Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies developer's revised Church Mountain proposal after months-long impasse
Summary
Council rejected WBW's revised terms for the Church Mountain development after staff and council concluded the company sought to shift roughly $950,000 of previously negotiated obligations to the city, raising concerns about traffic mitigation, right-of-way costs and long-term maintenance burdens.
City Council on July 21 denied the developer's current proposal to alter a previously negotiated development and annexation agreement for the Church Mountain project, a roughly 310-acre site in the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction.
City staff told the council the developer's revisions would reduce the developer's commitment to build a 90-foot minor arterial and instead offer a 60-foot major collector plus right-of-way dedication. Scott Osborne, assistant city manager and director of public works, said the change and the developer's refusal to assume the same proportion of mitigation costs degraded the city's earlier December 2025 deal by about $950,000 based on updated cost opinions. "Based on this shift of obligations or the proposed shift on obligations, city staff cannot support these changes," Osborne said.
The city engineer provided staff cost estimates that differ from the developer's analysis. Lee Hamm estimated development impact costs at about $1,307,000 and noted potential right-of-way acquisition for an external roundabout could add roughly $600,000. Osborne and staff said the traffic-impact analysis (TIA) originally required mitigation consistent with TxDOT standards and that the TIA must quantify the developer's proportionate share for the three key intersections identified in the study.
WBW representative Travis Wydis told council his fiscal analysis showed an annual net revenue benefit to the city under certain assumptions and that WBW would dedicate right-of-way for the arterial. "We will dedicate the right of way for the minor arterial," Wydis said, while arguing the subdivision would not financially sustain construction of the full minor arterial up front. He said developers needed flexibility for the project to be economically viable.
Council members pressed both sides on assumptions in the TIA and fiscal models, the fairness of shifting long-term roadway costs to taxpayers, and the potential impacts to schools and traffic. Councilman Del Treadway, who moved to deny the developer's current proposal, said the city faced future costs for roads and related infrastructure if commitments were reduced. The motion to deny the developer's revised proposal passed on a roll call vote.
The denial does not preclude further negotiations; staff and council signaled they expect continued discussions but said the city cannot accept a material rollback of previously agreed public infrastructure obligations without clear funding and mitigation guarantees.
