Good evening. Uh, I, my brain is totally blinking
right now. I would like to call this regular, uh, scheduled meeting of the planning and zoning commission
to order the time is 6:30 pm on april 14th.
uh, may I have a roll call, please? Copeland? Here. Webb? Here.
segel here. Kin here. Cfet. Houck.
hildreth.
richard, can you hear us on online?
I wonder? Uh, we might be muted. This is,
are we muted on
hildreth? I'm ready. Yeah, I'm ready. Alright, perfect.
so we do have a quorum. Um, I would like to extend a welcome to our new commissioner
who's joining us virtually today. Thank you for your service and, uh,
looking forward to working with you. Uh, first item on our agenda is
approval of minutes. So consider approval of the planning and zoning commission's february 24th, 2026.
regular meeting minutes. We need a motion. And second on this
madam chair, motion to approve the planning and zoning commission. February 24th, 2026.
regular meeting. Minutes second. Okay. We have a motion to approve from commissioner
copeland and a second from vice chair stegel. Is there any discussion on that?
all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Na.
perfect. We've got our minutes. Next step is our citizen comment period.
the planning and zoning commission welcomes comments from citizens early in the agenda of
regular meetings. Speakers are provided with an opportunity to speak during this time
period on any agenda item or any other matter concerning city business,
and they must observe the three minute time limit. So, at this time, I will open citizen
comments and seeing none.
well, hang on. Someone's walking into the building. I'm just gonna
give it a minute. Oh, nevermind. Seeing none, we will keep moving.
first up, we have our consider impossible action items.
so, first is consider and make recommendation to the city council regarding
a request by john hall, for exceptions from chapter 41, subdivisions
of the city's code of ordinances related to detention, drainage, flood mitigation,
and sidewalks for the property located at 200 veterans drive, kyle,
texas 7, 8 6. This
2015, the requested exceptions
include one, an exception from section 41 dash four,
watershed and flood prevention to wave requirements for a detention pond and
trickle channel two, an exception from section 41
dash 1 34. General requirements to allow
alternative culvert specifications. Three, an exception
from section 41 dash 1 43 a one
sidewalks to eliminate installation of new sidewalks along veterans drive,
eliminate sidewalks along barbie street from wood street to veterans drive,
wave sidewalk crossings over drainage ditches, and reduce the
minimum sidewalk width from five feet to four feet.
mr. Lutz?
uh, yes. Good evening, chairman, commissioners. Um, so tonight, um, have a couple
of variances for you. Um, I'm gonna let the, uh, presentation get loaded
up. Um, that way it'll give me a reference point. Um, there's quite a few items to go through.
um, so tonight we will do this a little bit, uh, differently. Um, because there
are so many requests, uh, I would like to go through my entire presentation,
um, kind of recommendations, and then we will circle back and visit
each one of those requests individually. Um, it'll be at that point on each
one of those items that, that mr. Hall can come and present his findings. Um,
and then once we kind of do that, we will go through and make our motions. Uh, we would like
request that we do separate motions for each item, um, just as a little cleaner and easier for
staff to get those minutes, uh, forwarded on to counsel. So, uh, again,
um, I'm gonna talk fast. There's a lot of information, so we just hold questions till
the end. Um, that would be appreciated.
okay. So, uh, property location, um, veterans drive, blanco
and barbie street. Um, so this, this triangle, again, the applicant
is constructed approximately 1500 square foot professional office.
um, planning zoning commission did review a conditional use permit, uh, for this,
uh, uh, as it's in the veteran's drive overlay district. That was done may 28th, 2024.
um, the applicant is requesting several exceptions from city code, uh, from the
city subdivision ordinance. Um, we did not reque, uh, receive
documentation at the time of sub packet submittal, but mr. Hall has provided you
some comments and some information tonight. Um, and then he'll go through those
and he'll, you'll have a chance to answer, uh, ask him some questions.
um, so what we're looking at is, um, several requested
variances, um, an exception from section 41 40 watershed and
floodplain prevention, um, to grave requirements for required detention, pond
and trickle channel. Um, we're looking at exception from section 41
dash 1 34 general requirements, uh, to allow alternative culvert
specifications. Uh, we're also looking at exception from section 41
dash 1 43. Um, this is regarding sidewalks. Uh, there's four
separate distinct, uh, items there. Eliminate new sidewalks along veterans,
uh, eliminate sidewalks along barbie street from woods to veterans. Wave the
sidewalk crossing requirements over those drainage district ditches, and then reduce the minimum
sidewalk width from four feet to five feet. Um, so what I've done is kind
of broken these down into three main requests, uh, uh, requests.
and so we'll tackle 'em that way based on the section of code. Um, so the request
number one is waiver of requirements of a detention pond and trickle channel.
again, city code, state law require properties to mitigate any additional impervious
cover or runoff associated with their development. There's multiple ways
they can do that. Um, uh, that section 41 10 outline
standards and specifications, um, that may be used to meet these requirements.
um, and then in this case, uh, the trickle channels and detention ponds are required
for flood mitigation based on current city code. So when we look at
request one a, um, detention ponds, um, they are not
always required. As I mentioned, there are, uh, other options to,
to kind of meet state requirements to handle runoff. Um, dos can be
done through things such as low impact development or lid. Um, some of you're familiar with
that. Um, these things can be rain gardens, bio bioswells, or other
approved engineering practices. Um, staff, um, presented available
options to the applicant regarding those alternative compliance options. Um, the
applicant indicated to staff they do not wish to utilize those lid, um, options
for their own various reasons. Um, so he's asking to waive the, the pond requirement.
um, there are no alternative options, um,
for the trickle channel. Um, uh, when we look at that,
um, I'm sorry, and I'll get, I'm jumping ahead of myself. Um,
so request one b of this same section is the trickle channel. Uh,
trickle channels are required where the slope of the property is
very shallow. Um, this allows or, uh, helps move the water
from one area to another. Again, I'm not the engineer, so we do have staff
engineer if you want details on that. Um, just, um, keep
your questions from me, kind of process and requirements, and then I'll turn it over to staff
if we need to get into details. Um, so the applicant is requesting
exception to waive the trickle channel for the portion of the property extending from the detention
pond area to their proposed driveway. Um, currently there are no alternative
compliance options available for this requirement, so staff does not support this exception.
um, so here on this image is kind of a breakdown of the first, um, request.
so the detention pond location is in red. Um, there is a
proposed trickle channel in green. You'll see this one. This is the one the applicant is
requesting to wave. Um, there is a second trickle channel to the south
on this plan set, um, highlighted in blue. Um, this
was, um, provided by the applicant. This is their approved plans. However,
the city has undertaken some road improvement projects on veterans. Um,
we are changing the way water is flowing across his property
slightly. Um, so in order to mitigate that, staff supported
that we would build that as a, as a future cip project. We would waive that requirement
from him since we were having some effect, um, on his development.
um, going into exception request number two, this is approval of alternative
culvert specifications. So our code does allow for alternative culvert,
pipe sizes, materials, uh, um, as long as the proper,
uh, engineering documentation is submitted, reviewed, and approved by staff.
um, so staff did inform the applicant that the requested modifications could be supported,
um, provided that we had updated plans and supporting engineering document, uh,
documentation, um, uh, that these plans do need to be supported.
um, at this time, the applicant, um, had concerns about having to
reengage and engineer and updating those. Um, so they would like to, to waive
the requirement for, um, updating that documentation
would like to use what they're proposing.
so this is kind of the map of exception area two. These are the culverts that you'll
see connect across or underneath the driveway. Um, that is that location
there. And then the exception request
three. Um, there's actually four of these. Well, I'll touch base on all
of them. These are all sidewalks. Um, starting with request three a.
um, so his, the request is to eliminate new sidewalk along
veterans drive. I do wanna point out that there is an existing sidewalk there.
