Sewer spill clean-up completed faster than anticipated

Due to what City Manager Scott Sellers called "A quick, coordinated effort among multiple city departments and state agencies," the 117,000 gallons of sewage spilled into the Bunton Branch due to last week’s lift-station malfunction has been removed more quickly than originally anticipated and now the City plans to replace the fish killed by the spill.

A statement issued by the City today said "dissolved oxygen levels in the creek have returned to pre-event status," according to Public Works Director Harper Wilder.

"Work has also been completed on the electrical system at the lift station that was knocked out during last Thursday’s storm," the statement said. "Crews are currently　disassembling the pumps,　pipes and other equipment　used in the cleanup from a nearby landowner’s property."

The lift station failure caused incoming sewage to back up and overflow out of the top of the pump. It then flowed some 200 feet to the Bunton Branch, resulting in a contamination and a subsequent "large fish kill," according to Sellers.

Sellers told an emergency meeting of the City Council Friday "we are estimating it will take us somewhere between 10 and 14 days to halfway drain that creek to TCEQ’s satisfaction. At which point we will introduce more fresh water to ensure we have cleaned it up well." Today’s announcement from the City suggests it finished the job faster than that original estimate.

Mayor Todd Webster called that emergency meeting to appropriate the necessary funds to deal with the environmental crisis. The city approved the City spending up to $50,000 to clean the creek. The City did not disclose any estimates on what the cleanup costs have been.

Today’s statement said the City "is awaiting information from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regarding a decision on the possibility of being fined for the spill. It is possible there will be a fine from the Texas Parks and Wildlife due to the resulting　fish kill. The city also plans to restock the fish in the creek."

"A quick, coordinated effort among multiple city departments and state agencies resulted in minimizing further issues and getting the creek back to healthy oxygen levels," the city’s statement quoted Sellers as saying.

Masonwood Drive project to begin in less than two weeks

The City has sent a letter to some 90 residents living in the vicinity of Masonwood Drive, between Goforth and Lehman roads, that a month-long construction project will begin on Masonwood April 11 that will likely result in "road closures, detours and traffic delays."

According to the letter, dated Monday, the project "involves work on existing curbs, gutters and sidewalks" along Masonwood and it urged residents to, among other things, "keep their vehicles off the street as much as possible."

Residents were also told message board signs will be placed at each end of the project "to provide notice to property owners/residents as the work progresses."

City estimates 117,000 gallons of sewage dumped into Bunton Branch

(Updated Saturday at 4:46 p.m.) The City released estimates today indicating as much as 117,000 gallons of raw sewage spilled into the Bunton Branch and it flowed at least a half-mile downstream. That would suggest the City’s worst fears were realized in that the spill extended beyond Goforth Road. That means the remediation costs could be closer to the $50,000 amount approved by council yesterday instead of the $20,000 to $30,000 originally estimated.

The City Council met in special session late Friday afternoon and authorized the city manager to spend up to $50,000 to remediate a sewage spill that resulted in a "large" fish kill in Bunton Branch, a creek near Lehman High School. It was originally believed the spill might have been confined to one person’s private property, but that no longer seems to be the case.

The city stressed that absolutely no drinking water was affected by the incident. I have inquired as to whether the City is aware of any private water wells in that area and am waiting a reply.

(Resuming original post) The spill was apparently caused when Thursday morning’s storms knocked out the power to a lift station near Bunton Branch, causing the sewage to back up and overflow out of the pump.

City ordinances require any expenditure by the city in excess of $15,000 must be approved by the Council. Today’s council vote was unanimous.

The $50,000 does not include funds needed to pay the automatic fine TCEQ will levy some months down the road. City Manager Scott Sellers did remind the Council systems are being installed to prevent similar spills in the future.

Sellers told the council he only learned of the overflow at the Southlake lift station earlier this afternoon. He said normally crews check the lift station daily but did not do so Thursday because "we were involved in another project." However, the overflow was spotted during Friday’s inspection.

"It’s still too early for us to know exactly how the failure occurred," Sellers told the Council. "Our initial assumption is that the storm that occurred Thursday morning that was very violent had knocked out the power to the pumps in that lift station. There is a generator there, but that generator also did not have power. When power was restored to the lift station it did begin working so there is a question about how much sewage actually overflowed the lift station and into the Bunton Branch."

The lift station is located about 500 feet beyond the cul-de-sac at the end of Spillway Drive in East Kyle. Bunton Branch flows from the reservoir northwest of the lift station into Plum Creek. Sellers estimated the sewage traveled 20 yards from the lift station to Bunton Branch.

"It is unknown the quantity of sewage that entered the Bunton Branch," Sellers said. "We do know there was a fish kill in the creek. The number of fish is unknown at this time. TCEQ was immediately notified and arrived on the scene probably an hour and a half ago." (Approximately 3:30 p.m.)

"Texas Parks and Wildlife was also notified," Sellers continued. "They’ve asked whether we could preserve a couple of fish so they could do an analysis of those fish next week.

"We don’t know how extensive the spill is at this point," Sellers cautioned. "We hope it’s localized to just that area of the Bunton Branch."

Sellers added "plenty of live fish" were spotted in Bunton Branch along with the dead ones so TCEQ advised the city not to drain the area "but to seek more of a dilution remedy."

"So once we remove the fish kill we will begin to add fresh water to the stream," Sellers said. "We will also remove the dirty water. The way to do this is to connect high-powered pumps and we have two six-inch pumps that can pull trash through them. We have hard surface lines back up to the lift station itself and we will drain back into that lift station. It has to be a controlled drain because too much too fast would create a surge down the line that could possibly upset the (wastewater) plant. So we are estimating it will take us somewhere between 10 and 14 days to halfway drain that creek to TCEQ’s satisfaction. At which point we will introduce more fresh water to ensure we have cleaned it up well."

Sellers said he did not know exactly how much the cleanup would cost, but he estimated it would be between $20,000 and $30,000. The council agreed to cap the expenditures, for now, at $50,000 in case of unforseen problems that could occur in the process between now and the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting April 5, 12 days from today. One of those problems could arise if it is discovered the spill extends beyond Goforth Road, which would result in the need to employ highly expensive pump trucks to vacuum that section of Bunton Branch.

Sellers reminded the council that this year’s budget included costs for a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system for remote monitoring and control that operates with coded signals over communication channels. SCADA systems are commonly used by municipalities to exert industrial computerized control over wastewater systems as well as other similar infrastructure.

"It is a way we can monitor via phone the status of those lift stations," Sellers said. "We can monitor the flow. We can monitor whether the power is going to those lift stations."

If power is cut off, Sellers said, that triggers a phone call to city officials notifying them of that loss of power. He said the current budget may not contain all the necessary funds to cover SCADA for all the lift stations, but that he will know more once the city has received the bids it has requested for installing the system.

Sellers said the TCEQ’s fine is usually higher when a fish kill is involved and it also depends on the amount of sewage that overflowed. "We do know there was significant sewage and a large fish kill, so there most likely will be a fine." (Mayor Scott Webster said after the meeting he was at the site this afternoon and the odor coming from the Bunton Branch was not caused by the sewage, per se, but by the dead fish.)

However, Sellers said the city is in the middle of a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Initiative with the TCEQ. "We began that process after the last big storm event when we knew we had some issues with our collection system. (The SSOI) allows us to enter into a partnership with the TCEQ to begin the process to overhaul our system, remediate where lines are undersized. It helps that we were going through our wastewater model and we’re using that model with our partnership with TCEQ. So they are already aware that we are trying to take steps and have identified a flaw in our system and that we’re trying to take steps to correct that. Part of that is the addition of SCADA. When the city receives a fine from TCEQ there are things that we can do in lieu of cash if the TCEQ will allow that. It may not cover all the fine amount but we may be able to do things such as re-stock fish, put in education programs. We could even do a recycling program. Because we are part of that SSOI program, I am encouraged that they will be a little more lenient and be open to working with us."
 

Council authorizes $50,000 to remediate sewer overflow

The City Council met in special session late this afternoon and authorized the city manager to spend up to $50,000 to remediate a sewage spill that resulted in a "large" fish kill in Bunton Branch, a creek near Lehman High School. It is believed the spill may be confined to one person’s private property and the city stressed that absolutely no drinking water was affected by the incident.

The spill was apparently caused when Thursday morning’s storms knocked out the power to a lift station near Bunton Branch, causing the sewage to back up and overflow out of the pump.

City ordinances require any expenditure by the city in excess of $15,000 must be approved by the Council. Today’s council vote was unanimous.

The $50,000 does not include funds needed to pay the automatic fine TCEQ will levy some months down the road. City Manager Scott Sellers did remind the Council systems are being installed to prevent similar spills in the future.

Sellers told the council he only learned of the overflow at the Southlake lift station earlier this afternoon. He said normally crews check the lift station daily but did not do so Thursday because "we were involved in another project." However, the overflow was spotted during Friday’s inspection.

"It’s still too early for us to know exactly how the failure occurred," Sellers told the Council. "Our initial assumption is that the storm that occurred Thursday morning that was very violent had knocked out the power to the pumps in that lift station. There is a generator there, but that generator also did not have power. When power was restored to the lift station it did begin working so there is a question about how much sewage actually overflowed the lift station and into the Bunton Branch."

The lift station is located about 500 feet beyond the cul-de-sac at the end of Spillway Drive in East Kyle. Bunton Branch flows from the reservoir northwest of the lift station into Plum Creek. Sellers estimated the sewage traveled 20 yards from the lift station to Bunton Branch.

"It is unknown the quantity of sewage that entered the Bunton Branch," Sellers said. "We do know there was a fish kill in the creek. The number of fish is unknown at this time. TCEQ was immediately notified and arrived on the scene probably an hour and a half ago." (Approximately 3:30 p.m.)

"Texas Parks and Wildlife was also notified," Sellers continued. "They’ve asked whether we could preserve a couple of fish so they could do an analysis of those fish next week.

"We don’t know how extensive the spill is at this point," Sellers cautioned. "We hope it’s localized to just that area of the Bunton Branch."

Sellers added "plenty of live fish" were spotted in Bunton Branch along with the dead ones so TCEQ advised the city not to drain the area "but to seek more of a dilution remedy."

"So once we remove the fish kill we will begin to add fresh water to the stream," Sellers said. "We will also remove the dirty water. The way to do this is to connect high-powered pumps and we have two six-inch pumps that can pull trash through them. We have hard surface lines back up to the lift station itself and we will drain back into that lift station. It has to be a controlled drain because too much too fast would create a surge down the line that could possibly upset the (wastewater) plant. So we are estimating it will take us somewhere between 10 and 14 days to halfway drain that creek to TCEQ’s satisfaction. At which point we will introduce more fresh water to ensure we have cleaned it up well."

Sellers said he did not know exactly how much the cleanup would cost, but he estimated it would be between $20,000 and $30,000. The council agreed to cap the expenditures, for now, at $50,000 in case of unforseen problems that could occur in the process between now and the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting April 5, 12 days from today. One of those problems could arise if it is discovered the spill extends beyond Goforth Road, which would result in the need to employ highly expensive pump trucks to vacuum that section of Bunton Branch.

Sellers reminded the council that this year’s budget included costs for a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system for remote monitoring and control that operates with coded signals over communication channels. SCADA systems are commonly used by municipalities to exert industrial computerized control over wastewater systems as well as other similar infrastructure.

"It is a way we can monitor via phone the status of those lift stations," Sellers said. "We can monitor the flow. We can monitor whether the power is going to those lift stations."

If power is cut off, Sellers said, that triggers a phone call to city officials notifying them of that loss of power. He said the current budget may not contain all the necessary funds to cover SCADA for all the lift stations, but that he will know more once the city has received the bids it has requested for installing the system.

Sellers said the TCEQ’s fine is usually higher when a fish kill is involved and it also depends on the amount of sewage that overflowed. "We do know there was significant sewage and a large fish kill, so there most likely will be a fine." (Mayor Scott Webster said after the meeting he was at the site this afternoon and the odor coming from the Bunton Branch was not caused by the sewage, per se, but by the dead fish.)

However, Sellers said the city is in the middle of a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Initiative with the TCEQ. "We began that process after the last big storm event when we knew we had some issues with our collection system. (The SSOI) allows us to enter into a partnership with the TCEQ to begin the process to overhaul our system, remediate where lines are undersized. It helps that we were going through our wastewater model and we’re using that model with our partnership with TCEQ. So they are already aware that we are trying to take steps and have identified a flaw in our system and that we’re trying to take steps to correct that. Part of that is the addition of SCADA. When the city receives a fine from TCEQ there are things that we can do in lieu of cash if the TCEQ will allow that. It may not cover all the fine amount but we may be able to do things such as re-stock fish, put in education programs. We could even do a recycling program. Because we are part of that SSOI program, I am encouraged that they will be a little more lenient and be open to working with us."

P&Z denies lot split, approves dead-end road extension

The Planning and Zoning Commission refused last night to recommend a variance to the owner of a lot in Kyle’s ETJ who sought to split his property, granted a variance to extend a cul-de-sac across Kyle Parkway from Seton Medical Center that is , I would argue, not what most people picture when they hear the term, "cul-de-sac," and then spent a couple of hours giving out misleading or factually incorrect information to residents of Blanco Vista and drafting a letter to the City Council recommending it shell out taxpayer funds to pay consultants to do what the Council hoped the Planning commissioners would do at no charge.

