of the projects, or changing the denominator and the amount of growth that the city is looking at. So we'll present y'all the updated maps to show what are those assumptions based off of, as well as the projects, what they are, what they're for, and then ultimately what the capacity is. Okay, we're here from Washington. You got it. Between meetings, et cetera. Next time you'll see it, what we'll do is we'll dive into the actual what. This is more just the overview. What the original analysis showed, what the current analysis shows, and give you an idea of the projects. Because a lot of the projects that are on that capital list have been, or are either in the process of being completed or have been completed. There's a couple ways about it, and we'll go into details about those later.

Looking forward to it.

What do you do with the abandoned mains? I see that you abandoned number seven. What happens to those abandoned lines? Are they filled or are they just covered up with lines?

Either they're filled or they're removed. It depends how we're abandoning them. Sometimes we'll do, like through downtown, we did that project, a lot of those have a pipe version. So we'll send the new pipe along the whole line and just pull it. They'll break it in the ground and expand it out and pull the new line through, so it uses the same spot, especially when it was so tight, especially by the cemetery. I did not want to go dig new holes around the cemetery, so we said, where the lines are today versus . If they're left in place, they can fill with the grout, so that if they collapse in the future, you don't see .

Do we have any planned annexes coming?

Down on the west end? Nope. No. The latest one that would have impacted this was on the east side of the The larger lots with the septic systems, that has since gone away. They're building it down to soccer fields and staying outside the city. That would have been an annexation, but there's no other. There's some potential. We're in feasibility study right now for adjacent to HEB. We're working across the KOA property. If that goes forward, there's a potential annexation, but that's the only one currently on the radar.

Thank you. Okay, item number eight, discussion on the findings of the Utility and Economic Feasibility Study on College Green Development, development number 2605.

All right, starting your packets. This is a copy of the feasibility study for this development. So right at the end of the room, this was presented to council, accepted by council, just to give you all an update. It doesn't change any of the processes. This doesn't approve the development. It doesn't approve plans. This is just the general what it's going to take and what to expect from the development. So what this is is on the corner. There's maps in the back of the packet. This is at the northeast corner of Lone Star Parkway and Buffalo Springs. So it's the, Taylor Morrison is building the one side of the new development, you have Peel Point to the north. And so this is that remaining 19 acres of that hardwood corner there at Buffalo Springs and Longshore Parkway. So what this developer is proposing is a multifamily cottage style, townhome style development. So they're looking at a total of 211 units. Those range from one to two bedroom, some being more of a cottage style, some being in a more traditional multi-family, you can only go up to two stories in height, that covers this area. There's a copy of a land plan in your packets. One thing, I will note that as of today, they sent us this afternoon an updated land plan with more parking, because it does go back to it. Originally, they were a little light on the parking spaces, so they have since changed it to They're now at a total of 211 homes and 426 parking spaces. So that's not 211 better homes, that's 211 one and two bedroom homes, so there's a little bit more of it. A total of 426 spaces, but their land plan looks generally the same for the most part. So a couple things on this development to note. So starting in our report, At the executive summary, you'll see... First of all, so for water and sewer, so obviously, as we've talked about before, you have the water plant number three, Booster Pump Project, that has recently been completed. Water plant number four, we expect to send to the paper to start advertising for bins next week. That is the full water plant on the Briarley property with the elevated storage tank. You need both of those in order to, you know, this development and all other developments in process to continue to provide service. And on the sewer side, very much the same thing. So right now, we're in cities in demolition of the old sewer plant that contractors left a couple months ago, and they're breaking it out as we speak, but then the thoughts of bidding the wastewater project in the next few weeks to get that project going. Going down the list on kind of the summary, so the biggest things, there are no public extensions needed to serve this property. There's water and sewer along both Buffalo Springs and Lone Star Parkway, so they will be connected to those. They would have estimated impact fees. This is just based on an estimate of their meter size, kind of like we just talked about, of approximately $500,000, $550,000 in impact fees that they would pay. And then based on there, the developments of INFO, they expect a full bill about the value of the bill, which is roughly $31.5 billion, which at your current tax rate would be generally $120,000 a year in annual water tax that the city would expect to receive once it's built up. A couple things as we continue to go through regarding zoning. So currently the tract is located in the PD land development zone. Based on that original exhibit that this was created, it's intended this to be a mixed use area. So this multifamily use would be allowed within that. So there's not any rezoning required on the property. They would still have to follow multifamily regulations as far as setbacks, et cetera. So where they and but, both the north and the east side against single family homes, they would have to have those required setbacks regardless of the zoning. This is the use of the property. Talked about water and sewer. Again, there's, as we've been saying forever, things are getting tight, but it's more tight on paper and it's all the projects that are needed to support it are all in the works. So I'll go over the graphs here a little bit. Roadway and access, so all their access will be off of Buffalo Springs. They will be required to submit a traffic impact analysis, because that's 211 units or 211 homes that are going on to Buffalo Springs and turn lanes, et cetera. They'll be required to submit that to the city. Same thing with drainage, that would require some of the drainage impact analysis, showing that they have no adverse impacts on the vehicle properties. They will be, this question came out during council, so ultimately they will be flowing to the north and through the Taylor Morrison development and the ponds that they're putting in. And so they've been working closely with Taylor Morrison and Taylor Morrison's engineer regarding coordination of that to make sure they're not causing downstream impacts. And a couple other things to note. They don't expect any variances. They were worried about the parking, so they revised the land plan so they should have parking, but again, that will be reviewed during the development process. When you go through your packets, along with page 46 area, you'll see copies of those exhibits, where they're located, as well as the water and sewer projections tables. on page 47 of the package. You'll see that those projected uses get close to the numbers. However, like I always say, we plan conservatively. We plan for a pretty aggressive growth of those developments and the projects that are therefore getting completed right on time. for the water system. So this is all based off of the average daily flow. So this is not, you know, you get close to that in the peak summer months that it's all gonna fall apart. You know, you have, the state requires about a 2.4 peaking factor. So you can pump a lot more water than is what's shown on this graph in those peak demand times. So it's not, hey, we're not, when we turn on the water, you know, it's not, nothing's gonna come out. It's an average daily flow, not a peak.

