Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Anybody out there that uh wants to speak during the uh public forum, if you have not filled one of these out, go ahead and fill them out. And that also pertains to the public hearing tonight for the two items. Uh if anybody wants to speak on those, they need to uh fill out one of these um forms so we get your name, everything correct. So, all right. Uh it is 6:00 p.m. August 5th, 2025. Uh calling this regular meeting of the planning zoning commission to order. Uh first order is pledge of allegiance. American 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. I pledge allegiance to thee Texas. One state under God, one and indivisible. Okay. [Music] All right. Uh, we'll move on to the public forum. Does anybody want to speak now or on when the item comes up? I guess we have a Stephen Pro. No. Where's he at?

Stephen Steen, did you Yeah. Did you want to speak now or during the Okay. My name is Mike Newman. I live 708. Carol Street HW is my favorite name. Mike's my name. My mother called me. So that's what I use. Uh I'm here about item 11. My neighbor will propose to build a uh 35 by uh 25

35 45 building on on the property line. My only com uh concern is that we are in historical district and there is an ordinance for that. they comply with that as far as visibility from the street and not any comments to people that have the stroke of which I have one but that's all I have to say let you all do your job. Thank you. Thank you. You have a question?

No, we can't. Okay. Uh anyone else? Okay, we'll move on to um the next items are for the commission here are uh consent agendas. Uh we like to take them speed things up. I'd like to take all three together if we can or if we can take them individually. Uh I'll read uh the three and then we can decide. Uh item number three, consideration of possible action on the PNZ regular meeting minutes of July 1st, 2025. Item four, consideration and possible action to cancel the second public hearing before the planning zoning uh commission regarding reszoning uh related to the 58.925 acre track one located in the Zachariah Land room survey abstract 22 submitted by the Lonear Cowboy Church. Um, DEV number 2407 and item five, consideration of possible action to cancel the second public hearing prior before the public before the planning and zoning commission regarding the resoning request related to 12.15 acres of the track of 2G John Connor survey abstract 8 submitted by PC. CS Capital LLC uh DEV number 2415.

I make a motion that we approve the all the items uh and it's approving the cancellation for the two second public hearings. I second. Okay. I have a motion and a second uh to approve all three items uh the journal uh meeting minutes and also the cancellation of the two public hearings. All in favor say I.

I oppose say no. Uh the majority has passes. Okay. Right now, uh, I need to adjourn the regular meeting at 6:05 p.m. and go into public hearing. Um, these are two, um, you're going to do one by one.

Yeah, one by one. Um, uh, P commission will uh receive comments from the public on the broad list of items. Speakers will be limited to three minutes each. Persons wishing to participate to speak during the public hearing portion of the meeting. Uh we don't uh I don't think we have any but they needed to sign in prior to the to speaking. Uh item number six uh convene into public hearing on the preliminary report for reszoning requests submitted by Lonear Cowboy Church. uh DEV number 2407 related to 58.952 acre track located in the Zachariah Landram survey abstract 22 currently zoned within a mix of R1 single family residential and B commercial and I industrial

institutional I mean institutional No discussion. Okay. Uh we will then move on to

uh close we will close item number six and move on to item seven convene into public carry on the preliminary report for reasonzoning request submitted by BCS Capital LLC DEV number 2415 related to the 12.15 acres of track 2G. John Connor survey abstract A currently zone PH plan development and C commercial any comments? Okay. Uh we will close item number seven. It is now 6:07. We will leave the public hearing portion and return to the general agenda for tonight. Item number eight, uh, consideration of possible action on the preliminary report for reasonzone request submitted by Lonear Cowboy Church, DEEV number 2407, related to the Fi 58.952 acre track located in the Zachariah Landon Survey, abstract 22, currently zoned within the mix of R1 single family, residential commercial and I institutional.

