Kyle’s Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 (commissioner Irene Melendez was a no-show) tonight to recommend the City Council amend Chapter 53 of the Code of Ordinances to allow the construction of nine-story buildings in areas zoned RS (Retail Service Districts) on a case-by-case basis.
I would guess the proposed change will appear for a first reading on next Tuesday’s council agenda and will pass without much debate. The only discussion might come from those who, along with P&Z Commissioner Dan Ryan, believe restricting building heights to nine stories will hamper transit-oriented projects, to site one example. Ryan said he wanted to lift zoning restrictions to allow for high rise residential construction near the proposed Kyle/Buda rail station that’s being floated by the Lone Star Regional Rail Product.
"I love developments like that," Ryan said. "They require only one water line, one sewer line."
Commissioner Mike Wilson argued that current residential zoning does not allow for that type of density and that new residential zoning would have to be created before those height requirements could be addressed.
In the meantime, those developers that want to construct buildings up to nine-stories tall in areas zoned RS can so but on a conditional use basis. In other words, each such project plan would have to be submitted to and approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission and then the City Council. But this does mean some interesting mixed-use developments combining first-story retail, topped with three-to-four-story office space and possible four-story residential on top could be in the works for Kyle, possibly along Kohlers Crossing. Imagine that — living, working and shopping all in one spot. It sure could put the city at a competitive advantage.
The Kyle Report
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
City council misinterprets misleading information resulting in the unnecessary delay in the passage of a resolution
Section 255.003 (a) of the Texas Ethics Code states "An officer or employee of a political subdivision may not spend or authorize the spending of public funds for political advertising." And part c of this same section says "A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense is a Class A misdemeanor."
Here’s what that means. Kyle City Council candidate Elmore Electme can run on a platform of transforming Tohellandgone Blvd. from a potholed filled street that swallows pedestrians, cars and 18-wheelers into a well-lit, superbly maintained rodeway with sidewalks and all the other amenities that befits a well-traveled esplanade. However, once elected and once a bond program is approved by the council that is designed to achieve his goals, he is forbidden by the above-referenced TEC statute from using his position on the council to urge voters to approve the bonds. Nor can the council as a body endorse the passage of the bond proposal.
Now, you may argue, simply voting in favor of putting the bond proposal on the ballot is an endorsement. The law doesn’t see it that way, however. The argument here is the council’s action wasn’t an endorsement of passage per se, it was simply an action supporting the democratic process of allowing the voters to decide whether to spend the tax money on the necessary road repairs.
To use another example. The Kyle City Council could decide it would be really nice if the Texas Department of Transportation had more money to spend on needed road upgrades and construction in and around the city. It could even pass a resolution urging the elected state officials who represent the area to find ways to make that happen. However, once something like last year’s constitutional Proposition 1 goes on the ballot, they are forbidden from using their positions, either collectively or individually, from campaigning in any way that suggests how voters should cast their ballots on the issue.
Got it?
Last night’s Kyle City Council agenda included a seemingly innocuous item that said: "A Resolution of the City of Kyle City Council requesting the members of the 84th legislative session of the State of Texas to support increases of funding for the Texas Recreation and Parks account and large county and municipality Recreation and Parks Account Local Park Grant Programs, and the Texas State Park System."
This is, as Parks and Recreation director Kerry Urbanowicz described, asking the legislature to endorse refunding park grant programs and placing on an upcoming ballot a constitutional amendment to refund state parks through the use of sales taxes.
Council member David Wilson moved to approve the item and it was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Diane Hervol. An unanimous passage without discussion was forthcoming until city attorney Ken Johnson said "You should proceed with caution on voting on anything that might turn into a constitutional amendment."
But then he said the Texas Municipal League "advises you do not pass resolutions supporting any constitutional propositions."
But that’s not what the council was considering since there was no constitutional proposition to support. What they were going to support was recommending their legislators endorse and work in favor of the concept of such a proposition.
Mayor Todd Webster asked Johnson "The advisory opinion specifically refers to a ballot initiative?"
"Yes," Johnson replied.
Webster then asked Johnson if he was saying there is no distinction between an actual ballot initiative and an idea for one?
"What I’m saying is if you pass a resolution supporting a proposition that will be voted on by the voters as a constitutional amendment, then TML advises not to that," Johnson said.
All well and good but that’s not what the council was getting ready to do. They were voting to support the concept of creating such a proposition, not a proposition that already existed.
Wilson, for one, saw right through the apples and oranges discussion.
"Because it’s not passed, because it’s maybe in the proposal stages, I think we want to communicate to our legislators that this is something that’s important to us," Wilson said. "When you are talking about individual pieces of legislation with numbers on them and information inside of them I am not one that will jump on that bandwagon. Once something goes on the ballot, I will defer to my city attorney and not promote that. I will promote the election, but not how someone should vote."
Mayor Pro Tem Hervol to Johnson: "Can you clarify something for me? If we’re supporting this resolution but yet it’s not made it to the ballot, where’s TML’s caution for council members to support the resolution prior to it making it to the ballot?"
Johnson: "Well, I will have to tell you I was caught a little bit unawares because I did not know that part of this resolution was tied to a constitutional proposition. I thought it was strictly a resolution supporting legislation for funding of the parks system. So I don’t have that election code information in front of me at this point because I did not know this could lead to a constitutional provision. With that said, from what I recall. It basically says that if you support as measure with a resolution than you may be in violation of what they call political advertising. If you look at the election code that same section it does define that is a measure and a measure is something — I do not have the exact language — but it is something that basically eventually ends up on the ballot for the voters to vote for in an election. It doesn’t say legislation. It doesn’t say constitutional proposition. It’s very indirect, very generic. It talks about something that if you support this legislation or this measure and this measure is the actual constitutional proposition that is held out for an election by the voters — that is as vague and as general as it gets. The only reason I bring it to your attention is there are both civil and criminal potential penalties if you are found in violation of doing this. So I feel I would be remiss in my duty if I did not bring that to your attention."
