In its meeting last Tuesday, the Planning Commission ignored the fact that the city’s new vision for its future lists community commercial zoning as a recommended use for a particular section of town and rejected an applicant’s plea for that particular zoning, voting instead to recommend a more restrictive zoning use for the land in question. The decision sent a clear message to developers and potential investors interested in Kyle: "Pay no attention to what’s contained in our Comprehensive Plan. It isn’t worth even considering. Here in Kyle, we make up our own rules on the fly."
Now I have always maintained a city’s Comprehensive Plan is a guide and not a rule book. But there’s something wrong when a majority of commissioners vote against a recommended zoning use for no other reason than the personal whims of that majority. That substitutes those short-sighted whims for what is stated as the long-term vision of the city as a whole.
Interestingly, the council also has that same zoning item on its agenda Tuesday. It will be interesting to see if the council follows the recommendations of the updated Comp Plan, which it will vote on as Item 18, or the recommendations of the Planning Commission, which comes up two items later.
There is much to applaud in the Comp Plan revisions under consideration, even though the Planning Commission has, by its actions earlier in the week, essentially declared those revisions worthless. Chief among them is the elimination of the so-called "Employment District" land use designation for a section of the city where absolutely no one would locate a significant center of employment, especially since it is served neither by Kyle water or wastewater infrastructure. Under the revisions, that extreme northeast area, most of which actually lies outside Kyle’s corporate limits, will bear the designation "Transitional Settlement" district, which is now being described as an area for "low-density housing … serviced by private wastewater treatment plants while still preserving its rural landscape heritage."
The other districts to receive a major overhaul include a pair of districts that formerly each bore the name New Settlement District. Under the revisions, the former New Settlement District located entirely east of I-35 will be called East Settlement Community. The proposed wording of the revised plan describes the remaining New Settlement District, which stretches across the southern border of the city, as being "as diverse as the district is expansive" and one which is "defined more by the function of the streets and neighborhoods that serve any particular block being examined and less by the multiple land forms characteristic of the region as a whole." The plan seems to recognize this area is ripe for potential development, particularly along the planned new route of RR 150 which will cut through the district: "Future development will occur along roadways best suited for access, and in the best proximity to the emerging water and wastewater infrastructure planned for in the city’s capital improvement plan."
Also worthy of note is a sentence inserted in the description for the Midtown District, which incorporates what is currently mainly a residential area north of downtown and east of I-35: "High-density residential, attached residential, and non-residential projects like employment and retail sales should be considered based on their … likelihood of compatibility of adjacent uses." Although this is entirely accurate, there will be some residents living in that district that will likely take issue with that statement, such as was the case last year when residents of the Silverado subdivision were successful in bullying the council to deny "high density, attached resident" townhouse zoning to property located within this district.
A sentence added to the description of New Town District, which includes most of the Plum Creek subdivision states "As parcels along major roadways and alongside high capacity wet utilities become available, the development density of those parcels should be established higher than other areas of the city, especially any properties in proximity to either I-35, FM 1626, or both." It also states this district includes "the proposed site for an ‘Uptown’ shopping/activity center," presumably planned for a location at or near the northeast corner of FM 1626 and Kohlers Crossing.
The revised comp plan recommends an increased number of mixed use developments for the Old Town Community which includes downtown Kyle and that area immediately east of downtown all the way to where Center Street intersects with Rebel Road. " … development should encompass a true model of multiple uses within the same structure to permit greater potential to operate in the same land area available today," according to the new wording used to describe the district. "Once a greater number and variety of service and product providers assembles in Kyle’s Old Town District, store owners should be able to solicit patronage from not only the residential immediately adjacent, but from the considerable number of residences to the north and northwest." This wording is also likely to receive some pushback from longtime residents in the area.
The revised plan also tries to further differentiate the so-called regional nodes from those nodes designed as local in nature. "Regional Nodes are scaled and designed as activity centers where users not only secure goods and services, but also congregate and remain for extended periods, unlike Local Nodes which are designed around quick turnaround convenience retail," according to wording inserted in this update.
Although this will be the first reading of the ordinance adopting the Comp Plan amendments, Tuesday’s meeting will provide the final opportunity for a public hearing on those amendments, According to a staff memo that accompanies the agenda item, "The process as spelled out by the city’s charter is a series of three public hearings: two of which have already taken place before the Planning & Zoning Commission on April 11 and April 25, 2017; the deliberation period from the second public hearing was extended to May 9, which had the added effect of postponing this third public hearing in front of the mayor and city council to May 16. This meeting will serve as the final meeting (emphasis mine) where the edits will be deliberated and adopted in front the city council."
The proposed parking ordinance, while welcomed and needed, is problematic because of its somewhat checkered history, its inclusion of an anti-panhandling section in what’s supposed to be strictly an ordinance regulating parking, its discriminatory attitude against multi-family areas of town and the typical Kyle approach of looking only at present needs without any regard to long-term vision.
The history of this ordinance includes an attempt several weeks ago to bring it before the Planning & Zoning Commission over the strenuous objections of one commissioner who maintained the commission’s consideration of a parking ordinance did not fall within the duties assigned the commission by the city charter. Then, at last Tuesday’s P&Z meeting, Planning Director Howard Koontz informed the commission it would no longer be assigned to consider the proposed parking ordinance because it fell outside its jurisdiction. That was greeted with the strenuous objections of another commissioner who argued P&Z should consider everything involving "planning" or otherwise it should be renamed "the Zoning Commission." That commissioner left unsaid whether the definition of everything involving planning included planning for such things as the proposed Hot Air Balloon Festival or exactly where that line needed to be drawn. Then, three days after Planning & Zoning was removed from any jurisdiction over the proposal, it suddenly appeared on the city council’s agenda posted Friday evening.