What is pictured above, I’m pretty sure, is a photograph I took of the lot George Ulloa hoped to split into two separate pieces of property presumably for each of his children. His problem is that, for some reason that was never addressed at last night’s meeting, Kyle has an ordinance in its code that requires "all lots in rural subdivisions shall be greater than one acre in area." I guess this boils down to what an ordinary person envisions when encountering the term "rural subdivision." Does it bring to mind something like Amberwood set somewhere outside the Kyle city limits? Or, perhaps, something like the proposed Anthem development we’ve all heard so much about? (Technically speaking, "subdivision" is defined as "an area consisting of subdivided lots," so the argument could be made that America is, in reality, just one big subdivision.)

I spent about 30 minutes, on two different occasions, Sunday driving up and down Rolling Hills Road (which Google claims is actually in Buda) between Windy Hill Road and Highway 2001. What I saw was a large number of manufactured homes all sitting on lots much smaller than an acre in size and two more conventional-looking residences, one of which was either under construction or re-construction, it was difficult to determine which. According to the City, this collection of residences is known collectively as "Rolling Hills Estates." I am assuming the lot pictured above is the one in question because it was the only one along Rolling Hills Road that did not already contain some kind of structure and it was right in the vicinity described by the City as the location for the lot.

The ordinance lists three reasons why a variance may be granted and it specifically says all three — not just one, or two — must be met.

1. "That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such as the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would have a substantial adverse impact on the applicant’s reasonable use of his land."

2. "That the granting of the exemption will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area."

3. "That the granting of this exception will not have the affect of preventing the orderly subdividing of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter."

"I’m not sure we meet those requirements" with this request, chairman Mike Rubsam said.

"Right now he (Ulloa) has about 1.3 acres," commissioner Mike Wilson responded. "We’re saying at a minimum you have to have at least two acres to satisfy this. So any lot platted at less than two acres, we’re saying ‘You can’t re-plat it,’ which, I think, is a little excessive. A two-acre lot is a pretty big lot and I think most people would be happy with two-thirds of an acre, even outside the city."

"The problem with granting a variance like this," Rubsam countered, "is we’re basically making up our own guidelines and that is what becomes the standard when the next five or 10 people come up and want to do essentially the same thing."

As a result, Rubsam said, in the absence of any "special circumstances," he would recommend denying the variance. Wilson, however, moved to approve it, but his motion died as a result of it not receiving a second. Rubsam then moved to deny the variance and his motion passed 4-2 with Wilson and commissioner Irene Melendez dissenting. (Commissioner Lori Huey did not attend last night’s meeting.)

 

 

The commissioners unanimously approved the request to extend the above pictured street, which is currently not technically a cul-de-sac, but which will become one soon, at least for a while. The variance is needed because the city’s codes require that cul-de-sacs be a certain width and length (specifically 600 feet in commercial areas). By definition, a cul-de-sac is a dead-end street (and in most people’s minds it contains a bubble at the end to allow motorists to turn around and drive back in the opposite direction from which they entered the cul-de-sac, although such a bubble is not required to meet the dictionary definition of a cul-de-sac).

As you can see by the car pictured above, this is not a "dead-end" street. It is used by motorists traveling on Kyle Parkway from Dacy Lane who wish to enter the Wal-Mart parking lot without having to deal with the traffic signal at the next nearest entrance. SCC Kyle Partners, LTD, wishes to turn it into an actual dead-end street however, because it wishes to develop property behind those barricades seen in the picture and it needs to have that roadway extended to access that property.

It is believed that some time in the future that road will extend all the way to Bunton, although it is not, at least not currently, designated as the "Goforth Road extension" to Kyle Parkway recently approved by the City Council as part of the road bonds project. That extension is currently planned to intersect Kyle Parkway closer to Dacy than the above picture road does.

As for the bubble, a spokesperson for the developers said it actually will be placed on the side of the road, not at the end of it, but that barricades could be erected just beyond the bubble to keep motorists from being "trapped" at the actual dead-end of the road. The spokesperson said the development being planned does not extend past where that "bubble-on-the-side" would be located, although there was no clarity provided as to why the actual road needed to extend further than the development except that it needed, for some unspecified reason, to go as far as the actual property line.

In other action the commissioners misinformed residents of the Blanco Vista subdivision, who are still highly suspicious of what is actually going to be located on the northwest corner of I-35 and Yarrington Road (it will be a roughly 10,000-square-foot convenience store/gas station and other amenities to be determined later, but definitely not a truck stop) that the city was still actively pursuing warehouse zoning for that property, which is simply not true. The truth is the subject of zoning is off the table until the development consultants Catalyst and Gateway Planning deliver some form of conceptual plan for the property and possibly even adjacent areas.

The commissioners also threw the Comprehensive Plan, which the Council asked P&Z to "tweak," back in the laps of the council, reminding me of the Cool Hand Luke line "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

The Comprehensive Plan needs major revisions every 10 years and minor adjustments every five. This is one of those minor adjustment times. Municipalities normally higher consultants to deal with Comprehensive Plan revisions, but in an attempt to save money, Kyle city leaders hoped this time around the P&Z commissioners could gently massage the plan in a way to satisfy the mid-decade adjustment requirements. The commissioners, for whatever reason, decided (a) more than just a gentle massage was needed and (b) what was actually needed was beyond their abilities to deliver. So the commissioners labored last night over the wording of a letter it plans to approve in two weeks and send to council saying it should go ahead and hire consultants to fix the specific problems in the Comprehensive Plan identified in the letter.

Let’s say you own a large piece of residential property and you recently hired a landscaping firm to design and implement an intricate landscaping plan for your property. Now, however, you need the lawn mowed and instead of shelling out the big bucks to hire the landscaping company to come back and mow the lawn, you ask your 16-year-old son to get the riding mower out of the garage and get the job done. Instead, your son sends you a letter telling you to "hire the landscaping firm instead." That's tantamount to what the commissioners have done here.

If you ask me, this whole matter could have been handled by asking Rubsam and Wilson to sit down one Saturday afternoon (or any other afternoon they had free) with Planning Director Howard Koontz, going through the Comprehensive Plan as they did the aforementioned letter and suggesting minor edits/wording changes and then coming back to the full commission to vote on those edits. Instead, a small speed bump has been turned into a major obstacle.

City facing $39,000 tax gap that may be tough to overcome

The city’s March sales tax receipts were about $5,600 below expectations—the fourth time during the first half of the current fiscal year income failed to meet budget forecasts. However, the latest income figures were $65,000 more than during the same month last year, lending credence to the notion that the fiscal year sales tax forecasts may have been overly optimistic.

For the first six months of FY 2015-16, sales taxes are $39,127.90 below the projections forecast in the current city budget.

March’s receipts reversed a two-month trend which saw sales taxes exceed forecasts, after seeing them fail to meet forecasts for the first three months of the fiscal year.

If you would like to look on the positive side, last year’s sales taxes were more than $300,000 higher in the last six months than in the first. However, if you’re a glass half-empty person, the city needs to collect a total of $747,943.80 more in the second six months of this fiscal year than it did in the first to completely erase the current gap.

Why Kyle has an acting police chief

I have seen questions as well as suggested answers to those questions floating around social media concerning the reasons the City Council felt it was necessary to temporarily appoint Kyle police Capt. Pedro Hernandez as its chief. These questions and mostly erroneous answers were in response to a newspaper headline that screamed "Kyle Police chief placed on leave." The automatic reaction of many who saw that headline was "What did Chief Jeff Barnett do that was so wrong?". The simple answer is "absolutely nothing."

I have written before about how, especially when it comes to the public’s view on government, perception reshapes reality. The explanation for why this action was taken was because the city did not want an action that’s about to take place viewed as petty retaliation and so city leaders took steps to shape the public’s perception of what is about to take place so that it more closely conforms to reality.

Let me explain by briefly going back to near the beginning of this drama — a drama featuring two lead characters, Chief Barnett and former Kyle Police Sgt. Jesse Espinoza. There are supporting characters involved, but right at the start, let’s concentrate on the dynamics between Chief Barnett and Sgt. Espinoza. I first met Sgt. Espinoza, who was then head of Kyle’s police association, early Saturday morning, Nov. 15, 2014, when the City Council was meeting in executive session to interview the finalists for the then-open position of city manager. Espinoza was actively seeking to talk to then acting city manager James Earp as well as anyone else he felt might give him a receptive ear claiming he held in his hand documents that so incriminated Barnett the city would have no other choice but to fire the chief. At the time, I had lived in Kyle only 31 days. I had just moved here from Dallas where for many years I held a rather prominent position with the City, a position that offered more opportunities than I would have wished for to interact with the internal politics of a police department, not only the Dallas PD but that of many of the nearby cities and towns as well. One of my takeaways from that interaction was the realization that, while certainly not a part of the written job description, it was the ultimate goal of the head of every police association known to mankind to get the police chief fired. The poor Dallas police chief had to deal with seven — count ‘em — seven different police associations within his department, most if not all of whom were hunting for his scalp. Nothing personal, mind you. It’s just what they did. On that particular Saturday morning I simply waved off Espinoza’s actions as nothing more than "That’s just what police association heads do."

I subsequently learned, however, there was more to it than that here in Kyle. Espinoza had actively campaigned against Barnett even being hired by the City of Kyle, for reasons I won’t go into now but you might get a better picture of by reading this.

As time went on, it came to the attention of certain individuals that Espinoza may have acted in a way that warranted disciplinary action being taken against him. The rule is, however, that kind of disciplinary action in connection with any police officer in just about any municipal police department must be meted out by the police chief. That’s where the perception problem came into play. The city was concerned, and justly so, the perception of Barnett disciplining Espinoza could be framed as retaliation. So to avoid that perception, the city placed Barnett on administrative leave (in other words, suggested he take a couple of weeks off) and brought in a former police chief from Waxahachie, Charles Edge, to conduct the investigation the city hoped would provide the necessary evidence to kick Espinoza off the force.

And Edge provided just that. Espinoza, however, appealed that suspension and that appeal was heard by an independent labor and employment administrator named Michael B. McReynolds of Fort Worth. Testimony in those appeal hearings ended last November and McReynolds said he hoped to have his written ruling on the matter prepared sometime during the first quarter of this year.

McReynolds, however, was in failing health and he died last month before he could officially announce his decision. That left the city with two options: It could either shell out of big chunk of (taxpayers’) money to make the situation disappear or it could start over from scratch. The city decided to pursue the second option.

Now here’s where I enter the realm of conjecture, which I must do because all parties involved in this case are obligated by things like attorney-client privilege, prohibitions against ex-parte communications, the sanctity of executive sessions, etc, so they can’t discuss any of this with me or any other outside parties. But this conjecture has, I believe, a solid foundation. The only logical conclusion one can reach from all this is that to "start over from scratch" doesn’t simply mean beginning the appeal process hearings again, it means going all the way back to the original disciplinary action Edge took against Espinoza. What’s different this time, however, is that Edge’s findings are part of the public record and while the truthfulness of those findings might be in question (hence the appeal hearing) their mere existence is not. So this time, the city can avoid the perception of "a chief personally retaliating against a officer with a personal grudge against that chief" without having to bring in an outside investigator, but simply by having a respected officer within the department to review Edge’s findings and to determine if they still warrant Espinoza’s suspension. As soon as that decision is made, one way or the other, Barnett will be reinstated, probably with thanks from many of those involved for being such a good sport about all this and a team player. I have the feeling, however, that if Edge’s findings are reversed by Hernandez, which I do not predict will happen, Barnett will not remain in town for long. But that’s just my feeling.

I hope this narrative clears things up and erases some of the wrong perceptions that came about because of the aforementioned newspaper headline. However, if you’re still confused by all this, my advice is simply forget about it, round up the family and take them to Evo to see the movie Zootopia. Trust me, by the time Shakira belts out her song at the end of the film, your head will be cleared and you’ll feel a whole lot better.

The Yarrington Miracle Revisited

I have two regrets about the announcement of the development planned for the northwest corner of I-35 and Yarrington Road that came out at conclusion of the nearly hour-long executive session held at the end of last night’s City Council meeting. The first regret is just that — its timing. By the time Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson officially made the announcement — 15 minutes short of midnight — the council chambers were empty. None of those who packed the chambers every time anything resembling the topic of putting a giant truck stop at that location came up for discussion were present to celebrate the realization their worst fears had vanished. Poof! There’s nothing that could have been done to correct that problem. The executive session was the last item on the agenda and the announcement that instead of a truck stop that property will now be the location of a 10,000-square-foot convenience store (albeit complete with several gas pumps, at least two of which will dispense diesel), restaurants, an upscale hotel and possibly even an office building could not be announced publicly until the entire City Council had been briefed in confidence on the specifics of the various agreements. My second regret was that council person Becky Selbera, who has worked tirelessly for years to bring economic development to the south side of Kyle was ill and could not attend last night’s session, thus missing out on the culmination of her efforts.

By talking to a number of different sources, all of whom allowed me to tell this brief story only if I would not disclose their names, I managed to piece together somewhat how all this came together. A solution to the outcry began in earnest shortly after the Kyle’s Planning & Zoning Commission illegally voted Tuesday, Jan. 26, against rezoning the property in question, thus making the city vulnerable to a lawsuit that would have guaranteed a truck stop would have been constructed on that site.

Facing increased demands from his own constituents, San Marcos Mayor Daniel Guerrero led a coterie unannounced to Kyle City Hall on Monday, Feb. 1, less than a week after the P&Z vote, seeking a meeting with Mayor Todd Webster and City Manager Scott Sellers to discuss how to rectify the situation in a manner everyone could agree upon and what to do about the growing dissatisfaction with that was transpiring in connection with that property, particularly from the residents of San Marcos’s Blanco Vista subdivision, located directly across Yarrington from the property. Quickly those discussions incorporated Hays County commissioners as well as the Greater San Marcos Partnership. These discussions involved not only what would be located on the property but who would provide and finance the infrastructure needed to make the development a reality and how would that infrastructure be provided.