um, it just does not meet our minimum, uh, sidewalk width, uh, requirements.
um, we require five foot sidewalks along all property boundaries. Um,
staff did work with the applicant as part of their site development review and
agreed to not require that sidewalk to be ripped up and
replaced. Um, and then, um, this group
approved that sidewalk kind of deviation as part of their cup.
uh, but staff wanted to bring this forward today just as part of these other variances. Let's
just go ahead and, and run that through, through the process. Um, so this is something we, we
can support to maintain the existing sidewalk, um, in the area.
uh, exception three b is to eliminate sidewalks along barbie street from
wood street to veterans drive. So as part of our roadway improvements along veterans,
this small section of road that kind of comes along barbie behind mr. Hall's property
and then connects, um, at the intersection, um,
right where the restaurant kind of, uh, back parking lot is,
that road is actually gonna be a abandoned, um, we're not gonna connect that
through. So that driveway will now connect straight to veterans. Um, so staff can
support the, the waiver of sidewalks on that portion of mr. Hall's property.
um, and again, I'll have a map, we'll, we'll go through that, um, here in a second,
uh, exception request three c, um, was to waive sidewalk requirement
crossings over the drainage ditches. Um, so again, mr. Hall is a, a triangular
property. Um, it's all open ditch drainage on each side. So to, to cross
the sidewalks and connect, you have to, to do a small pedestrian bridge, in
essence, across those areas. Um, when we looked at this, uh, because
it's a connection for sidewalks, um, staff cannot, you know, support that.
um, p pedestrians connectivity is, is an issue for us. Um,
creating gaps, um, could be an issue as well. Um, staff did
want to highlight that kyle elementary school has discontinued, uh, bus service
to hometown kyle and surrounding areas as part of their, as part of their budget makeup.
um, so, um, we, we are seeing an increased amount of pedestrians
kids coming from kind of the west side of veterans in all those residential neighborhoods. And
we anticipate that that, um, traffic to, to
increase. So at this time, staff does, does not recommend or support, um, this waiver exception.
and then the final one is to reduce the minimum sidewalk widths from five feet to four
feet. Again, minimum sidewalk width is five feet from city code. Um,
again, we have a increase of pedestrian activity. Um,
additionally reducing a sidewalk width may necessitate the installation of passing areas at regular
intervals. So, um, toss has some language in there that at
so many intervals of feet, you have to create a passing lane where two wheelchairs could safely
pass, um, based on the minimum kind of size for passing
and clearance. Um, staff again, does not recommend a waiver of this
exception because this is our standard and we don't find a, a hardship, um,
on this one. So when we looked at the exception request number
three, um, again, this is kind of the layout. The red areas
on this image here would be sidewalks that would have the reduction from
five to four, the green areas, the existing sidewalk,
that that would remain, that staff supports, um, not having to rip up, uh,
existing infrastructure. The orange section to the south is the section
along the roadway that, that, that road is actually going to be closed. Um,
so we would support the waiver of that area. And then the light blue or
the sidewalk, uh, kind of pedestrian crossings. Um, so you can see connecting,
uh, the veterans drive over to the blanco, um, section, and then
it would cross back over. Um, and then again, once the gaps
down the road would have to be future cip, um, projects, or if those properties
redeveloped, um, as at any point in the future that would trigger.
um, so again, I have my recommendations. I'll go through those, um,
you know, shortly after we kind of get into the, um, um, the requests.
uh, but I'd like to give mr. Hall an opportunity to kind of come back. Lost audio?
nope. Um,
can you hear me, sir?
one second.
test one. Can you hear me, sir? Okay. Not good. Alright. Um,
so I will kick back to the very first set of requests. Uh, I'll leave it up
on the, on kind of one of these images. If, if y'all like, just let me know.
um, but I'm gonna turn it over to mr. Hall. Um, you can ask him questions again, if it's very
specific technical. Um, leon barbs into engineers here. Um,
if you wanna, you know, get into those details more than welcome, um, if
it's general process or reasoning, um, either subdivision
or site plan or development, please address those to me. So, mr. Hall, I'll
give you the floor. Sir, would you mind leaving the screen on the map? Yes, sir.
thanks.
uh, to the wizards in the back, um, if you could help me, um, move to,
I guess, this last image that shows all the sidewalks,
um, request d, yet this one may work for
thank you. Appreciate it.
and, uh, basically what we're trying to do is develop a small,
irregular, highly irregular lot that for years was, uh,
languishing here in the community, and we took over that lot, uh, clearing
it. Uh, one of the things I found, you'll find this in your handout, we found that there was
like a, a hollowed out place where, where young people were
drinking beer and, and huffing, uh, paint and glue and, and other drug paraphernalia.
tried to clear this up. And I think we've done a fairly good job on it. Uh,
pleased to, to be able to, to work in this area and upon these things.
uh, this is the, uh, barbie side of the, the property barbie
street side of the property. And, uh, here's the
ditch that has become quite the center of so much controversy. And I look
at this ditch. This is a gentle, friendly, almost not
a ditch. When we purchased this property, we looked at that and said, oh, that's no
big deal. That's, uh, that's, uh, gentle, friendly
piece of land that we can easily put in, a simple drive in as so many have
been done along center street and throughout the community. Uh, just
a, a nice little place to put a nice little
office. And, uh, by the time
the city worked with our engineers, it turned into this situation,
which basically indicates the whole ditch is to be dug up and
replaced with concrete reinforced concrete pipe and, and,
uh, all kinds of paraphernalia that, uh, you know, it's not
probably that natural to, to dig up a nice, nice little area and, and put, uh,
this rcp reinforced concrete pipe, which is pretty unusual
because our property is fed by two
steel pipes from the city, both coming from,
uh, under one 50, which is veterans drive.
and they're, they're steel pipes and they're smaller than the pipes that we plan to put in. And
so there should never be any kind of a drainage problem. The, uh,
reinforced concrete pipe, very dangerous to handle, very hard to maintain,
very hard to, to put into place, and it doesn't
really look that good after a little bit of use.
and I have some pictures here
somehow. Rcp
reinforced concrete pipe here is a section that apparently the water got
into it and eroded it from the bottom, aided it out, dissolved the asphalt on top.
I'm kind of nonplus of why the city is taking such an adverse
reaction to using a steel pipe, because this is pipe.
I took these pictures january 20,
pardon me, january 29th, 2026,
and january 28th, 2026 along veterans drive
within walking distance of our project. Steel, steel, steel,
steel. It's, it's very common application.
so there's no reason we should not be able to use steel pipe there.
I apologize. The city has a, a long
use of steel pipe and it's, there's nothing wrong with it. Very good application.
and, uh, as opposed to having the junk that I just showed you, I much prefer to put
that in place. So we are asking that, uh,
we be able to use a steel pipe. The pipe that drains into
barbie, it's an 18 inch steel pipe coming under
one 50, and we propose to have two
eight inch steel pipes to drain the ditch. And I have
given all of the, the math work to, uh,
to the city, and I do not see that there's any need in deploying
an engineer to, to, to stamp that. There's no need.