Good evening, commission. My name is Zachary Tones. I work uh with WGA as a city engineer. Uh and this item in front of you all is a uh request for reszoning for the affforementioned Lonear Calary Church. If you remember on last month's PNZ agenda, we discussed this item. Um, as stated, this just papers up the resoning application for our development for Lonear Cowboy Church. As previously mentioned, it is currently zoned commercial, institutional, and residential. Um, if you look on page 26 of your packet, you will see the current zoning layout for development. If you look on the following page, page 27, you'll see the requested reszone uh configuration with majority of the property being zoned institutional and a portion of the property remaining commercial that is a portion along the furnish uh adjacent to state highway 105. The proposed improvements are all located within the area that is owned or will is being proposed to be resoneed as institutional. Uh the church is proposing a new building and additional parking for the set building. So this what this resoning allows us to do is essentially paper up their development. We're currently concurrently working with them on a development plan again to kind of outline what is zoned as to what um and existing features on the site as well as their civil plans that show what's being proposed within the site. And so this allowed us to review one set of regulations for their zoning as well as favoring up their development plan. Um so we have that on any questions really we kind of went through last month. Uh I think it's pretty straightforward. So I'll make a motion that we recommend approval. Let me get back to the

recommend approval uh of the preliminary report uh sorry recommend approval for the reasoning request submitted by Lonear Cowboy Church development number 2407 related to the 58.952 acre track located in the Zacharas Landum survey abstract 22 currently zoned with within a mix of R1 single family residential B commercial and I institutional to I institutional and be commercial.

I second. Okay, we have a motion and a second um for the uh reszoning of the area for the Lone Slower Cowboy Church uh development number 2407. Um so whereit I lost my spot here. Sorry. So it's all going it's all going to in institutional correct accommodation accommodation of the three. All in favor say I.

All oppose. No. Uh motion passes.

Uh item number nine consideration possible action on a preliminary report for reszoning quest submitted by BCS Capital LLC. Development number 2415 related to the 12.15 acre track of 2G John Connor survey abstract a currently zoned plan development and com uh C commercial again uh very similar to the last item this is a resoning application for a proposed multif family development that's going on in the city this is for property that is located at the essential intersections of CV Stewart Buffalo Springs and an intersection of two on 105. Uh this is the portion on the northern side of that property. Um so if you look on pages 34 and 35 of your packet, you'll see the existing and proposed uh development uh zoning layout. I've handed out a exhibit front yard which shows a small change to that proposed layout. Essentially what the developer is wanting is to decrease the amount of multif family um from what was previously proposed as 12 acres to approximately 11 acres. So cutting off a acre of multif family and moving that back to commercial. This doesn't do anything as far as um the notification requirements. It honestly shrinks who has to be notified in the event of a reasonzoning. So nothing as far as a legal standpoint uh is impacted by this change. We have confirmed that with y'all's legal attorney. Um and they are on in agreement as to what is being required for this. Now what is currently zone is plan development. Plan development does with the plan development agreement that you have with the property owner. Previous property owner did allow for multif family within this area. But there is a portion that is again commercial which isn't allowed

for multif family. So what district zoning does is again paper it up to allow you against one set of regulations for zoning for their multi multif family component.

What's the water usage delta from commercial to multif family? So we have projected projected. So we have and this is in a later item on ECS feasibility. We have well rejected usages in that green bar study just like I'm just curious the rule of thumb that we would use without any sorry rule of thumb that we use without having any details on track would be the difference between 3,000 gallons and 5,000 gallons. So 2,000galon delta more on multi multi. Okay.

But in this case you know given there we have an overall site. So in the dial You have any questions for me?

No. Give me a second. I make a motion uh that we recommend approval for the reasoning request submitted by BCS Capital LLC development number 2415 related to the 12.15 uh acres of the track 2D 2G John Corner survey abstract A currently zoned PD plan development C commercial and uh and multif family R2

R2 One correction, the acreage is what's in front of you on the paper. So it's the 11 1104. So the initial request was for the 12, but what the recommendation is just approving the 11.04 that's in front of you, the revised reduced size. Okay. Do you do you need me to re I can I'll reset it. Yes, please do. Yep. Uh, that motion dies. Is that a second?

I'll make I'll make a motion that we approve uh that we recommend approval for the reasoning request submitted by BCS Capital LLC development number 2415 related to the 11.84 884 084 acres of the track 2G John corner survey abstract 8 curly zone PD plan development and C commercial to multif family.