Mayor Webster: "So it’s your opinion that if we pass a resolution that supports any legislative measure that is not on the ballot yet, that in doing so we subject us to criminal or civil penalties. Is that what you just said?"
Johnson. "No. What I’m saying is that if you vote on legislation that you do know in fact will go to the voters in an election as a constitutional amendment then yes."
That italicized portion of Johnson’s response is the key statement. There is absolutely no way that any member of the Kyle City Council can say with absolute certainty that they "know in fact" that any portion of the resolution they were considering "will go to the voters in an election as a constitutional amendment." They could hope it might and I’m betting the purpose of the resolution is to try to convince legislators to make that election happen. But there is no guarantee that it will, which renders all of Johnson’s cautions to the council absolutely irrelevant. In fact, according to Urbanowicz, some legislators during previous sessions have tried to get such an amendment on the ballot but their efforts have, to date, failed. Urbanowicz also told the council even stronger resolutions on this subject have been passed by the city councils of "at least 20" other Texas cities, including Houston, Austin and San Antonio, without concern.
Johnson: "May I ask this out of an abundance of caution. Is there any way this can be set aside so I can get the language and bring it back. That I can provide you with the specific election code information."
Mayor Webster: "My recommendation is that we don’t have a lot of choice other than to accept the city attorney’s recommendation. If the city attorney says we need more time to consider the resolution than my recommendation is that we do that, my feelings and my opinions aside. I just don’t want there to be any risk whether or not I think such a risk exists."
With that, council member Shane Arabie, who said quite emphatically he supported the resolution, requested it be tabled until "we get our ducks in a row," which he expected would occur at the council’s March 3 meeting. Wilson, somewhat reluctantly, withdrew his motion to approve the agenda item and substituted a motion to table it for two weeks which was passed.
Mayor Webster concluded the discussion by saying: "I absolutely think we have every right to pass a resolution that petitions our legislators for what we want to do."
But the council didn’t do that. Instead they misinterpreted misleading information and then balked. It’s not the end of the world, by any stretch of the imagination. I suspect the same resolution will come before the council in two weeks and sail right through and a two-week delay isn’t going to affect anything one way or another. Yet, on general rather than specific terms, what this episode says to me at least is somewhat troubling.
Here’s what that means. Kyle City Council candidate Elmore Electme can run on a platform of transforming Tohellandgone Blvd. from a potholed filled street that swallows pedestrians, cars and 18-wheelers into a well-lit, superbly maintained rodeway with sidewalks and all the other amenities that befits a well-traveled esplanade. However, once elected and once a bond program is approved by the council that is designed to achieve his goals, he is forbidden by the above-referenced TEC statute from using his position on the council to urge voters to approve the bonds. Nor can the council as a body endorse the passage of the bond proposal.
Now, you may argue, simply voting in favor of putting the bond proposal on the ballot is an endorsement. The law doesn’t see it that way, however. The argument here is the council’s action wasn’t an endorsement of passage per se, it was simply an action supporting the democratic process of allowing the voters to decide whether to spend the tax money on the necessary road repairs.
To use another example. The Kyle City Council could decide it would be really nice if the Texas Department of Transportation had more money to spend on needed road upgrades and construction in and around the city. It could even pass a resolution urging the elected state officials who represent the area to find ways to make that happen. However, once something like last year’s constitutional Proposition 1 goes on the ballot, they are forbidden from using their positions, either collectively or individually, from campaigning in any way that suggests how voters should cast their ballots on the issue.
Got it?
Last night’s Kyle City Council agenda included a seemingly innocuous item that said: "A Resolution of the City of Kyle City Council requesting the members of the 84th legislative session of the State of Texas to support increases of funding for the Texas Recreation and Parks account and large county and municipality Recreation and Parks Account Local Park Grant Programs, and the Texas State Park System."
This is, as Parks and Recreation director Kerry Urbanowicz described, asking the legislature to endorse refunding park grant programs and placing on an upcoming ballot a constitutional amendment to refund state parks through the use of sales taxes.
Council member David Wilson moved to approve the item and it was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Diane Hervol. An unanimous passage without discussion was forthcoming until city attorney Ken Johnson said "You should proceed with caution on voting on anything that might turn into a constitutional amendment."
But then he said the Texas Municipal League "advises you do not pass resolutions supporting any constitutional propositions."
But that’s not what the council was considering since there was no constitutional proposition to support. What they were going to support was recommending their legislators endorse and work in favor of the concept of such a proposition.
Mayor Todd Webster asked Johnson "The advisory opinion specifically refers to a ballot initiative?"
"Yes," Johnson replied.
Webster then asked Johnson if he was saying there is no distinction between an actual ballot initiative and an idea for one?
"What I’m saying is if you pass a resolution supporting a proposition that will be voted on by the voters as a constitutional amendment, then TML advises not to that," Johnson said.
All well and good but that’s not what the council was getting ready to do. They were voting to support the concept of creating such a proposition, not a proposition that already existed.
Wilson, for one, saw right through the apples and oranges discussion.
"Because it’s not passed, because it’s maybe in the proposal stages, I think we want to communicate to our legislators that this is something that’s important to us," Wilson said. "When you are talking about individual pieces of legislation with numbers on them and information inside of them I am not one that will jump on that bandwagon. Once something goes on the ballot, I will defer to my city attorney and not promote that. I will promote the election, but not how someone should vote."
Mayor Pro Tem Hervol to Johnson: "Can you clarify something for me? If we’re supporting this resolution but yet it’s not made it to the ballot, where’s TML’s caution for council members to support the resolution prior to it making it to the ballot?"
Johnson: "Well, I will have to tell you I was caught a little bit unawares because I did not know that part of this resolution was tied to a constitutional proposition. I thought it was strictly a resolution supporting legislation for funding of the parks system. So I don’t have that election code information in front of me at this point because I did not know this could lead to a constitutional provision. With that said, from what I recall. It basically says that if you support as measure with a resolution than you may be in violation of what they call political advertising. If you look at the election code that same section it does define that is a measure and a measure is something — I do not have the exact language — but it is something that basically eventually ends up on the ballot for the voters to vote for in an election. It doesn’t say legislation. It doesn’t say constitutional proposition. It’s very indirect, very generic. It talks about something that if you support this legislation or this measure and this measure is the actual constitutional proposition that is held out for an election by the voters — that is as vague and as general as it gets. The only reason I bring it to your attention is there are both civil and criminal potential penalties if you are found in violation of doing this. So I feel I would be remiss in my duty if I did not bring that to your attention."
Mayor Webster: "So it’s your opinion that if we pass a resolution that supports any legislative measure that is not on the ballot yet, that in doing so we subject us to criminal or civil penalties. Is that what you just said?"
Johnson. "No. What I’m saying is that if you vote on legislation that you do know in fact will go to the voters in an election as a constitutional amendment then yes."
That italicized portion of Johnson’s response is the key statement. There is absolutely no way that any member of the Kyle City Council can say with absolute certainty that they "know in fact" that any portion of the resolution they were considering "will go to the voters in an election as a constitutional amendment." They could hope it might and I’m betting the purpose of the resolution is to try to convince legislators to make that election happen. But there is no guarantee that it will, which renders all of Johnson’s cautions to the council absolutely irrelevant. In fact, according to Urbanowicz, some legislators during previous sessions have tried to get such an amendment on the ballot but their efforts have, to date, failed. Urbanowicz also told the council even stronger resolutions on this subject have been passed by the city councils of "at least 20" other Texas cities, including Houston, Austin and San Antonio, without concern.
Johnson: "May I ask this out of an abundance of caution. Is there any way this can be set aside so I can get the language and bring it back. That I can provide you with the specific election code information."
Mayor Webster: "My recommendation is that we don’t have a lot of choice other than to accept the city attorney’s recommendation. If the city attorney says we need more time to consider the resolution than my recommendation is that we do that, my feelings and my opinions aside. I just don’t want there to be any risk whether or not I think such a risk exists."
With that, council member Shane Arabie, who said quite emphatically he supported the resolution, requested it be tabled until "we get our ducks in a row," which he expected would occur at the council’s March 3 meeting. Wilson, somewhat reluctantly, withdrew his motion to approve the agenda item and substituted a motion to table it for two weeks which was passed.
Mayor Webster concluded the discussion by saying: "I absolutely think we have every right to pass a resolution that petitions our legislators for what we want to do."
But the council didn’t do that. Instead they misinterpreted misleading information and then balked. It’s not the end of the world, by any stretch of the imagination. I suspect the same resolution will come before the council in two weeks and sail right through and a two-week delay isn’t going to affect anything one way or another. Yet, on general rather than specific terms, what this episode says to me at least is somewhat troubling.
Council appoints Dean police officer
There was not a dry eye in the house.
It was like that moment when a terribly sad movie you are heavily involved in suddenly and unexpectedly has a happy, joyous ending. The miracle that occurs when the filmmaker somehow elicits from his audience tears of joy, not sadness.
That miracle came toward the end of Mayor Todd Webster’s reading of what Item 7 of last night’s City Council agenda described as "a resolution of the City of Kyle, Texas, acknowledging the contributions of Samantha Elizabeth Dean and her service to the citizens of Kyle through her passionate dedication as victim services coordinator for the Kyle Police Department."
I have not written about the Dean murder until now because it was my belief that the tragedy was a "crime" story and this blog is devoted strictly to "city government." Last night, the city council elevated it to an entirely higher level than anyone outside the council anticipated.
Police Chief Jeff Barnett talked about how Dean told him she had always wanted to be a police officer, and how those dreams were dashed after she was diagnosed with a form of cancer that left her somewhat disabled. "That didn’t slow her down, however, as she chose the next best thing, helping to bring comfort to victims of crime and families facing tragic loss" Barnett said. "
Then, with Dean’s parents, Kelvin and Kimberly, along with her sister, Alex, standing at the podium, Mayor Webster, after calling for a full minute of silence in Dean’s memory, read all the obligatory "whereases" that spoke about her passion, her dedication, her "tireless efforts" on behalf of crime victims, her being "a positive role model," her compassion and her humanity," and then said it is hereby resolved that Samantha Dean was "a valuable member of the City of Kyle."
But he didn’t stop there.
"…and in recognition," the mayor read "of Samantha Dean’s lifelong desire to be a police officer that she be posthumously promoted to a position of honorary police officer for the City of Kyle Police Department, having all honors and benefits bestowed upon her through that position…"
When the mayor said these words, my gaze turned immediately from him to Kelvin and Kimberly Dean. First I noticed Kimberly’s stoic posture wither ever so slightly and Kelvin’s body language betrayed his emotions as well. After that Chief Barnett presented the family with Dean’s police officer badge.
If one brief moment of joy, happiness and celebration can be extracted from an ocean of sorrow, that moment took place at Kyle City Hall last night.
It was like that moment when a terribly sad movie you are heavily involved in suddenly and unexpectedly has a happy, joyous ending. The miracle that occurs when the filmmaker somehow elicits from his audience tears of joy, not sadness.
That miracle came toward the end of Mayor Todd Webster’s reading of what Item 7 of last night’s City Council agenda described as "a resolution of the City of Kyle, Texas, acknowledging the contributions of Samantha Elizabeth Dean and her service to the citizens of Kyle through her passionate dedication as victim services coordinator for the Kyle Police Department."
I have not written about the Dean murder until now because it was my belief that the tragedy was a "crime" story and this blog is devoted strictly to "city government." Last night, the city council elevated it to an entirely higher level than anyone outside the council anticipated.
