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.