Before the month completely passes us by, I should take the time to say a few words about May’s sales tax collections. OK, so it wasn’t as much of a surplus as it has been for most of the year, but a surplus is still a surplus and recent history argues any surplus is something worth celebrating.
The city collected $7,651.87 more in sales taxes this month than it had forecast, which means, so far this fiscal year, sales tax revenues have exceeded projections seven out of the eight months. Last year at this time the city had four months of under projections and May of 2017 was the worst month of that fiscal year, up to that time, with a whopping deficit of $77,828.24. That’s a turnaround of $85,480.11 between the two Mays and you know what? Eight-five large this month, another 85-grand next month and, before you know it, you’re talking nice money here. According to the city’s latest Meet-and-Confer agreement, $85,223 is the base pay for a Kyle Police lieutenant with more than four years of service. You see where I’m going here.
And that turnaround came about with a modest 1 percent increase over projections. The only month to record a smaller increase this year was November when it was .68 percent ($4,796.88). Heck, for the year to date, the city is 3.51 percent ($173,404.99), or good enough for a pair of four-year lieutenants or eight police cadets. And we’ve still got four months to go.
May’s $774,627.87 in collections topped last year’s by a comfortable 11.42 percent ($79,388.11).
The Kyle Report
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Parking could be limited in Plum Creek by Father’s Day
Last night the City Council passed on first reading two ordinances to prohibit parking on one side of the street in two different areas of Plum Creek. The first was on the north side of Wetzel between FM 150 and Mather and the second was on the residential side of the 1700 through 1900 blocks of Kirby and the 5100 and 5200 blocks of Hellman. Although the ordinances passed unanimously, council member Damon Fogley missed last night’s meeting, so the proposals will have to return for a second and final reading at the council’s next meeting in three weeks time, June 5.
So the obvious question is when will this new parking prohibition go into effect? Public Works Director Harper Wilder answered that question today.
"Whenever it is finalized by council, my Street Division Manager Scott Egbert will order the necessary signage," Wilder said. "Upon ordering, typically it takes up to a week to get the signs in. Once we receive the signs here at Public Works, we tend to put them up within a day or so."
So, according to my calculations, that puts the effective date right around Father’s Day.
So the obvious question is when will this new parking prohibition go into effect? Public Works Director Harper Wilder answered that question today.
"Whenever it is finalized by council, my Street Division Manager Scott Egbert will order the necessary signage," Wilder said. "Upon ordering, typically it takes up to a week to get the signs in. Once we receive the signs here at Public Works, we tend to put them up within a day or so."
So, according to my calculations, that puts the effective date right around Father’s Day.
The time for condescending is over
Pat them on the heads, tell them they’ve been good little boys and girls, but now it’s time for them to go to their rooms because the adults need to conduct real business.
In a story leading up to last night’s City Council meeting, I wrote with some measure of bitterness and disdain how the city pays lip service to the needs and wants of those who to prefer to use non-motorized means to get around town, but really finds it a waste of time to make it easier and/or safer for this mobility option. And I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised to discover during last night’s City Council meeting that council member Daphne Tenorio actually agreed with me on this — she, too, spotted the hypocrisy in language accompanying proposed ordinances to outlaw parking on one side of a couple of streets in Plum Creek, language that laughingly said these changes were needed because the current situation "is detrimental to the safety of pedestrians … traveling through this street." Tenorio asked Capt, Mark Schultz, who represented the Kyle Fire Department on these items before the council last night, "The ordinance states it’s about the safety of pedestrians. Shouldn’t it say it’s really for fire truck safety?" "Yes," Schultz replied. "I will remember that for next time." In fact, earlier in the discussion, when Mayor Travis Mitchell asked whether it would help to limit parking on the designated streets to residents only (it appears a number of Hays High School students park their cars in this area), Schultz replied "Residents only wouldn’t satisfy the need we have to provide the traffic flow that’s necessary for that area." And even before that, when Mayor Mitchell asked Schultz to explain exactly "why this item, is being brought forward," the assistant fire chief replied: "The road at this section is roughly 26 feet wide and when we have parking on both sides it makes it very difficult to get just one vehicle through much less two." See, it really is all about those in their cars and not those on their feet.
So, yes, Kyle’s hypocrisy in paying only lip service to pedestrian safety was exposed somewhat, even though council member Alex Villalobos, who is quickly becoming the Council’s Crown Prince of the Non Sequitur, babbled on about how this would protect kids racing out into the street between parked cars when, if he knew anything about the laws of geometry as well as pedestrian mobility, he would know that the move to switch the no-parking area in Agenda Item 10 from the park side of the road to the resident side, a change that was made to the ordinance last night, actually increased the danger for pedestrians there.
But the Plum Creek Parking Hypocrisy is over-and-done-with for the time being (and if Chief Schultz keeps his promise to Tenorio to "remember that for next time," it should not be repeated). My concern now is that notion of smiling, nodding of heads, mentions of "job well done," is going to amount to no more than lip service to the valuable, expert work being made public by no less than the Kyle Area Youth Advisory Commission (KAYAC). Last year, KAYAC presented to council a superbly researched study on sidewalks in the city, and, perhaps, this has more to do with what I have already illustrated — city government really doesn’t want to pay that much attention to the needs of pedestrians — than it does with KAYAC, but for whatever reason, I have yet to see any of KAYAC’s sidewalk findings being incorporated as policy by the council.
KAYAC, according to its website, is a "a 16-member committee that consists of youth ages 14-18, enrolled in ninth through 12th grade levels, and either reside in the city limits of Kyle or currently attend a high school in the Hays CISD school district or live in the city limits and are home schooled. KAYAC shall be advisory in nature and has been created for the purpose of providing a youthful point of view for the Kyle City Council on community affairs and issues. This commission shall provide the opportunity for youth in the City of Kyle to learn about municipal government and to advise Kyle City Council from the perspective of area teens."
Hopefully we have learned, not only from KAYAC’s presentation on sidewalks last year but through the evidence we’ve seen on a national level in the aftermath of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., that we need to pay more attention to the voices of our high school students. We can learn a lot from what they say.
Last night, KAYAC chair Benjamin White and Vice Chair Destinee Cabrera presented a fascinating and informative study on all-inclusive parks — areas and playgrounds that can be used by everyone, and, in this case, "everyone" refers to those with special needs. I had never really thought about this obvious fact until last night when White and Cabrera forced me to come face-to-face with the realization that I have never, in all my life, ever seen a person in a wheel chair enjoying the amenities at a city park — anywhere, at any time. White and Cabrera begged the question: "Why should these individuals with special needs be excluded?" Not only that, they illustrated quite convincingly how the city could make this inclusivity happen.