Police Chief Jeff Barnett talked about how Dean told him she had always wanted to be a police officer, and how those dreams were dashed after she was diagnosed with a form of cancer that left her somewhat disabled. "That didn’t slow her down, however, as she chose the next best thing, helping to bring comfort to victims of crime and families facing tragic loss" Barnett said. "
Then, with Dean’s parents, Kelvin and Kimberly, along with her sister, Alex, standing at the podium, Mayor Webster, after calling for a full minute of silence in Dean’s memory, read all the obligatory "whereases" that spoke about her passion, her dedication, her "tireless efforts" on behalf of crime victims, her being "a positive role model," her compassion and her humanity," and then said it is hereby resolved that Samantha Dean was "a valuable member of the City of Kyle."
But he didn’t stop there.
"…and in recognition," the mayor read "of Samantha Dean’s lifelong desire to be a police officer that she be posthumously promoted to a position of honorary police officer for the City of Kyle Police Department, having all honors and benefits bestowed upon her through that position…"
When the mayor said these words, my gaze turned immediately from him to Kelvin and Kimberly Dean. First I noticed Kimberly’s stoic posture wither ever so slightly and Kelvin’s body language betrayed his emotions as well. After that Chief Barnett presented the family with Dean’s police officer badge.
If one brief moment of joy, happiness and celebration can be extracted from an ocean of sorrow, that moment took place at Kyle City Hall last night.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
A tale of two road extensions
Although no action was taken directly on either how or by whom Marketplace Road will be extended to North Burleson or whether Onyx Lake Drive will be extended to Goforth as per the wishes of many of the residents of the Southlake Ranch subdivision, the prospects for both looked a little brighter as a result of actions taken at tonight’s city council meeting.
Council member Tammy Swaton met with a group of residents of the subdivision about their concerns over a prospective zoning change at 1433 and 1435 Goforth Road. It really wasn’t about the possible changing of the zoning designation from agricultural to retail that bothered those living directly behind the property in question, it was more about extending Onyx Lake Drive to Goforth. (You can get much of the background on this discussion here.) Swaton apparently alleviated the residents about the zoning, telling them that much of their concerns were going to be satisfied because the property was located directly across Goforth from Lehman High School, which would eliminate many of the types of retail establishments that worried the residents. She also told them that before ground would be broken on anything at those addresses, a "concept plan" would have to be presented and approved by the City Council. Now, I may be overly optimistic because the road extension makes so much sense, but I got the impression by what was said and left unsaid by council members at tonight’s meeting that the concept plan had better include the Onyx Lake extension.
"At the last (council) meeting the residents had some concerns," Swaton said. "There is an existing road that is not finished out — Onyx Lake Drive — and we discussed the possibility of bringing that to Goforth Road as well as some other issues. I do not believe there was an agreement made between the applicant and the residents. With that being said … we are looking at two different legitimate issues." One, she said, was the actual zoning. "But with the road and other items, I was hoping that (the city staff) would bring the site plan to the council for approval rather than having it administratively approved."
Mayor Todd Webster said he wanted the staff to present "a concept plan" to the council before it offered a site plan "instead of using the administrative review process that’s already in place."
City Manager Scott Sellers told the council in no uncertain terms "We will move forward and present a concept plan to council when it’s ready. We will bring that total site plan back for council approval as opposed to administrative approval."
Webster said the immediate concern was the zoning and then there will be "a future conversation about the appropriateness of a road which seems from an aerial point of view very logically placed here."
Now anyone is free to interpret the above any way they like, but my interpretation of it is the current thinking of the council is to make the Onyx Lake Drive extension to Goforth a reality.
The Marketplace Road extension was a slightly different matter. There was never any question about the fact it was going to be extended from its current terminus point at City Lights Drive to Burleson. The issue was where exactly it would connect to Burleson. Under an agreement the council voted on during its last meeting, Marketplace would take an almost 90 degree left dogleg intersecting Burleson in the vicinity of Old Post Road. However, between the last meeting and tonight’s, Sellers, along with Swaton and council member David Wilson met with the Parker family that owns property in that area and the family agreed to donate a right of way through its property allowing Marketplace to extend in a straighter path, intersecting Burleson just north of where it intersects the Santa Fe railroad tracks, the alignment the city preferred from the get-go and, to be honest, the most logical alignment.
After being told all this, the council voted to replace the agreement it approved two weeks ago with a new one that incorporates the land donated by the Parker family.
Council member Tammy Swaton met with a group of residents of the subdivision about their concerns over a prospective zoning change at 1433 and 1435 Goforth Road. It really wasn’t about the possible changing of the zoning designation from agricultural to retail that bothered those living directly behind the property in question, it was more about extending Onyx Lake Drive to Goforth. (You can get much of the background on this discussion here.) Swaton apparently alleviated the residents about the zoning, telling them that much of their concerns were going to be satisfied because the property was located directly across Goforth from Lehman High School, which would eliminate many of the types of retail establishments that worried the residents. She also told them that before ground would be broken on anything at those addresses, a "concept plan" would have to be presented and approved by the City Council. Now, I may be overly optimistic because the road extension makes so much sense, but I got the impression by what was said and left unsaid by council members at tonight’s meeting that the concept plan had better include the Onyx Lake extension.
"At the last (council) meeting the residents had some concerns," Swaton said. "There is an existing road that is not finished out — Onyx Lake Drive — and we discussed the possibility of bringing that to Goforth Road as well as some other issues. I do not believe there was an agreement made between the applicant and the residents. With that being said … we are looking at two different legitimate issues." One, she said, was the actual zoning. "But with the road and other items, I was hoping that (the city staff) would bring the site plan to the council for approval rather than having it administratively approved."
Mayor Todd Webster said he wanted the staff to present "a concept plan" to the council before it offered a site plan "instead of using the administrative review process that’s already in place."
City Manager Scott Sellers told the council in no uncertain terms "We will move forward and present a concept plan to council when it’s ready. We will bring that total site plan back for council approval as opposed to administrative approval."
Webster said the immediate concern was the zoning and then there will be "a future conversation about the appropriateness of a road which seems from an aerial point of view very logically placed here."
