Residents raise flood and traffic concerns as council reopens public hearing for 112-acre planned development

The City Council reopened a public hearing on July 14 about a conceptual plan for a proposed 112.88-acre planned development (property ID 135022), formerly called Country Trails. Developers and their consultants presented a revised plan that added a mix of larger lots (approximately 10,000 square feet) and smaller 7,200-square-foot lots, and reduced the commercial set-aside in response to prior feedback. Planning staff said water and wastewater infrastructure were the principal constraints for development. Officials explained that wastewater lines in the area would need upsizing and that the Spring Valley lift station would require rebuilding; staff and the developer said those off-site and upsize costs were significant and the developer was not offering to fully absorb that cost. Walker Partners and the developer reported they had explored package-treatment-plant alternatives and that GrantWorks was pursuing potential wastewater grants and Texas Water Development Board financing options. Three residents who live in or near the affected watershed spoke during the public hearing and raised substantive concerns about flood risk, detention-pond siting and downstream effects. One resident, Connie Smallready, said past site surveys had damaged crops and stressed that surface-water flow paths and existing waterways must be respected; she urged a slower pace of development until infrastructure capacity is confirmed. Another resident, Sheila Hain, expressed worry that engineered detention solutions have not proven effective locally (she cited standing water in other engineered sites) and asked that any traffic study be conducted while school is in session so counts reflect peak use. A third resident, who identified himself as Mr. Herritt and who farmed the land in earlier years, described historical drainage and terracing practices, noted prior flooding events and asked council to consider changed conditions since earlier studies. Developers said the plan on the table is a conceptual, pre-engineered layout and emphasized it will be subject to updated drainage and traffic-impact analyses. They presented market analysis from the homebuilder StyleCraft showing demand for both median-priced homes on smaller lots and a secondary ‘move-up’ segment for larger lots; the developers proposed a mix of lot sizes (approximately 70% smaller lots, 30% larger) to meet market demand while providing frontage of larger homes along major roadways. Planning staff closed the hearing after public comment and brought the conceptual application back to council for discussion. Council did not take a final zoning or plan approval vote at the meeting; developers requested continued collaboration and indicated build-out would depend on wastewater solutions, engineering approvals and market absorption.