I think it stands common sense that two 18 inch pipes can handle
one 18 inch pipe. I don't think that needs any engineering work. I beg
the city to allow me that variance
on the retention pond. There is not
a retention pond for this building. There is not a retention
pond for the gigantic impervious parking lot that the
city built next door. There's not a retention pond for the post office.
mutts and puffs on and on and off.
putting a retention pond in in our property, I feel is a,
is a public nuisance because it can stand for a place for children to get in and drown,
as been talked about, on and on. There are a stool of kids walking
by here all the time. If it does still out of water, it becomes an attractive nuisance for some
child of drowning. As it drains out, the retention of the moisture
will create bugs and disease and other
hazards. So I think it's just a really bad idea to put one in.
and I, you know, when you talk to the city, they're always gonna say it's a law. It's a law.
it's a law. Yeah, maybe so, maybe, no, I don't really
think it is. I've been a member of the bar for 39 years, texas bar,
been a member of the federal bar for almost as long. I've just not really run
across that. And I know if you drive around through mountain city oaks, mountain city,
you won't find a single retention pond in there, the whole
city. So according to staff
legend or staff, whatever, you know, maybe they should all be imprisoned for
breaking this drainage law. I don't see it.
uh, the efficacy of these bonds, that's a matter of debate.
in 1998, there was superintendent schools in cuero, texas. We had a flood that
covered about a third of the city
retention pots didn't do any good this past check, uh, july 4th,
I have property in hunt texas, uh, riverfront property. And I can
tell you retention ponds didn't do any good down there. 2020,
uh, 2017 here in kyle, I don't know if you remember this, but from
east one 50, all along towards west one 50, all of
these retention ponds that run up on one 50, they all burst loose.
so if there's a big rain, it doesn't do any good. If it's a small rain,
it really doesn't make any difference. So I'm asking you not
to make my project be ul and made a point of danger by
having a retention platform. I'm asking to let me use, let
us use pipes and steel pipes that are widely used in
this community, widely used. And not just a long time
ago, just january, I showed you january, 2026
picture. So coming to you in good faith,
we've been working hard to do a good job here. I don't know if you've, I haven't seen
those in the building. Building is complete and it looks
nice. It's nice inside. We come to this community not
to be some kind of, we come here
to try to, uh, help people to stay planning with
everyday legal, legal needs. I'm not trying to put something
over city. Just trying to ask for a little branch of help. Just
a little bit of help. Just a little bit of
how I power here.
all right. Thank you, mr. Hall. Um, all right, commissioners. Um, I'll go ahead and
I can go through kind of my recommendation or did y'all have some questions you want
to ask before I go through that? I'll, I'll kind of leave that up to you if you'd madam
chair, knowing that mr. Hals is gonna pack it over to us, could we have five minutes just to read it
over to make sure we have knowledge to ask questions on?
I'm comfortable with that. My mic's not on. I am comfortable
with that. How does that work? Do I need to like, put a hold
on the meeting or can we just sit here in silence for five minutes? Or e either way. Um,
it might be behoove to have a recess. Recess and give everybody a little time on their own.
um, did we get that packet digitally? I wanna make sure that richard on the screen got
it as well. He did. I did not get the, the, the updated packet.
uh, I also, I do have one question on this. What is the amount of impervious service
of this property, uh, prior to
prior to construction there? Uh, it's 100%. Um,
I do not have the overall impervious cover, uh, numbers on this.
uh, but I could try and look real quick and, and get you an answer, sir. Oh, mr. Hall
looks like he's got an answer. The reason what I, what I'm, what I'm concerned about is the, the
impervious surface. Uh, I'm a firm believer that
any development needs needs to cover its own, you know, any, any drainage
it creates. So the amount of imper service detention pond should, or
detention systems should be at least equivalent to that.
yes, sir. And that's, that is what our plans are reviewed to. Um, but if you'd like the exact number,
just let me know. And I, I can try and do some, some quick, I can give you, I I just wanna
make sure there's an equivalent there. Yes, sir. There is.
meantime, it looks like kayla went to go scan that packet so we can get it over to richard. So if
you wanna take a recess, we, that might be a good idea. I'd rather wait to do the recess
until he gets it. So I guess in the meantime,
um, are there any questions that we immediately want to ask,
maybe a question on the process just to make sure we understand what
we're taking a vote on. If I read the ordinance correctly,
41 dash 10, what we would, should the planning and zoning commission
tonight, grant, mr. Hall's exception, that would just be a recommendation
to counsel, and counsel would take that final action. Is that correct? Yes, sir.
every request tonight is recommendation only. Perfect. And then should
this commission deny mr. Hall's re request, he still has an appeal
option to counsel as well? Uh, it is not a an official denial. It is just
recommendation for denial. So whether you recommend approval or denial, counsel ultimately has
final, final approval on this matter? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
one other question I have, what about is, is is there any process for,
um, a waiver of protest for any future development or
anything like that that, uh, you know, if, if it doesn't
make sense to do something at one point in, but future development
when they put in sidewalks, everybody does, does well smash? Is there anything, is there any type of process
for a waiver of, uh, protests that could be done in this, in any of these?
um, yes. Um, not quite in the terms. Um,
you're utilizing, sir. We do have some alternative processes. So, um, again,
one of 'em was, um, for sidewalks. Uh, there has
been instances where, say a development is coming in, um,
but the city is doing a road project six months down the road, we will allow
fees in lieu of, um, for those sidewalk constructions and then that
goes into a fund and we can can do those at a later date. Um, ideally
we'd like to do that as part of the project. 'cause those are future cip projects
and, and staff doesn't have control over those which projects get
assigned and funded. Um, so it can kick the, can a little bit. But there, there
are some options there, um, as well as alternative compliance for, say, detention
runoff of and some of those other issues. Okay.
actually one other idea too, to see if it, if, I mean, if this would be peaceful, I don't have
access to the maps right now, so I, I can't picture this as well.
uh, would it be possible to maybe take the ditch that, um,
uh, on the property that, um, the
mr. Hall, uh, says is not really a ditch? I, would it be possible to
maybe convert that to a bio swell? Um, I think
in, in, in the, in replacement of the, of the drainage or the, uh, detention
pond, um, I would have to defer to a city engineer on that one. On
what would be allowed or alternative compliance. Uh,
mr. Barbara, did you hear the question? And can you,
good evening. Leon, barbara, city engineer. Are you talking about the one that's in orange?
uh, I don't have the copy of the map. Oh, the one, he was the one he was talking about that he's, uh, doesn't wanna
do the, the, the sidewalk, uh, going over the, going
over the drainage. Um, but I guess three
c is what I have written down. I think that's the one. Would it be possible,
he's saying that ditch is not really a ditch. He would, what I'm wondering is, uh,
is is it possible maybe to in, in lieu of the,
uh, the, the detention pond, convert that into
a bio swell to to, to basically take care of both problems? Both issues?
there's a couple of issues here with the, uh, particular ditch that we're looking at. And they were talking
about, uh, where it leaves one 50 and where it, uh,
enters, uh, blanco street, there's a about
a two and a quarter inch, two and a half inch drop in a hundred feet in this thing.
so it's got a 0.23%. Okay, that's very, very flat if
you think about it. Mm-hmm . Two and a half inches in a hundred feet, you can't even see that.
so that's the reason that we proposed the, uh, uh, uh, ditch the, uh,
concrete valley gutter in that area. Uh, bioswells we suggested
to mr. Hall that you, you look at bioswells, look at other lid improvements, but
he did not want to go that route. He doesn't wanna hire the engineer to do that extra work.
so one of the problems with the, um, with that is that, uh,
it, where if he were talking about the orange line, that that's not draining
in that area. He needs to provide that protection where everything's draining to that ditch over
there at barbie and de blanco. So I dunno if that helps or not,
but it answers my question.
commissioner hildreth, uh, check your email. I think, um, the information
that, uh, mr. Hall provided should be attached.
okay. I don't have it yet. While we're waiting for that to come through,
I just wanna ask a clarifying question. On the image on the screen,
we're showing two ditch crossings on barbie. I'm gonna call it like
crossing north and crossing south. The packet that I'm looking at
from, um, mr. Hall says he doesn't want a second
pedestrian bridge along barbie street. So I just wanna confirm,
are we talking about an exception from both ditch
crossings or only from one ditch crossing? 'cause on the map, both of them are labeled
as no ditch crossing. In my, in my original conversations
with mr. Hall, uh, the request we got in writing was for all ditch crossings.