The one sticking point was the objective of the owners of the property, PGI Investments. From what my sources told me (I have yet to have an opportunity to speak with anyone from PGI), one of the things PGI does really well and is considered an expert at is developing truck stops. To ask them to do anything different was against their DNA, much like telling a sprinter he must immediately become a marathon runner, and was naturally going to be met with some resistance. Ironically, their resolve to hold fast to their original intentions was only strengthened as the vocal resistance to the truck stop mounted.

What ultimately made all these discussions reach the conclusion they did, I was told, was the property owner’s willingness to at least discuss possible alternatives, even those they were not only initially comfortable with but ones, my sources tell me, they are not sure about even today. However, late this past Monday afternoon the owners agreed to a settlement in which a third-party economic development consultant, Catalyst Commercial, would prepare a development plan for the parcel that does not include a truck stop, thus allowing Webster, Sellers and the attorneys to brief the council more specifically during last night’s executive session, after which Wilson was able to announce a motion "to direct staff to work on a 380 Agreement that includes having Catalyst Commercial and Gateway Planning assisting in the development and pursuit of an interlocal agreement with the City of San Marcos, the San Marcos Partnership and to bring back to the City Council the 380 Agreement for approval as well as a budget amendment for approval."

After that motion was seconded by council member Diane Hervol, Mayor Webster translated the official language Wilson needed to employ.

"We have come to an agreement with the property owner, PGI, the owner of the Yarrington Road property and they agreed in principle with us to develop the property differently than what they had originally intended," the mayor said. "There is not going to be a truck stop planned for the Yarrington Road property."

Wilson then voiced his regrets that Selbera could not attend the session at which this was announced and went on to say "I really appreciate the county, San Marcos, PGI, our mayor and staff for all the good work on something that’s quite difficult. But I’m hoping as (the city attorney) said (this is) a win, win, win, win. I think this is what we have and that’s a positive thing for the taxpayers when those developments happen. I feel really good about this."

Mayor Webster added he wanted to thank Mayor Guerrero, the City of San Marcos and its city manager and council as well as the Hays County commissioners, whom Webster characterized as being "extraordinarily supportive." He also told council member Shane Arabie "I had given up on this and if you hadn’t smacked me around a little bit, I might have given up." He also thanked Selbera (in absentia) and Wilson for granting him the flexibility to engage in the negotiations and "I appreciate very much the trust that you had."

After the council adjourned, Mayor Webster went into greater detail:

"There won’t be any sexually oriented businesses or a truck stop there. They’re going to put in an estimated 10,000-square-foot gas station on two acres somewhere on the property — we don’t know where yet. We estimate it would have eight gas pumps. No overnights. Nothing like that. It’s essentially a typical service station/convenience store.

"The property owners have been great to deal with. Not even remotely unreasonable in any way. This is something that is out of their wheelhouse, developing a 50-acre property in a way that is not what they do. They had plans for 50 acres of stuff they knew how to do. So we’re going to bring in a partner, the Catalyst group. The City is going to engage them to help frame out what the future of that property is going to look like, to help develop a concept, a site plan. What I envision, and what I discussed with the owners, is that site plan would include office, retail, restaurant. But I don’t want to sell the project short. Hotels for sure. Hotels absolutely. We talked about hotels which could be a real opportunity to expand our portfolio of hotels.

"But I think there is a commitment there to do high quality development. And PGI is interested in that, too. I do think that forming a more formal relationship with them and help bringing the property together is going to be real important.

"We’re going to basically build a wastewater extension from San Marcos’s system into South Kyle. We don’t know exactly the cost, but we estimate it might be around $900,000. San Marcos is going to provide us 1,000 LUEs, into their wastewater treatment plant which will be gravity fed from there. So we’re going to forego for a significant number of years — estimated between five and seven (years) — having to put a lift station down there which costs about $2 million. The $900,000, because of the way it all works, as properties develop we would recoup that $900,000. So San Marcos gets a win because we’re going to finance the construction of a wastewater line extension and they’re going to get customers for their wastewater treatment plant and it strengthens our collaboration. It’s a real good starting place for things that should haven been happening all along.

"The San Marcos Partnership is going to be part of the visioning piece. So they’re the economic development apparatus for San Marcos and for the county. What we talked about and what we believe San Marcos is going to do is Catalyst will be involved in some work on the south side of Yarrington as well, so we’re going to be able to talk about complementary development on both the south side and the north side."

"It will give us a more unified vision of the area," Arabie added.

I asked how it was possible to get all these players together. The genesis, the mayor said, was when the Planning and Zoning Commission made a zoning decision based on a single use, which violates state law.

‘We were boxed in at the point," Webster said. "I had given up. Our options became even more limited than what most people thought when the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request. Not just because they denied it but what they said about how they denied it. Then I had people running around saying ‘I don’t want a truck stop! I don’t want a truck stop!’ and when city officials do that it creates (another) potential litigation point. So I got a little downtrodden, particularly after the Planning and Zoning meeting, and I told him (Arabie) ‘We’re just going to have to roll the dice on this.’ But he got on me a little bit and said ‘Don’t give up.’

"The City of San Marcos had every reason to be angry, but they reached out to us and didn’t show any anger. They acted in good faith with us and the conversations were such that we were really working together to try to problem solve. I made it clear that I wasn’t about to throw away a development or an opportunity to develop a key piece of property. We can’t afford to do that.

"What you saw from the majority of the council on this issue is ‘We need to develop, we need commercial development’ and just flat-out kicking somebody to the curb and then insulting them on the way out would not have been the smartest thing to do.

"So the negotiations really began that Monday morning," Webster said, adding yet another confirmation to what I had already been told. "I got a phone call that said ‘Hey, you won’t believe this. They’re here.’ I got in my car, drove over, we started talking and the conversations haven’t stopped since. I’ve had really good conversations with all the county commissioners. There’s limits on what they can do, but they’re going to participate.

"So we’re going to end up doing a 380 with (PGI) because we’re asking them to do something that’s very different from what they originally planned. It’s going to end up being the kind of thing we would incentivize. I think it changes the risk quite a bit for the property owner because we’re asking them to do something they’re not comfortable doing but you can compensate for that by adjusting the risk. We’re doing that in a number of ways — financially in terms of the incentives."

"We get to guide the development in a way that’s best for all concerned," Arabie added.

"The property owner was very supportive," Webster said. "Obviously, they were a little disappointed that it was going to be difficult for them to move forward with what they wanted to do. But, to their credit, they were very willing to let me announce all this even though you can’t have a 380 Agreement until you have a concept plan. Obviously, before the documents are actually signed you have to know exactly what you’re going to do. So that visioning that needs to take place by Catalyst and the Greater San Marcos Partnership needs to happen before we can define what that agreement looks like. But we’re going to be out there recruiting to bring the things people want here."