I second. All right, we have a motion and a second for the um approval of the final report and uh to pass on the city council um for the preliminary report of the resoning submitted u by BCS Capital LLC number development number 2415 weighted to the 11084 acres of track 2G John Connor survey A abstract currently zoned PD plane development and C commercial to multifamily. Correct. All in favor say I.

I. Opposed? No. Motion passes. Thank you. Item number 10, consideration of possible action regarding a request for special use permit for a restaurant with drive-thru service. Legal description 31.97 acre track of land situated in the J. Connor survey abstract number eight of McGomery County, Texas.

Good evening, commission members. This is in reference to the new ATV grocery store uh that's off of 2854 and Highway 105 street. It is sold to be commercial and as you know grocery store and restaurant are approved for permitted uses in the commercial zoning district. And again we're back to the idea of the drive-thru service which is an accessory use to the restaurant. The restaurant's going to be located in the main HB building. So it isn't a separate um

building to to the main building, but they are going to have a drive-through service for that restaurant. So, we're going through this as an accessory use. And when you start looking at the effects on the comprehensive plan and the character and development of the neighborhood, you'll take a look at the plan that's on page 43. You'll see where the drive-thru is located. So, it's far from Highway 105 or 2854, any type of stacking, um, any type of pedestrians walking in the area. They uh place the parking and it looks like they it looks fairly safe on the plants as they're proposing for the location of the drive-thru. So I would recommend approval because they would meet those those requirements.

I know they have to work with text. Have they provided any I guess feedback on traffic impact anything like that? I know it's mentioned in the in the um in the item but I'm just curious on what feedback we've heard on that. Yes. So they have submitted to text doc traffic impact analysis and received no objection from text with their proposed approval. So they're adding turn lanes off of 105 and 2854. Okay. For entry to this site.

Okay. I question I didn't see the um the plan. Does HB also have a pharmacy? Will that be a drive-thru as well? And where would that be in relation? Actually, we asked about that in the pharmacy. They're delivering it out like the the groceries. It gets delivered out to their vehicle, not at a drive like pickup cur. Interesting. [Music]

This seems much safer than what we've looked at in the past with similar uh special use permits. uh with similar uh topics. So, with that being said, and I do believe it fits our uh future plans and it fits the the desire for growth inside of Montgomery, I recommend I make a motion that we recommend approval to the city council uh for the request of a special use permit for restaurant with accessory drive-through service located at the proposed new HB grocery store. Got a motion. Second.

A motion and second for the approval of the special use permit for the restaurant drive-thru at the new HB uh store. All in favor say I. I oppose. No. Motion passes. Item number 11, consideration possible action on propose to construct a new uh accessory structure 30 by 45 ft in the rear yard of the property located 706 Caroline Street.

This is a property located at 1706 Caroline Street that is located in the residential zoning district and the historic preservation district. The property owner is in the audience here available for you if you have any questions. He's proposing to construct a new 35x45 accessory structure in the rear yard. If you look at the site plan, it isn't actually drawn to scale, but uh he is proposing 10 foot sideyard setback and a 10 foot rear rear yard setback. Currently, there is an existing um smaller shed back there. I think it's 10 by 10 and he'll just relocate that and put this 30x 45 structure in its place. Um I went through the findings regarding the building placement. It is going to be located in the rear yard in the interior sideyard. Um for the form and treatment uh the walls and the roofing material. This is where we kind of come up with the issue that it is a metal building. Uh, according to our historic guidelines, a metal building is actually can be approved as long as um it's completely screened from view from any budding street or private property. So, the metal structure itself is isn't prohibited, but because of its view from the neighboring properties of the street, you'll see that I took pictures of the location there. um the neighboring property with the white picket fence would be able to see it. The white picket fence is about 4 feet and then from the street in the front um you would be able to see it and but it is set back pretty far back probably about 100 ft from the the actual street

there. So as it is right now, actually today I received approach from the property owner a color sample of the structure. And that paint color isn't actual paint that he'll paint on there. The metal building will actually and be constructed that way. Have you sent out a neighborhood letter to the surrounding neighbors?

