In advance of the city council instituting storm water fees, the Planning & Zoning Commission will consider Tuesday zoning ordinance amendments that will expand what is considered an impervious surface subject to stormwater runoff. Basically, the changes would align Kyle with more accepted impervious surface definitions in place in other communities with active stormwater management programs.
The meeting is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday in the city hall council chambers. A public hearing is scheduled as part of the impervious surface agenda item.
These changes won’t have an immediate dramatic financial impact on homeowners because the city is considering a monthly stormwater fee that will be uniform for all. That’s because Kyle’s housing stock is relatively uniform. But, as the city grows and its housing stock becomes more diverse in size, it is expected residential stormwater fees will be calculated in proportion to the amount of impervious surface contained on a homeowner’s property. That means a homeowner with a large concrete deck, a swimming pool or a large paved entryway could pay more than a neighbor without any of these amenities.
The city is considering requiring commercial property owners, however, to pay a monthly stormwater utility fee based on the total area of impervious surface on their property.
The definitions will have an immediate effect on future developments because it will adjust the percentage of a property that can be covered by an impervious surface is each zoning district. Because more features of a property will be considered impervious, the percentages are increased under the terms of the proposed changes. For example, in residential areas zoned R-1-2, the total amount of a lot that can be covered in impervious surface will increase from 45 to 60 percent; in a warehouse zoned area, from 60 to 75 percent.
Under current definitions, only the actual home counts toward the amount of impervious surface on a residential property. "This manifests itself as a problem," according to the staff analysis that accompanies the proposed changes, "because stormwater detention facilities are effectively sized for expected impervious surfaces, but in Kyle usual and customary paved surfaces like driveways, sidewalks, patios, pool decks, etc., can’t be adequately calculated to be contained during a storm event."
In other words, if the newly created stormwater utility is going to be successful, it must be able to account for all impervious surfaces so "that more effective stormwater control can be implemented in the developmental process," the staff analysis said.
Under the new definition, "Impervious cover means roads, parking areas, buildings, rooftop landscapes, patios, decking and other construction limiting the absorption of water by covering the natural land surface; this shall include, but not be limited to, all streets and pavement within the development, and all other surfaces comprised of wood, stone, concrete, asphalt, metal, brick and other masonry, decorative water features like ponds and pools, and swimming pools. Improved areas established on a suitably engineered sub-base, whose purpose is to capture stormwater from the two-year storm event and recharge ground water, are not impervious."
The amendments will define a "a paved area" as one "surfaced with asphalt, concrete or similar durable pavement, providing a permanent, erosion-resistant, all-weather surface. Gravel, river rock, and/or stone dust (road base) are not acceptable paved surfaces. Proprietary, engineered pre-cast systems incorporating natural surfaces which allow for stormwater management as well as load-bearing vehicle storage such as Geoblocks, Grasscrete, and Truckpave, etc., also qualify as pavement."
P&Z commissioners will also be asked to consider conditional use permits that will enable the construction of a one-story, 16,686-square-foot facility on Seton Parkway, across the street from the under-construction Goodwill store, to be used as a BioLife Plasma Services facility; and one-story 9,000-square-foot "multi-tenant retail center" (mini strip-mall?) on the northbound I-35 frontage road, just north of the AMM Collision Center, between Windy Hill Road and the 149 highway.
The commissioners will also consider much-debated changes to that part of the zoning ordinance dealing with landscape requirements and possibly whether to remove the landscape provisions from Chapter 53 of the ordinance and making it a separate chapter. A public hearing is also attached to the landscape changes agenda item.
In fact, you can read the entire Planning & Zoning Commission agenda right here.
The Kyle Report
Showing posts with label Landscaping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Landscaping. Show all posts
Monday, September 12, 2016
Friday, April 22, 2016
I guess that clears that up
The Planning and Zoning Commission is conducting a workshop Tuesday in lieu of a regularly scheduled action meeting. And I found the one actual item on the agenda for this workshop to be, shall we say, somewhat nebulous. That agenda item was "Discussion regarding text revisions and amendments to the Code of Ordinance." But, instead of heading directly to the liquor cabinet I decided a better first course of action would be to ask city spokesperson Kim Hilsenbeck to translate that for me.