so, um, if he has something else that he's willing to do one or or
the other, then I, I'd let him answer that and then y'all can take that into consideration.
okay.
okay. For some reason came through on my phone, but it did not come through on my computer.
so lemme look it on, on the phone, on my phone here.
just before we review the packet, it would be helpful, mr. Hall, to understand what exactly
is the scope of your request here, just to make sure it's consistent with what we're going
to be, uh, thinking about. You
know, the ditch belongs to the city. The city receives avalor
taxes to maintain it. It receives special drainage taxes to maintain it. It
has grants, it has all kinds of, uh, financial opportunities.
um, and if the city wants to build whatever bridges
it wants, I'm all for that. And I'd like to direct your
attention to the package. I know you haven't had a good chance to look at it, but if you look at
figure 15, which is about the third, the last
page of the packet, fourth to the last page of the packet.
this is a letter from this
letter from the city, figure 15
underlined. If the developer chooses to construct the
detention or alternative methods to keep post-development runoff rates the same
as pre-development rates, then the city will perform the improvements
to the drainage ditch through the city's capital improvement plan.
this would include the pipe and driveway improvements. My
response to that was, okay, you do that and I will build
the pond, I'll build the sidewalks, et cetera. But when I
gave them that reply, they rescinded that
offer. And that really hard
for me to understand. Mr. Hall to confirm you,
there is a world in which you're willing to construct the drainage pond
and some of these culverts, is that correct? With some help from the city?
yes. And that help, what would you want to see from the city to I would simply
want to follow what the city says, uh, at in that letter
that's dated, uh, february 19th, 2026.
okay. If the developer chooses to construct the detention or
alternative methods to keep post-development runoff rates the same as pre-development
rates, then the city will perform
the improvements to the drainage ditch to the city's capital improvement plan.
this would include the pipe and driveway improvements. Black
and white in writing seems pretty plain to
me, assigned writing sent by an authorized official
of the city. And as I told the city at the next meeting after that, I
received that letter. I said, okay, I'll build the retention pond.
I'll build the sidewalks. You just take care of the ditch
and we'll all be happy ever after. And so to confirm if we, we can find a
solution that fits the language presented inside this february 19th
letter letter, you're willing to construct the uh, yes.
basin yeah. And associated construction with the caveat,
I don't think it's as necessary as being pled, but, and in
order to, uh, extend an olive branch of good faith, yeah, I'll do that.
I just want the city to do what the city said it would do.
black and white. Signed writing.
okay. Mr. Lewis, commissioner alkin, before we move on, did you get your question answered about
clarification on which one of these ditches is request or sidewalks
is requested to be waived? Because I'm still not clear on that either. Yeah. Thank you for following up on that.
I, I'm not clear on how figure 15 addresses the,
um, the matter of which pedestrian bridge
on barbie street or either. Well, it addresses it because if the
ditch, the bridges are over the ditch. So if they will do what they said
and, and do all the ditch improvements, I'll do the other pretty plain.
and as far as the sidewalk, I think we're making, look, excuse me, I don't mean to step on any toes.
I think we're making a little bit bigger deal outta sidewalks than necessary. We're willing to
build the sidewalks as agreed with the city and make 'em to aada a,
uh, standards four foot wide, uh, with, uh, five foot turnarounds
as needed, but willing to do that. So, you know, they
want to go five foot wide. I'll build 'em five foot wide. I'll build the, uh,
pond if they will do the improvements in the ditch with the steel pipe
as they said they would. I don't know if that
answers your question, but let's, I don't think the, the sidewalk deal is that big a deal
actually. Well, I I think what we're trying to do is clarified the request
in front of us, um, rather than try to renegotiate a different request, we're just trying
to understand the request in front of us as it sits right now. And I see
three on that map up there on the screen. I see three blue
sidewalks, but, uh, to chairman or chairman woman kins point, I
only see two referenced in the letter. Well, if I may, and this is
my understanding, let me share it with you. The green sidewalk is a moot point. It's
in place, and the city I think, accepts it and I accept it. I think it would
be a ridiculous waste to dig it up. So let's don't even talk about
that. It's a good sidewalk. It's not that used that much. But I do see
it being used, uh, the sidewalk along, uh,
blanco street, we're willing to build that sidewalk along blanco street. We'd like
it to be four foot instead of five foot, but if the city will do what they said they would in
their letter, then we'll build it five foot wide. And, uh, I believe the city
told us that we didn't have to build the south southernmost
barbie street sidewalk. So I think that's kind of off the table too.
so let's try to get together on the, on the sidewalk deal. That's
not that big a deal. I,
madam chair, maybe could we go to the picture on slide
nine of the packet? Um, that way it shows where
the channels are at versus the sidewalks.
I'm not the one driving the ship, but yes, I they're working on it.
yes, sir.
so jason, a moment ago, uh, when mr. Hall was speaking about the letter
from february 19th, it looked like you had, um,
a comment that you wanted to, to share with us. Yes.
um, so this letter, uh, I will tell you, this was a letter that was drafted by myself,
uh, in coordination with, uh, city's engineering department and, uh,
transportation department. Um, I will tell you that context is
key. So there's two pieces of context that I wanna share with that. Um, so mr. Hall
has highlighted, um, uh, the statement that staff would,
um, do these things if he did this detention pond. Um, so the first
issue is, I wanna call the second sentence, the second part of that sentence.
uh, I said, this issue may require further discussion is there are multiple options
that could be implemented each with their own set of challenges. So at the time
of this discussion, staff had just kind of undergone the review
of the veterans drive road project. We had just found
out that we were modifying some of the drainage into the area. So staff's
discussion at the front was, if he builds the detention and we
are truly affecting that drainage, then we would do those things. The hence
why we need to have further discussion. At the time of the writing of
this letter, we did not have a full understanding of what those modifications were
to that drainage ditch. Um, wasn't until prior to our subsequent meeting that
we got that information. Um, we were on a call with, uh, um,
the city's, uh, road bond engineer. Um, we found that the change
in water was not a volume or channelization issue. Um, so
actually there's no increase in the amount of water that we were putting into that ditch. So that would
negate a city's, uh, or the city's stance that we would then perform those.
uh, again, that that was written. And, and, and I, I will say that
I, I probably should have worded that better. Um, uh, but that
was basically we need to have this conversation. If we do this,
if the city is causing these issues, then we would do those things. That was the
intent. So I've apologized several times for not making that more clear, but I do have to to
stress. Um, that was a reason for that section of, of this sec sentence.
um, but really what the city found when we were doing is, is
we're really kind of changing the, not the total water that's
moving across this property, but the percentages. So before, and I'm, I'm just giving
numbers, say it was, um, 80% in the pipe and 20% surface.
now it went to like 75% pipe and
25% surface. Like the change wasn't enough for us to
say, yes, this would, would make us do those improvements to
that channel, including the pipe. Had that been the case, then that would've been what
the city said, yes, we caused this, which is why we are supporting the trickle channel
because our change on that did affect that. So just two pieces of context I wanted
to share with you on that. Okay, thank you. Mr. Lukes, could I repeat my understanding what you
just said there to make sure the shared understanding, the proposed attention
pond, the purpose of that is to offset the potential surface
flooding from the building that is now the impervious cover cover
that offsets that possible drainage concern. The line in
green, the intention of that is to help convey that water
out because this is a basically flat piece of land. The water would otherwise
not leave the property. It would pool, it would rise, it would stay there.
the items in blue are proposed by the city because that is
the portion that the city has assessed would need to be
offset by the increase in storm water movement because of
the other impervious cover planned by the city in the future. Yes, and
I would, I would caveat not increase, but just modification on how it
moved across. 'cause we did verify we did. We're not increasing that, that flow. Thank you, sir.
all right. So we all have our packets now. Um,
I am going to say that we're gonna go into a, what do you think?
five minutes guys? Commissioner hildreth. Would five
minutes be sufficient for you to look through the document? Yeah, I've, I I'm actually, I actually almost done
with it, so, oh, look at you. Go. Okay. Um, so we're gonna take a
five minute break. We're going to, uh, recess until seven 18.
do I have to bang the thing that's more fun if you do, that's
true. Yeah. Okay.