Sitting there last night listening to White and Cabrera, I couldn’t help be reminded of one of the best speeches I ever heard. It was delivered by former Texas Gov. Ann Richards and the thesis of her address that evening was simple: "When we help others, especially the disadvantaged, we often help ourselves in the process." She cited a number of examples to support her thesis, but the example I especially remembered and the one that sticks with me today concerned the Americans With Disabilities Act that was passed in 1990. And I recalled how much easier it would have been if the world in which I lived had ADA-compliant sidewalks back when my son was an infant and I was constantly pushing him in a stroller — how much easier it would have been not having to lift the stroller with the child over the curb. Those sidewalks were designed for those in wheelchairs, but, as Gov, Richards so wisely said, "When we help others, especially the disadvantaged, we often help ourselves in the process."
Now I hope Kyle city leaders think of those words. Now I hope Kyle city leaders don’t simply pay lip service to this incisive, well-researched KAYAC report on all-inclusive play areas. Now I hope Kyle city leaders don’t simply "Pat them on the heads, tell them they’ve been good little boys and girls, but now it’s time for them to go to their rooms because the adults need to conduct real business."
For the sake of the future of this city, for the notion that Kyle should be at the vanguard of acknowledging the humanity of all its citizens, here’s what I hope Kyle city leaders will do. I hope City Manager Scott Sellers will instruct Parks Director Kerry Urbanowicz or his designee (perhaps Facilities Manager Tim Cropley) to begin a series of meetings with White, Cabrera and their associates to begin the process of converting KAYAC’s presentation last night into long-range city policy.
"When we help others, especially the disadvantaged, we often help ourselves in the process." Last night KAYAC showed us the path to initiate that process. The city shouldn’t let it end there. They shouldn’t once again simply pay lip service to something that deserves attention and action.
In a story leading up to last night’s City Council meeting, I wrote with some measure of bitterness and disdain how the city pays lip service to the needs and wants of those who to prefer to use non-motorized means to get around town, but really finds it a waste of time to make it easier and/or safer for this mobility option. And I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised to discover during last night’s City Council meeting that council member Daphne Tenorio actually agreed with me on this — she, too, spotted the hypocrisy in language accompanying proposed ordinances to outlaw parking on one side of a couple of streets in Plum Creek, language that laughingly said these changes were needed because the current situation "is detrimental to the safety of pedestrians … traveling through this street." Tenorio asked Capt, Mark Schultz, who represented the Kyle Fire Department on these items before the council last night, "The ordinance states it’s about the safety of pedestrians. Shouldn’t it say it’s really for fire truck safety?" "Yes," Schultz replied. "I will remember that for next time." In fact, earlier in the discussion, when Mayor Travis Mitchell asked whether it would help to limit parking on the designated streets to residents only (it appears a number of Hays High School students park their cars in this area), Schultz replied "Residents only wouldn’t satisfy the need we have to provide the traffic flow that’s necessary for that area." And even before that, when Mayor Mitchell asked Schultz to explain exactly "why this item, is being brought forward," the assistant fire chief replied: "The road at this section is roughly 26 feet wide and when we have parking on both sides it makes it very difficult to get just one vehicle through much less two." See, it really is all about those in their cars and not those on their feet.
So, yes, Kyle’s hypocrisy in paying only lip service to pedestrian safety was exposed somewhat, even though council member Alex Villalobos, who is quickly becoming the Council’s Crown Prince of the Non Sequitur, babbled on about how this would protect kids racing out into the street between parked cars when, if he knew anything about the laws of geometry as well as pedestrian mobility, he would know that the move to switch the no-parking area in Agenda Item 10 from the park side of the road to the resident side, a change that was made to the ordinance last night, actually increased the danger for pedestrians there.
But the Plum Creek Parking Hypocrisy is over-and-done-with for the time being (and if Chief Schultz keeps his promise to Tenorio to "remember that for next time," it should not be repeated). My concern now is that notion of smiling, nodding of heads, mentions of "job well done," is going to amount to no more than lip service to the valuable, expert work being made public by no less than the Kyle Area Youth Advisory Commission (KAYAC). Last year, KAYAC presented to council a superbly researched study on sidewalks in the city, and, perhaps, this has more to do with what I have already illustrated — city government really doesn’t want to pay that much attention to the needs of pedestrians — than it does with KAYAC, but for whatever reason, I have yet to see any of KAYAC’s sidewalk findings being incorporated as policy by the council.
KAYAC, according to its website, is a "a 16-member committee that consists of youth ages 14-18, enrolled in ninth through 12th grade levels, and either reside in the city limits of Kyle or currently attend a high school in the Hays CISD school district or live in the city limits and are home schooled. KAYAC shall be advisory in nature and has been created for the purpose of providing a youthful point of view for the Kyle City Council on community affairs and issues. This commission shall provide the opportunity for youth in the City of Kyle to learn about municipal government and to advise Kyle City Council from the perspective of area teens."
Hopefully we have learned, not only from KAYAC’s presentation on sidewalks last year but through the evidence we’ve seen on a national level in the aftermath of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., that we need to pay more attention to the voices of our high school students. We can learn a lot from what they say.
Last night, KAYAC chair Benjamin White and Vice Chair Destinee Cabrera presented a fascinating and informative study on all-inclusive parks — areas and playgrounds that can be used by everyone, and, in this case, "everyone" refers to those with special needs. I had never really thought about this obvious fact until last night when White and Cabrera forced me to come face-to-face with the realization that I have never, in all my life, ever seen a person in a wheel chair enjoying the amenities at a city park — anywhere, at any time. White and Cabrera begged the question: "Why should these individuals with special needs be excluded?" Not only that, they illustrated quite convincingly how the city could make this inclusivity happen.
Sitting there last night listening to White and Cabrera, I couldn’t help be reminded of one of the best speeches I ever heard. It was delivered by former Texas Gov. Ann Richards and the thesis of her address that evening was simple: "When we help others, especially the disadvantaged, we often help ourselves in the process." She cited a number of examples to support her thesis, but the example I especially remembered and the one that sticks with me today concerned the Americans With Disabilities Act that was passed in 1990. And I recalled how much easier it would have been if the world in which I lived had ADA-compliant sidewalks back when my son was an infant and I was constantly pushing him in a stroller — how much easier it would have been not having to lift the stroller with the child over the curb. Those sidewalks were designed for those in wheelchairs, but, as Gov, Richards so wisely said, "When we help others, especially the disadvantaged, we often help ourselves in the process."
Now I hope Kyle city leaders think of those words. Now I hope Kyle city leaders don’t simply pay lip service to this incisive, well-researched KAYAC report on all-inclusive play areas. Now I hope Kyle city leaders don’t simply "Pat them on the heads, tell them they’ve been good little boys and girls, but now it’s time for them to go to their rooms because the adults need to conduct real business."
For the sake of the future of this city, for the notion that Kyle should be at the vanguard of acknowledging the humanity of all its citizens, here’s what I hope Kyle city leaders will do. I hope City Manager Scott Sellers will instruct Parks Director Kerry Urbanowicz or his designee (perhaps Facilities Manager Tim Cropley) to begin a series of meetings with White, Cabrera and their associates to begin the process of converting KAYAC’s presentation last night into long-range city policy.
"When we help others, especially the disadvantaged, we often help ourselves in the process." Last night KAYAC showed us the path to initiate that process. The city shouldn’t let it end there. They shouldn’t once again simply pay lip service to something that deserves attention and action.
Saturday, May 12, 2018
Kyle’s a driving, definitely not a walking, town
Kyle is a heaven for motorists but somewhat of a disaster for those looking for alternate means of mobility, especially walking. Oh, the city pays lip service to the concept of walking, but in reality it’s not much of a priority. Priority? It’s not really on the table as a subject for discussion.
I’m not talking about the idea of a neighborhood stroll. I’m speaking of walking as a viable mobility option. What percentage of Kyle residents, for example, live within desirable walking distance of a grocery store other than a convenience store? Fact of the matter is, I live only a quarter of a mile — as the proverbial crow flies — from the front door of the Kyle H-E-B. However, my mobility options are all ground based and the distance from where I live to the front door of the Kyle H-E-B using improved surfaces of any kind is a mile and a half. As I said, Kyle is not only not a haven for walkers. It is not a viable option for those who prefer that means of transportation.
Let me give you an example of what I mean when I say "the city pays lip service to the concept of walking." There was much to-do made of something called the Emerald Trail network a couple of months back, but all that’s nothing more than a pipedream wafting around the imaginations of a few misguided visionaries. The thought that it might ever become a reality any time, say, in the next quarter of a century (if that) should be dismissed by any serious planners. And the City made a lot of noise about clearing garbage out of a proposed trail along Plum Creek, but such a trail is not a mobility option if the city’s residents have to drive to access it.
I was thinking about all of this when I read on Tuesday’s City Council agenda a pair of proposals to ban parking on one side of the street in two different parts of the Plum Creek neighborhood. Not that there’s anything wrong with these proposals. Quite the opposite. Since the agenda items are being put forth, at least nominally, by Fire Chief Kyle Taylor it would seem this ban is necessary in order for emergency vehicles to move freely in these sections of town. And that’s’ important. It’s vital. It’s the reason I supported the construction of that much-debated new bridge over the Blanco River — so that emergency vehicles could reach people in need by the quickest available route.
No, those two agenda items should be approved without much debate. But what amused me about them was that the city took the opportunity of these two items to once again pay lip service to the concept of walking as a mobility option. In the very first "whereas" in both of the resolutions the council will be asked to approve are the words that claim the current parking situation "is detrimental to the safety of pedestrians … traveling through this street." Give me a break!
I had many questions about Tuesday’s council agenda when I first saw it posted Thursday evening and made those questions known to the city staff. And, bless their hearts, they answered the majority of them. But one they not only failed to answer, they also failed to even address or even acknowledge was the question of "How are these parking situations detrimental to the safety of pedestrians in these areas?". I also specifically asked for the number of pedestrians injured there and, if there were any, the cause and extent of those injuries. The fact that these questions weren’t answered, addressed or even acknowledged only proved what I thought all along — lip service.
This was also supported by a Facebook posting from Mayor Travis Mitchell who wrote "On Tuesday at 7pm, the Kyle City Council will consider accepting KFD's recommendation to create one-sided parking on certain sections of Wetzel, Hellmen (sic), and Kirby. See pics for location and what side of the road is proposed to be designated ‘no parking.’ I would appreciate your feedback on this proposal, especially if you will be affected. KFD has cited the difficulty of first-responder access to these homes because of the narrow lanes created by double-sided parking." At least he was being honest in his post. He did not try to further the myth this was being proposed because the current situation "is detrimental to the safety of pedestrians."
And the responses to Mitchell’s post (all of which were very supportive, I should add) also reflect this has everything to do with driving and nothing to do with walking. Typical was this one from a Keith McCullough: "Needed very badly. We live off of Nevarez and have had to back up 50 feet because I came to another car with nowhere to go." Or this one from a Mandy Kay McIntyre: "Yes! So needed — I got boxed in at the Kirby curve due to parked cars and oncoming traffic — had to drive backwards to get back out!"
The City just needs to be honest about its motivations. Don’t be trying to mask good intentions with meaningless and misguided homilies. Don't try to con the public into believing agenda items like these are to remedy situations that are "detrimental to the safety of pedestrians" when we all know it's really about making lives easier for those behind the wheel of the family SUV.
Tuesday’s consent agenda contains another pair of items which will reduce utility rates for a handful of Kyle residents due to the recent reduction in federal taxes these utilities pay. Aqua Texas is reducing water rates for 450 residential and 24 commercial customers in Meadow Woods, Arroyo Ranch, Dove Hollow Estates and the Quail Meadows Subdivision. Texas Gas Service is reducing its monthly rate that will result in lowering the average residential bill by a whopping 54 cents a month. It will also offer a one-time credit of $9.66 designed, in the company’s words, as "a "catch-up" to reflect the impact of the voluntary rate reduction from the time you see it on your bill back to January 1, 2018, when the Federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act took effect." Telephone calls I made to Texas Gas Service to determine how many Kyle residents were affected by this reduction were not returned.
I’m not talking about the idea of a neighborhood stroll. I’m speaking of walking as a viable mobility option. What percentage of Kyle residents, for example, live within desirable walking distance of a grocery store other than a convenience store? Fact of the matter is, I live only a quarter of a mile — as the proverbial crow flies — from the front door of the Kyle H-E-B. However, my mobility options are all ground based and the distance from where I live to the front door of the Kyle H-E-B using improved surfaces of any kind is a mile and a half. As I said, Kyle is not only not a haven for walkers. It is not a viable option for those who prefer that means of transportation.
Let me give you an example of what I mean when I say "the city pays lip service to the concept of walking." There was much to-do made of something called the Emerald Trail network a couple of months back, but all that’s nothing more than a pipedream wafting around the imaginations of a few misguided visionaries. The thought that it might ever become a reality any time, say, in the next quarter of a century (if that) should be dismissed by any serious planners. And the City made a lot of noise about clearing garbage out of a proposed trail along Plum Creek, but such a trail is not a mobility option if the city’s residents have to drive to access it.
I was thinking about all of this when I read on Tuesday’s City Council agenda a pair of proposals to ban parking on one side of the street in two different parts of the Plum Creek neighborhood. Not that there’s anything wrong with these proposals. Quite the opposite. Since the agenda items are being put forth, at least nominally, by Fire Chief Kyle Taylor it would seem this ban is necessary in order for emergency vehicles to move freely in these sections of town. And that’s’ important. It’s vital. It’s the reason I supported the construction of that much-debated new bridge over the Blanco River — so that emergency vehicles could reach people in need by the quickest available route.
No, those two agenda items should be approved without much debate. But what amused me about them was that the city took the opportunity of these two items to once again pay lip service to the concept of walking as a mobility option. In the very first "whereas" in both of the resolutions the council will be asked to approve are the words that claim the current parking situation "is detrimental to the safety of pedestrians … traveling through this street." Give me a break!
I had many questions about Tuesday’s council agenda when I first saw it posted Thursday evening and made those questions known to the city staff. And, bless their hearts, they answered the majority of them. But one they not only failed to answer, they also failed to even address or even acknowledge was the question of "How are these parking situations detrimental to the safety of pedestrians in these areas?". I also specifically asked for the number of pedestrians injured there and, if there were any, the cause and extent of those injuries. The fact that these questions weren’t answered, addressed or even acknowledged only proved what I thought all along — lip service.
This was also supported by a Facebook posting from Mayor Travis Mitchell who wrote "On Tuesday at 7pm, the Kyle City Council will consider accepting KFD's recommendation to create one-sided parking on certain sections of Wetzel, Hellmen (sic), and Kirby. See pics for location and what side of the road is proposed to be designated ‘no parking.’ I would appreciate your feedback on this proposal, especially if you will be affected. KFD has cited the difficulty of first-responder access to these homes because of the narrow lanes created by double-sided parking." At least he was being honest in his post. He did not try to further the myth this was being proposed because the current situation "is detrimental to the safety of pedestrians."
And the responses to Mitchell’s post (all of which were very supportive, I should add) also reflect this has everything to do with driving and nothing to do with walking. Typical was this one from a Keith McCullough: "Needed very badly. We live off of Nevarez and have had to back up 50 feet because I came to another car with nowhere to go." Or this one from a Mandy Kay McIntyre: "Yes! So needed — I got boxed in at the Kirby curve due to parked cars and oncoming traffic — had to drive backwards to get back out!"
The City just needs to be honest about its motivations. Don’t be trying to mask good intentions with meaningless and misguided homilies. Don't try to con the public into believing agenda items like these are to remedy situations that are "detrimental to the safety of pedestrians" when we all know it's really about making lives easier for those behind the wheel of the family SUV.
Tuesday’s consent agenda contains another pair of items which will reduce utility rates for a handful of Kyle residents due to the recent reduction in federal taxes these utilities pay. Aqua Texas is reducing water rates for 450 residential and 24 commercial customers in Meadow Woods, Arroyo Ranch, Dove Hollow Estates and the Quail Meadows Subdivision. Texas Gas Service is reducing its monthly rate that will result in lowering the average residential bill by a whopping 54 cents a month. It will also offer a one-time credit of $9.66 designed, in the company’s words, as "a "catch-up" to reflect the impact of the voluntary rate reduction from the time you see it on your bill back to January 1, 2018, when the Federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act took effect." Telephone calls I made to Texas Gas Service to determine how many Kyle residents were affected by this reduction were not returned.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
The long and Windy Hill road battle ends
A tug-of-war that began last November over plans for an apartment complex in the 1000 block of Windy Hill Road finally came to a conclusion last night with the revelation that a truce has been signed, albeit a truce that is going to make some folks a tad miffed. To me, the winner in this semi-epic battle is Asifali Karowalia and the losers are all those, including residents of the nearby Amberwood subdivision as well as the mayor and others on the City Council who fought so hard to prevent Karowalia from developing this property he owns on Windy Hill Road into an apartment complex as well as a small retail center. But let me lay out the history and the details of this six-month dispute and you can judge for yourself.
Before his property was annexed into the city, Karowalia signed an agreement with Hays County that guaranteed him the right to construct his apartment complex. Knowing this, the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission approved Karowalia’s request for a specific apartment-type zoning designated as R-3-3 even though the city was recommending a slightly less dense designation known as R-3-2. R-3-3 zoning allows for a maximum of 28 units per acre plus no apartment can be smaller than 500 square feet and 75 percent of them must be at more than 750 square feet. R-3-2 zoning sets the minimum square feet at 400 with the mandate that 75 percent of the total must be larger than 500 square feet. R-3-2 also limits the number of units per acre to 21.
The plans Karowalia outlined for the property — to build 120 apartment units — could be achieved with the R-3-2 zoning, but the Planning & Zoning Commission (truth in advertising: I am a member of this commission) in a split vote decided to recommend R-3-3 zoning to the council because of that agreement with Hays County and the possibility that Karowalia could take legal action if he didn’t get the exact zoning he wanted. And he said he wanted R-3-3 even though 120 apartment units could also be constructed with R-3-2, which is an important factor in deciding the eventual winner of this skirmish.
The matter went to the City Council on Dec. 5 which passed it on first reading 6-1 after then City Attorney Frank Garza told the council it was legally bound to approve it because Karowalia’s prior commitment from Hays County met the requirements of the Local Government Code.
A little less than a month later, during the council’s first meeting of this year, Garza announced he was reversing his opinion, even though he admitted there was no case law to support this reversal. Armed with that information, the council unanimously voted to deny Karowalia’s zoning even though the zoning Karowalia sought was recommended the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Garza, I believe, was pressured by a few Amberwood residents opposing the complex who apparently convinced him, incorrectly it seems, that Karowalia failed to meet a requirement that requires ""a completed application for the initial authorization with the governmental entity before the date the annexation proceedings were instituted." At issue here, obviously, was what exactly constituted the institution of annexation proceedings. The Amberwood residents convinced Garza who then convinced the council it was one thing while Karowalia and his legal representatives argued it was something else. Council members, who believed Windy Hill Road could not handle the additional traffic that would result if the complex was built, were more than happy to deny the zoning. Mayor Travis Mitchell said during the debate on the request "I think R-3-2 is too dense for that area."
But apparently R-3-2 is exactly what Karowalia is going to get. It’s not the R-3-3 he originally applied for — so there’s that — but, like I said earlier, it’s still a zoning classification that will permit him to build exactly the development he has conceived from the beginning.
On Jan. 6, four days after the council’s denial of Karowalia’s zoning request, his agent, Afzaal Khan, told me he had recommended the property owner initiate legal action against the city, telling me Karowalia’s request met all the requirements of the Texas Local Government Code.
The subject had been listed as a item to be discussed in just about every council Executive Session since that date. I also think it’s no coincidence whatsoever that during this time the council voted to replace Garza as city attorney with Page Saenz of Austin’s Knight Law Firm LP. A couple of weeks ago the council supported a development agreement with Karowalia and directed the staff to bring it to the property owner. Last night City Manager Scott Sellers told me the deal was done. Finished, Settled.
"The applicant has agreed to develop to all of today’s development standards in exchange for the multi-family zoning with the ability to develop 120 units which is what they requested, and the .9 acres of retail services at the front," Sellers told me last night. "That agreement will now go to P&Z for review."
Review what, exactly, since it appeared an agreement on all this had been reached? To get the answer to that question I had to go to Saenz.
"The agreement is complete," she told me. "It recognizes some legal rights to develop the property pursuant to the development agreement, but the development agreement also provides for the land to go through zoning process initiated by the city just so zoning can match the uses in the development agreement. You can’t bind the council to make certain zoning decisions so that whole process is subject to the legislative process. P&Z just needs to go through the process, make the recommendation it will make and then council will take that recommendation and review the zoning case and make their decision."
"This was all solved without conceding any sort of legal opinion on either side," Sellers added, "It’s just a settlement agreement to allow development that’s up to the current city standards."
While I had Sellers’ attention last night, I also asked him about the proposal outlined during the council meeting for a regional wastewater treatment plant to be located along Hemphill Creek southeast of Martindale. The location was chosen because the slope of the land would allow gravity to control the flow of the wastewater to the plant, eliminating the need for electrically driven pumps and lift stations.
Sellers said discussions about this began when the city first started talking about the possibility of potable water reuse at the city’s Plum Creek wastewater plant. "We started talking to the Alliance Regional Water Authority (which is the city’s water provider) about utilizing the same concept as a water provider," Sellers said. "They began exploring being a wastewater provider so they could turn around and use it as part of their portfolio for water.
"Because of the growth demands in the region, the partners of ARWA needed to have some sort of larger regional treatment capacity at some point in the future but everyone’s development pattern was happening at different velocities," Sellers added. "It just so happened that we felt like Kyle’s velocity was faster based upon our annexations. However, the timing of the development agreements ultimately matched up with some of the larger developments in these other communities. So, looking ahead, we feel that the regional wastewater treatment solution as studied by ARWA makes sense for the region because multiple entities can use it and it can be located in a centralized location that makes sense for the growth in the region as a whole. Once that conversation started we just followed it as the preferred option for wastewater treatment in the Blanco Basin."
But I also wondered whether he suffered from the same sticker shock that struck me when ARWA’s Graham Moore told the council last night that the cost to the city of Kyle would be around $39 million by 2025 with the final cost being in the neighborhood of $83,16 million by Phase 3, which is scheduled for 2038. And those numbers are in today’s dollars which most likely means, with inflation, the cost will be significantly higher by the time of Phase 3, which will elevate the plant to a 30-million-gallon-per-day facility (as compared to the city’s current 2.3 MGD capacity).
"I really don’t know how the city will finance this because there are a variety of options," Sellers told me. "We will look at whether the Blanco Basin development needs to be somewhat in its own district. There are impact fees through the system. There are other development fees that can contribute to the development paying its own way. If a bond is needed, which it will be most likely, we would put that on rate payers who are using that plant."
Sellers also said, however, there are current wastewater lines south of Center Street (seven million gallons a day at capacity) and the potential for 10,000 LUE’s in the Waterstone (formerly Lasalle) development that are pumping back to the Plum Creek plant. With the regional plant, this wastewater would be gravity-fed.
"So trying to find an equitable cost is something we’re really going to have to look at," the city manager said. "And one of the advantages of a regional plant is that there are more state and federal sources of revenue because it impacts a broader area then if we were just to do it locally. I’m not sure of the timing of the funding, but those are conversations we will have down the road. But it’s good to have this on the radar now."
Sellers also said no one should be concerned about discharges from the plant that will eventually wind up in the San Marcos River.
"That water will be cleaner than the water currently in the San Marcos River," he promised. "Any discharged effluent must meet TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) requirements. They may see additional flow in the river that could cause channel erosion and it could affect some habitats. We understand that. The great thing about how flows are regulated and permitted in Texas is the permitting process takes all those things into account. We cannot exceed those discharge limits that TCEQ has established."
Although I am not as positive as some when it comes to the environmental stewardship of the TCEQ, I am heartened by the fact that rapidly developing technology will mean much, if not all, of the effluent will be treated for reuse as part of the region’s water supply. That would obviously eliminate the need for any water to be discharged into Hemphill Creek, which eventually flows into the San Marcos River. I was struck by the coincidence of a story buried at the bottom of page B5 in today’s Austin American-Statesman that began "Travis County will use recycled wastewater to cool the chillers that provide air conditioning to four county buildings, saving 10 million gallons of water a year … the equivalent of taking 15,000 homes off city water permanently."
"The technology exists," Sellers said. "There are cities in Texas that already have their drinking water from effluent water."
In other council matters last night, the developer who was seeking a waiver for the location of a road in an about-to-be-developed subdivision on Sledge Street told the council he will simply come up with a new preliminary plan that would eliminate the need for such a waiver and bring it back to council; the council approved an ordinance amendment that prohibits construction in a 100-year floodplain as well as an amendment to another ordinance that would require the base on any new construction in Kyle to be at least two feet in elevation above that 100-year-floodplain level (essentially out of a 500-year floodplain); and approved a land swap of ETJ territory with Uhland so that the ETJs of both cities correspond to already existing parcel boundaries.
Before his property was annexed into the city, Karowalia signed an agreement with Hays County that guaranteed him the right to construct his apartment complex. Knowing this, the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission approved Karowalia’s request for a specific apartment-type zoning designated as R-3-3 even though the city was recommending a slightly less dense designation known as R-3-2. R-3-3 zoning allows for a maximum of 28 units per acre plus no apartment can be smaller than 500 square feet and 75 percent of them must be at more than 750 square feet. R-3-2 zoning sets the minimum square feet at 400 with the mandate that 75 percent of the total must be larger than 500 square feet. R-3-2 also limits the number of units per acre to 21.
The plans Karowalia outlined for the property — to build 120 apartment units — could be achieved with the R-3-2 zoning, but the Planning & Zoning Commission (truth in advertising: I am a member of this commission) in a split vote decided to recommend R-3-3 zoning to the council because of that agreement with Hays County and the possibility that Karowalia could take legal action if he didn’t get the exact zoning he wanted. And he said he wanted R-3-3 even though 120 apartment units could also be constructed with R-3-2, which is an important factor in deciding the eventual winner of this skirmish.
The matter went to the City Council on Dec. 5 which passed it on first reading 6-1 after then City Attorney Frank Garza told the council it was legally bound to approve it because Karowalia’s prior commitment from Hays County met the requirements of the Local Government Code.
A little less than a month later, during the council’s first meeting of this year, Garza announced he was reversing his opinion, even though he admitted there was no case law to support this reversal. Armed with that information, the council unanimously voted to deny Karowalia’s zoning even though the zoning Karowalia sought was recommended the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Garza, I believe, was pressured by a few Amberwood residents opposing the complex who apparently convinced him, incorrectly it seems, that Karowalia failed to meet a requirement that requires ""a completed application for the initial authorization with the governmental entity before the date the annexation proceedings were instituted." At issue here, obviously, was what exactly constituted the institution of annexation proceedings. The Amberwood residents convinced Garza who then convinced the council it was one thing while Karowalia and his legal representatives argued it was something else. Council members, who believed Windy Hill Road could not handle the additional traffic that would result if the complex was built, were more than happy to deny the zoning. Mayor Travis Mitchell said during the debate on the request "I think R-3-2 is too dense for that area."