And she did.
"The agenda item is a workshop meant to generate discussion on several items," Hilsenbeck replied. "It's a way to take the pulse of the commission to see if they want Planning Director Howard Koontz to pursue changes to the city code.
"Over the past year or so of Mr. Koontz's employment, he found several items in the code that he wants to get feedback about, such as a dark sky lighting ordinance," she continued. "Other examples include complete streets, stream buffers, parking circulation and impervious surface ratios. This will be a workshop only; no action will be taken."
Then she added "This discussion during the workshop will not focus on the landscape ordinance and is not related to annexation."
And, apparently, it will not focus on that other past due Planning & Zoning Commission responsibility besides revisions to the landscape ordinance: its report to the city council on the Comprehensive Plan.
So now I’m heading to the liquor cabinet.
And she did.
"The agenda item is a workshop meant to generate discussion on several items," Hilsenbeck replied. "It's a way to take the pulse of the commission to see if they want Planning Director Howard Koontz to pursue changes to the city code.
"Over the past year or so of Mr. Koontz's employment, he found several items in the code that he wants to get feedback about, such as a dark sky lighting ordinance," she continued. "Other examples include complete streets, stream buffers, parking circulation and impervious surface ratios. This will be a workshop only; no action will be taken."
Then she added "This discussion during the workshop will not focus on the landscape ordinance and is not related to annexation."
And, apparently, it will not focus on that other past due Planning & Zoning Commission responsibility besides revisions to the landscape ordinance: its report to the city council on the Comprehensive Plan.
So now I’m heading to the liquor cabinet.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
P&Z moves one step closer to recommending developer-friendly landscape ordinance
The reason, I have been told by a number of city officials, why the city wants to lessen its landscape standards is because of developers’ complaints. "Adhering to these requirements is just too damn expensive," the developers whine and, as a result, the city is besieged by requests for variances from the regulations by developers. So, the argument goes, if we reduce the requirements, we reduce the number of complaints.
In a city where the officials bend over and grabs their knees whenever a developer asks them to, one could argue making life easier for those who actually dictate municipal policy — these developers — makes perfectly good sense. Personally, I think it stinks. Who should the city be beholden to — those who actually live and work here or those that develop the joint and then move on to screw up the next town? I argue it should be the former, but I seem I am in the minority here.
My point is simply this: The developer rarely, if ever, inhabits the project being developed. I will argue landscaping ordinances should be designed to satisfy those who will actually occupy the property in question, not to make it cheaper for that property to be developed. But our elected public officials simply don’t agree with this notion; in fact, they believe the exact opposite is true.
As mentioned in my profile, I used to be a partner in a media/crisis consulting firm. It was a comparatively small company, never employing more than seven persons at any one time. Our building needs were somewhat unique, but not overwhelming: we needed individual offices for each of the employees, a reception area, a conference/teaching room that could comfortably accommodate up to 15 persons and a room that could be used as a television studio. We were never going to construct our own building to satisfy those needs; we always looked for spaces we could alter somewhat to fit our specifications in existing office buildings.
At the same time we wanted to be located in a facility that presented the best possible face. Our clients included the heads of major corporations, owners of professional sports teams, and political leaders (including one client who subsequently became President of the United States). When you host individuals of this stature you want them on a campus that looks nice. Not only that, but we always wanted to come to work each day in a facility we could be proud to say we worked in.
But, as I said, it’s Kyle’s operating philosophy that the wants and needs of those who will live and work in a structure are not as important as those developing that structure and, hence, the need to scale back on the city’s landscape ordinance.