. Um, is that sufficient for everybody or
do you need a few more minutes? Comfortable. You're comfortable? Good, good, good.
okay. I'm fine. We will, um, keep moving
forward then. So I believe
you were going to, I don't know, be there for questions or did
you have more you wanted to present to us? Um, I kind of wanted to see if y'all had any
questions. If not, I can go on to my next, uh, kind of, we can go through
what, what staff's recommendations are. If, if you don't have any specific questions.
I have one specific question. I think it's wonderful that we have a very diverse
commission up here, and there are people that are a lot more engineering oriented than I am.
so this might sound like a dumb question, but what is the problem with
steel pipe? Leon ?
I can give you a kind of boring answer, but you'll want the engineering one. Okay.
there's, there's many types of pipes that you can install for as drainage structures. There's plastic,
there's, uh, steel, there's corrugated metal pipe galvanized, there's,
uh, even plastic pipes. And of course there's, uh, concrete pipe, reinforced
concrete pipe for at least the last 10 years, the city of kyle's been requiring
concrete pipe in the right of way for driveways. Uh, we had a new, uh, division
manager over at the public works department and since, and came from another city, and that's what they
required. That's actually in our drench criteria manual that we've adopted where we
require concrete pipes in the right of way. One of the things about concrete pipe is that, uh, we have a
lot of construction going on around the cities. And, and on occasion, uh, when
you have contractors out there and they're digging with their backhoe and whatever, ev every once in a while they'll
find one of our pipes with the concrete pipe. It's not less likely for them to break that. They
can break it, but they'll, once they find it, they kind of realize that, hey, we have a pipe here and we don't, we don't, we need
to stop with metal pipe. You don't have that flexibility once you cut through it.
uh, it's, and, and it's torn. It's hard to patch that kind of pipe. But the
biggest deal that we have a concern about the metal pipe is that it's only got about a 20 to 40 year
lifespan. And, uh, with the concrete pipe, you're looking at 50 to maybe even a hundred years.
now the, the, the key point here is it has to be installed properly, properly. If you don't install it properly,
none of the pipes are gonna be that good or serve their function for that particular drainage issue.
but that's the reason we don't like the metal pipe is because, and if you notice in some of the pictures that might have been shown,
uh, there, and when it's particular at blanco at uh, barbie, there's a pipe, metal pipe that was used
there way before my time, our time. And it's crushed in. That's one
of the disadvantages of using metal pipe. It does get crushed in on the ends. Now if you put a nice head ball on
it, less chance of that happening. But back, back, back then, they did not do that. So
we've had, that's sometimes you have to go in there and actually jack it up to open up the pipe. So that's
the downside of the metal pipe. Plus it does corrode doesn't last as long as, as
a concrete pipe does. So those are the big differences. Thank you.
and you said, sir, that it is standard for under current code
in the city to use the concrete versus steel. Is that what you said? Yes, sir.
actually, uh, on a, like, on a development, uh, we do allow them to use whatever pipe they need
because if they're gonna maintain it, then we don't have an issue with that. We're seeing a lot of these developments
now using this plastic pipe. So, which is a good product. But, uh, and actually
I, as a public servant, at one point I did use a plastic pipe, but I was between two houses. I didn't
have room to work, so I used a plastic pipe, but that was between two houses. We did not allow
it in the streets because of the concern, uh, for contractors turned up or, uh,
and, and the long life that it has, and that, excuse me, that requirement is,
is codified in code, correct? It's, it's in the drainage criteria manual that we've adopted,
uh, city of austin's in, in at least two places. It says, we shall use concrete, reinforce
concrete pipe or reinforce concrete box culverts. Thank you. It's in code.
I'd like a chance to respond to that. Uh, metal pipes are being
put in today, right on one 50 with walking distance. Uh,
here's some, some indications of concrete pipe versus metal
pipe. Here's a, here's a homeowner or property owner that
had this concrete pipe and replaced it with this new
design metal pipe. So, uh, the
concrete pipe is not the be all wall, all it's, it's to up to
be. And as far as lasting 20 years there pipe, and this city
way over a hundred years, I'm, I'm sure that's it's, uh, metal pipe. And
mr. Barbara pointed out at co at the confluence of barbie
and lanco street, there is a, a metal pipe culvert
under that road that is crushed down. And I have asked the city, why don't you come out there
and do something about that? Because this crushed down. It is going to
impede the flow from my property and down to the regular drainage
ditches, and it is virtually gonna turn my property possibly
into a, uh, a, a tension pond itself because of that,
that poorly maintained pipe under the city street.
share a little information. Um, mr. Hall is correct on the pipe on one
50. Unfortunately, uh, the city did not have the authority. That was a txdot
project. Um, they're, they're installing that. Um, so they
are, are not beholden to some of our regs, um,
as it, it's their highway. My response to that
is, let me ask you a question. Is that pipe in the city of co?
it is, yes, sir. Okay. It is in the city of kyle. So
saying you can't use, you cannot use metal pipe. The city of kyle is
not really true. You're saying, well, it's texdot. So I'm a person against whom you would
enforce your local rules, but you won't stand up to t dot. Is that
correct? I, I think we've gotten a little far off the scope of the question.
in any case, I think it would be known that the state law, ems, local.
are there any other immediate questions? No.
okay. I will say I don't think it was a dumb question at all. 'cause I had the same one written
down that I was going to ask. So thank you for beating me to the punch there.
uh, mr. Roots, you can continue. Uh, yes. So, um,
staff recommendations, again, I'm gonna go through all those recommendations and then we
will go back and you can make your motion on, on each item individually.
um, just to help us, uh, clarify minutes, uh, for council's,
uh, next meeting, which would be may 5th. Um, so requesting,
uh, exempt exemption requests one a and one b.
um, so staff looked at these requirements. Um, staff recommends denial
as these are specifications within the code to mitigate flood damage due to development
activities. Um, no hardship exists that would prevent the application from adhering
to the requirements of the code. When we looked at exception
requests number two, uh, to allow alternative culvert specifications,
again, uh, staff can recommend approval of alternative culvert specifications
as allowed by city code and approved by the city engineer. Once we receive the updated
plans and engineering documents is are submitted. Um, if the,
if the request is to not install it without any of that, um,
verification, um, again, we're recommending denial on
on that. Um,
request recommendation, exception request three a and three
b. Um, new sidewalks along veterans drive. Um, so
staff does recommend approval of the exception request, um, as the
existing sidewalks are along veterans, um, it's, it's existing infrastructure.
uh, pnz has approved that as part of their cup and staff had previously agreed
to allow that as part of their site development, eliminate sidewalks along
barbie street from wood street to veterans drive. Staff does recommend approval of that
variance request again, as this portion of, of that road is going to be closed.
when we get into the recommendation, um, except request
three c and 3d wave sidewalk crossings over drainage ditches,
uh, staff recommends denial of that. Um, again, pedestrian connectivity and
safety issues are our concern. Um, again, no hardship that we found
and then reduce them. Minimum sidewalk wi width from five feet to four feet. Again, staff
does recommend denial, um, as this is the minimum standard, uh, found in
city code and would not identified a hardship, um, that would keep the applicant from meeting
this code requirement.
so here's a quick and dirty of the breakdown, um,
but I can go back to the, the first options if you'll want to entertain motions.