Webster admitted he did was not aware of another instance where two cites collaborated on the formation of a single development in one of them, but he added "It would be kind of weird to have two completely stark different visions for the same intersection. If we did that, it diminishes it for both of us. Handling this the way we did also creates a platform for future collaborations. I can’t be anything but complimentary on the way (San Marcos Mayor) Daniel (Guerrero) handled himself through all this. Everyone from San Marcos was very professional all along the way and I’m grateful for their willingness to provide us wastewater because that’s going to give this area an opportunity to thrive and it creates an opportunity for us, in the short run here, put the money we would have had to use for a lift station into (Kyle’s wastewater) plant issues. But the main thing is, it really allows us to address the development needs for this particular part of our town. It’s more cost effective for the region to gravity-feed and especially in this case where we’re gravity feeding to someone else’s system. That’s all the evidence you need to prove they were working with us in good faith — that they were interested and willing to do that. And that action really made a difference for the property owner because now they are provided wastewater immediately and without this cooperation they weren’t going to. So, by the time they (the owners) were going to develop, there would have been some point in time where they would have had septic out there. So this is an opportunity for them to have wastewater when they’re ready to open.

"I guess, when all is said in done, this is a win for diplomacy."

The mayor said the appropriate zoning changes will be made after the City receives the concept plan.

"There’s not an zoning issue to deal with right this second," he said. "In my mind’s eye that property could have a little bit taller office. Hotels and restaurants will be part of it. I can’t imagine they wouldn’t be. Of course the convenience store is going to be there. I’ve always struggled a little bit envisioning retail there. To me, that’s just because of where the town is at right now. I know many of the residents of Blanco Vista think that’s a perfect place for retail, but it’s just far enough away from everyone that I don’t think it’s attractive for that.

"What’s really exciting about it, too, is we really have the opportunity, through the collaboration with the property — which is new, you usually don’t have the opportunity at this stage to collaborate with the property owner this much — it presents us with an opportunity that we shouldn’t squander.

"What I see we’re short of in the city of Kyle is office space, and the hotel. Because it’s on 35 and it’s close to San Marcos, it’s an attractive place for that naturally. I have already talked to the property owner about a little higher-end hotel because we’ve got wedding venues. So there’s a market for a step-up hotel if you’ve got wedding venues. There’s a possibility for a conference center. Whatever we find we have a need for is on the table.

"I’m convinced this was the right approach to take for the future prosperity of our city and if we follow through with what we’re planning now, every party is going to be better off."

The Yarrington Miracle

Mayor Todd Webster revealed early today he has secured a multi-party agreement to locate a 10,000-square-foot convenience store, restaurants, an upscale hotel and possibly even an office building at the northwest corner of Yarrington Road and I-35.

This announcement, for all practical purposes, takes off the table the notion that a large truck stop would be developed on that property.

I spoke with Mayor Webster extensively about the agreement, what it specifically entails and who was involved in reaching the agreement following last night’s late-running City Council meeting. I will write more about that conversation later today after I have taken the opportunity to steal a few hours sleep. But the bottom line is this: the notion of a truck stop that ignited a small, but extremely vocal backlash, especially around that Yarrington Road corridor, has vaporized and out of those vapors appears to be emerging a development that will be far more varied and unquestionably a far superior alternative in the hearts and minds of those who live in that area.

The agreement is the culmination of nearly two months worth of almost non-stop daily negotiations among Webster, San Marcos Mayor Daniel Guerrero, the Greater San Marcos Partnership, and Hays County commissioners. But Webster said a deal would have been impossible without the willingness of the property's owners to arrive at a solution that was quite different from what those owners originally envisioned.

Catalyst Commercial, an economic development consulting firm out of Dallas, will design the actual concept plan for the property and exactly how the property will be rezoned will depend on that plan, Webster said,

The agreement also calls for Kyle to spend approximately $900,000 to extend San Marcos’s wastewater lines to the property allowing wastewater to be fed by gravity to a San Marcos wastewater treatment plant. This will save Kyle the approximate $2 million cost to install the lift station that would have been needed to take the wastewater to Kyle’s plant. It also means the property will be receive wastewater utilities at least two years earlier than it would had Kyle been required to provide that infrastructure. The extension also means an additional 1,000 living unit equivalents (LUEs), a water term that refers to the typical flow that would be produced by a single family residence. For commercial developments such as this, wastewater LUEs usually match water LUEs.

Like I said, I will have many more details later today but the news right now is that land where many feared a truck stop would be located will actually be the site of a convenience store for sure and most likely restaurants, an upscale hotel and even an office building.

Is it safe to drink the water?

There are two places on tomorrow night’s agenda where legitimately someone from the City could step to the podium and directly answer the above question, which, of course, needs a direct "yes" or "no" answer. The first place would be during the Citizens Comments item which allows for anyone to speak on a subject that is not on the agenda. The second is during the City Managers (sic) Report, but that comes so late on what appears to be a long night for the City Council, most people may not be awake to hear it. After tomorrow night, however, I hope all upcoming agendas contain a standing item "Update on City’s Water Quality" until such time as the TCEQ says our water is OK.

A portion, but definitely not all, of Kyle residents received a notice this week in their water bill that began "The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has notified the City of Kyle, Texas, that the drinking water being supplied to its customers has exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for total trihalomethanes." The notice goes on to say what trihalomethanes are and how they are formed, but then the third paragraph of the notice reads: "Some people who drink water containing trihalomethanes in excess over the MCL for many years may experience problems with their liver, kidney or central nervous system, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer."

WHAT???? Can we have a little more specificity here. Who exactly are these "some people" you’re referring to here? How many is "many years"? What kind of "liver, kidney or central nervous system" problems may "some people" experience? And what exactly is the "risk" of "getting cancer" from Kyle’s water supply. And, most important, are the answers to these questions supported by medical evidence?

Now, after all that, the very next paragraph says very reassuringly "You do not need to use an alternative water supply." But that paragraph also contains a qualifier: "However, if you have health concerns, you may want to talk to your doctor to get more information about how this may affect you." Which, to me, translates into "It’s perfectly OK to drink the water, but you do so at your own risk."

Am I really worried about all this? Frankly, not that much. In fact, later this evening I plan to make myself a Manhattan that will be chilled from ice directly from my ice maker. I plan to swallow my medicine tonight, tomorrow morning and all the nights and mornings after with water from the tap, albeit water filtered through one of those Brita water filter gadgets. But I have been using those filters for years now. Even my dog gets that chilled filtered water. I make my morning coffee with it. Have been doing so for years and don’t plan to quit now. Does Brita filter out trihalomethanes? I don’t know, but, to be honest, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

I guess what really bothers me about all this is the last paragraph of the City’s notice which begins "Please share this information with all the people who drink this water, especially those who may not have received this notice directly (i.e., people in apartments, nursing homes, schools and businesses)." What this tells me is not only is the City admitting it isn’t notifying all its citizens about this potential problem, but it doesn’t even intend to make any effort of any kind to do so. It is hoping a few homeowners will fan out to all the people living in apartments, all those confined to nursing homes, all the school administrators and everyone who works in Kyle. Fat chance.