But for a short duration, we won't meet that?

No, we won't. And again, these are all projections. So right now, when you look at, on page 47 of the water graph, that bottom line is the most realistic. And where you have a little bit of a gap between the timing of the developments and the fall. The other lines are all in feasibility, in projections, and a lot of these projects are continuing to push back. For example, the big users are that we put them all as kind of a lump. So the apartments behind BCS, which have since kind of pulled out, there's no one looking at that now, that is a lump hitting at 80,000 gallons a day at one time. So those are leaving out. So we're still, it gets close, but we're still, again, conservatively, but right on time with the developments. Sewer's the same, again, once the expansions are done in plenty of capacity. And when you look at the historical trends, the water trend is kind of following along with it. The sewer trend just hasn't seen that increase. that we have but again there's a lot of development coming however a lot of we're also seeing montgomery men and others delaying their next starts of their sections while home sales continue to catch up so it's they're in here conservatively questions you have um on it so again If it doesn't approve anything, they still have to approve any variances. They have to get those approved, plan approval, by approval, drainage and traffic impact analysis approval.

And since they are in the old plan development, what variances could they ask for? Or what do you think they're going to do?

So the biggest one that we were concerned of was setbacks and traffic, or excuse me, parking. They have since revised the land plan to have adequate parking, so that should be an issue. There'll be an extra open non-covered spaces, carport spaces, and garages for those. And then the setbacks, which they've said that they will honor and put those setbacks along with Taylor Morris and the dollar in. To the north, they have a pond. So it's the development pond and then field point drive. So there's already a setback in that area. But it was more of a concern over the houses and field points. So I don't expect any variances. They're trying hard to follow up on this.

Is it going to be gated or fixed?

It is. It'll be gated at Buffalo Springs and not built.

This isn't the first development we've looked at on this property, right?

No.

Was there one a few years ago where a lady came in and got a potential cemetery on there? That's next door.

Very same spot. Immediately, the Tanner Morrison property, so there is a cutout for that. Two lots that weren't built on and run. It's adjacent to this. Oh, yeah, you can see it on the map. Yeah. Okay. So PD accommodates multifamily.

Correct. Correct.