Having said this, however, I must tip my hat to Community Development Director Howard Koontz who has stepped into this fray since the last proposed revision of the ordinance and who did try to add some teeth to it during last night’s Planning and Zoning Commission workshop. For example, the commissioners created a landscaping requirement table that reduced the amount of landscaping required particularly in commercial developments. Koontz simply wanted to substitute that table with language that said all areas of the development not being used for the actual building footprint should be landscaped. But the commissioners were too dang proud of that table to give it up.
Koontz did manage to get language inserted that requires landscaping plans be submitted with the original development request and that those plans must be prepared by a licensed landscaping professional such as a registered landscape architect, a certified arborist,.or a registered forester. He also convinced the commissioners to change a requirement that all protected trees located where a street was to be constructed did not have to be replaced. Now that section reads those trees "that are located within areas designated for the construction of public underground utilities such as water or wastewater lines shall not be required to be replaced," but developers will be required to "submit a tree removal plan with the submittal of public improvement construction plans."
"We’re talking about the private development of a public improvement," Koontz said.
Commissioner Lori Huey argued that making these kinds of demands on developers would increase developers’ complaints that "It’s too hard to build in Kyle." Koontz countered: "When they come in crying it’s too hard to do work here, it’s not too hard to do work here. It’s harder to do quality work here. Any drunken third grader can go out there and moonscape a lot and put a building up in the middle of it. It takes talent and intelligence and quality individuals to put together something that’s visually dynamic and interesting."
My thoughts exactly and now I’m praying that his ideas about quality and developments that are "visually dynamic and interesting" will be reflected throughout the final landscape ordinance.
In a city where the officials bend over and grabs their knees whenever a developer asks them to, one could argue making life easier for those who actually dictate municipal policy — these developers — makes perfectly good sense. Personally, I think it stinks. Who should the city be beholden to — those who actually live and work here or those that develop the joint and then move on to screw up the next town? I argue it should be the former, but I seem I am in the minority here.
My point is simply this: The developer rarely, if ever, inhabits the project being developed. I will argue landscaping ordinances should be designed to satisfy those who will actually occupy the property in question, not to make it cheaper for that property to be developed. But our elected public officials simply don’t agree with this notion; in fact, they believe the exact opposite is true.
As mentioned in my profile, I used to be a partner in a media/crisis consulting firm. It was a comparatively small company, never employing more than seven persons at any one time. Our building needs were somewhat unique, but not overwhelming: we needed individual offices for each of the employees, a reception area, a conference/teaching room that could comfortably accommodate up to 15 persons and a room that could be used as a television studio. We were never going to construct our own building to satisfy those needs; we always looked for spaces we could alter somewhat to fit our specifications in existing office buildings.
At the same time we wanted to be located in a facility that presented the best possible face. Our clients included the heads of major corporations, owners of professional sports teams, and political leaders (including one client who subsequently became President of the United States). When you host individuals of this stature you want them on a campus that looks nice. Not only that, but we always wanted to come to work each day in a facility we could be proud to say we worked in.
But, as I said, it’s Kyle’s operating philosophy that the wants and needs of those who will live and work in a structure are not as important as those developing that structure and, hence, the need to scale back on the city’s landscape ordinance.
Having said this, however, I must tip my hat to Community Development Director Howard Koontz who has stepped into this fray since the last proposed revision of the ordinance and who did try to add some teeth to it during last night’s Planning and Zoning Commission workshop. For example, the commissioners created a landscaping requirement table that reduced the amount of landscaping required particularly in commercial developments. Koontz simply wanted to substitute that table with language that said all areas of the development not being used for the actual building footprint should be landscaped. But the commissioners were too dang proud of that table to give it up.
Koontz did manage to get language inserted that requires landscaping plans be submitted with the original development request and that those plans must be prepared by a licensed landscaping professional such as a registered landscape architect, a certified arborist,.or a registered forester. He also convinced the commissioners to change a requirement that all protected trees located where a street was to be constructed did not have to be replaced. Now that section reads those trees "that are located within areas designated for the construction of public underground utilities such as water or wastewater lines shall not be required to be replaced," but developers will be required to "submit a tree removal plan with the submittal of public improvement construction plans."