thanks for leading us through all of these. Send me,
I heard like, did y'all hear that? Yes. Okay. Okay. Maybe I was too close
to it. Um, thank you for leading us through all of these. Um,
at this time, you know, are there any questions for staff
? Sounds like we don't have questions for
staff. Okay. Um, so we do have a few
items here of different natures. So I'm gonna propose that we,
um, break this into three different votes,
I guess. Um, a vote for the watershed and flood prevention items, a vote
for the general requirement items, and a vote for the sidewalk items. Is that
okay with everybody? Okay. So, um,
let's go ahead and somebody throw out a motion. We don't have to go in the order
of, um, item one, two, or three. We can
start with sidewalks or we can start with general requirements or watershed. Uh, but
who has a motion that they would like to throw out there so we can begin discussion?
madam chair, I'm sorry. I have one more question for mr. Hall, if you don't mind. Could we go back one
second. I wanted to confirm one thing. Um, mr. Hall,
on item, let me get the right number,
exception two in which it talks about where the city would support
an alternative procedure or alternative culvert if there was engineering
documentation to support it. Earlier, your, such, your presentation, I heard you say,
uh, that you provided the math work to the city. That documentation
was that prepared by an engineer. Was that prepared by, by yourself,
by a consultant who prepared those values that were presented to the city?
I prepared those. Okay. With my research. I, I would imagine
an engineer would find the same results. Okay. But basically the question simply
put is, can two 18 inch pipes adequately drain
the feeding of one 18 inch pipe? Now, concrete pipes
are a little bit slicker inside, so water flows a little bit faster as
opposed to corrugated. But the research and literature I found
says that if they're laying flat, as, as mr. Barbara pointed out to you,
they're, they're not laying flat, but they're have a very, very tiny
incline that negates any friction because the water is gonna go
in, uh, the same in either one because it is a flat
tube, it's flat, not if it's, uh, if there, if there's more
elevation to it, if corrugations might slow it down a little bit,
but if it's flat, no difference. And I, I sent
that to these guys with plenty of time to look. I, I don't know if they looked at it or not,
but I, I was pretty impressed with what I found and how understandable it really was.
I've gone through the city with this cycle of go to the engineer, we'll
have a meeting, go back to the engineer, we'll have a meeting. I, you
know, this is common sense stuff. This is not
engineering stuff. There's no nasa involved here. This is a simple
third grade word problem and two 18 inch pipes, and the same
level drain as much as one 18 inch pipe.
and also the 18 inch pipe that's feeding it from the city is a
corrugated pipe. It's not a concrete pipe.
so I've had, I adequately answered the question, now the city
indicates that I should go hire an, uh, hire a, uh,
an engineer, and that'll be 2, 5, 6, $8,000. I don't know,
I don't have hired an engineer lately, but, uh, they
come with big numbers, big, big numbers and
mr and it's just wasteful. And I feel like I'm being singled out for,
for, for wasteful activity. Wasted my, my time, wasted
my money. And, uh, you know, I started this project about
three years ago and I get in this cycle, hire an engineer. Let's have a meeting, let's talk about this.
hire an engineer, have a meeting. Let's talk about hire an engineer. I've hired engineers to tell us where to
put the plants, engineers that, this, that and the other. It's,
it's, it's outta hand. It's ridiculous. It's off the hook
and they're just got, you know, somebody gotta have put some foot down. I'm
putting my foot down. I say, no, I'm not hiring more engineers for simple little common
sense things. So that may not be the answer that
staff or you want to hear, but that's a real answer. I've gotta, I've
got to get to the reality of getting this done and I can't be
delayed, delayed, delayed. On and on and on. Uh,
I hope that answers your question. And mr. Hall, under ordinance, we are
required to identify if there's a special circumstance or condition affecting the
land involved, such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter
would've had a substantial adverse impact on the applicant's reasonable
use of his land. What, what special
circumstances have we not asked you that we should have, that we should be aware of
for why we need to grant this exception? Special circumstances,
you know, there's, there's three views. There's a view of the forest, there's a view of the tree, and there's a view of the
bark. I keep getting the view of the bark from these guys. Let's look at the forest. Let's look at
the trees out there. There's not a trickle channel anywhere.
if I, if I said I gave the first one of you who can go walk and
find me a trickle channel, I'll give you 25,000 cash. You wouldn't be able to come
back within hours. There's not out. They're not out there. And the exceptions that,
uh, uh, to the, to the, to the ponding situation, why, if
it's, if it's the law, why isn't there one here? If it's so important, the
city should start tomorrow and build a big retention pond out there.
you know, let's look at the forest, let's look at the comparisons. Let's look at what goes on
in the larger community and not say, well, we found on page an exception here on
page 37, 14 14 b, come on, let's
look at what does it take to make a community prosper? And that means helping
the people who were trying to help the community prosper and not relying on,
oh, I got you, I got you on this, I got you on that. Go hire 42
engineers to prove me wrong. I'm not doing that anymore. I'm done with the engineering route.
it has not led anywhere. I'm here tonight because of
engineers. I,
okay. Are there any other questions for staff?
okay, we need, um, a motion to start discussion
on anything.
I think for staff, we would like to kind of take it item by item, um, just so
we can have those motions instead of kind of back and forth. Um, just because it's laid
out that way, I think it'll be easier for council to, to kind of follow and understand. Okay.
so start with watershed and flood prevention and then work our way down.
yes. Okay. Um, so this is would be exception one a or one
b, um, to waive requirements for detention pond and or trickle
channel. Okay.
um, I'd like to make a motion to recommend, uh, denial of
request number one related to watershed and flood prevention. Second.
okay. We have a, um, motion to recommend
denial of the exception request for items one, a and b.
a and b, a and b, uh, from commissioner webb and seconded by vice chair
siegel, is there any discussion on that one? One
seeing that as I would read ordinance, we have to relay out in a very
explicit way in the minutes and everything else as to why that is being recommended for
denial. Um, I'll start by outlining that under item
c one about a special circumstance. I have not heard tonight,
a special circumstance that would rise to that level to warrant a waiver
in this case for item two, that the granting of
this exception would not be detrimental to public health or safety or welfare or injurious
to other property in the area. I think we've heard tonight that that's
a risk, both in terms of known hazards and expected hazards
with changing in the flood landscape for item three,
that the granting of this exception would not have the effect of preventing the orderly
subdivision or other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the chapter.
I think he's met this one. I, I don't see why this would be a reason for denial,
but for two of the three not being met, I don't think, I could
not read the ordinance say that we could grant an exception here.
is there other discussion on that motion?
I wanna make sure, um, commissioner hildreth, can you hear us okay? Do you have anything you wanna chime in? Yes,
I can. Okay.
all right. Yeah, I mean, the, the points
laid out in the, um, code about what we need, the requirements
we need to meet here. Um, I don't, I don't see that either
for all three of 'em. Um, I, I, if I
remember correctly, a long time ago when we first had the cup, um,
a detention pond was included in the plan at that time. So this is kind of
something that they knew about going in and now
they're deciding, no, we, we don't wanna do it. I think that there's plenty of
alternate options that have been made available. Um, rain gardens, bioswales,
lid, um, to, to give options
if you don't wanna build a detention pond, I think there's options there
for the, for the applicant that can get them out of
building a detention pond if they don't wanna build a detention pond. Um, but to
do nothing, um, yeah,
that one, I don't think we've made a strong case for that yet,
in my opinion. Attractive options, if you're talking bios, swales and such,
yeah. Much more attractive than a detention pond, that's for sure. ,
uh, I guess I, I have a,
a kind of question for staff, a detention pond on the site, because it is so
flat already, what would that even look like? Uh, would it just be
like a depressed area of a couple of feet deep? Or like, how,
how do you even make a detention pond on something that's already yeah, I'm,
I'm not sure on the plan set. It is fairly shallow. I don't believe this was 2, 3, 4, 5
feet deep. I mean, it's taking a small amount of water. Um, now
dressing it up, that's, that's, that's the landowner. Some people just leave them as are, and
some people plant shrubs and flowers and dress it up. So,
um, I don't believe on this rendering, there was, uh, not much landscaping that was,
that was proposed around there. So it'd be your typical small, shallow detention pond
like a foot. Yeah. If, if you're asking deep how deep it is, I'd,
I'd have to get that answer to you, but I, I'm not sure that it's kind of pertinent for
the discussion. Okay.