Yeah, so when the PD was created, there was a general plan put together that marked out single-family, mixed-use, commercial, multi-family, and institutional. And then this area falls from that mixed-use, which allows for...

So the only entrance and exit is going to be up above the springs?

Correct. Two of them above the springs. to this property. Work back and forth with the fire marshal to make sure that that didn't need to be extended through. There's no issue there because what Taylor and Morrison did is they created a full boulevard entrance. So there's technically two full roads in and out in case one is blocked.

Is there a traffic study associated with everybody going out on the Buffalo Springs?

There will be. And I misspoke. There will be. One of the items is they are required to do a traffic study. Okay. Because, yeah, it's a lot of, Buffalo Springs is already a busy road. And, you know, it is a concern.

It backs up. I'm trying to go north. I guess that's going south. Correct. Just back in about that line. Yeah.

Yeah, and also, we know Buffalo Springs is not in the best shape, so the city's working right now with the county to do a repave of it through interlocal agreement. And then the long-term plan, like we did on BCS, is to continue to pave and make it concrete as we work to make it work.

So the county and the city are working together right now, okay? Correct. and they will continue to work together? Or is that a fade out of the county?

No, so the city has an air local agreement with the county specifically for paving. The county has a bunch of, one, either in-house staff and or contractors that they have on call for paving jobs. And so historically, the city gets a much better rate because the, if I'm right correctly or wrong, generally the city pays essentially the material cost um and the county provides the labor so he's done that for a handful of jobs that works out really well again we know long term there's going to be more work even at buffalo spring just because traffic is not going to slow down but getting like a mill repay is better

That will happen this year. It will? That's a good product. Two inch? How much do we generally have back on top?

So I don't know exactly what the county is going to do, but just for sake of reference, when we did the Buffalo Springs project for BCS, we had a geotech analysis through both a concrete option and a asphalt option with how poor the soils are, and it's just perfectly concrete. I think their recommendation for asphalt was Don't quote me on this, but I'm glad I said it to you after those. At 18 inches of base, I just stabilized, and then I think three inches of that's all I got. It was significantly more expensive than .

Makes sense.

No action now?

No action.

Is that it for 8, Chris? That is it. Okay. Number 9, item 9, consideration of possible action on the preliminary plat for HEB development, number 2402. All right.

I know everyone has probably noticed the HEB going in. So no surprise there, but we're catching up with some of their paperwork. So the preliminary plots in front of you, the final plot is going to be coming really soon after. What you'll see in this is the plot of the entirety of the development, all the way from the creek to 2054 and 105. It's made up of... Seven different reserves across that. So if you look in the packet, you'll see a key map followed by the actual preliminary plot with the grades and the timer. in the layout. So again, we have no objection to it. They've met all the rules. Obviously, their construction plans have been approved as well into construction. They're still aiming for an November open of the project. Their goal is to be open sometime in November.

Of 2026? Yes, ma'am. Who is going to check on the historical marker?

so that's going to go back so at the last council meeting council approved a variance for a flagpole that flagpole will be on 150 foot flagpole on the site that they will own and maintain with the texas flag and on at the base of that flagpole they are relocating the historical department there and landscaping etc around there And so that's where that historical marker is going to be relocated to. Because it was kind of right there at the detention point of 2054. So they pulled it off, they moved it to the side, they protected it, and now they're going back to putting in the flagpole and that marker.

Will it be lit with the solar lighting or anything? I can't remember.

The flight pool itself will be lit. Yes. It won't be solar. It will be lit from the bottom. Okay. It will be the best thing ever.

Just asking because that was one of my things today.

You said the whole star base is going to be lit. They're going to do the in-ground lighting.

Oh, I love it when HEB does that.

Where's the remote going to be located at?

So it doesn't show on here, but if you look on page, after the key map, it'll be along 2854. So if you turn it by basically they have the driveway closest to 2854, there's the big retaining wall, it'll be sitting generally on the top floor of that. That would be nice.

That would be nice. Nice have been the two electrical poles and the wiring's coming down where it was.