"We’re talking about the private development of a public improvement," Koontz said.
Commissioner Lori Huey argued that making these kinds of demands on developers would increase developers’ complaints that "It’s too hard to build in Kyle." Koontz countered: "When they come in crying it’s too hard to do work here, it’s not too hard to do work here. It’s harder to do quality work here. Any drunken third grader can go out there and moonscape a lot and put a building up in the middle of it. It takes talent and intelligence and quality individuals to put together something that’s visually dynamic and interesting."
My thoughts exactly and now I’m praying that his ideas about quality and developments that are "visually dynamic and interesting" will be reflected throughout the final landscape ordinance.
Friday, November 14, 2014
The Ugly Factor
How ugly do the city fathers (and mothers) want Kyle to be when it grows up? From what I gathered listening to the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission discussing the Kyle’s landscape ordinance they want it to be pretty damned ugly. Heaven forbid that Kyle should ever be the home of an office building that looks like this, or this, or even this. And we certainly don’t want manufacturing concerns with campuses like this, or this, or this.
Contrary to what these pictures prove, the KPZC argues that businesses won’t locate here if the city requires them to have more than 10 percent of their property landscaped. Let them put a potted plant at the front door and we’ll call it day.
Current landscape ordinances require that those properties zoned R-1-1 and R-1-2 (both single family residential designations); R-1-A (single family attached/detached); R-2 (duplexes); and M-1, M-2 and M-3 (all manufactured housing designations) must plant "a minimum of two four-inch trees, six two-gallon shrubs and lawn grass from the front property lines to the front two corners of the structure ..." The problem the zoning folks had were with those big dad-gum trees. Chairman Mike Rubsam said trees that are no smaller than 2½ inches are plenty big enough for him. Of course, the real issue here is how fast will these trees grow and the answer to that is it depends on the type of tree. The most common tree planted in Texas is the Red Maple and it can grow between 1 to 2 feet per year. So, splitting the difference, if you put it a 2½ inch diameter, 4-feet tall red maple now, in 25 years that sucker will be 41½ feet tall. Of course, you have to wait a quarter of a century for that and by that time ....
But, to be honest, the tree issue is not that one that bothered me. It was the area-of-land-devoted-to-landscaping topic that I found wanting. Current landscape ordinances require that those properties zoned R-1-T (townhomes), R-1-C (condominiums), R-3-1 (multifamily), R-3-3 (apartments) and CBD-1 (Central Business District 1) devote 20 percent of their respective properties to landscaping. Rubsam noted that areas zoned for hospitals and neighborhood commercial also fell into this category and, in his view, 20 percent of their property devoted to landscaping was simply too onerous a requirement. He wanted it dropped to 15.
But that’s not all. He thought that areas zoned for warehouses and commercial uses, which now must have 15 percent of their property landscaped, be dropped down to 10 percent. Everyone on the commission seemed to buy into it. In fact, commissioner Dan Ryan said if these landscape requirements weren’t lowered, businesses would simply not locate in Kyle.
Hogwash!
According to reports I’ve seen, the No. 1 reason an entrepreneur will locate a business in a certain area is that nebulous factor known as "quality of life." Specifically that means, an adequate and talented labor pool, easy access to customers and suppliers, good schools, parks, cultural amenities and restaurants. In fact, in a recent survey of 150 founders of some of the fastest growing companies in the United States, "only 2% of respondents mentioned business-friendly regulations or policies when discussing why they founded their company in a specific city." (You can read that entire report here.)
So instead of taking steps that make Kyle less attractive to the naked eye, I would be going in exactly the opposite direction. One of the first steps I would take is to put a temporary hiatus on discussing changes to the city’s landscaping ordinances and instead put out a bid for a forestry consultant to oversee the development of a landscaping master plan designed to enhance, not detract, from the city’s quality of life.