Now anyone is free to interpret the above any way they like, but my interpretation of it is the current thinking of the council is to make the Onyx Lake Drive extension to Goforth a reality.
The Marketplace Road extension was a slightly different matter. There was never any question about the fact it was going to be extended from its current terminus point at City Lights Drive to Burleson. The issue was where exactly it would connect to Burleson. Under an agreement the council voted on during its last meeting, Marketplace would take an almost 90 degree left dogleg intersecting Burleson in the vicinity of Old Post Road. However, between the last meeting and tonight’s, Sellers, along with Swaton and council member David Wilson met with the Parker family that owns property in that area and the family agreed to donate a right of way through its property allowing Marketplace to extend in a straighter path, intersecting Burleson just north of where it intersects the Santa Fe railroad tracks, the alignment the city preferred from the get-go and, to be honest, the most logical alignment.
After being told all this, the council voted to replace the agreement it approved two weeks ago with a new one that incorporates the land donated by the Parker family.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
City takes first steps toward “skyscrapers”
Webster’s II New College Dictionary defines skyscraper as "an exceptionally tall building." So I guess what someone would call a "skyscraper" totally depends on your definition of the word "exceptionally." Except for Plum Creek and the Hospital District, Kyle, city ordinances restrict a building’s height in Kyle to just about four stories. Under those guidelines, a building 3½ times that tall, or 15 stories, could, by Kyle’s standards, be called "exceptionally tall" and thus a "skyscraper."
Assistant city manager James Earp appeared before the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission this evening seeking their input on whether the city’s staff should pursue ways to relax that four-story height limitation and possibly getting rid of height restrictions completely for certain commercially zoned areas of the city.
Earp quite deftly maneuvered the commissioners to think along these lines by saying it was unfair to have one set of rules for Plum Creek (whose seven-story limitation allowed the Kyle ACC campus to be located there), another (nine stories) for the hospital district, and the 4-story restriction for the rest of the city. Especially when, he teased, a major development could be in the city’s future, but only if these height restrictions are eased.
Then after seeing them nod in agreement to his idea of making the seven-story limitation citywide, he threw out the idea of eliminating height limitations completely.
The reason Kyle instituted the four-story height restriction really isn’t germane any longer, Earp said.
"Historically, the height restrictions were set because of the ability to address fire issues," Earp told the commissioners. "Forty-five feet was essentially the maximum height fires could be safely fought at with or without a ladder truck. Since that time, the city has adopted fire codes that force buildings over that height to be sprinkled and have fire suppression systems anyway." (Fire chief Kyle Taylor subsequently confirmed that when it comes to fires in buildings, the height of the building is largely irrelevant.)
"The other reason for having a height restriction in a commercial area is if you had a natural vista or view you wanted to protect and we don’t have that either," Earp said.
He said areas zoned neighborhood commercial or community commercial would not be exempt from the height restrictions. He also said multi-family structures would still be under the height limitation requirements, so I’m guessing that means we shouldn’t be expecting high-rise apartment buildings or condominium complexes, even if they are located on or relatively near the interstate.
But, he said, "Would some place along the interstate be an appropriate place for a 15-story office building? That’s just the type of thing we haven’t thought about for Kyle until recently.
"If there is a desire to see the height restrictions changed in some form or fashion, we’d like to gauge that rather quickly because that, in turn, determines the path we take with the economic development prospect," Earp told the commissioners. "Maybe we’re to the point in our town’s growth where it makes sense for us to take that (height) requirement away and start thinking bigger.
At first, Commissioner Mike Wilson expressed concern about tall buildings in retail areas, but when commissioner Dan Ryan correctly pointed out that just about any 30-, 40-story office building is probably going to have some kind of retail on the ground floor, even if it’s just a coffee shop, Wilson’s concern seemed to recede. Ryan also said he doubted anyone would want to build a 25-story warehouse.
"I have been to a meeting at the intersection of the tollway and 35 where they were talking about building tall, tall buildings right there," Ryan said. "And I think we should open up and be part of that. And I don’t know whether we need to limit that."
Earp said the city staff did not have "a preconceived notion on how we wanted to approach this. We wanted to receive feedback from you guys to get the collective thoughts because that gets a better product in the end.
"Look we can craft an overlay and say if you’re in this specific area you can go to certain heights. We can make it so all the retail can only go to 75 (feet [seven stories]) unless you get a special designation. We can create a true mixed-use zoning that would allow retail and office space to exist in the same footprint.
"There are all different ways we can slice the cake," he said. "It’s just a matter of whether or not there’s a desire to cut the cake.
"And since we have sensed there is a very real economic development prospect waiting in the wings, this is something that will be very real and very quick because these guys need to decide whether they’re coming to Kyle or not. And it all depends on whether they get the height restriction changed.
"It sounds to me what I’m hearing is that generally speaking there is a desire and support for this idea and how we implement it is still to be decided. But it sounds like I’m hearing you guys are saying we support the idea — at least support for unrestricted height in designated areas and not across the entire city."
Commissioner Michele Christie said she would rather any proposed ordinance avoid overlay districts because "overlays make my head hurt. We have so many, one on top of another."
Wilson also insisted that any ordinance removing heigh restrictions also take into account parking so that the building’s are required to construct an accompanying multi-story parking facility with an "architectural facade."
"I don‘t want a 10-story building with surface parking everywhere," Wilson said. "I want a design element that improves the quality of the lot. It doesn’t have to be a plain old parking garage. That parking garage should be an architectural feature."
Earp concluded the discussion by telling the commissioners "Hopefully we can get something prepared and back before you pretty quickly so we can take the first stab at this proposal."
I’m guessing the commissioners could have something on their agenda within a month.
Assistant city manager James Earp appeared before the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission this evening seeking their input on whether the city’s staff should pursue ways to relax that four-story height limitation and possibly getting rid of height restrictions completely for certain commercially zoned areas of the city.