They had a lot of work to do, obviously now they don't have to work, but they've got the tapings going on for the TxDOT widening, because they're widening that intersection and adding term lines. That's ongoing right now. They completed the installation of the public water and sewer pool on the frontage. I just, as a reminder, we just know that they're paying for that completely themselves. We're just waiting on testing to do that service. And then obviously all their site work is bad-dashed. So approval, I say this every time, but approval of a preliminary plot is not authorizing the plot to be recorded. It's just approval with the concept of a preliminary plot, how they're subdivided, and it'll come back to you for approval of the final plot that you will actually sign that will be recorded at that time.

Just confirm that we recommend approval.

Correct. Yes?

It's not approval here, right? It's city council approval.

No, City Council will not approve the plan. Okay. So you're right in attending. We are recommending approval of the plan.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval on the preliminary plan for HEB development, development number 24002.

I second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second for the recommendation of approval of the preliminary plan for HEB development number 24002. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion passes. Item 10, consideration of possible action on a variance request regarding the required tree assessment for the Legacy Grove Section 2 development number 2501. All right.

A couple things on this one. So the current ordinance, go around to the tree ordinance. So the tree ordinance started, which had a, a heavy tree survey cost in order for these developments to hoard, and then a planting and protection requirement. Those that modified, it took all that away, that was just a planting requirement. And then an interim ordinance was adopted that put the tree survey back in, but it lost some of the teeth of the actual planting part and the protection part of it. So what this variance request is, is requesting just a variance to not do the assessment. It doesn't change the requirement of thinking and having the coverage. Just not doing the assessment for a few reasons, and the developers and engineers here can also attest to this. One, section one was not required to do the tree assessment, and so some of the clearing has already taken place in section two, and then construction in section one. So that's one piece of it. It wasn't required because that was done prior to the time of the chair importance being adopted. And we are currently in the works with the UEO of changing that back to not having a new tree assessment. Because what it turns out to be is for, I don't remember on this property specifically, Jonathan might, no, it was an $80,000 survey. Because the way- It included way more. It included way more.

We need to quote it.

Because the way that the word is written is that every tree over six inches has to be not only located, but take a diameter as well as type. And so they would give us a survey with a thousand points that says tree number 102 is a six inch tree, tree number this and this. And it doesn't really change their development plan. They still have to do the plantings. They still have to provide the greenery. So they're just requesting a change to not have to do the tree assessment portion of the preliminary plot. So it's required at the preliminary plot stage. And then during construction plans, they're required to submit a landscape plan that shows the areas that they're keeping trees in the grain spaces and where they're planting trees on both the lots and in the open spaces common areas.

Question there. Can you remind us on the planting requirements?

Yeah. So single family homes, it's two trees per lot. At least one of them has to be in the front, so they can do two in the front and one in the front and one in the back. And then for the open areas, it's 20% coverage, more or less. can't be covered in those areas. So where they have open spaces, I'm summarizing basically because the detention bonds and stuff don't apply, but in those open spaces and green spaces, they're providing landscaping in both. This development, I mean, they have an extensive landscape package that they're putting on Lowe's or Parkway with their signage. I would fully expect them to do the same thing on 105 as they work themselves through. I'd like to give you more exactly what they're proposing.

already cleared, but phase two has already been masqueraded, so when we got the plumber to apply with phase one, we did have a masquerading plan, which we, at that point, kind of showed, and had the calculations of what was going to be cleared, and how we would meet the overall tree planning requirements at that time. We are going to be clearing a little bit more with this next phase. There's just some infrastructure that we did notice that we need to put in with phase two. But the majority of all the roads and paths and everything else has actually already been cleared. So like you said, to prevent us from having to go take a photo of every tree on site, I think we actually have to take a photo of them in all four directions, north, east, south, west. I don't think he wants to review 10,000 photos. that actually has to accompany the plot and then the planting requirements did get lost and so and that ordinance changed there's actually no requirement in the ordinance currently that says that if you take down a tree there's a minimum requirements now and so we've kind of been requesting these here and off and on and just saying we would like to just adhere to the older kind of requirements you know we understand what those are we go into our planning we're doing the initial engineering and land planning that we know what we're getting ourselves into because we're not trying to just go bulldoze everything and just not plant anything so but like this one's a little bit easier since we've already cleared the majority of what we're paying on clearing other than a small area that may be a quarter of an acre if i had to guess that would answer any questions

You're referring to the reforestation ordinance?

Yeah, right now that's missing what the new planting requirements are. If you take down trees, what are you supposed to do to mitigate that? So we've just been trying to follow up.

When you say we, did you contact the city to see if they located them or if they could locate them?

It's just not in the ordinance right now. It's not in the adopted ordinance.

Yeah, the interim ordinance that was adopted put that. I don't like to use the word all, but most developers and not all developers have reverted back to the old one, which is the percentage coverage requirement, because it's something that, one, is a previous rule that we've based off of, and the developers are wanting to, both of the developments, next time it's the exact same thing, They're not wanting to just create a clear-cut grid neighborhood with the smallest lots possible. They're both mixed sizes. This one has 90-foot lots, 80- and 90-foot lots.

It's over a half acre, and right now they're going through and making the potential pond and having a walking path around there. They've preserved a lot of trees in the first phase. If you drive out there, you'll see a lot of trees preserved between the back of lots on different streets. Same thing was done in Section 2. If you drive out there, you'll see that. You just can't drive on the roads because you're not paid yet. But same concept. So it's not anything different. It's just the rule that's required for a preliminary plot approval. So as we're trying to get the preliminary plot approved next session, this is needed.

First, on the ordinances looking ahead, Are we looking to reincorporate and recourse? Yes.

So you go more like what we had before. So taking out the tree survey requirement, because it's been averted, and putting in, reestablishing the preservation and planting requirements that gives the Leap House and the Doves credit for preserving as well as credit for planting.

Is the goal to still require, hey, I take down a six-inch tree, I have to either match that in two threes or anything like that?

Can it be required more than anything? Because some of this green space that The new UDL is going to say it like this. It's going to talk about green space or tree canopy. So they have some options in there, but it'll be much more clear. It is much more clear. We're getting through the legal comments and stuff, and we actually have a meeting on August 18th.

Going forward, though, the new builders, is it retro or moving forward? Say August 18th, everyone's happy and we say good to go and it's legally correct. How is that going to affect the current developers? It won't.

So there will be a period of time from... It has to go through, obviously, the adoption. So you would say in August 18, it's good to go. It has to go through the adoption steps. There's a public notice period. And then there's a, I can't say compliance period, but a cutoff date. So developers that are, you know, if, you know, like, their preliminary plot, if it came, it got adopted in between the preliminary and final, we're not gonna go back and say, now it's changing the rules of its own. Any, so what happened in this case, is section one was done prior to the interim ordinance. Section two is post the ordinance. Now we're saying this next section, which is a new private area, we need the survey for that section. And that's what the variance request is requesting, because it doesn't... apply as much uh because one when you're on set and two it's kind of middle of the process so we should be looking for variances unless people intend to do the tree assessment for anything that will be preliminary planted until the cutoff date correct okay correct and some of the smaller ones it's not that big of a deal yeah yeah the technically you know you know his development media a tree survey. He won't need it because it's only two lots, so not the best example. But any small development would require it, again. But it's a bigger burden on when you're doing 100 acres of a forest versus... You all have previously approved the similar variance on Caroline Court, right by West London Park.

That 50 acre parcel of the tree survey was quoted at around $120,000. So that just kind of gives you a frame of reference of what that work could be when the data doesn't necessarily benefit or allow us to do much with it. So for this, if this was fully wooded, I can only imagine it would have been double that cost.

So the next section that you're fixing to work on, because in any area where trees are growing or not growing in the Ducks and downs and creeks and all that good stuff, natural waterway. Would you say this next section has a high amount of trees on it? Or is this section a little less than the previous one?

It's probably roughly the same.

Okay. I'm just wondering if it deviates, you know, as you go down.

it doesn't i mean because they're going to be larger lots anyways that's the that's the you know what they wanted to build that was their price point that's the people that they wanted to bring a subdivision okay they had that we reserved um almost as much as we could so we kind of did the pads created off the pads and we tried to leave 30 20 to 50 feet maybe on the back of each lot And of course, if somebody wants to go thin that out a little bit to be able to have some room in there, they can with one of these large buffers. So we've used that natural topography and then laid in the rooms and made the transitions in between. It's tough to do that whenever you've got 50 foot by 120s for a completely different market. But for this, it's much larger lots or 150 to 100 feet long. So you've got a little more flexibility.