But apparently R-3-2 is exactly what Karowalia is going to get. It’s not the R-3-3 he originally applied for — so there’s that — but, like I said earlier, it’s still a zoning classification that will permit him to build exactly the development he has conceived from the beginning.
On Jan. 6, four days after the council’s denial of Karowalia’s zoning request, his agent, Afzaal Khan, told me he had recommended the property owner initiate legal action against the city, telling me Karowalia’s request met all the requirements of the Texas Local Government Code.
The subject had been listed as a item to be discussed in just about every council Executive Session since that date. I also think it’s no coincidence whatsoever that during this time the council voted to replace Garza as city attorney with Page Saenz of Austin’s Knight Law Firm LP. A couple of weeks ago the council supported a development agreement with Karowalia and directed the staff to bring it to the property owner. Last night City Manager Scott Sellers told me the deal was done. Finished, Settled.
"The applicant has agreed to develop to all of today’s development standards in exchange for the multi-family zoning with the ability to develop 120 units which is what they requested, and the .9 acres of retail services at the front," Sellers told me last night. "That agreement will now go to P&Z for review."
Review what, exactly, since it appeared an agreement on all this had been reached? To get the answer to that question I had to go to Saenz.
"The agreement is complete," she told me. "It recognizes some legal rights to develop the property pursuant to the development agreement, but the development agreement also provides for the land to go through zoning process initiated by the city just so zoning can match the uses in the development agreement. You can’t bind the council to make certain zoning decisions so that whole process is subject to the legislative process. P&Z just needs to go through the process, make the recommendation it will make and then council will take that recommendation and review the zoning case and make their decision."
"This was all solved without conceding any sort of legal opinion on either side," Sellers added, "It’s just a settlement agreement to allow development that’s up to the current city standards."
While I had Sellers’ attention last night, I also asked him about the proposal outlined during the council meeting for a regional wastewater treatment plant to be located along Hemphill Creek southeast of Martindale. The location was chosen because the slope of the land would allow gravity to control the flow of the wastewater to the plant, eliminating the need for electrically driven pumps and lift stations.
Sellers said discussions about this began when the city first started talking about the possibility of potable water reuse at the city’s Plum Creek wastewater plant. "We started talking to the Alliance Regional Water Authority (which is the city’s water provider) about utilizing the same concept as a water provider," Sellers said. "They began exploring being a wastewater provider so they could turn around and use it as part of their portfolio for water.
"Because of the growth demands in the region, the partners of ARWA needed to have some sort of larger regional treatment capacity at some point in the future but everyone’s development pattern was happening at different velocities," Sellers added. "It just so happened that we felt like Kyle’s velocity was faster based upon our annexations. However, the timing of the development agreements ultimately matched up with some of the larger developments in these other communities. So, looking ahead, we feel that the regional wastewater treatment solution as studied by ARWA makes sense for the region because multiple entities can use it and it can be located in a centralized location that makes sense for the growth in the region as a whole. Once that conversation started we just followed it as the preferred option for wastewater treatment in the Blanco Basin."
But I also wondered whether he suffered from the same sticker shock that struck me when ARWA’s Graham Moore told the council last night that the cost to the city of Kyle would be around $39 million by 2025 with the final cost being in the neighborhood of $83,16 million by Phase 3, which is scheduled for 2038. And those numbers are in today’s dollars which most likely means, with inflation, the cost will be significantly higher by the time of Phase 3, which will elevate the plant to a 30-million-gallon-per-day facility (as compared to the city’s current 2.3 MGD capacity).
"I really don’t know how the city will finance this because there are a variety of options," Sellers told me. "We will look at whether the Blanco Basin development needs to be somewhat in its own district. There are impact fees through the system. There are other development fees that can contribute to the development paying its own way. If a bond is needed, which it will be most likely, we would put that on rate payers who are using that plant."
Sellers also said, however, there are current wastewater lines south of Center Street (seven million gallons a day at capacity) and the potential for 10,000 LUE’s in the Waterstone (formerly Lasalle) development that are pumping back to the Plum Creek plant. With the regional plant, this wastewater would be gravity-fed.
"So trying to find an equitable cost is something we’re really going to have to look at," the city manager said. "And one of the advantages of a regional plant is that there are more state and federal sources of revenue because it impacts a broader area then if we were just to do it locally. I’m not sure of the timing of the funding, but those are conversations we will have down the road. But it’s good to have this on the radar now."
Sellers also said no one should be concerned about discharges from the plant that will eventually wind up in the San Marcos River.
"That water will be cleaner than the water currently in the San Marcos River," he promised. "Any discharged effluent must meet TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) requirements. They may see additional flow in the river that could cause channel erosion and it could affect some habitats. We understand that. The great thing about how flows are regulated and permitted in Texas is the permitting process takes all those things into account. We cannot exceed those discharge limits that TCEQ has established."
Although I am not as positive as some when it comes to the environmental stewardship of the TCEQ, I am heartened by the fact that rapidly developing technology will mean much, if not all, of the effluent will be treated for reuse as part of the region’s water supply. That would obviously eliminate the need for any water to be discharged into Hemphill Creek, which eventually flows into the San Marcos River. I was struck by the coincidence of a story buried at the bottom of page B5 in today’s Austin American-Statesman that began "Travis County will use recycled wastewater to cool the chillers that provide air conditioning to four county buildings, saving 10 million gallons of water a year … the equivalent of taking 15,000 homes off city water permanently."
"The technology exists," Sellers said. "There are cities in Texas that already have their drinking water from effluent water."
In other council matters last night, the developer who was seeking a waiver for the location of a road in an about-to-be-developed subdivision on Sledge Street told the council he will simply come up with a new preliminary plan that would eliminate the need for such a waiver and bring it back to council; the council approved an ordinance amendment that prohibits construction in a 100-year floodplain as well as an amendment to another ordinance that would require the base on any new construction in Kyle to be at least two feet in elevation above that 100-year-floodplain level (essentially out of a 500-year floodplain); and approved a land swap of ETJ territory with Uhland so that the ETJs of both cities correspond to already existing parcel boundaries.
Monday, April 30, 2018
Kyle home property tax valuations increase by 6.1%
Preliminary figures released today by the Hayes Central Appraisal District revealed the average market value for a home in Kyle increased by 6.1 percent over 2017, a percentage point below the average for the entire county.
The 2018 average market value for a home in Kyle, according to HCAD, is $197,237, below the average valuations in Buda ($256,472), Wimberly ($274,414) and especially Dripping Springs ($390,209), but higher than those in San Marcos ($187,070). Across Hays County, the average market value for homes increased by 7.1 percent.