It isn't so nearby neighbors. Is this is this a building much taller than the I know the other one's smaller footprint, but is it just the same height? No, it will actually be 13 ft. So even with a 6 foot high wood fence, you would still see a portion of that. Can you see all the elevations that I color of the building? If you look at the photos of the existing single family building, look, it's very similar to the color of the single family. And he is proposing a similar color of the roof for the for the structure, same color as the res. Um, what type of a metal panel is this? Is it an R panel? A U pan? What type? It looks an R panel.

Yeah, it's it's an R panel building. A sheet panel. Yeah. I just it just the representational look more like a It's red. Yeah, it's ribbed. Yeah. a wooden structure and the uh metal cladding on it and it allow me to clean up the backyard and get trailers and stuff. Would you consider wooden siding like your house?

Um that'd be much easier to prove and it would fit much more historical nature of downtown. Well, I shame contractor didn't say that. But I mean it's not the the the the structural part of it is wood. Correct.

Okay. Yeah. I mean that's I don't know uh my feeling about being in right in town right in the middle of the historical district is the the the metal panel building. It's very far in the back of the building and you really have to look to see it in the back of the property. I'm just concerned about their property's 27t. So it's virtually right in the middle of the historic district. Yeah, you got historic houses behind it, front of it, side it.

But I'm not a historic house. But you're still district. Yeah. And that's the, you know, my concern is the two back neighbors are going to be right up against back.

They already have structure back here. It's just basically a try instruction. [Music] But the problem you we there we do have to go by the historical guidelines of the of that historical downtown area. Um so you're saying basically a wood wooden clad exterior.

Yes sir. Yes sir. I think that would fit a metal roof. Well I would try to match your home as close as possible and get down to the picture. Colorwise, you're pretty close. I don't know where that's going. Colorwise, it was close. I like the color. I'm not opposed to that. It's more the size shape of the house. Mhm. I'm not opposed to metal roof. If you could try to get too close to the same color of your shingles. That's my opinion. Yeah. I mean, I know metal metal roof.

I know. and we've approved the white metal panels uh in the historical cuz it's so low slope it's really not that noticeable. Y if you don't mind stepping if I may the neighbor behind us behind him be on the north side does have metal roof on his home. Okay. So if they were in compliance with that type of metal home probably fit your guidelines. Yeah. Uh I I don't think there's anything in there about the roof. It's more the the siding. Correct. Yes.

And uh so that that's more I think where we really need to dial in some sort of wood sighting uh ideally similar to what you have on your home. And I think that would make that'd be an improvement to downtown historical the historical district. Can he do the Can he do vertical laps batten? Batten like pictured in the picture sort of like that. Your house has probably got the old shiplap on it. Mhm. Which if they Yeah. I think any wood sighting would look in in my opinion any wood sighting would look historical nature.

I think any wood sighting would look historical nature would fit the historical nature and fit the guidelines. painted house. Yes. Yeah. Y but your metal white panel or the white color panel roof would be fine because we have approved that in the in in the past so far back in the back. I don't think it' be a max. Well, the the problem is we do one way far in the back, then we got to do another way far in the back or up closer. So, it's we're kind of

or one tree falls down and it's visible from the street. Yeah. So, yes, m comment is I don't want to shoot this project down. I do want to fit in with the neighborhood. So, but I do have hard sighting on my garage. Mhm. Uh behind uh that home uh blends in real well and it's you know can be checked out. Mhm. I think there's u but it was built before his right was passed right. No any of the hardy sightings cuz we have approved on some of the new homes being built

on the church too. Correct. Correct. If you chose that, it would be a long longerlasting and better painting, right?

Just to clarify, are you asking to come back to plan that shows? Yeah. Yes. And and then just clarify with the approval of the the metal roof because we've done it in the past. Does it could have been an exception or is that something that's allowed to find out? We're going to end on the answer right now. But we we can find out. Yeah. Can we find out more on the review guidelines? Yes.