The anti-panhandling feature which mysteriously finds it way into what’s supposed to be a parking ordinance is contained in Section 47.37 (f) which reads: "It is unlawful for a person to loiter near corners, sidewalks, crosswalks or intersections of congested roads for the solicitation of money or the selling or promotion of goods and services." Personally, I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with parking.
The multi-family discriminations can be found in Sections 47.52 and Sections 47.53. To avoid duplication, I’ll simply mention the latter which says "It is unlawful for a person to leave, stand or park a large motor vehicle, travel trailer, personal water craft or boat, either attached or unattached to a motor vehicle on a public street in any single family residential zoning district (again, emphasis mine) in excess of 24 hours." The question is why discriminate against such streets as Cromwell Drive, which (1) extends from Kohlers Crossing past Sampson, (2) is quickly becoming "an apartment row," (3) is one of the principle entrance and exit drives for Plum Creek, and (4) should have the same restricted parking prohibitions as public streets in single-family districts? The reason is simple: The folks who craft these ordinances don’t live in apartments so they don’t care what happens on the public streets where apartments are located.
Why this is such a short-sighted ordinance is because it is a proposed parking ordinance that contains neither the phrase "parking meter" nor "parking garage." I realize neither exist within the city at present, but that’s why I say this ordinance looks only at the present and does not address the long-term.
I also question the wisdom of the wording in Section 47.27 (e) which states that for any parking violation "The registered owner and the operator of the vehicle, when not the same, are both liable to the city for the parking citation." Here’s the problem with that: How is the person issuing the parking citation going to know whether "the registered owner and the operator of the vehicle" are not the same person unless that person issuing the citation waits at the parked vehicle for its operator to return?
Section 47.30 states it’s a "level two violation," punishable by a $30 fine, to park in a no parking zone, but a "level three violation," punishable by a $50 fine, to park in a fire zone. Isn’t a fire zone, by definition, a no-parking zone?
The wording of Section 47.31 should be more inclusive, Right now it reads "When signs or markings are placed on a public street or in a public area giving notice thereof, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle for a period of time longer than the time indicated on the signs or markings." I think it should include additional wording so that it reads: "When signs or markings are placed on a public street or in a public area giving notice therefore, no person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle for a period of time (1) longer than the time indicated on the signs or markings or (2) during a time expressly prohibited by the signs or markings." This would then include signs limiting vehicles to parking for, say, two hours only, as well as enforcing regulations where parking is prohibited, for example, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Mondays through Fridays, except holidays and the like.
Other items on Tuesday’s agenda include:
- Two items that appear, to my eyes, identical. Both items 24 and 25 are exactly the same request (each contains the exactly same worded request letter) from James Ingalls, an engineer with Moeller and Associates of New Braunfels, requesting waivers from minimum development standards for the Windy Hill subdivision. Not that I can find a thing wrong with the request; it’s just that I can’t find any distinction between the two, except that on the agenda one bears the label "FP-16-006" and the other "FP-16-007." Hopefully, sharper eyes than mine can discern the difference.
- A request to shell out $1.4 million to Burgess & Nipple, Inc., of Austin to "provide design drawings and specifications for construction of the new (wastewater) treatment facilities and for upgrading or repurposing existing facilities." According to City Engineer Leon Barba, the design firm has already completed plans for expanding the current wastewater treatment plant. Under the terms of this proposed expenditure "B&N will submit plans for review at the 50 percent and 95 percent completion level," according to Barba. "Staff will review the plans and specifications and provide comments. When the plans are 95 percent completed, a cost estimate will be prepared and then submitted to TCEQ for review and approval. When the 100 percent of the plans and specifications are completed, B&N will begin and complete the bidding process." The $1.4 million will come from accumulated wastewater impact fee funds.
- A presentation from City Manager Scott Sellers on something called the Waterstone Development. I have absolutely no idea what this is, but presumably it’s one of those items that has been discussed in council executive sessions that, up until now, bore a colorful nomenclature like "Radiant Red" or "Passionate Purple," or even the already discussed "Just Peachy," which is scheduled to be part of this week’s executive session. The only relevant item a Google search produced was a listing for a Massachusetts-based Waterstone Retail Development that "operates as a real estate development, acquisition, and management company in the United States. The company specializes in the creation and repositioning of shopping centers. It focuses on grocery-anchored power and non-traditional specialty centers. The company develops properties under the 'build to own' model. Its activities include land acquisition, new developments, project repositioning, financing, construction, leasing, management, and portfolio acquisitions." However, this company has no recorded dealings anywhere in the state of Texas, so I doubt it has anything to do with Sellers’s planned presentation.
- Wastewater Division Manager Jason Biemer is also scheduled to make a presentation on the implementation of a computer-based monitoring system being installed at seven wastewater lift stations that Biemer says will give the city "(1) more robust detection ability of a potential failure; (2) better monitoring of pump health i.e. efficiency; (3) better preventative maintenance, predicting failures before they happen in many cases; and (4) faster response from treatment staff to potential plant upsets."
- The nomination of Plum Creek resident Amy McWhorter, who holds a master’s degree in public administration "with a concentration in land use management," to the Board of Adjustments/Sign Control Board.
- Spending $97,108.86 (and that includes a $74,501.14 buyback discount) to purchase one of these for the Stormwater Department. That 97 large represents 20 percent of the unencumbered balance in Stormwater’s approved fiscal year budget.
- Spending another $98,356, or 25 percent of what’s left of that unencumbered balance in Stormwater’s approved fiscal year budget, for two of these.
No comments:
Post a Comment