Puff puff, toot toot, off we go

Michael Bowen is really pushing his luck.

First, his absolutely reasonable request for zoning that would have allowed his plan for a residential development on Sledge Street on the fringe of the city’s urban core was almost derailed by the dim-witted thinking obstructionists on the City Council who argued that if houses are built there, they might attract people to live in them (ya think?) and heaven forbid we should open the gates to more people living in Kyle, especially on the fringe of the city’s urban core. It was only through some nifty legislative legerdemain that his zoning application survived the approval process.

But now he’s back to ask another favor from a council that was not welcoming of his efforts the first time around. This time it’s all about the location of a street leading out (or entering into, depending on your point-of-view) his subdivision. This time he’s asking the council Tuesday night for a waiver of city regulations that require two separate street intersections along the same road to be at least 60 yards apart.

In theory, I understand what he’s trying to do and I also understand, I think, why the city has this distance requirement. What I don’t understand is the language in the staff report that says "off-center street intersections are not permitted" by Kyle’s subdivision regulations. I have never heard the term "off-center street intersection." I am familiar with "offset intersections," but not "off-center" ones. They sound like mistakes, intersections that missed their intended targets. Apparently what Bowen wants is an interesection that will result in a "jog" — not the normal kind which is an S-curve in the road; but one would result from a street exiting Bowen’s planned subdivision, currently referred to as "Opal Ranch," onto Sledge Street, and a street entering the Bradford Meadows subdivision on the other side of Sledge Street. Under Bowen’s current layout, those two intersections would be 144 feet apart instead of the city’s required 180 feet.

Here’s why the city has a problem with that: According to the staff’s report: "Intersection off-sets are required in development codes primarily to protect vehicles making left turns, especially simultaneous left turns toward each paired intersection in question. In this specific case, the left turns are out of both subdivisions — Bradford Meadows in a northbound direction, and Opal Ranch in a southbound direction. However, intersection off-sets also reduce rear-end collisions between right turning traffic that is reducing speed off of the collector and left turn traffic that is accelerating onto the collector. In this case, a vehicle exiting either subdivision in a left turn movement would be accelerating away from the intersection, but could encounter a vehicle traveling the same direction, but slowing to make a right into the opposing subdivision."

Got that? I think I do in an abstract sort of way and if I do get it that means problems would arise if, at any time, a significant number of moving automobiles would find themselves at the same place at the same time and, frankly, the odds of that happening at the same time on this particular section of Sledge Street would appear to be larger than the odds of the Indiana Pacers winning the NBA championship. The analysis of the city staff says much the same thing and adds something that reminded me of the old grade-school math problem that begins "If one train traveling east at 60 miles an hour out of Chicago …" Specifically the analysis says "the posted speed limit on Sledge Street is 30 MPH. A vehicle traveling 30 MPH is moving at 44 feet per second; a vehicle traveling 35 MPH is moving at roughly 51 feet per second; and 40 MPH is 59 feet per second. Braking distances on this roadway should be sufficient not to cause harm to the motoring public."

OK, I’m going to take their word for that, but does it matter? The same folks that tried to kill this project at the zoning stage might be successful in inflicting mortal wounds on it this time around. Staff is already trying to give the council an escape route by mentioning "If it's the council's preference not to approve the request as presented, re-consideration at a later date could be an option, subsequent to the submittal of a third-party traffic impact statement from an engineer registered by the State of Texas and qualified to produce such a report."

But what happens if the council doesn’t take the escape route and just denies the waiver? If at first the dimwits don’t succeed …

Also accompanying the request is a "proposed preliminary plan" of the Opal Ranch subdivision that, by all appearances, looks exactly like a plat. I asked Planning Director Howard Koontz about this because the Planning & Zoning Commission has yet to approve a plat for this subdivision. "P&Z can't approve the idea of the plat they're proposing, with the non-conforming intersection distance" Koontz told me Friday. "Council isn't approving the plat, they're approving the idea of a plat with an offset of less than 180 feet. If council approves the waiver, then it can go forward to the P&Z. As it reads today, it can't go forward to P&Z, as it's non-compliant with Chapter 41." So there’s that.

Elsewhere on the agenda are perfectly logical recommendations (that are in the form of amendments to city ordinances) regarding building in floodplains along with six potential appointments to the Train Depot Board that will, according to Chief of Staff Jerry Hendrix, still leave one vacancy on the seven-member board. Three of the appointees listed — Angie Chapa, Jane Kirkham and Kate Johnson — are already Train Depot Board members. So I was wondering who the three other nominees — former city council member Diane Hervol; Tim McCutchion, who recently and unsuccessfully sought a place on the City Council; and Patricia Randow, of whom I know nothing — would be replacing. Hendrix told me "It is possible that these appointments will all be treated as new appointments given that the terms have been expired since 2016. Assuming the council concurs and that all are appointed, there will be one vacancy remaining to be filled." So there’s that as well. For some reason it brought to mind the lyrics of the children’s song: "Down by the station early in the morning, see the little pufferbellies all in a row. See the station master turn the little handle; Puff, puff, toot, toot, off we go!"

Actually, that could be the theme song for Tuesday’s entire agenda.