It’s also interesting that no mention was made of the Seton Medical Complex in any of this. Why is that? Shouldn’t the nurses and physicians attending to patients in those facilities be aware of these potential problems?

Just saying. Now it’s time for that Manhattan.

For once, a valuable transportation plan contribution

Faithful readers will know that I have been harshly critical about proposed transportation plans that are nothing more than road plans. And as long as transportation plans are based on the assumption that the private automobile is the only viable mode of transportation for Kyle residents, we will continue to have to deal with such issues as burdensome road construction and maintenance costs, traffic congestion, air quality issues, mass transportation demands impossible to satisfy and sustainable neighborhoods. It’s literally getting to the point where a family’s overall costs for driving and maintaining their automobiles rival their housing costs.

Finally, however, the folks at Lockwood, Andrews and Newman have made a valuable contribution to the city’s transportation planning efforts even though it appears it is buried in this Tuesday’s City Council consent agenda. I’m really hoping someone on the council will pull this item because it needs further discussion.

Although the item in question reads adoption of LAN’s Transportation Plan, the accompanying materials reveal that the subject is, in actuality, an inventory of the city’s sidewalk network. And what that inventory reveals is … well, rather revealing.

For example, if I read the map correctly, it appears that one of the areas of Kyle that should promote walkability more than any other, namely the area downtown on either side of Center Street, is an area that appears to be completely devoid of sidewalks. That’s criminal. If there is one area of any community that needs to promote walkability, it’s the downtown area. Not just the one street through the heart of downtown, but those streets surrounding it.

Kyle needs to prioritize its downtown area as one for commercial redevelopment as well as new business development, but that development is never going to happen, i.e. Kyle is going to have problems extending its commercial tax base with new small businesses, if it doesn’t make its downtown area completely walkable.

Not only that, walking is easy, convenient and a healthy exercise, especially for old fogeys like myself. My dog and I try to walk at least four miles a day and those walks are far easier and safer in places where there are sidewalks.

I am hoping the City Council will use this valuable piece of information — for once, an addition, addendum, whatever you want to call it to a transportation plan that actually deals with issues other than automobility — as an outline for planning the much needed transportation alternatives our city needs to make us more sustainable, more liveable, healthier and more of a target for business development, especially in our downtown area.

I say this knowing that if this item is pulled from the Consent Agenda it will make what appears to be potentially one of the lengthiest City Council meetings in the 18 months I’ve lived here even longer. I’m tempted to show up to City Hall Tuesday not only with my pen, pad and recorder, but also with a sleeping bag.

First of all, there’s going to be the second public hearing on the involuntary annexation and I’m expecting the same cast of citizens who spoke at the first public hearing to come back and make exactly the same complaints again. This is not to question the validity of those complaints. Far from it. But you have to admit hearing the same complaint voiced over and over again can get tiresome, especially if you don’t have a dog in that fight, and you realize this repetition is going to result in a meeting that could last until the wee hours of Wednesday morning.

The agenda lists three presentations that will take place even before the public hearings begin which means it could be close to 8:30 - 9 p.m. before the council even begins to consider any action items. And toward the end of the meeting, there is another conversation that’s scheduled to take place on whether to adopt a storm water utility; whether the city should enter into an agreement with the county on road/guardrail/drainage repairs (This discussion could involve the level of quality between the city and country’s repairs, although that seems to be addressed in the agreement.); replacing the current Verizon phone system the city uses with a cloud-based system that is too complicated to explain in detail in this space but you can learn more about here and one that will cost significantly less than the Verizon system; along those same lines, moving the city’s servers to a cloud-based hosting system even though the company providing this service has experienced troubling volatility in the performance of its stock;  and a quick glance at the Executive Session listing doesn’t fill me with much hope it will be brief.

Now, having said all that, there is one other item I would like to see pulled from the consent agenda and that’s the one that has the city paying Texas State University no more than $2,750 to "conduct a citizen’s (sic) satisfaction survey for the City of Kyle." Sure, I could be smug and wonder what the criteria is going to be to select the citizen for the survey, but I am assuming that’s the City’s grammatical error and not a statement of fact. (Hope. Hope.) But what I would really like to know is what exactly are respondents going to be quizzed about. Is this a survey to measure the satisfaction of residents with City services. Or is it a survey to see how satisfied we are by the number of restaurants we have in town, or the condition of the roads, or how satisfied citizens were with the UIL realignment or the Academy Awards?

It does appear that this will be another one of those surveys what will be sent out with water bills which means that this will be another survey of homeowners only and not all residents of Kyle. What a lost opportunity.

I have the feeling, however, this is more of a Texas State-driven student project than it is a city-driven survey, especially when you consider the price tag. According to the accompanying materials, the students are supposed to present to the city no later than Aug. 31 (1) a bi-lingual survey instrument on citizen satisfaction (of what, I have no idea); (2) Statistical analysis of survey results; (3) A report on aggregated regional results; (4) A report on City specific results; (4) An executive summary of results; (5) Content description and summaries of each survey topic; (5) A comparison of results based upon benchmarks of participating cities; (6) Profile of each city surveyed; (7) Profile of survey respondents; (8) Overview of survey research method; and (10) Copy of survey instrument. That’s an awful lot of ask for $2,750, but I still would like to know what it’s about. What specific information does the city hope to obtain from this survey? I think that’s an important question to have answered and that’s why I’m hoping this item will also be pulled from the consent agenda.

Like I said, I may be bringing my sleeping bag anyway.

Daylight Savings Time so change your batteries

OK, this really has absolutely nothing to do with city government, per se. I’m going to justify it, however, because it does have something to do with public safety and the largest chunk of any municipal General Fund budget goes to public safety.

I’m convinced the city’s public safety officials will agree with me when I say you should change the batteries in your smoke alarms every six months. I’m always reminded to do this by the start and the end of Daylight Savings Time.

Daylight Savings begins Sunday, so if you haven’t done so in a while, here’s a reminder to protect yourselves and your loved ones by changing the batteries in your home smoke alarms and to do so every time Daylight Savings kicks in or out. It’s just a simple way to remember to take this precaution.

What exactly are ‘more urbanized’ apartments?

Kyle’s Planning Director Howard Koontz told Planning & Zoning commissioners tonight that apartments planned for that stretch of the new Marketplace extension between City Lights Drive and Burleson Road will be "more urbanized" than any other apartment complexes in the city. Your guess on what that means is as good as mine. I could have asked, I guess, but, frankly, I bolted out of the P&Z meeting right after it adjourned so I could hastily walk the few blocks north to the Katharine Anne Porter House to view what was left of the candidates’ forum. And I actually got to see one school board candidate and three of four city council candidates (incumbent Shane Arabie chose not to attend). So I didn’t wait around to ask Koontz to describe exactly what he meant but I’m guessing it could be something that looks like this, or this, or this, or even this.