Instead of boasting about to prospective business owners about how little landscaping they will be required to install, tout Kyle’s location that features quick and easy access to the Bergstrom Airport via toll roads 45 and 130, the proximity to the labor pools produced by graduates of the University of Texas at Austin and Texas State University, the easy access to outstanding cultural and athletic amenities offered by Austin, San Marcos and San Antonio and the fact that just about every shopping need a consumer has can be satisfied by no more than a 5-minute drive right here in Kyle.
Admittedly, I am a recent transplant to Kyle. But this is where I have decided I want to live the rest of my life. This is going to be my final home. And I want that home to be "more," not "less." I want our city fathers (and mothers) looking for ways to make that home more attractive, not uglier.
Contrary to what these pictures prove, the KPZC argues that businesses won’t locate here if the city requires them to have more than 10 percent of their property landscaped. Let them put a potted plant at the front door and we’ll call it day.
Current landscape ordinances require that those properties zoned R-1-1 and R-1-2 (both single family residential designations); R-1-A (single family attached/detached); R-2 (duplexes); and M-1, M-2 and M-3 (all manufactured housing designations) must plant "a minimum of two four-inch trees, six two-gallon shrubs and lawn grass from the front property lines to the front two corners of the structure ..." The problem the zoning folks had were with those big dad-gum trees. Chairman Mike Rubsam said trees that are no smaller than 2½ inches are plenty big enough for him. Of course, the real issue here is how fast will these trees grow and the answer to that is it depends on the type of tree. The most common tree planted in Texas is the Red Maple and it can grow between 1 to 2 feet per year. So, splitting the difference, if you put it a 2½ inch diameter, 4-feet tall red maple now, in 25 years that sucker will be 41½ feet tall. Of course, you have to wait a quarter of a century for that and by that time ....
But, to be honest, the tree issue is not that one that bothered me. It was the area-of-land-devoted-to-landscaping topic that I found wanting. Current landscape ordinances require that those properties zoned R-1-T (townhomes), R-1-C (condominiums), R-3-1 (multifamily), R-3-3 (apartments) and CBD-1 (Central Business District 1) devote 20 percent of their respective properties to landscaping. Rubsam noted that areas zoned for hospitals and neighborhood commercial also fell into this category and, in his view, 20 percent of their property devoted to landscaping was simply too onerous a requirement. He wanted it dropped to 15.
But that’s not all. He thought that areas zoned for warehouses and commercial uses, which now must have 15 percent of their property landscaped, be dropped down to 10 percent. Everyone on the commission seemed to buy into it. In fact, commissioner Dan Ryan said if these landscape requirements weren’t lowered, businesses would simply not locate in Kyle.
Hogwash!
According to reports I’ve seen, the No. 1 reason an entrepreneur will locate a business in a certain area is that nebulous factor known as "quality of life." Specifically that means, an adequate and talented labor pool, easy access to customers and suppliers, good schools, parks, cultural amenities and restaurants. In fact, in a recent survey of 150 founders of some of the fastest growing companies in the United States, "only 2% of respondents mentioned business-friendly regulations or policies when discussing why they founded their company in a specific city." (You can read that entire report here.)
So instead of taking steps that make Kyle less attractive to the naked eye, I would be going in exactly the opposite direction. One of the first steps I would take is to put a temporary hiatus on discussing changes to the city’s landscaping ordinances and instead put out a bid for a forestry consultant to oversee the development of a landscaping master plan designed to enhance, not detract, from the city’s quality of life.
Instead of boasting about to prospective business owners about how little landscaping they will be required to install, tout Kyle’s location that features quick and easy access to the Bergstrom Airport via toll roads 45 and 130, the proximity to the labor pools produced by graduates of the University of Texas at Austin and Texas State University, the easy access to outstanding cultural and athletic amenities offered by Austin, San Marcos and San Antonio and the fact that just about every shopping need a consumer has can be satisfied by no more than a 5-minute drive right here in Kyle.
Admittedly, I am a recent transplant to Kyle. But this is where I have decided I want to live the rest of my life. This is going to be my final home. And I want that home to be "more," not "less." I want our city fathers (and mothers) looking for ways to make that home more attractive, not uglier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)