any other discussion? I on that one?
okay. Uh, let's go ahead and take a vote. The motion is to recommend
denial of the exception request for items number one about the
detention pond and trickle channel. All those in favor
of recommending denial, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
all opposed say na. Okay. That one is completed.
uh, next up on our list is about the general requirements. This one's about
the culvert specifications.
so, may I say one thing about the, uh,
metal pipe versus the concrete pipe? Yes, sir. I'm not opposed to using the metal pipe.
what, uh, mr. Hall doesn't realize, uh, we have a set of engineered drawings
signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer. We can't just change his
plans without him knowing or without him making those changes. The
pipe that, uh, he mentioned it's, it's rougher than, than
our concrete pipe, as he will. And good job in your research, john, by the way, uh,
he did, uh, say it is rougher. So that's the friction factor. In
one report that I have. It says to replace an 18 inch pipe, it needs to be a 27 inch corrugated
galvanism metal galvanized metal pipe. That's a pretty large size pipe,
but I need the engineer to tell me the two eighteens that are there that are concrete
can be replaced by two 18 inch galvanized metal pipes. And I need that from
the engineer because that's, it's an ethical issue. Now, I cannot change that without him knowing
or him telling me what the right pipe size should be. So I'm gonna let you know that.
so, mr. Barber, that was a part of the plan submitted to you, signed and
sealed by another professional engineer? That is correct.
okay. We need a motion and a second to take action on this one, or to even
hold discussion, of course. A question on the process,
if we take action to recommend denial, and mr. Hall
comes back at a future date with a licensed stamped engineering report that
outlines his, his plan, that could be reconsidered. Is that correct?
mm-hmm . Um, if he came back with a licensed professional that updated
his plans, this would not come back to y'all. That would go through leon. And leon has every,
every approval authority to, to do that. So again, we've, we've said we are willing
to, to go with the alternative material sizes, but we, we,
and spec specifically, leon cannot sign off on that. I mean, he, he's
an engineer. He has a license. He has to, you know, his has his own
set of, of laws that they, they have on that. So, uh, again,
we, we can support alternative specifications, um, but we cannot
support a request to approve those without any kind of documentation.
and so, right here on the screen where it says, staff recommends approval of alternative culvert
specifications as allowed by city code and approved by city engineer once updated, blah,
blah, blah, as of tonight, you don't have those plans
in hand to where a motion towards that could even be effective.
is that correct? Correct. Okay.
so I guess this one's a little, this one's a little interesting. Um, your motion
could be a couple of options. You could, you could approve,
um, the requested waiver to allow the specifications
without any documentation. Um, you could,
uh, recommend denial of the, of the request without
documentation. Um, but that if documentation was provided, you
would allow city staff to sign off as normal. So this one's a a little
interesting, but, um, staff cannot sign off on any changes without,
without new plans. I, I think, um, mr. Lutz,
I think if the code allows staff to approve with the updated plans, I think you're
gonna get the same effect from denying as you are from approving
the recommendation to allow staff to approve with updated plans.
so I think we, we stick with our general motion of, uh, recommend acceptance
or recommend denial.
and to clarify, when you say two recommended, we're voting, we're voting on what is being presented,
we're not, uh, voting on what could be presented in the future.
correct. That was,
uh, that's where I was going. So we're good.
would anyone like to bring microphone? Would anyone like to bring a motion
for this? One more question, if you don't mind, ma'am, I don't mind.
are we allowed to take action to recommend that the plans already on file
remain? Like, is that an option where we keep the status quo? If they,
if you have plans on file that we stick to those plans? That would, I would
say would be a recommendation of denial, yes. Yes. That's, that's a denial recommendation. Okay.
thank you. I have approved plans and I, I plan to use those.
I'm sorry, sir. Could you clarify? You have approved plans as in what has already been approved plans,
and I plan to use those, which would
be plans that have been stamped, signed by licensed engineer that's already on file with the city,
the engineer. They're signed by y'all's engineer approved by, uh,
whatever the process is here. And, uh, I've gotta get this thing finished. If y'all want help
me, I'll just go up alone. I'll put it in the concrete pipes. I'll do what I have to do, but I've
gotta get this project finished. I'm an elderly person
and I've gotta get it done.
so, and, and so you would follow don't, I don't want this group deck to reneg
on the plans I have that are approved, so please don't. And so
the plans that are currently approved, you would follow them to include the culverts, the
piping that's already outlined in that I've gotta get it done. Yeah. And then any
action by us tonight to deny the request would default back to the
approved plans, is that correct? Um, I think that's a good way to put, yeah. So any action you
take tonight will be forwarded to counsel. Counsel will take that action.
if they follow your suit and deny it, then yes, it, it, it goes back to the approved
plans. Madam
chair, motion to recommend denial of this exception. Second.
okay. We have a motion to recommend denial of exception
two about the culvert specifications made by commissioner copeland and seconded
by vice chair stegel. Is there any discussion on that one?
um, I, I think I understand the logic
behind wanting to deviate from the plans, but I also understand
that while we may not always see it, there's value in following the process and doing
things according to the process. Mm-hmm . Um, and I think that's
what's important here. Uh, it seems the city's open to other,
other alternatives as long as it follows the correct process.
um, so in that, in that light, I support the denial,
um, so that we can follow the correct process if we wanna make a change in the plans.
and then similar with that first motion that we did, I have not heard any special
circumstance or condition that would allow for us to issue that exception.
I haven't seen anything. Uh, I think we, we have heard about the risk
of flooding and social welfare by granting the exception.
um, but for the third item, again, I, I don't see how granting this would prevent the
orderly subdividing subdividing of other land. And so since
we have not met two of the three, that is the basis of my motion to deny
. Okay. Any other discussion
on the motion? Okay.
let's go ahead and take a vote on that one. Again, this is a motion to recommend denial
of exception number two related to culvert specifications. Um,
all those in favor of recommending denial, please say aye. Aye. Aye.
aye. All opposed say nay. Okay. Um,
that one's cleared. Next we have the exceptions pertaining
to sidewalk. So we have four of these. Um, does
staff want us to break them into four separate motions? Yes. I'd like to, uh,
look at three a and three b items. Um, so staff has looked
at these, um, staff recommends approval of, of these requests
slash exceptions. Um, again, the first one is because,
uh, we have existing infrastructure on veterans. Um, it was
approved as part of the overlay. And if you recall through your training overlays,
you can reduce some of your, your requirements through code as part of
the overlays. And so, um, again, staff will support that one
because it was under some previous approvals. But we wanted to add this layer
in here as well. Uh, when it comes to eliminate the sidewalks along barbie
street, again, from woods to veterans, um, we also support this request.
again, we are closing that right of way, um, or we're not abandoning the right
of way, but we are closing the street. Um, and because you have adjacent pedestrian
crossing literally 10 feet away, um, we feel that that's not a life safety
issue. So we do recommend approval of both of these exceptions or requests.
madam chair, I'd like to make a motion. Do we approve, uh, the exceptions
three a and three b. Okay, I'll
second. Okay. We have a motion to recommend approval of exceptions three
a and three b from commissioner hildreth and a second from commissioner webb. So
any discussion on that one?