Prior whenever it comes back. Um so I'll make a motion just to clear it up. So, I'll make a motion that we decline as submitted uh the request for the accessory structure, but we request uh revised drawings showing uh siding that's fits more the historical nature of the historical district, specifically wood siding painted to match your home as close as possible. So, we're going to just uh just kind of table this and have him come back with new

My recommendation would be to not do that, but to do just take no action. So he revisions and come back because if you make the recommendation to deny then it goes to council for recommendation to deny and you're not finished with this piece of it. So my recommendation would be to take no action. So you have an opportunity to come back this this one. No this one. All right. Okay. All right. Do we this? No action or if you want a second. We can go that route. Okay. We got a motion to um to no action. For no action.

Yeah. I'm going to no action. Okay. We have a motion and we'll just go no action. No action.

Okay. Item number 12, consideration possible action by the planning and zoning commission on the partial reply of Hills of Town Creek section 5 development number 2406.

Hello again, Commissioner. Um, so this is a partial reflex for the Hills of Town Creek subdivision. Um, just to kind of get you up to speed as to where this is, this property or development has already been platted back in November of 2024. Um and they've already done construction on homes, completed construction on all their public utilities, roads, um uh water, sanitary lines in the subdivision. This is a replat to essentially uh reconfigure lots 28 and 27 which are shown on page 61 packets um to allow for a shared use access path between those two lots. and you will see the re uh reconfiguring blocks one and two on page 62 of y's packet. Again, this uh essentially just outlines uh the reconfiguration of that to allow for that shared use path to a park playground that is in the back of those two lots um to allow for the community to access those from within the subdivision as opposed to walking around on Parkway. A couple of notes. Um, they do have variances on the subdivision. Um, existingly back in 20 or December of 21, uh, they had approved 5 yard setbacks and 120 lot depth uh, with a minimum area of 5,500 square ft. And back in March of this year, March 2025, they uh requested a revision to their front yard uh line to be from 75 ft to 45T. The revised plat does adhere to all of these variances is their minimum requirements for depth, area, and width.

Okay, I'll make a motion. This goes to council. So, I'll make a motion that we recommend approval of the uh partial roof plat of the four hills of Town Creek section 5 division number 2406 development number. I second that. Okay, we have a motion and a second uh for the approval of the partial replat um uh Hills of Town Creek section 5 development number 2406. All in favor say I.

I opposed. No. Uh motion passes. Okay. Final item, consideration of possible action and request to modify the regular schedule planning and zoning commission meeting on Tuesday, October 7th, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to 13. What I do number 13 discussion the feasibility study for PCS.

Oh, I'm sorry. I got ahead of myself. Um number 13, discussion on the util utility and economic facility study amended for the BCS capital development uh project development number 2415.

Hello again. Um this is an amendment to the previously uh accepted uh feasibility study for the BCS capital uh development again between CV Stewart Springs and 105. Um this amendment essentially takes their previously considered 32 acre developments to 39 acres. They as a developer purchased the property that is on the heart of CB Stewart in 105 essentially adding 6 acres this feasibility study. This outlines the changes from the 32 acres to the now 39 acres. So I'll hit uh the high points. Um, looking at your water production, the previous study showed that they were requesting approximately requesting 72,000 gallons per day. This has gone up to approximately 89,000 gallons per day. Uh, so a difference of about 17,000 uh between what was previously considered and what's being considered now. The San Marin um is now currently considering 74,000 gallons whereas considering 60,000 per day. Um, so that equates to about $14,000 or 14,000 gallon difference. Um, and if you just to jump ahead to kind of show some of those projections, if you look on pages 78 and 79, if you all pack it, you'll see our projections um going out to 2030. These are updated essentially every time we get uh monthly t reports from y'all's operator and whenever we get uh development within the city. And so we update these fairly regularly. You won't notice a large change from what was previously considered in your 32 acres because they just added 16,000 gallons and 17,000 gallons for their water and sewer demands. Um but you will notice it seems very startling that our