Now does this stop? Do we approve, or is this a recommendation as well?

I'm sorry? Is this a recommendation for approval, or are they approving their recommendation?

I think it does. I think it goes to council. I think it goes to council.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval on a variance request regarding the required tree assessment in Legacy Grove, Section 2, Development Number 2501.

A second.

I have a motion and a second for the recommendation of approval for the variance request regarding the required tree assessment for Legacy Grove, Section 2, Development Number 2501. All in favor of the approval, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Approval passes. Item number 11, consideration of possible action on the variance request regarding the required tree assessment for crossing at Montgomery Development, number 2403.

Very similar to the last one. So this is Creston and Montgomery is the property that extends along the railroad tracks from Old Plannersville to Old Plannersville between the two. And so they're requesting the same thing, requesting approval for a variance of not having to do the tree survey. It doesn't change the requirements for painting, et cetera. They haven't gotten that far. in the development, they're just requesting to be able to proceed with the preliminary plot and project adopted to be a free survey. Same thing, Jonathan's here. As a representative developer, he can answer any questions specific to the development. And this request will still be cleared through both sections.

The reference in the packet is for Section 1, but we have submitted plans for a full mass grading of the entire section. It will just be platted as we go. The platt only requires tree surveying within the platted boundary, but we can do mass grading over the entire site, and that never really requires a tree surveying on the entire site for that approval. sheets that are masquerading to show us how we will achieve the minimum thinking requirements as a part of that set of plans that would be ultimately approved by the legislature.

Should we make sure that this is stated in our agenda when we go to approve it for multiple phases or do we want to say yes to this if we say yes to this it just kind of covers all of it or do we want to do it each time or do we just want to say I mean Usually it has to be official. Yeah, I mean, if you want a blanket, why doesn't it say, our paperwork should state that it's for... And I get what you're saying, but officially, if anyone comes back and someone says amen, that 300-year tree, or whatever they're going to say...

You could clean it up in your mud if you would like. That's fairly consistent on this variance for that tree survey, so you can clean up the language a little bit to cover the entire development if you choose.

Is the whole development 86 acres or is it just face?

The overall section, I believe, is 86.

Just this first section?

The plot, section one is 27 acres, about the 86. Okay. You're...

Okay, so... So right now, you're... This would be for the 20... Section one, the 27 acres.

Technically, I think the variance is for the 27 acres, but if you so choose, we'd like to...

I mean, technically, your variance request is for the legal description, 86.425 acres of Zacharias Landrum Survey, A22. It's our letter of invitation. then I would say it's for the full development. Correct. That's how I read the actual variance request, not the agenda necessarily. Yes, but the variance does state it.

And that's how I would also rerun the item. We just said it's a cross-unit recovery development. We didn't specifically say it as a whole, but first we said just Section 2 of Item 10. The intent was, the only reason it was only Section 2 is because Section 1 is already done.

So what you're asking is the variance. Here's the railroad tracks and it's got gravel and then there's trees and then there's a fence. And you're asking for the variance

between the railroad tracks and the fence because you own the trees on the other side of the fence we're only asking to not serve to not do the tree assessment for anything within the boundary so there are trees between the railroad and the fence that's owned by the railroad company that obviously wouldn't be in our plot boundaries so that wouldn't necessarily be something we could touch or determine anyways so we're asking for the tree assessment waiver on anything within the 86 acres of the entire

That is going to take out a lot of sound here.

I know it's separate issues, and this doesn't have a lot to apply to the tree assessment, but compared to the previous one we were looking at, this has much less, maybe generous, remaining tree value than what we were originally talking about. But I do understand that's a separate issue altogether, but just making a note. From what I'm seeing, just off the additional plot, it looks...

It's a much higher development. There's also less trees today than TriPoint, the legacy growth. So it's open pasture for the most part. This section's a little bit heavier wooded than the other.

Yeah, there's a decent amount of pasture, but it's challenging. Smaller plots, there's a lot of topography, and you're having a lot of the changes far.

So we do have a bunch of retaining walls to be able to make this project work.

