The Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to consider a request Tuesday to rezone five acres of land on Lehman Road from agriculture to retail services, apparently so that the property owner, Tom Jordan of Wimberley, can locate self-storage warehouses on the property, a use normally reserved for warehouse zoning.
The commissioners also have on their agenda two other requests tabled from their last meeting including one that might have to be delayed again due to the inconsiderate and embarrassing actions of two members of the Board of Adjustments, as well as a request from St. Anthony’s Catholic Church to remove three specimen trees (those with a circumference of 75 feet or greater) from its property to clear space for the construction of an "education building."
Jordan tried unsuccessfully to get his property at 245 Lehman Road, 600 feet northeast of RR 150, rezoned for warehouse uses several months ago, but that request was denied because approximately two-thirds of the property is in a 100-year flood zone (as well as the fact that all the property surrounding this one is zoned for retail services). The city, however, feels that, at present, that remaining one-third of the property closest to Lehman and out of the flood zone could be used for a small retail center and even a self-storage warehouse, but not the larger type of structures warehouse zoning allows.
But since a self-storage facility is not allowed under retail services zoning, this zoning request is being coupled with a proposed zoning ordinance amendment that would need City Council approval to grant Jordan permission to use land zoned for retail services for warehouse-zoned purposes.
Tricky, eh? Sort of makes a mockery out of the entire zoning concept, doesn’t it. The question is, if this request is ultimately approved, what kind of precedent does that set?
I must add, however, that according to the information that accompanies the request, this is not the first time the city has pulled such a maneuver, so a precedent might already be in place. "The city has in the past entered into development agreements that specifically enable listed uses on parcels of land for specific purposes, as enabled in the agreement text," according to the documents the city’s staff filed with the owner’s request. "Staff has included an addendum to this zoning request consistent with this procedure which would permit Mr. Jordan to operate ‘warehouse and off-site storage’ and ‘general warehouse and storage’ as they are presented in the city’s zoning ordinance."
There is a public hearing attached to the agenda item in the off chance a citizen might have anything to say on the subject.
The two measures tabled during P&Z’s meeting Sept. 13 are for variances requested by a proposed plasma donation center and a conditional use permit for property on northbound I-35 frontage road between RR 150 and Kyle Parkway.
The commissioners said at its meeting last month it did not want to act on the request for a conditional use permit from BioLIfe Plasma Services until the Board of Adjustments could rule this past Tuesday on BioLife’s request for more parking spaces on its lot than present zoning ordinances permit. That Tuesday meeting never took place, however, because two members of the five-member board inexplicably failed to appear, denying the board a quorum. The fact that those two individuals, Terri Thompson and Paul Terry, are still members of the board is inexcusable, but they are the two most senior members so I’m guessing the theory around here is "seniority endows special privileges." Of course it could also be attributed to a lack of courage to take the necessary disciplinary action. Whatever. What made the actions of Thompson and Terry especially grievous is the fact that an engineer wasted a 2,500-mile round trip between Wisconsin and Kyle to appear on BioLife’s behalf at this past Tuesday’s meeting. Talk about a black eye for the city.
Whatever. This time BioLife is requesting a variance from the landscape ordinance because the presence of underground utilities on the proposed site as well as the existence of retaining wall borders would prohibit the planting of the number of trees required by the ordinance. But according to the documents accompanying this request, it, too, cannot be considered by Planning & Zoning until the layabouts on the Board of Adjustments can find the time in their schedule to get together to approve the parking increases.
Frankly, I wouldn’t blame BioLife one bit if it simply packed its bags and decided to locate its facility in Buda, San Marcos or even Seguin —, a city with a more welcoming attitude for professional business prospects such as this — and let Kyle simply be the home of low-end, minimum-wage-paying, fast-food franchises.
This is a moment when we can see if City Manager Scott Sellers can perform some behind-the-scenes miracles and put this Humpty-Dumpty back together again.
The second request, delayed from that same Sept. 13 meeting, is for a proposed 9,000-square-foot, multi-tenant retail center at 21511 I-35. Planning and Zoning pushed this one down the path because only three sides of the building contained the type of masonry the city requires. The owner, Dennis Artale, argued since all traffic would be traveling north anyway, that side wouldn’t be that visible. He also said the north side was partially obscured by a line of trees. But the commissioners said those arguments didn’t pass muster because the code requires four-sided masonry and the code is the code is the code and that’s that. So now Artale is back with another request, one, that according to the city staff’s analysis, "minimally meets the standards for the I-35 Overlay design requirements." I guess we’ll find out Tuesday if "minimally" is good enough for the commissioners. Artale, who told the commissioners this, his first, experience building in Kyle "hasn’t been a good one," also said he hoped to also locate a restaurant in his proposed Windmill Center and possibly even a hotel on property bordering the center to the south.
In a letter to Planning Director Howard J. Koontz, Fayez Kazi, an engineer with Civilitude Engineers and Planners, wrote that the three heritage trees need to be removed from the St. Anthony’s Catholic Church property because they are "in close proximity and/or are within the proposed footprint of the new education building." Under terms of the landscape ordinance, the removal of three heritage trees would require the planting of trees somewhere else on the property that are, in the words of the city’s staff, "circumference-for-circumference (a ratio of one-for-one)" of the speciment trees "regardless of the location of the specimen tree (even if the tree is within the building footprint)." In this case, according to the staff’s analysis, 19 trees, each with a circumference of at least four inches, "are need for replacing the specimen trees."
It seems, however, the church will ask the commissioners to waive this requirement as well, claiming there’s no place on the grounds to plant those trees. "While there seems to be ‘open’ areas north of the large parking lot," Kazi’s letter to Koontz says, "those are slated for future expansion."
On the aerial photograph of the property, however, it does seem there is sufficient room between the main church structure and Burleson Road to locate the required number of replacement trees.
Only time will tell if the commissioners plan to completely disregard both the city’s zoning and landscape ordinances, sets of rules fashioned by the Planning & Zoning Commission itself, in the same meeting, the agenda of which can be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment