City Council caves to NIMBYs

The Kyle City Council, with explanations that, for the most part, if they are to be believed would bring all development in the city to a screeching halt, voted 5-1 last night to deny a request for a townhouse development located only a half a mile from City Hall.

Council member Shane Arabie was the only council member to vote in favor of the zoning request, although Mayor Todd Webster, whose explanation for opposing the measure was the only one that made any sense, seemed to vote no quite reluctantly. When his name was called during the roll call vote, he sat silently for a relatively long time before voting "nay" in way that made his vote sound more like that last name of this comedian whom I remember from the old Steve Allen Sunday night television show. Council member Daphne Tenorio did not attend last night’s meeting.

But, at least, Mayor Webster’s opposition seemed to make some sense. He voiced concern over the cost that would need to be borne by the city to upgrade what are now comparatively narrow streets near the site — specifically Cockerham, and possibly even Live Oak and Porter streets — upgrades that would be required to handle the traffic from the development that could potentially have been the site of 150 townhomes.

Here’s the rub, however. Without any zoning changes whatsoever, at least 90 single family homes could be located on the property and Planning Director Howard Koontz cited studies that proved that single family residences generate three times as many car trips as townhomes do. In addition, the parcel of land south of the property in question last night is already zoned for townhomes so they could be built there without needing any new zoning requests and that property is a lot closer to Cockerham and Porter streets than the ones under discussion last night.

Webster seemed to realize this and it was this dilemma, I am convinced, that resulted in his hesitancy in announcing his vote.

The other reasons given by council members, however, bordered on the goofy, none more than the one offered during the debate by council member Damon Fogley who said he opposed the rezoning because he didn’t want to add any more residential areas to the city’s tax rolls when homeowners currently bear the major burden of city property taxes. Perhaps he simply didn’t grasp that the lots already had residential zoning attached to them and the question before the council was simply whether to change the type of residential zoning. But, to be honest, I think that was Fogley’s excuse for casting a no vote, not his reason. The proof of that will come the next time a big developer comes along with a project to develop a major subdivision on land presently zoned agricultural. I’m betting Fogley will be tugging at his leash to approve it even if it will be far less sustainable than the issue on the table last night.

Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson along with council members Diane Hervol and Becky Selbera did not voice a reason for voting against the measure during the debate, so I had to approach them for their reasons at the conclusion on the council’s meeting. By that time, Selbera had bailed, but Hervol told me she opposed the development because "of the effects it will have on our wastewater, flood control and roads. The effect it’s going to have on our wastewater plant is very crucial." That’s possibly very well true, but it is also true for every single new development that plans to come to the city of Kyle. New developments inherently will have an effect "on our wastewater, flood control and roads." So, if she really believes what she was telling me, she will want all development in the city to stop. So, just to clarify, I asked her specifically if it was only the cost of needed infrastructure improvements in the immediate area that concerned her, She replied: "We’re already well on our way to improving the wastewater treatment plant, but the impact (of this development) concerns me." Again, it will be interesting to see if she voices similar concerns for any other proposed new developments within the city limits.

Wilson said he voted against because of "infrastructure in that area and safety. We don’t have the infrastructure to handle it and we already have people from new subdivisions cutting through on those roads." But, as mentioned earlier, development could proceed on the property without any zoning changes that would precipitate far more traffic.

Let’s be honest here. The only reason this zoning wasn’t approved was because the council withered in the face of the vocal opposition of a few selfish NIMBY residents of an adjacent subdivision who are opposed to any change and are hoping this piece of property in downtown Kyle will stay undeveloped forever. The problem is so few people vote in Kyle city elections, a small handful of irate, self-centered residents such as these could possibly tip an election and that scares the bejeezus out of these entrenched power-mad politicians who desperately want to hang on to their fiefdoms.

Arabie wisely recognized this fact when he said the residents of the Silverado subdivision may rue the day they opposed this development when they suddenly find themselves rubbing shoulders with a big warehouse development on the property that could have contained some nice, attractive townhomes.

The applicant himself, whose name I failed to capture, was stunned by the outcome. The opposition from the NIMBYs was just as loud — perhaps even louder — at the most recent Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, yet those commissioners displayed some backbone and ultimately unanimously approved the rezoning of the larger of the two parcels in question. The applicant said he had no idea what his next steps would be. "I am just going to have to sit back and regroup," he told me outside the council chambers.

For what it’s worth, here’s what I would do if I was in his shoes. Like I said, two parcels of land were proposed to be rezoned from single family residential to townhome residential. One of the parcels was 1.3 acres, the second was 14.083 acres. The council only voted on the smaller parcel; the applicant pulled his application on the larger one before council could vote on it. The applicant must now wait one year to apply for the same zoning change again on the 1.3 acres. However, he doesn’t have to wait at all on the much larger parcel.

I would begin holding small, informal meetings with residents of the Silverado subdivision to see what kind of compromises would need to be made to make them more favorable to the development. The major concern voiced by the NIMBYs was the increased amount of traffic that would flow through their subdivision. There is a small nub of a street, the name of which I can’t determine, located off San Felipe Drive between Salado and Remington drives that, at the present time, is the only visible access to the property. That is the route the NIMBYs voiced concern about – that all traffic to and from the subdivision would have to go down that nub and, thus, wind through Silverado. The applicant plans to construct roads to the southwest connecting to Cockerham and perhaps one to Live Oak, which he envisions as the main access to the site. One compromise I would seriously consider would be to construct a blockade that would prohibit traffic from entering Silverado from the townhome development.

The second thing I would present to the homeowners would be studies which prove that such a development adjacent to their property will actually increase their property values. There are plenty such studies to draw from.

The third thing I would do would be to present drawings and models to show the homeowners exactly what the proposed development would look like when it was finished, complete with all the additional roadways. Which brings me back to that 1.3 acres that can’t be rezoned residential townhome for at least another year. Work with the city to determine exactly what use he could do with that acreage. I’m thinking of a downtown 1.3-acre community leash-free dog park, complete with a splash pond. To me, that would be a wonderful addition for that part of downtown. I say "community"dog park because it would be open to all pet owners, not just those who live in the townhome development.

Fourth, as I presented all these ideas to the those NIMBYs in Silverado and others near the property, I would ask them to sign a petition indicating they favor the proposal under the compromises, the studies and the plans that I have displayed with them.

Fifth, and this could be the most difficult of all, I would try to form a PID (one designed to be used the way PIDs are envisioned to be used) whose boundaries would begin at the edge of Silverado, and stretch all the way to Rebel Drive that could be used to offset much of the cost of any needed infrastructure improvements.

And then I would bring all that back to City Council and again ask for the residential townhome zoning on only the 14.083 acres that was not voted on last night.

But that’s me.

In other action last night, the city council:

• Heard from Kay Johnson, chair of the Kyle Depot Board, with an update on the Kyle Visitor Center and Museum, which will be located in the depot. She said "a soft opening of this important, historical building" is planned for Saturday, Jan. 23, from 10 a.m. to noon. "We are placing period furniture pieces into the train master’s office next week and preparing displays for our exhibition panels." She said an audio-visual system is being installed that, among other things, "will allow an announcer to be distinctly heard that the next train to San Antonio should be ready to board within in the hour." She also said the Hays County Historical Society is providing copies of a book detailing the history of Kyle and a book signing will be part of the soft opening ceremonies. The proceeds from the sale of the book will be "donated to the continued upkeep of this magnificent depot." She informed the council a formal "grand" reopening of the depot will be announced "at a later date."
• Listened to the details of what was labeled a Transportation Plan but what was actually nothing more than a road construction plan whose brain-numbing, head-scratching conclusion was that the No. 1 road construction priority for Kyle was a two-lane divided Beebee Road, with the division being either a median or a center turn lane, between I-35 and State Highway 21, a project the plan’s presenters estimate would cost $57 million or more than 1.5 times the cost of all the city’s five current road bond projects. And that’s in 2016 dollars — no telling how much more expensive this would be if and when the city actually decided to undertake the project. To be fair, these guys said the city should only be on the hook for $17.5 million, but somehow we would have to sweet talk the county into coughing up the other $39.5 million. Hey, I travel that stretch of road a lot, for reasons I won’t go into here, but I also travel the far more congested 1626 between here and Manchaca quite regularly and, what with the plans to extend the 45 Tollway from the southern tip of Mopac in Austin to 1626 near the Hays County line, to me the area’s No. 1 priority is the widening of 1626 between 2770 and 967. Once that tollway link is complete, 1626 will compete with I-35 as the main conveyor of automobiles to and from Kyle and Southwest Austin. And that project should be entirely on the county’s tab. Hopefully, one day the city will quit wasting taxpayer money on road construction plans mislabeled as transportation plans and actually find someone willing to develop a comprehensive transportation plan. And why, pray tell me, are we getting different plans from CAMPO and this outfit, Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam? (Actually, I know the answer: LAN employees donate heavily to city council election campaigns.)
• Approved a request from the Hampton Inn to build a hotel next to the Hays Surgery Center that would exceed the 45-foot height limit for buildings in that zoning. The Hampton’s plans call for it to be 59 feet high.
• Unanimously granted a waiver to a proposed Sonic Drive In that allows it to build more parking spaces than its specified in the city’s code. After all, the Sonic is, as the name suggests, a drive-in and most of its patrons consume their food in their cars and not inside the restaurant. And if you don’t believe me on this, just look at all those stupid Sonic television commercials that always show the two friendly jerks in their car at the restaurant.
• Went through a series of shenanigans that allowed for ex-officio members on city boards and commissions, the first of which were four such members named to the Economic Development & Tourism Board. Mayor Webster cast the lone vote against the first in the series of shenanigans when he learned the new rule applied to all boards and commissions and not just to the Economic Development & Tourism Board.
• Unanimously approved an agreement that will allow the Kyle Police Department to install license plate recognition products in three department vehicles. These products would give police officers the ability to spot and stop cars with outstanding warrants for unpaid fines on already adjudicated traffic violations. It would also allow the drivers of such vehicles the opportunity to pay that outstanding fine on the spot with a credit card. Police Chief Jeff Barnett told me after the item was approved that the city is currently looking at between $4 and $5 million in outstanding such fines owed to the city. That’s almost enough to fund 25 percent of the head-scratching, brain-numbing Beebee Road boondoggle.