It will not be known how this increase will effect the tax bills of individual property owners until the various Hays County taxing agencies set their tax rates for the upcoming fiscal year. Last year, the City of Kyle lowered its rate by three cents, but property owners faced a higher tax bill than the year before because of increased valuations coupled with the fact that none of the other taxing authorities, most notably the Hays Consolidated School District, which consumers more than 50 percent of the tax bill, adjusted their rates.
It should also be noted that last year the final property valuations, which are usually announced around the first week in August after all the protests are settled, were higher than the preliminary numbers posted in May 2017..
The HCAD said it began mailing 93,173 appraisal notices today and property owners have until May 30 to file a protest of their individual valuation. Last year, 14,602 property owners protested their appraisals.
"Hays County's overall preliminary market value for 2018 rose to $26.58 billion this year, up 13.3 percent from $23.46 billion in 2017," the HCAD said. "Commercial and industrial property increased in value by 12.61 percent from $2.22 billion in 2017 to $2.5 billion this year."
HCAD said vacant lots-tracts saw the biggest increase in value (37 percent) followed by residential multi-family property with an increase of 32.87 percent. "These increases were due to strong demand for residential and commercial sites, new construction, multi-family student housing and completion of new apartment projects," HCAD said in a news release.
"Hays County added 2,628 new homes and 83 new commercial buildings to the appraisal roll for 2018," HCAD said "Total new improvements added more than $981 million to the taxable value for 2018. Across Hays County, the average market value for homes increased by 7.1 percent."
In Kyle, the average market value for a home went from $185,890 last year to $197,237 in 2018.
The 2018 average market value for a home in Kyle, according to HCAD, is $197,237, below the average valuations in Buda ($256,472), Wimberly ($274,414) and especially Dripping Springs ($390,209), but higher than those in San Marcos ($187,070). Across Hays County, the average market value for homes increased by 7.1 percent.
It will not be known how this increase will effect the tax bills of individual property owners until the various Hays County taxing agencies set their tax rates for the upcoming fiscal year. Last year, the City of Kyle lowered its rate by three cents, but property owners faced a higher tax bill than the year before because of increased valuations coupled with the fact that none of the other taxing authorities, most notably the Hays Consolidated School District, which consumers more than 50 percent of the tax bill, adjusted their rates.
It should also be noted that last year the final property valuations, which are usually announced around the first week in August after all the protests are settled, were higher than the preliminary numbers posted in May 2017..
The HCAD said it began mailing 93,173 appraisal notices today and property owners have until May 30 to file a protest of their individual valuation. Last year, 14,602 property owners protested their appraisals.
"Hays County's overall preliminary market value for 2018 rose to $26.58 billion this year, up 13.3 percent from $23.46 billion in 2017," the HCAD said. "Commercial and industrial property increased in value by 12.61 percent from $2.22 billion in 2017 to $2.5 billion this year."
HCAD said vacant lots-tracts saw the biggest increase in value (37 percent) followed by residential multi-family property with an increase of 32.87 percent. "These increases were due to strong demand for residential and commercial sites, new construction, multi-family student housing and completion of new apartment projects," HCAD said in a news release.
"Hays County added 2,628 new homes and 83 new commercial buildings to the appraisal roll for 2018," HCAD said "Total new improvements added more than $981 million to the taxable value for 2018. Across Hays County, the average market value for homes increased by 7.1 percent."
In Kyle, the average market value for a home went from $185,890 last year to $197,237 in 2018.
Saturday, April 28, 2018
Puff puff, toot toot, off we go
Michael Bowen is really pushing his luck.
First, his absolutely reasonable request for zoning that would have allowed his plan for a residential development on Sledge Street on the fringe of the city’s urban core was almost derailed by the dim-witted thinking obstructionists on the City Council who argued that if houses are built there, they might attract people to live in them (ya think?) and heaven forbid we should open the gates to more people living in Kyle, especially on the fringe of the city’s urban core. It was only through some nifty legislative legerdemain that his zoning application survived the approval process.
But now he’s back to ask another favor from a council that was not welcoming of his efforts the first time around. This time it’s all about the location of a street leading out (or entering into, depending on your point-of-view) his subdivision. This time he’s asking the council Tuesday night for a waiver of city regulations that require two separate street intersections along the same road to be at least 60 yards apart.
In theory, I understand what he’s trying to do and I also understand, I think, why the city has this distance requirement. What I don’t understand is the language in the staff report that says "off-center street intersections are not permitted" by Kyle’s subdivision regulations. I have never heard the term "off-center street intersection." I am familiar with "offset intersections," but not "off-center" ones. They sound like mistakes, intersections that missed their intended targets. Apparently what Bowen wants is an interesection that will result in a "jog" — not the normal kind which is an S-curve in the road; but one would result from a street exiting Bowen’s planned subdivision, currently referred to as "Opal Ranch," onto Sledge Street, and a street entering the Bradford Meadows subdivision on the other side of Sledge Street. Under Bowen’s current layout, those two intersections would be 144 feet apart instead of the city’s required 180 feet.
Here’s why the city has a problem with that: According to the staff’s report: "Intersection off-sets are required in development codes primarily to protect vehicles making left turns, especially simultaneous left turns toward each paired intersection in question. In this specific case, the left turns are out of both subdivisions — Bradford Meadows in a northbound direction, and Opal Ranch in a southbound direction. However, intersection off-sets also reduce rear-end collisions between right turning traffic that is reducing speed off of the collector and left turn traffic that is accelerating onto the collector. In this case, a vehicle exiting either subdivision in a left turn movement would be accelerating away from the intersection, but could encounter a vehicle traveling the same direction, but slowing to make a right into the opposing subdivision."
Got that? I think I do in an abstract sort of way and if I do get it that means problems would arise if, at any time, a significant number of moving automobiles would find themselves at the same place at the same time and, frankly, the odds of that happening at the same time on this particular section of Sledge Street would appear to be larger than the odds of the Indiana Pacers winning the NBA championship. The analysis of the city staff says much the same thing and adds something that reminded me of the old grade-school math problem that begins "If one train traveling east at 60 miles an hour out of Chicago …" Specifically the analysis says "the posted speed limit on Sledge Street is 30 MPH. A vehicle traveling 30 MPH is moving at 44 feet per second; a vehicle traveling 35 MPH is moving at roughly 51 feet per second; and 40 MPH is 59 feet per second. Braking distances on this roadway should be sufficient not to cause harm to the motoring public."
OK, I’m going to take their word for that, but does it matter? The same folks that tried to kill this project at the zoning stage might be successful in inflicting mortal wounds on it this time around. Staff is already trying to give the council an escape route by mentioning "If it's the council's preference not to approve the request as presented, re-consideration at a later date could be an option, subsequent to the submittal of a third-party traffic impact statement from an engineer registered by the State of Texas and qualified to produce such a report."