P&Z approves zoning change on property that’s not located where agenda says it is

The Planning & Zoning Commission approved a zoning change tonight from retail services to three-story apartments on property located somewhere differently from where its agenda said it was located. The actual location of the property in question is significantly close to a sensitive flood plain, yet no environmental or traffic impact study accompanied the request. The commissioners simply expressed hope we would never have a repeat of last year’s floods.

Here’s to hopes.

The agenda said "Consider a request to rezone approximately 6.785 acres from Retail Service District ‘RS’ to Multi-Family Residential-3 ‘R-3-3' on property located on the southeast corner of City Lights Drive and Marketplace extension."

Except the property the city wants to rezone is not "located on the southeast corner of City Lights Drive and Marketplace extension." It is located significantly south of that corner. This would be like describing the location of the Texas Pie Company as on the southeast corner of Burleson and Center streets. OK, it’s close to that corner. It’s within easy walking distance of that corner. But, technically, it’s not on that corner.

So my question is: What exactly did the commission do tonight? Did it vote to rezone, as the agenda item specifically said, 6.785 acres "located on the southeast corner of City Lights Drive and Marketplace extension," or did it rezone the property not described in the agenda item, but the property the city sought to rezone all along?

The "property the city sought to rezone all along," is actually located far enough from that intersection that an NFL football field, complete with the two necessary end zones, could comfortably fit between that corner and the property in question. The city said the property is actually located 400 feet from that intersection. And, if you measure 400 feet from that intersection, as I personally did this past weekend, you will end up in the middle of a bridge over a creek. So where exactly will this apartment complex be constructed in relation to this creek and, regardless of the exact location, shouldn’t a study have been prepared for Planning & Zoning describing the environmental impact of an apartment complex that city Planning Director Howard Koontz said will be a "more urbanized" complex than any other such apartment development in Kyle on that creek?

OK, it could be argued, perhaps successfully in some quarters, that I worry about these technicalities more than I should. This creek is located downstream from where I live, so why in heaven’s name should I even care, especially if none of those wise souls on P&Z obviously don’t? Maybe it’s because I believe you should take the time to do these things correctly. Maybe it’s because I think it’s less burdensome on taxpayers to prevent problems from happening then to try to solve them later. Maybe it’s because I’m a believer in and a practioner of "smart growth" instead of "rapid growth."

In other actions this evening, the commission voted to change the zoning on property where a warehouse is located from agricultural to warehouse zoning and decided that it’s perfectly OK for a planned subdivision to dramatically reduce the number of proposed lots in the development, but if it wants to remove streets or increase the size of its detention pond, it must submit a new plat to the commission, It also set its final meeting to discuss revisions of the Comprehensive Plan for two weeks from tonight.

That was fast (if not exactly kosher)

When I first learned about the city’s plans to extend Market Place Avenue from City Lights Drive to North Burleson Street, I predicted that entire stretch of roadway, from Kyle Parkway to Center Street, would be completely urbanized within 20 years. But not even I thought the process would begin this quickly.

The Planning & Zoning Commission is scheduled to consider a pair of zoning change requests at its Tuesday gathering, one of which would convert 6.785 acres of land on the east side of Marketplace Avenue extension, south of City Lights, from retail services to multi-family, to allow for the planned construction of approximately 190 three-story apartment units. Interestingly, it’s the City itself that is seeking the zoning change, although Joe Brooks, the listed owner of the property, has apparently given his consent to the City’s request. I guess that’s why certain regulations are being skirted — namely ones that require a notification sign be posted on property requesting the zoning change. I mean, who’s the City gonna bust for disobeying the law? I doubt if it plans to issue a citation against itself.

I sign would have been helpful, however. Although the agenda itself says the land is "located on the southeast corner of City Lights Drive and Marketplace extension," that’s not exactly true. According to materials accompanying the agenda "The location is located approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of the new Marketplace Extension and City Lights Drive." But that’s not all. Today, I measured "400 feet south of the intersection of the new Marketplace Extension and City Lights Drive" and that put me plumb in the center of the bridge that spans Plum Creek. So, perhaps, maybe, it could be, Plum Creek is going to flow right through the middle of this apartment complex, but for some reason I really doubt that’s going to happen. A sign announcing exactly where the property on which the zoning change is requested is located would have removed a lot of the confusion.

One other thing. At last week’s City Council meeting, Planning Director Howard J. Koontz floated this idea for ways to change the City’s perimeter road fees and during that discussion Koontz produced a chart showing how many trips-per-day certain kinds of developments produce. According to Koontz’s own figures, this proposed apartment complex will produce 1,257 trips-per-day and, according to city ordinances, any zoning change that could result in 1,000 or more trips per day requires an accompanying traffic impact analysis. Needless to say no such analysis accompanies this request. But, as I said earlier, the City is the applicant here so I guess it can get away with breaking its own rules without penalties.

Yep, not exactly kosher. However, if anyone wants to question why "The City of Kyle is the applicant for this request," when ordinances seem to prohibit the city from seeking zoning changes, or why the actual agenda item lists an incorrect location for this development, or why the location listed in the accompanying material is in the middle of Plum Creek, or why no zoning change notification sign was posted on the site, or why a traffic impact study does not accompany the request, there will be ample opportunity to do so at the public hearing that will be part of the discussion on this agenda item.

I was also hoping (probably "wishfully dreaming" might be a more apt description) that the Marketplace Extension would be the ideal "test" area for the City to consider locating what urban land planners are referring to as "perfect communities." You know, completely self-sustaining neighborhoods that won’t become a terrible tax burden on future generations as is the ultimate fate of all the other development taking place in Kyle. But I guess Kyle hasn’t advanced to that level of sophistication. If anyone is curious about what a "perfect community" looks like, I’ve included an artist’s rendering of one below.

The second zoning change P&Z will consider is even more laughable. The request is to change the zoning on 1.5 acres of land located on the northeast corner of the I-35 feeder road and Edwards Drive, just north of the Central Texas Speedway. That property is currently occupied by a warehouse and the applicant is requesting a zoning change from agriculture to warehouse. I’m not making this stuff up. A giant warehouse/used car business occupies the land now.

The way I understand it, the warehouse was built before the property was annexed into the city and newly annexed properties are permitted to maintain non-conforming uses of their property following annexation. However, the used car lot was added after the annexation, so now the property owner, Leonardo Huerta, must request a zoning change.

But at least he has the requisite sign in place (see below).

Longtime readers may be aware of my opposition to warehouse zoning anywhere along I-35 (I don’t believe it presents a good "image" of Kyle to motorists), but this area is pretty much warehoused-to-hell already, so there’s not much can be done to fix it right away.

This is 400 feet down Marketplace extension from City Lights Drive
 





I'm betting this is the more probable location of the proposed apartments, that is if the above pictured tenants don't object.



The perfect community





The warehouse situated on the land to be rezoned from agriculture to warehouse. The used car lot is on the right.



At least one of the properties had the necessary sign.