Cibolo council debates Green Valley land‑use change for proposed 55+ community; motion to deny made

Council members on Feb. 10 heard a developer presentation and public testimony on a request to amend the City of Cibolo’s future land‑use map for two parcels at 4240 and 4270 Green Valley Road, a roughly 11.82‑acre site the applicant says would host a 248‑unit senior (55+) affordable community called Solera Commons.

The applicant’s representative, Carly Goss of Kittle Property Group, told the council the firm develops senior affordable housing and that the project would serve a local demand for lower‑cost senior units. “This would be a 248 unit affordable senior, 55 and up residential community on 11 acres at 4240, Green Valley Road,” Goss said during the presentation.

Staff described the formal request as an amendment to the city’s future land‑use map — from community residential (primarily single‑family) to compact residential (which allows multifamily) — and noted that, if approved, the applicant could then seek rezoning from SF‑2 to MF‑2. Planning staff cited the Texas Local Government Code section 211.004 and the city’s Unified Development Code (UDC) section 3.6 as the legal framework for amendments to the comprehensive plan.

Planning staff also told the council the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended denial at its Jan. 14 meeting, explaining that the commission did not find sufficient changes since the 2024 comprehensive‑plan adoption to justify an amendment. “They did not feel that since the comp plan and the future land use map were adopted in September 2024 that changes significant enough had changed within that area to actually justify the amendment to the FLUM,” staff said.

Residents who spoke during the public hearing expressed a mix of concerns. One speaker said the proposal would take away single‑family homes, worsen traffic near two nearby schools and strain water, sewer and road capacity; another property owner warned of potential legal claims if council action appeared arbitrary. Councilmembers questioned whether the council had evidence of an unmet need for 55+ units and flagged impacts on Green Valley Road and adjacent school traffic.

After discussion of the UDC criteria for map amendments and infrastructure capacity, Councilwoman Cunningham moved to deny the FLUM amendment, citing criterion 5 of UDC section 3.6(d) (whether circumstances have changed since the plan’s adoption). The motion was seconded. The transcript records the motion and second but does not record a final vote or roll‑call tally for the ordinance in the public record captured here.

Next procedural steps: the FLUM amendment was placed in the ordinance portion of the agenda and a motion to deny was moved and seconded; the final recorded vote on the ordinance is not present in the transcript excerpt provided.