And obviously, they're not huge, but there are retaining walls. So it gives us very limited room to work, to lay everything out.

i'll make a motion to recommend approval of the variance request regarding the required free assessment for the crossing of montgomery development and just adding this to my motion that's the entire development development number 2403 the total 86.1 over acres yes okay

Okay, I have a motion and a second for the approval of the variance request regarding the required free assessment from Crossings Montgomery Development, Crossing at Montgomery Development, number 2403. And this will cover, let me get the right, Where'd that go? It's 86.425. I had it somewhere. The 86.4250. 86.540.

425. 425.

That includes the whole development track of 86.425 acres.

All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. We have a ayes have it, three to one. Item number 12, consideration of possible action regarding the request for a special use permit to construct and maintain a temporary paved parking area on a residentially zoned lot located at 611 Ruby Bend Lane in the Montgomery Bend development.

This is going to be a little bit different than the other special use apartments that we've gone through. The other special use apartments were for the temporary construction trailer.

This is now for a temporary parking area. This is to support the model home that is across the street. It would relieve some of the... parking that's occurring on the street in this development, and it would take the parking off of the street and put it onto this parking lot. Because of its temporary nature, and it's going on a residential, residentially-signed property, that's why we're applying this special use permit. I recommended a few conditions. on the special use permit, you could attach an expiration date to it, kind of like how we have expiration dates for the construction trailers.

They requested an expiration date until the subdivision is substantially built out.

You could define what that substantially build out might be and make a recommendation based on that. Once this special use permit expires, recommending that maybe you might require that they bring the space back to an original residential zoned property condition, removing any of the concrete that's going to be in the parking area, making sure that the residential lot is clean, clear, graded properly the way that it was planted, You could also require prohibiting any type of spotlight in the parking lot. They did say that the parking lot will just be lit by the street lights that are provided on that street. You could also say that there's no outdoor storage allowed in those parking spaces, that they might use it for something else. You could recommend that the parking spaces or the parking area remains good and free of any kind of rubbish and debris. They're not proposing any kind of vegetation there, so I have come across locations where they just kind of let the natural vegetation continue to grow. They always recommend that the vegetation stay low or maintained. I assume that they'd like to keep this area properly maintained only because it is right across the street from the model home. Any visitors or possible people who would like to live in that development I'm sure would love to see a clean area even if it's just a temporary parking space. But there are some recommended conditions that you can place on here. We do recommend a pool because it is a temporary in nature. But you can set the What do you feel would be necessary for an expiration date of the special use permit?

So that lot is not next door to a model that's across the street from the model?

It would be across the street from the model. They're proposing that the lots on either side of this parking lot will not be built out until towards the end, so there wouldn't be any immediate residences next door to the parking lot.

Okay.

And it is close to the front of the development. They're not having to drive through the development to get to this.

What percentage are they at, that completion of that one area?

That's section one.

And they're using it so people can visit to see the model home and then go and see other homes?

This is specifically for the model home. I suppose if they want to see what their lot would look like, where they would place their home, drag around and see what it will be?

I just have a few things. The times of usage, AM, PM, morning, night, the days, Monday through Sunday, Monday through Friday, whatever it is. Will there be any markings? Like will there be lines? Or is people just going to randomly park? Will there be those curb stops so that when you drive in, they're not driving off the cement or whatever into the grass? And the entrance, is it going to be like a driveway entrance, or will it be wide so they can come and go in two separate directions? That's all I have to ask.

In your packet, you should have the site plan for that. All the maneuverings will occur on the regular, so what they're doing is pulling in from the

So they're going to use the whole width of the lot for the entrance and exit, basically.

And they are going to have the same thing.

What materials are they using for the temporary paving?

They're saying it's concrete.

25 foot, there's disabled. I was just wondering when you're coming, is there going to be confusion?

And then we'll tear up the concrete and put a house on it.

Eventually, yes. So is it open 24-7 or is it open during business hours?

During monoclonal.

hours which are open weekends and okay okay so it's seven days business hours is that what you're saying business hours okay do we know what those are they usually run about nine seven seven you don't want to drive through there and joey be parked there at 10 o'clock at night

So are they going to concrete the whole lot? No. Just that entrance? Oh, just the entrance? Just 18 feet. 18 feet.

Yeah.

Okay. Well, what's going to...

So you're only talking four spaces? Yeah. Oh, okay.

They're not talking the whole thing.

Yeah.