But what happens if the council doesn’t take the escape route and just denies the waiver? If at first the dimwits don’t succeed …
Also accompanying the request is a "proposed preliminary plan" of the Opal Ranch subdivision that, by all appearances, looks exactly like a plat. I asked Planning Director Howard Koontz about this because the Planning & Zoning Commission has yet to approve a plat for this subdivision. "P&Z can't approve the idea of the plat they're proposing, with the non-conforming intersection distance" Koontz told me Friday. "Council isn't approving the plat, they're approving the idea of a plat with an offset of less than 180 feet. If council approves the waiver, then it can go forward to the P&Z. As it reads today, it can't go forward to P&Z, as it's non-compliant with Chapter 41." So there’s that.
Elsewhere on the agenda are perfectly logical recommendations (that are in the form of amendments to city ordinances) regarding building in floodplains along with six potential appointments to the Train Depot Board that will, according to Chief of Staff Jerry Hendrix, still leave one vacancy on the seven-member board. Three of the appointees listed — Angie Chapa, Jane Kirkham and Kate Johnson — are already Train Depot Board members. So I was wondering who the three other nominees — former city council member Diane Hervol; Tim McCutchion, who recently and unsuccessfully sought a place on the City Council; and Patricia Randow, of whom I know nothing — would be replacing. Hendrix told me "It is possible that these appointments will all be treated as new appointments given that the terms have been expired since 2016. Assuming the council concurs and that all are appointed, there will be one vacancy remaining to be filled." So there’s that as well. For some reason it brought to mind the lyrics of the children’s song: "Down by the station early in the morning, see the little pufferbellies all in a row. See the station master turn the little handle; Puff, puff, toot, toot, off we go!"
Actually, that could be the theme song for Tuesday’s entire agenda.
First, his absolutely reasonable request for zoning that would have allowed his plan for a residential development on Sledge Street on the fringe of the city’s urban core was almost derailed by the dim-witted thinking obstructionists on the City Council who argued that if houses are built there, they might attract people to live in them (ya think?) and heaven forbid we should open the gates to more people living in Kyle, especially on the fringe of the city’s urban core. It was only through some nifty legislative legerdemain that his zoning application survived the approval process.
But now he’s back to ask another favor from a council that was not welcoming of his efforts the first time around. This time it’s all about the location of a street leading out (or entering into, depending on your point-of-view) his subdivision. This time he’s asking the council Tuesday night for a waiver of city regulations that require two separate street intersections along the same road to be at least 60 yards apart.
In theory, I understand what he’s trying to do and I also understand, I think, why the city has this distance requirement. What I don’t understand is the language in the staff report that says "off-center street intersections are not permitted" by Kyle’s subdivision regulations. I have never heard the term "off-center street intersection." I am familiar with "offset intersections," but not "off-center" ones. They sound like mistakes, intersections that missed their intended targets. Apparently what Bowen wants is an interesection that will result in a "jog" — not the normal kind which is an S-curve in the road; but one would result from a street exiting Bowen’s planned subdivision, currently referred to as "Opal Ranch," onto Sledge Street, and a street entering the Bradford Meadows subdivision on the other side of Sledge Street. Under Bowen’s current layout, those two intersections would be 144 feet apart instead of the city’s required 180 feet.
Here’s why the city has a problem with that: According to the staff’s report: "Intersection off-sets are required in development codes primarily to protect vehicles making left turns, especially simultaneous left turns toward each paired intersection in question. In this specific case, the left turns are out of both subdivisions — Bradford Meadows in a northbound direction, and Opal Ranch in a southbound direction. However, intersection off-sets also reduce rear-end collisions between right turning traffic that is reducing speed off of the collector and left turn traffic that is accelerating onto the collector. In this case, a vehicle exiting either subdivision in a left turn movement would be accelerating away from the intersection, but could encounter a vehicle traveling the same direction, but slowing to make a right into the opposing subdivision."
Got that? I think I do in an abstract sort of way and if I do get it that means problems would arise if, at any time, a significant number of moving automobiles would find themselves at the same place at the same time and, frankly, the odds of that happening at the same time on this particular section of Sledge Street would appear to be larger than the odds of the Indiana Pacers winning the NBA championship. The analysis of the city staff says much the same thing and adds something that reminded me of the old grade-school math problem that begins "If one train traveling east at 60 miles an hour out of Chicago …" Specifically the analysis says "the posted speed limit on Sledge Street is 30 MPH. A vehicle traveling 30 MPH is moving at 44 feet per second; a vehicle traveling 35 MPH is moving at roughly 51 feet per second; and 40 MPH is 59 feet per second. Braking distances on this roadway should be sufficient not to cause harm to the motoring public."
OK, I’m going to take their word for that, but does it matter? The same folks that tried to kill this project at the zoning stage might be successful in inflicting mortal wounds on it this time around. Staff is already trying to give the council an escape route by mentioning "If it's the council's preference not to approve the request as presented, re-consideration at a later date could be an option, subsequent to the submittal of a third-party traffic impact statement from an engineer registered by the State of Texas and qualified to produce such a report."
But what happens if the council doesn’t take the escape route and just denies the waiver? If at first the dimwits don’t succeed …
Also accompanying the request is a "proposed preliminary plan" of the Opal Ranch subdivision that, by all appearances, looks exactly like a plat. I asked Planning Director Howard Koontz about this because the Planning & Zoning Commission has yet to approve a plat for this subdivision. "P&Z can't approve the idea of the plat they're proposing, with the non-conforming intersection distance" Koontz told me Friday. "Council isn't approving the plat, they're approving the idea of a plat with an offset of less than 180 feet. If council approves the waiver, then it can go forward to the P&Z. As it reads today, it can't go forward to P&Z, as it's non-compliant with Chapter 41." So there’s that.
Elsewhere on the agenda are perfectly logical recommendations (that are in the form of amendments to city ordinances) regarding building in floodplains along with six potential appointments to the Train Depot Board that will, according to Chief of Staff Jerry Hendrix, still leave one vacancy on the seven-member board. Three of the appointees listed — Angie Chapa, Jane Kirkham and Kate Johnson — are already Train Depot Board members. So I was wondering who the three other nominees — former city council member Diane Hervol; Tim McCutchion, who recently and unsuccessfully sought a place on the City Council; and Patricia Randow, of whom I know nothing — would be replacing. Hendrix told me "It is possible that these appointments will all be treated as new appointments given that the terms have been expired since 2016. Assuming the council concurs and that all are appointed, there will be one vacancy remaining to be filled." So there’s that as well. For some reason it brought to mind the lyrics of the children’s song: "Down by the station early in the morning, see the little pufferbellies all in a row. See the station master turn the little handle; Puff, puff, toot, toot, off we go!"
Actually, that could be the theme song for Tuesday’s entire agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)