Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies land study for Neal Tract, cites inconsistent engineering and missing parkland details
Summary
The commission recommended denial of the Neal Tract land study (approx. 67.589 acres) after staff and the city engineer found the submission used single‑family engineering assumptions while the land study proposed multifamily units, and failed to document required parkland dedication and easements.
The Cibolo Planning and Zoning Commission on March 12 recommended denial of the Neal Tract land study, a 67.589‑acre proposed subdivision in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction that the applicant presented as a four‑phase, 337‑unit multifamily development. Staff and the city engineer flagged multiple technical inconsistencies and missing documentation.
In staff’s presentation the commission was told the engineering design report and feasibility studies accompanying the land study were still configured for single‑family detached development (351 EDUs) rather than multi‑family development as the land study described. Staff also said the land‑study maps did not clearly depict where the required 8% parkland dedication would be located; city rules require parkland dedications and the applicant’s submission did not show how the minimum 5.4 acres (8% of 67.589 acres) was being met.
Staff recommended denial, noting outstanding comments related to easement locations, water and wastewater feasibility studies tied to the correct unit counts, and a lack of plan detail tying parkland commitment to a specific parcel(s). The commission discussed whether the developer had simply reused prior single‑family materials without updating calculations and maps for the proposed multifamily plan.
Commissioners said this submittal contains fundamental inconsistencies that prevented review and made it difficult to determine whether infrastructure, drainage and parkland requirements would be satisfied. "Until they make those adjustments, we just can't verify that the information is accurate," staff advised the commission.
After discussion the commission voted to recommend denial of the land study. The commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to city council; the applicant may resubmit corrected materials addressing the engineering report, parkland location, and easement documentation.
Next steps for the applicant, as noted by staff, include updating the engineering design report to reflect multifamily EDU counts, mapping the parkland dedication on the land‑study exhibit and addressing city‑engineer comments on drainage and utilities. The denial is procedural—the developer retains the option to revise and refile a compliant submittal for future review.