Earp quite deftly maneuvered the commissioners to think along these lines by saying it was unfair to have one set of rules for Plum Creek (whose seven-story limitation allowed the Kyle ACC campus to be located there), another (nine stories) for the hospital district, and the 4-story restriction for the rest of the city. Especially when, he teased, a major development could be in the city’s future, but only if these height restrictions are eased.
Then after seeing them nod in agreement to his idea of making the seven-story limitation citywide, he threw out the idea of eliminating height limitations completely.
The reason Kyle instituted the four-story height restriction really isn’t germane any longer, Earp said.
"Historically, the height restrictions were set because of the ability to address fire issues," Earp told the commissioners. "Forty-five feet was essentially the maximum height fires could be safely fought at with or without a ladder truck. Since that time, the city has adopted fire codes that force buildings over that height to be sprinkled and have fire suppression systems anyway." (Fire chief Kyle Taylor subsequently confirmed that when it comes to fires in buildings, the height of the building is largely irrelevant.)
"The other reason for having a height restriction in a commercial area is if you had a natural vista or view you wanted to protect and we don’t have that either," Earp said.
He said areas zoned neighborhood commercial or community commercial would not be exempt from the height restrictions. He also said multi-family structures would still be under the height limitation requirements, so I’m guessing that means we shouldn’t be expecting high-rise apartment buildings or condominium complexes, even if they are located on or relatively near the interstate.
But, he said, "Would some place along the interstate be an appropriate place for a 15-story office building? That’s just the type of thing we haven’t thought about for Kyle until recently.
"If there is a desire to see the height restrictions changed in some form or fashion, we’d like to gauge that rather quickly because that, in turn, determines the path we take with the economic development prospect," Earp told the commissioners. "Maybe we’re to the point in our town’s growth where it makes sense for us to take that (height) requirement away and start thinking bigger.
At first, Commissioner Mike Wilson expressed concern about tall buildings in retail areas, but when commissioner Dan Ryan correctly pointed out that just about any 30-, 40-story office building is probably going to have some kind of retail on the ground floor, even if it’s just a coffee shop, Wilson’s concern seemed to recede. Ryan also said he doubted anyone would want to build a 25-story warehouse.
"I have been to a meeting at the intersection of the tollway and 35 where they were talking about building tall, tall buildings right there," Ryan said. "And I think we should open up and be part of that. And I don’t know whether we need to limit that."
Earp said the city staff did not have "a preconceived notion on how we wanted to approach this. We wanted to receive feedback from you guys to get the collective thoughts because that gets a better product in the end.
"Look we can craft an overlay and say if you’re in this specific area you can go to certain heights. We can make it so all the retail can only go to 75 (feet [seven stories]) unless you get a special designation. We can create a true mixed-use zoning that would allow retail and office space to exist in the same footprint.
"There are all different ways we can slice the cake," he said. "It’s just a matter of whether or not there’s a desire to cut the cake.
"And since we have sensed there is a very real economic development prospect waiting in the wings, this is something that will be very real and very quick because these guys need to decide whether they’re coming to Kyle or not. And it all depends on whether they get the height restriction changed.
"It sounds to me what I’m hearing is that generally speaking there is a desire and support for this idea and how we implement it is still to be decided. But it sounds like I’m hearing you guys are saying we support the idea — at least support for unrestricted height in designated areas and not across the entire city."
Commissioner Michele Christie said she would rather any proposed ordinance avoid overlay districts because "overlays make my head hurt. We have so many, one on top of another."
Wilson also insisted that any ordinance removing heigh restrictions also take into account parking so that the building’s are required to construct an accompanying multi-story parking facility with an "architectural facade."
"I don‘t want a 10-story building with surface parking everywhere," Wilson said. "I want a design element that improves the quality of the lot. It doesn’t have to be a plain old parking garage. That parking garage should be an architectural feature."
Earp concluded the discussion by telling the commissioners "Hopefully we can get something prepared and back before you pretty quickly so we can take the first stab at this proposal."
I’m guessing the commissioners could have something on their agenda within a month.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Educator wants to establish charter school in Kyle (and other things I learned about road projects, zoning issues and the city attorney’s wretched use of metaphors at tonight’s city council meeting)
Since its founders held an organizational meeting last month, I’m assuming most of those in the educational community were already aware of this, but I didn’t know until tonight, when Jewel Cournoyer spoke before the Kyle City Council, that she and her co-partner, Natasha MacNevin, want to open a tuition-free charter school serving grades K-3 somewhere in Kyle in August 2016.
It’s going to be called A.I.M. Charter School and the letters stand for Advocating for the Individual Mind. You can learn a little bit more about the school as well as about Ms Cournoyer and Ms MacNevin here.
She told me she is looking for a location that will house the at least 200 students she hopes to have enrolled by her opening date and the possibilities she told me include partnering with a church or finding a usable retail space.
She also said she needs to expand her two-person faculty to at least 12 "highly motivated" educators who will be dedicated to a system that features a year-around 10-hour school day with no public transportation to and from the school.
I also learned when construction will actually begin on the five road projects created by the $36 million bond proposal approved in May 2013 and how much the projects could cost homeowners. The Goforth Road project is scheduled to begin first, sometime in June, followed by Bunton in August, Marketplace in October (even though where that road will eventually go is still anyone’s guess), Lehman in March of next year and Burleson in October of 2016. Yes, that’s right. The North Burleson project will begin (not complete) construction, a full 3½ years after voters approved work on it. Why is it taking so long? I don’t have all the answers. Remember I’m new in town. But I couldn’t help but notice that the "preliminary engineering" on the five projects, something that should have been outside the scope of the bonds and should have been completed even before the bonds were proposed, is now scheduled to be finished on the fifth project late next month. So there’s that.
