Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denial of 42‑foot light‑pole request for Project Theo tracts, cites missing packet details
Summary
Cibolo City’s Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4–3 to recommend denial of a request to increase light‑pole height from 35 to 42 feet for a 126‑acre tract tied to 'Project Theo,' saying the packet lacked a physical address, visuals and sufficient written information; staff said lumens and downlighting standards would remain unchanged.
The Cibolo City Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of a request to increase light‑pole height from 35 feet to 42 feet for a set of tracts (listed by legal description in the packet and described in the meeting as roughly 126 acres associated with “Project Theo”). Commissioners said the staff packet omitted a physical address and site visuals, which they said prevented responsible review; staff acknowledged the omission and said the legal description was provided in error and the physical address had been left out of the packet.
During the discussion staff clarified that the request was limited to the identified tract and was not a citywide change to the Unified Development Code. Staff also said increasing pole height would not change lumen limits, that light‑trespass standards would still apply, and that downlighting/shielding design requirements remain in force.
Several commissioners said they were inclined to support commercial development along the I‑10 corridor but remained concerned about the lack of site-specific information needed to judge residential or adjacent‑use impacts. One commissioner urged staff to include nearby examples in packets (the H‑E‑B, a Summit business park and an Amazon facility were mentioned in discussion) so commissioners could visualize how taller poles would look on site.
A commissioner moved to recommend denial of the height increase 'until we have complete notes of where the structures are at and a full description.' Another commissioner seconded. After a roll call the chair tallied four yes votes and three no votes; the motion to recommend denial carried and will be forwarded to city council as the commission’s formal recommendation. The chair said the recommendation was based on insufficient packet information, not necessarily on an objection to taller poles themselves.
The recommendation does not bind the city council. Staff said the item will go to council for final consideration and that engineering, lumen and shielding standards described in the UDC would still apply if the council approves any change.
