Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers present Monte Cristo subdivision; council presses on traffic, drainage and access
Summary
Developer representatives presented a proposed 14.997‑acre Monte Cristo subdivision in Cibolo's ETJ proposing 53 single‑family lots and voluntary annexation; council raised concerns about a single ingress/egress, drainage, setback and impervious‑cover deviations and asked the developer to work with staff — no action was taken.
Cibolo — Representatives for Monte Cristo described a proposed 14.997‑acre, single‑family development on Coy Lane in the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction and asked council to consider a development agreement that would include voluntary annexation and provision of sewer service.
The developers presented site and infrastructure details: roughly 53 single‑family lots, about 1.8–2 acres of platted open space, a central amenity park, and a claim of preserving existing trees on site. They said the proposal includes minimum lot dimensions near 6,500 sq ft (minimum requested in the development agreement), a range of lot frontages (minimum frontage cited at 58 feet with some lots up to 147 feet), and a requested maximum impervious cover of up to 65% (presenters stated their expected buildout is closer to 50%). The developer said Coventry Homes would be the homebuilder and that homes would include masonry exteriors and sprinklers as part of a proposed "fire safe community."
Council members pressed the developer on key topics: traffic and emergency access (the proposed plat has a single main entrance), stormwater and drainage in a neighborhood with known site‑specific flooding, possible over‑reliance on an increased impervious cover, private streets and the developer's request to waive a land study, and whether annexation and zoning would be deferred until the city updates its UDC. Several council members urged the developer to revisit ingress/egress options (including a future stub or emergency egress), reduce impervious cover or increase setbacks, and provide further traffic and drainage analysis.
City staff and the developer pledged to coordinate revisions and additional data. City staff noted the presentation did not include all materials originally expected in the packet and reminded the council there was no expectation of final approval that night.
Next steps: developer to coordinate with staff, consider council feedback on access, setbacks and impervious cover and return with updated materials before council takes action on a development agreement or annexation.