As for where Marketplace will intersect Burleson, tonight the council agreed on a contract that calls for the road alignment to deviate from what you see here on the city’s web site, which, as any bond attorney will tell you, is patently illegal, because, from what I gather the citizens voted for these alignments. Instead, tonight’s agreement would have Marketplace make a sharp left hand veer much more to the north. Negotiations with the property owner are underway (let me amend that, they will be underway as soon as the property owner returns from a cruise) to make the alignment featured on the map a reality, but we’ll just have to wait a couple of weeks to see how that goes.
So I guess now is as good a time as any to mention City Attorney Ken Johnson’s use of metaphors (to give him the benefit of the doubt I must tell you he said he was a little "off" tonight due to the fact he was trying to quit smoking). At one point, referring to the contract the council approved he publicly demeaned a significant (albeit non-voting) segment of the population by saying "It has undergone more changes than a teenage girl in a closet." Then later he said the contract had been "created more times than Frankenstein." I hate to break it to you, Mr. Johnson, but it was Dr. Frankenstein who did the creating. So there’s that.
And the costs of the road bonds to taxpayers? City Finance Director Perwez Moheet said the maximum should be 16 cents per $100 valuation. That means if you own a home valued at $100,000, your property tax will increase approximately $160 a year to pay the interest on these bonds he said will probably be issued all at one time.
And finally, dear Ms. Debra Britt, who came before the Planning and Zoning Commission last week to beg them not to isolate 280 homes in the Southlake Ranch subdivision, lost her zoning battle on first reading with the council tonight. But the truth of the matter is, she and two compatriots she brought along with her, wussed out. Instead of centering their argument on the public safety issue, and to a lesser extent the convenience issue, of extending Onyx Lake Drive to Goforth, they took on the type of zoning, a battle they could not possibly win with a pro-developer council. Now she must make sure the site plan for the development does whatever it can to protect the subdivision and a representative of the development said it would do just that. But then someone at the city one time told Ms. Britt they would look into her request for the Onyx Lake Drive extension and we’ve seen how far that one has gone. So there’s that.
It’s going to be called A.I.M. Charter School and the letters stand for Advocating for the Individual Mind. You can learn a little bit more about the school as well as about Ms Cournoyer and Ms MacNevin here.
She told me she is looking for a location that will house the at least 200 students she hopes to have enrolled by her opening date and the possibilities she told me include partnering with a church or finding a usable retail space.
She also said she needs to expand her two-person faculty to at least 12 "highly motivated" educators who will be dedicated to a system that features a year-around 10-hour school day with no public transportation to and from the school.
I also learned when construction will actually begin on the five road projects created by the $36 million bond proposal approved in May 2013 and how much the projects could cost homeowners. The Goforth Road project is scheduled to begin first, sometime in June, followed by Bunton in August, Marketplace in October (even though where that road will eventually go is still anyone’s guess), Lehman in March of next year and Burleson in October of 2016. Yes, that’s right. The North Burleson project will begin (not complete) construction, a full 3½ years after voters approved work on it. Why is it taking so long? I don’t have all the answers. Remember I’m new in town. But I couldn’t help but notice that the "preliminary engineering" on the five projects, something that should have been outside the scope of the bonds and should have been completed even before the bonds were proposed, is now scheduled to be finished on the fifth project late next month. So there’s that.
As for where Marketplace will intersect Burleson, tonight the council agreed on a contract that calls for the road alignment to deviate from what you see here on the city’s web site, which, as any bond attorney will tell you, is patently illegal, because, from what I gather the citizens voted for these alignments. Instead, tonight’s agreement would have Marketplace make a sharp left hand veer much more to the north. Negotiations with the property owner are underway (let me amend that, they will be underway as soon as the property owner returns from a cruise) to make the alignment featured on the map a reality, but we’ll just have to wait a couple of weeks to see how that goes.
So I guess now is as good a time as any to mention City Attorney Ken Johnson’s use of metaphors (to give him the benefit of the doubt I must tell you he said he was a little "off" tonight due to the fact he was trying to quit smoking). At one point, referring to the contract the council approved he publicly demeaned a significant (albeit non-voting) segment of the population by saying "It has undergone more changes than a teenage girl in a closet." Then later he said the contract had been "created more times than Frankenstein." I hate to break it to you, Mr. Johnson, but it was Dr. Frankenstein who did the creating. So there’s that.
And the costs of the road bonds to taxpayers? City Finance Director Perwez Moheet said the maximum should be 16 cents per $100 valuation. That means if you own a home valued at $100,000, your property tax will increase approximately $160 a year to pay the interest on these bonds he said will probably be issued all at one time.
And finally, dear Ms. Debra Britt, who came before the Planning and Zoning Commission last week to beg them not to isolate 280 homes in the Southlake Ranch subdivision, lost her zoning battle on first reading with the council tonight. But the truth of the matter is, she and two compatriots she brought along with her, wussed out. Instead of centering their argument on the public safety issue, and to a lesser extent the convenience issue, of extending Onyx Lake Drive to Goforth, they took on the type of zoning, a battle they could not possibly win with a pro-developer council. Now she must make sure the site plan for the development does whatever it can to protect the subdivision and a representative of the development said it would do just that. But then someone at the city one time told Ms. Britt they would look into her request for the Onyx Lake Drive extension and we’ve seen how far that one has gone. So there’s that.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
P&Z shows its pro-developer bias
Virtually any planning and zoning debate — regardless of the size or the location of the city or town in which the debate takes place — boils down to an argument between those who align themselves with developers against those who identify themselves as pro-existing neighborhood. And the city government — depending on those elected to public office — will be steadfastly on one side or the other. It really doesn’t matter what the particular issue is, the elected officials are either always going to come down on the side of the developers or always on the side of neighborhood issues. Any many times I’ve seen one of those sides, who become tired of always coming out on the losing end, suddenly coalescing into a mighty force in which they throw out those currently running things — be they pro-developers or pro-neighborhood — and replace them with those who will vote the opposite point of view.