solid blue line is our capacity for both water and sewer and the dashed lines are our different uh options as to what we believe is going to be coming within the next few years. So they essentially outline as your red dash are ready to connect. So essentially all developments that have executed development agreements uh public infrastructure and there's waiting on connection from the developer uh your blue uh which is your line B is in design or construction uh with an agreement. So they haven't completed design or construction. They are in the process of doing so uh but they are moving towards it in design or in feasibility uh without agreement. So essentially uh all developments that are within our feasibility stage um that don't have an executed development agreement and ECS would be an example of that which is where their numbers are currently going within this uh projection charts. The next one will be your um anticipated incity development. This is essentially just what we're looking at within city limits that don't have any assigned uh timing for development or use within the city. everything will begin within the city. So, kind of going back to the report, next high point would be your traffic. So, with the addition of the six acres, they now have the entire branch of 105 from again Stewart to Buffalo Springs. With this, we are requiring them as a developer to um make improvements to Buffalo Springs as well as fund a geotechnical analysis and uh TIA traffic impact analysis to determine what additional improvements are required to CB Stewart um on the portion of the six acres that they're adjacent to as well as the Buffalo Springs portion from essentially where Home Depot left off to that intersection of C Stewart and

Buffalo Springs. Next high point would be cost. So essentially nothing has changed as far as what's being required from a utility side. The Olympic utilities as outlined in your attachments on page 73 and 74 outline the required I'm sorry 74 and 75 outline the required water and sanitary improvements. water being along the frontage of CB along the frontage of 105 between CV Stewart and Buffalo Springs. An extension from where Home Depot left off essentially at the uh southern or northern boundary of their property all the way up to OneStar Parkway. This would close a Wan to allow for better flow within the city. Um especially with some of these high end users on this side of the city, we want to make sure that we're providing enough uh pressure in the event of fire or any type of high demand. uh users. And then for the sanitary sewer portion, again along uh 105 between CB Stewart and Buffalo Springs, closing that loop and eliminating station number 12 and the road improvements are on page 73. This is a general conceptional look as to what may be uh requested by the CIA and geotechnical report. This is not concrete yet uh for lack of a better word as to what is required for their approvals. Additionally, uh in the packet you'll see on pages 71 and 72 a layout of what they're proposing for their entire 39 acres. On page 71, you will see the overall

development. And on page 72, you'll see their multif family component. Again, these are their current layouts. They are subject to change, but the general consensus of what's being proposed is that it wouldn't affect our overall usages as what they're um requesting for on the utility maps. I just want to make sure I understand it. So, there's a few different colors there. The utilities that are uh outlined in green were already agreed to in the previous uh feasibility not agreed to but uh not amended. The ones in red and yellow are those new or additional agreements.

So these uh outline essentially what's being required by separate parties. So the green outlines what's being required by BCS capital. The red that you see along CB Stewart in front of the Church of Montgomery is what's being required by them as a part of their development, which again it's a separate item. And then the portion in yellow is what's going to be done by the city just again to kind of close that loop. We figured if we can get all this done in one project, it' be cheaper on everybody. So if we can get it done, we would love to. Um that's how it's being outlined in the water in the sanitary. Um my PDF is a little buggy right now, but all the sanitary options within that are being uh are going to be required by BCS capital.

I guess what can be done to accelerate supply available supply on the water usage?

So we are actively in the works on a couple different projects. uh your 1.2 improvements which is adding a new well uh which is rated for 500 GPU is slated to be substantially at the end of this month currently in design with a sub consultant for your water plant for improvements project uh that is again currently designed this will be located on the west side of town uh on old plantersville and old plantersville and then you're also currently fitting one of my number three improvements which adds for another uh pump at the facility so We are aware of the constraints that we're currently working against and we're actively working for those as well as the sanitary sewer plant. We are currently in design for the town creek waste merchant fun expansion which will take it from.125 to.3 and then ultimate phase of 6 and then we're also permitting for Steuart Creek which is on five to bring that up from to add a ultimate phase of 8. So as far as speed the what we're the you know the plan improvements that have been on the plan for 10 years the timing of those are all getting so what we're what council's currently going through is impact the updates so planning zoning you all heard that we're going through that process to help with the funding of those improvements uh to expedite and we're working with all of the so you have a one engineer firm we're working with whisper plant and an engineer firm water plant. We're working on some of the smaller improvements projects and working with all of them to extract the timelines uh to be the delivery of these projects as soon as we can. But good thing is is that with water for a grants permitting is already completed. So the long story groundwater conservation permit not particularly as a holdup requires a hydro geological analysis that was