All right. That's what I don't remember you will occur on the event. Mm-hmm.

That's pretty small.

So it looks like there's going to be lines, right? And it's going to be a nine foot opening for you to pull in.

In a handicapped spot.

Nine by eighteen.

Okay.

I'm not a big fan of substantial completion. Me either. So what are we talking, from y'all's perspective, what are we sitting today? Are we talking two or three years? Are we talking ten years?

What did we do on those trailer houses in Briarley?

We did two years. Yeah. And then they would come back, I believe it was 2028, December 2020.

Yeah, and we don't know what the percentage of the build is right now, though, right?

So I don't have the total number in front of me. Between sections one and two, there's 34 lots left. Okay. Section three, they're just getting started. Section four, they haven't even built. So they have, I don't have the total number in front of me, but they have a substantial amount of lots. They're probably... 50 60 well can't we do it for two years and then have them come back for a renewal and just for a particular example at council last week council approved an extension to install the sidewalks for an additional year in section one and two so they now have until october 27 to get all the sidewalks in section two completed because they're They already got one one-year extension. They didn't get all the homes built within that first one year, or the second one year, now they're requesting the third.

And is this going to stay the original model home? They're not going to build out a different section and put some new ones? No, not. Okay, this is going to be it? This is the model home.

That's my understanding. They haven't mentioned any other model homes. Just using those. And it's only the one building, or two buildings. Syntax. Syntax.

I make a motion to agree to the special use permit to construct and maintain a temporary paved parking area on a residential zone lot located at 611 Ruby Bend Lane in the Montgomery Bend development And they will have to come back after two years. And they use it during business model viewing hours. Seems to be seven days a week. And per the plot plan, it is 18 feet by nine in the entrance. There's one entrance and there is a disabled parking spot along with three other parking spots.

And when you say two years, are you saying two years from today, two years from... Two years from city council's approval.

Lot number two, two years from city's approval.

in use for model home use only.

I'll second.

Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve to pass on the special use permit approval for temporary, to maintain a temporary paid parking lot located at 611 ruby band lane and montgomery band development that will be lot number two for a two-year period after city council approval and only be used the powers of the model home and seven days a week should we put in there no overnight parking Now, I don't know who would enforce that.

Yeah, but they may have a security guard.

They may.

If not, no.

We can add no overnight parking, if you'd like.

Keep everyone safe.

All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion has passed for approval of the special use permit to the City Council for the lot at 611 Ruby Bend Lane in the Montgomery Bend, Delaware. Okay. Item 13. Do you want to do your...

I was going to wait for items for future appendix, I think we... So 14 is where I would request, but more so, sorry, wrong item 13, Christian, I require it. Do we have a time, is City Hall still intended to be complete next summer? Is there a start date? It's still on schedule. Okay.

I mean, we haven't started construction yet.

I was wondering myself. Are we starting?

Yeah, it's getting close. They have to guarantee maximum price. Very close. We had some discussions on soil that's there. There's challenges in there, but I think we've got those addressed. Next council meeting on the 10th, 11th. Yeah, they'll be here to let some of the guys know what they're doing and they'll talk about the price and all of that.

Okay.

That's all I have.

Okay. And I would like to discuss a possible meeting date change from, what was it, October 6th, so everybody could go to the Faith and Blue at the Cedar Break Park. So if we can possibly agree on a date that week.

So I was curious, does this need to be on the future agenda item to officially move it, or can we discuss it? I think you can just do it. Okay, cool. The Thursday and the 8th would be a little bit better for me than the 7th.

What you're saying, the 8th would be better for you, Daniel? Yeah, the 7th, yes. Okay.

I'm good with the 8th.

You're good with that? Everybody good? Oh, yeah. Okay. So I guess we'd like to reset the planning and zoning meeting for October the 8th at 6 o'clock.

Are we voting? Second. Second. Are we just saying it? We're just saying it.

We'll make a proper notice.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'll make a motion for adjournment.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second for the adjournment of the August 4th Planted Zoidic Commission meeting. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion is carried. Meeting is adjourned at 734.

Have a good week. Rest of the week. I got all kinds of stuff. I got babies coming, kids coming.

I have too much work. I think we're good.

... ... ... ... I don't want to look at everything. Oh, yeah, that'd be great.