I have lived in Kyle long enough now (granted, that’s all of three months) to realize the powers-that-be here are pro-developer, especially those seven individuals serving on the Planning & Zoning Commission. Tonight’s commission meeting was a perfect example of that. Two different developers, who probably are in cahoots (and I’ll tell you why in a second) sought the commission’s approval to rezone two adjacent plots of land on Goforth Road across from Lehman High School from Agriculture to one that would allow them to build one of those mini-strip malls. The reason I’m convinced they are in cahoots is that they appear to want to develop the two separate properties into one mall. A couple of folks from an adjacent subdivision, Southlake Ranch, took the time to come to the commission with a legitimate gripe. If you look at this map of the area, the subdivision in question is bounded roughly by Onyx Lake Drive on the west, Sapphire Lake Drive and Spillway Drive on the east and Goforth on the south. There is no northern egress from the division; Goforth provides the only access residents have to the rest of the world. The problem is there are only two links to Goforth, one the Sapphire Lake Drive eastern border and the other two blocks west at Lake Washington Drive. That leaves four additional blocks to the west where residents must use Lake Washington to get in or out of the subdivision. Onyx Lake comes oh so close to joining up with Goforth, stopping what looks like about a quarter of a mile, perhaps less. Not only would extending Oynx Lake to Goforth make sense for public safety as well as residential convenience reasons, it would also become an extension of and provide direct access to Lehman Road.
One of the residents of that subdivision, Debra Britt, told the commission "It was our understanding" and "we were led to believe" it was possible that Oynx Lake Road would be extended to Goforth. In other words, she and a couple of her neighbors probably talked to someone in City Hall who told her "Sure, sure, be a good girl now and go home and we’ll look into it" and we all know what that means and where that leads. Britt told the commission that last year a "rollover" occurred on Lake Washington Drive that blocked that access to Goforth so all the residents had to go to the street on the eastern edge of the subdivision before they could finally begin traveling west to get to wherever they needed to go, (This is just I guess, but I would be willing to bet big bucks that at least 95 percent of all drivers traveling on Lake Washington Drive turn right on Goforth.) Ms. Britt said there are 359 homes in the Southlake Ranch subdivision and when this particular incident occurred, the residents of 79 of those homes could get out via Lake Washington but those living in other 280 homes "could not leave the subdivision."
But because this is a pro-developer, anti-existing neighborhoods planning and zoning commission, it promptly voted 6-1 to approve the zoning change. But wait, you may be shouting, at least there’s one pro-existing neighborhood voice on the commission. How else do you account for that one nay vote? Well, not exactly. Commissioner Mike Wilson cast the lone vote against the zoning change but not because he favored extending Oynx Lake Road through the 1-acre 1435 Goforth property; he simply wanted a slightly more restrictive commercial zoning in place. He told me after the meeting that, for all practical purposes, those living in Southlake Ranch would much prefer having their access blocked by something like a beauty salon than something far more onerous like, for instance, a gas station. That’s not exactly my definition of an existing-neighborhood activist, but everyone else is free to draw their own conclusions.
I have lived in Kyle long enough now (granted, that’s all of three months) to realize the powers-that-be here are pro-developer, especially those seven individuals serving on the Planning & Zoning Commission. Tonight’s commission meeting was a perfect example of that. Two different developers, who probably are in cahoots (and I’ll tell you why in a second) sought the commission’s approval to rezone two adjacent plots of land on Goforth Road across from Lehman High School from Agriculture to one that would allow them to build one of those mini-strip malls. The reason I’m convinced they are in cahoots is that they appear to want to develop the two separate properties into one mall. A couple of folks from an adjacent subdivision, Southlake Ranch, took the time to come to the commission with a legitimate gripe. If you look at this map of the area, the subdivision in question is bounded roughly by Onyx Lake Drive on the west, Sapphire Lake Drive and Spillway Drive on the east and Goforth on the south. There is no northern egress from the division; Goforth provides the only access residents have to the rest of the world. The problem is there are only two links to Goforth, one the Sapphire Lake Drive eastern border and the other two blocks west at Lake Washington Drive. That leaves four additional blocks to the west where residents must use Lake Washington to get in or out of the subdivision. Onyx Lake comes oh so close to joining up with Goforth, stopping what looks like about a quarter of a mile, perhaps less. Not only would extending Oynx Lake to Goforth make sense for public safety as well as residential convenience reasons, it would also become an extension of and provide direct access to Lehman Road.
One of the residents of that subdivision, Debra Britt, told the commission "It was our understanding" and "we were led to believe" it was possible that Oynx Lake Road would be extended to Goforth. In other words, she and a couple of her neighbors probably talked to someone in City Hall who told her "Sure, sure, be a good girl now and go home and we’ll look into it" and we all know what that means and where that leads. Britt told the commission that last year a "rollover" occurred on Lake Washington Drive that blocked that access to Goforth so all the residents had to go to the street on the eastern edge of the subdivision before they could finally begin traveling west to get to wherever they needed to go, (This is just I guess, but I would be willing to bet big bucks that at least 95 percent of all drivers traveling on Lake Washington Drive turn right on Goforth.) Ms. Britt said there are 359 homes in the Southlake Ranch subdivision and when this particular incident occurred, the residents of 79 of those homes could get out via Lake Washington but those living in other 280 homes "could not leave the subdivision."
But because this is a pro-developer, anti-existing neighborhoods planning and zoning commission, it promptly voted 6-1 to approve the zoning change. But wait, you may be shouting, at least there’s one pro-existing neighborhood voice on the commission. How else do you account for that one nay vote? Well, not exactly. Commissioner Mike Wilson cast the lone vote against the zoning change but not because he favored extending Oynx Lake Road through the 1-acre 1435 Goforth property; he simply wanted a slightly more restrictive commercial zoning in place. He told me after the meeting that, for all practical purposes, those living in Southlake Ranch would much prefer having their access blocked by something like a beauty salon than something far more onerous like, for instance, a gas station. That’s not exactly my definition of an existing-neighborhood activist, but everyone else is free to draw their own conclusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)