completed and has was obtained last year uh in anticipation. The wastewater permit for the plant that's under design and we received approval on that last month. So that permit is in place. That's been taking anywhere from 18 to 20 months depending on the TCQ's timeline. Um and then the next phase so that that permit counts for the part that's in design at the concrete plant as well as the next phase of that plant which will double its capacity again and then the this will be the third phase of expansion on the wastewater side. That's the permit that's in the works now that permit. So, a lot of things in the in in the works. U city administrator is very active in looking at grant opportunities and what is out there for funding and uh just continual discussion because right now it's it's the the funding timing development game.

Exactly. And one thing that you know we when we talked about the impact fees that we've seen is a slight slowdown in home sales. So, which you know hurts in terms of development and valuation timing of infrastructure is close things out but it's it's tight is tightly going to get projections are are intended to be conservative naturally conservative is I mean yeah some of these are beyond conservative oh not beyond conservative like or beyond the uh well beyond the capabilities

yeah the wastewater treatment. I would say we're we're safe for the most part. Um it it's just the the water. And on the water, you know, side, one thing that's that's important about how these capacities are looked at is based off of a an average day, which takes out a two and a half time 2.4 time eating factor.

So from a you know actual production standpoint to a you know um when that line is hit, that doesn't mean the plant is running 24 hours a day and can't keep up. That means the plant's running 10 hours a day. Again, not that we want to go there. We want to keep it at that that average flow times. We're also talking about other interacts and things like that to help us in the event. We've been past years a service. Perfect. I only have one other question. Uh, this is not related to utilities on the, uh, road improvements. Just out of curiosity, is the roundabout only pending the TIA or is that planned no matter what? At uh, CB Stewart and Buffalo Springs.

So, it's more it'll be intersection improvements at CB Stewart, Buffalo Springs. Final side of that. So, the the intent here is the, as you know, soils are period. Yes.

So, when We we took the initial from the last set of boards in order to do asphalt road. I think it was 6 in stabilized 11 in of gravel and then asphalt in order to to you know so concrete is turning out to be cheaper. The whole point of this is um we get the geotech analysis get the recommendation on what makes the most what is the most economical way. Same with the traffic impact analysis on what all improvements are needed and then see how it fits in the overall scope. uh you know it's been a kind of part on the city's lit idea that this is a roundabout. However, intersection improvements in general will be included. It'll get repaved if it gets expanded out to roundabout. Let's see how the full scope.

Okay, that's all I had. No action on this one. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Now we can move on to number 14. uh consideration possible action on the request to modify the regularly scheduled planning and zoning commission meeting on Tuesday the 7th October 7th 2025 at 6:00 p.m. to Wednesday October 8th 2025 at 6 p.m. Evening again, commissioners. The reason for this request is that staff is asking for this one day change. It's typically national health, but here at the city of Montgomery, it's faith in blue on October 7th and I'm an active participant in that in that event and during that event. So hoping to be able to delay one delay the I know I can make

I know I can make good. No problem. Then I recommend I'll make a motion that we recommend approval uh to reschedule the Tuesday, October 7th, 2025 meeting to Wednesday, October 8th, 2025 at 6 p.m. And this is the planning and zoning commission meeting. Second. I have a motion and second to reschedule the plan and zoning uh committee meeting of this uh Tuesday, October 7th, 2025, 6:00 p.m. to Wednesday, October 8th, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. All in favor?

I oppose? No. Motion passes. All right. Uh any might have any commission inquiries? Mhm. Anything for future agendas? No. All righty. I'll wait for a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion we adjourn. Have a second. Second.

Motion is second. It is uh 6 6:54 uh mo uh planning zoning commission meeting is adjourned. I don't want to