Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Variance Fm1097 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission recommends variance to allow fence and limited landscaping in floodplain at FM 1097 plaza

Montgomery Planning & Zoning Commission · April 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Developers of the FM 1097 retail plaza asked to substitute a fence for mandated tree plantings in the 25‑ft vegetative setback and to count landscaping in a portion of the 100‑year floodplain toward minimum landscaping. Staff described tight site constraints and utility easements; the commission voted to recommend the variances to city council.

The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended Montgomery City Council approve variances for the FM 1097 retail plaza (Dev. 255) that allow a fence in lieu of both fence and vegetation within the 25‑foot vegetative setback and permit some landscaping within the 100‑year floodplain to count toward the development’s minimum landscaping requirement.

Staff and the landscape architect said the site is tightly constrained by a 30‑foot drainage and utility easement and a retaining wall at the rear of the property. The developers propose a wood fence mounted on a concrete retaining wall at the back of the lot, with the lower portion of the wall preventing contact between the fence and conveyance flows. Because portions of the required 25‑ft landscaping fall inside that utility easement and floodplain, the applicant asked the commission to accept a fence and limited plantings on site rather than both a fence and the full complement of trees and shrubs in the setback.

Staff explained that planting inside a floodplain raises conveyance and maintenance concerns but that the proposed tree is on private property and any landscaping removed for future maintenance would be re‑planted by the developer. The commission considered erosion and future maintenance access for utilities; staff noted the developer will be responsible for replanting if maintenance requires removal. Commissioners ultimately moved and voted to recommend the variances to city council for final action.