Commission deals with routine agenda (almost) routinely

Casual observations from last night’s Planning & Zoning Commission meeting:

• The three zoning items on last night’s agenda were slam dunks. No real discussion or debate was really necessary and ultimately the commissioners made the correct decisions: they recommended the City Council approve zoning changes to make an outdoor wedding venue a conforming use and another to inject some life into after-dark downtown Kyle by allowing for entertainment zoning on the site formerly occupied by the Down South Railhouse. On the third item they recommended the council not approve zoning to install a mulch pit on I-35. What befuddled me, however, was how ponderously the commissioners labored over their decisions on these three items. You would have thought they were deciding on whether to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Buda, for crying out loud.
• For some unexplained reason, commission chair Dex Ellison voted against making the Winfield Inn a conforming use. I have no qualms with the way he voted; commissioners have the freedom to make wrong-headed decisions. My problem is why he didn’t share his reasoning with the rest of the commission and the public. What was he hiding here? It’s true that these commissioners have no clue on the difference between "discussion" and "debate," but democratic decisions should be based on an open conversation of competing ideas and ideals. Ellison missed a golden opportunity to bring the commission out from the shadows and into the sunlight. He was the only commissioner to vote against it.
• I have already published two articles on the Winfield Inn rezoning issue. The land, until late last year, was outside the city limits and, when it was incorporated into the city, it was done against the wishes of the property owners. But it seems to me that, since their involuntary annexation, the owners of the property, the husband-and-wife team of Magdalena Rood and Leslie Moore, have abided by the city’s rules and ordinances and worked in partnership with city planners to make the Winfield Inn a conforming use and, do to that, they needed to have that property rezoned from agriculture (which is the zoning designation originally applied to all annexed lands) to retail services. However, I understand if the council ultimately follows the commission’s recommendation and rezones the land, Rood and Moore could conceivably turn around and sell the 31.85 acres between Scott Street and Old Stagecoach Road to a developer who could tear down the inn and replace it with a shopping village of some sort. (I say "village," because the current infrastructure could not support a shopping complex such as those located on Kyle Parkway and I-35). But you know what? That would not necessarily be a bad thing either. I know the current residents of that area might not like it, but, in matters such as this, the needs and desires of future residents must also be considered. All kinds of new residential development is sprouting in this area and the folks who will be moving into these developments will need places to shop and they would desire that these places to shop would be easily accessible. In fact, a shopping village would be within easy walking distance of that KB Home development to be located on property almost adjacent to the Winfield Inn lot that recently received the new R-1-3 zoning designation. But here’s what I hope is in the immediate future for that property. Moore has been involved in the food preparation and catering business for more than 30 years and Kyle sure could use a comfortable, slightly upscale, white-linen-tablecloth dining option serving, at a minimum, most, if not all, the entrees Moore offers on his seated catering menu: "braised beef short ribs & cippolini onions with wild mushroom ragout; brown sugar-herb smoked salmon; thyme-crusted beef tenderloin with mustard demiglace; wildflower honey-orange lacquered chicken; crispy chicken with honey-thyme glaze; lobster mac + cheese." My mouth waters, my palate tingles, just writing those words. A restaurant like that, especially in that setting, would be a unique dining experience, not only for Kyle but for most of Hays County. It would quickly become the place for couples’ anniversary dinner celebrations and would complement the services at the nearby Winfield Inn. Just a thought.
• Every item on last night’s agenda had a public hearing attached to it and, for the most part, those citizens speaking at these public hearings are either (1) completely uninformed about the subject under discussion; (2) have their own private agenda that may be tangentially relevant, but most often has nothing to do with the agenda item; or (3) simply clueless. Once in a blue moon (it didn’t happen last night), a speaker might add something worthwhile to the discussion but, most of the time, they are embarrassing and a waste valuable time that can never be recouped.
• Speaking of being "simply clueless," I realized during last night’s meeting that I committed a grievous error a couple of days when I wrote the commission was considering a ban on any additional auto dealerships on I-35. I have mentioned this before, but I was born and spent my formative early years in the New York City boroughs of Manhattan and Queens. Now, anyone who has spent any time in those two areas will tell you they are devoid of sprawling new and/or used car lots, but they contain plenty of auto dealerships. They are simply totally contained inside buildings about the size of a Kohl’s or an Office Depot; i.e., they don’t store their entire inventory on-premise. Car dealerships exactly like those would be permitted in the I-35 Overlay District, according to a recommendation passed along to the City Council on a 5-1 vote last night from the planning commission (Irene Melendez cast the one lone vote). I’m not quite sure the commissioners grasped this concept or the fact that car lots would be acceptable on properly zoned areas on any other street, boulevard or highway in Kyle; I think they only considered the aesthetics in their decision-making process, but that’s OK. I also got to thinking last night about Dallas, where I made my home for a little more than 40 years and try as I could, I couldn’t recall a single car dealership lot located along an interstate highway within the Dallas City Limits. So last night’s decision is definitely not without precedent.
• I wondered about Planning Director Howard Koontz’s announcement that the March 28 commission meeting would be a "workshop" to review the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan because I’m wondering what is there to review. The Planning Commission was given more than a year to tinker with a mid-term update to the plan, but abrogated that responsibility, forcing the City Council to schedule and conduct a joint council-commission workshop in January to get the job done. And they got the job done. Commissioner Timothy Kay, for one, is threatening changes to what was agreed upon during that workshop which is ridiculous simply because (1) agreement was reached at that January meeting; and (2) if the commissioners refused to do the job they were asked to do originally, they have absolutely no right to start exerting territorial prerogatives at this late a date. The commissioners had their opportunity and they blew it. But now a deal has been struck and I’m betting council members will not look favorably on any commissioners who think now is the time for them to make their dissenting opinions, let alone their changes, known.
• The commissioners were asked to approve the minutes of seven previous commission meetings last night and commissioner Brad Growt moved to have those approvals postponed to give commissioners more time to review them. His motion was approved 5-1 (Kay dissenting). Near the end of the meeting, Ellison used Growt’s motion as an example of why it might be preferable if commissioners received their packet of information on each meeting earlier than the Friday afternoon immediately preceding that respective meeting. And I started thinking that they way the staff prepares the agenda should follow the example used by many other municipalities. The bulk of the agenda, including all minutes and all items involving public hearings, can be provided to commissioners a week earlier than they are currently, thus providing commissioners an additional seven days to study the material. (I know this to be a fact because of publishing requirements in the newspaper of record. Not only that, it was clearly evident from the questions commissioners posed last night as well as the absence of necessary questions they neglected to ask that they didn’t have sufficient time to study the material before the meeting.) If the staff needs to add any items to the agenda at the last minute, they could do so on an official "agenda addendum" made public on that following Friday that immediately precedes the meeting. Problem solved.