okay. All those in favor of recommending approval, please. I'm sorry, chair had some
discussion there just to make sure we round it out. Yeah, perfect. Go. My microphone's
not on. Um, so going down that same list, just to be consistent,
we have the special
circumstance. I don't love that we're reducing the width
of the sidewalk. I think the five inch, the, sorry, five foot is
appropriate. However, if the city's already previously granted
an exception there, and as part of the existing cup, it would be unfair to
an applicant for the city to backtrack on previously approved plans.
mm-hmm . So I think that does rise to the level of a special circumstance
has been met. I have heard nothing tonight to indicate that the
reduction from five foot to four foot would cause any kind of debt detriment to public
health, safety, welfare, et cetera. And
reducing that sidewalk width does not, in my opinion, alter our ability
to subdivide further land. So I think in this case, we've met all three requirements.
um, and so I am also in support of that. Okay.
any other, uh, discussion on the motion?
okay. This motion is to recommend approval of exceptions
three a and three b. All those in favor of recommending approval, please say
aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I nay.
okay. Those are approved. And then we've got, um,
three c. This is about sidewalk crossings over drainage
ditches. So, um, I guess I just wanna clarify, we're talking
about both the north and south crossings. This will be all
three. All three of 'em. All three, okay. Um, and so
again, this is all three crossings and reducing
the sidewalks width from five to four feet for the newly installed
ones, that was my question. That would be along, don't exist yet, right?
and barbie? Yes. So that, that's up to the commission. If you wanna vote on them separately,
you can do so. If you want to take the same action on both, you can make that a single motion.
mr. Lutz, for the existing plans that have been approved
to date, does it include all three crossings as depicted
on our packet? Yes, sir. Thank you.
I guess I have one other question about, sorry, this just came to my mind. I should have asked
earlier when it was staff time. Um, so for these ditch crossings
on the image that we were shown earlier today, those, those ditches
are rather shallow. So for these ditch
crossings, is it just simply making the, the level
even with the pavement on either side? So just a, a few inches higher, or
is there a special like engineering that goes into kind of
making a little hump or, um, I don't, I'm not aware
of the engineering behind it, but I know they've, they've been reviewed and approved.
reviewed and approved. Okay. So they are in there. Um, when we talk about the shallowness,
um, so yes, the southern one, very shallow. Um, that
crossing is, is not gonna be very much, but the, the crossing's on, on
blanco, um, especially the one north crossing barbie
next to blanco, those, those are fairly deep there. Um, so
I think that was an 18 inch culvert. Um, so it's definitely deeper than that. So that
one, most likely, there's a couple ways you can do it. Uh, culverts, I've
seen some the concrete thicker with reinforced steel. Um, but whatever's
been approved in the plans would, would be approved. I
hate to intervene, but there is only two crossings here. What
crossings are you talking about? There's only two, uh, I'm, I consider the
one between, um, from the green
sidewalk. Um, do you see that connection from, from veterans that goes
to the sidewalk on blanco, I believe. Right there, I think is a
portion of the drainage. So I think it, it kind of connects there, if I
remember correctly. And, uh, there's not a, there's not a bridge over the ditch
that blanco blanco, uh, the city, another
one of your departments has already waved that saying it crosses in the middle of the,
the middle of the block, which makes it jaywalking. And, and they,
that section doesn't, whatever department
is that they wave that. So we looks looking at the north barb and
the south barb across, there's no, there's no bridge across the ditch
on blanco street. Okay. Thank you.
so to confirm with the plans that are signed
and stamped by a licensed engineer that are on file with the city, that is where
this image is from. We have crossings over,
I'm gonna call it north and south, which are both along barbie
street, correct? The one that is, I'm gonna call east,
connecting veterans to blanco. It sounds like
there was debate a minute ago over whether that exists or not. I,
my question is, um, I think there was an originally, if it's hard to see
on that image at the, where the blue line and the red line meets
on blanco, those two sidewalk connections. I think originally they were talking about putting
an actual crosswalk, like, hey, we're gonna put
a ramp and this is where someone would come from the other side. That one was waved.
what I'm talking about is from the green to the red, that little run right
there. Um, I can't remember if that is,
I believe that is flat enough that can make that connection. And I think that's
inside the other drainage ditch there. If I,
if I remember.
and so a pedestrian walking along blanco street on that red section there
could continue northwest,
at least northwest on this plane. I'll assume it's north south directing right now. It may
not be, but could continue northwest walking
into the green line off veterans. Is that correct? Or do they have to cross if they
utilize that blue section there? And so if the blue section does not exist, they could
not walk from the red to the green, you on the unmapped
area, correct. It, it, it, you have to cross over the blue. Correct. All
of all of these are sidewalk connections. Okay. Thank you.
are there other questions for staff on that one? Okay,
we need a motion, um, to discuss
and take action. Um, again, we can do this as three
c and 3d together, or one at a time. It depends on
the motion you wish to make. Madam chair, I'd like to make the
motion that we deny items three c and 3d
and follow status recommendations. Second.
okay. We have a motion to recommend denial of three c and 3d
from commissioner hildreth and seconded by commissioner webb. Is
there any discussion on that?
go ahead. Lemme pull up that section again.
so I have not heard of a special circumstance or condition affecting
that land to grant that waiver, especially noting that we have
already on file signed stamped engineering reports that include that
the grantings of this exception would not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare. I don't know that we have met that burden if we are talking about
school children walking along that sidewalk crossing over ditches, that
does seem like a public safety or welfare concern.
however, the granting of the exception would not have the effect of preventing orderly subdividing.
I think the applicant has met that requirement. I don't see a reason why that would be a basis of
denial, but because two of the three have not been met, I'm gonna vote in
favor of denying this request.
um, I'll add some perspective from the community
of plum creek. Um, we have two small lakes
ponds, um, with a trail that goes in the figure eight around
them. Um, for a long time that trail was unfinished. It was dirt trail,
um, about two, three years ago. Um, we made it
a big priority to finish that trail. And the big debate was, do you make the
sidewalk four feet wide, five feet wide, or six feet wide? Um,
after a lot of upset conversations and
people, we came around to five feet wide was the answer. The argument
for four feet wide is, I don't want to encourage a whole bunch of people to be
on there with strollers and bikes and things like that. It just, it, it couldn't just
sit too much. And the argument for five feet wide was, isn't that the point of having that
trail there? Um, and so let's make it as walkable
as possible. I I say that in the context of
it's been a big priority for the city and on every city survey and from
every, uh, from just about every person that sits on city council
to increase walkability in our city. And there is a massive difference
between four feet and five feet in accomplishing that goal. Um,
so which would address 3d on three c,
connecting these sidewalks, I think is also a really big part of walkability.
um, and so that is kind of my basis for, uh,
voting in favor of the denial as well. I'd like to interject
a piece of information that's been admitted, uh, by the city. If you cross the street,
there are no sidewalks over there. There's a dirt ditch and nothing over there.
there's no, no sidewalks across blanco
and across, uh, barbie. So going there is gonna
get you to nowhere as far as footpath goes.
vice chair, I thought I saw your finger over the button. Were you doing that to vote
or did you have a comment? I was also scratching my eye, but oh, .
okay. Okay. Um,
so yeah, this one for me, this one's, um, interesting.
I definitely see the need for the ditch crossings on the north side of
the property along blanco, uh, barbie and veterans. I think that's important for
circulation. Um, the
southernmost ditch crossing the one that's quite shallow,
um, and connecting onto a, a small segment of,
um, sidewalk there in the red. Um,
I don't foresee that one getting a lot of use. So I might've been able to,
you know, get behind exempting from that section of sidewalk and
that ditch crossing, especially 'cause the road beyond there is
going to be closed and there won't be a sidewalk beyond it. So
I do think that that one is kind of wasteful and, um,
unnecessary. But, uh, the two northern most crossings
I think are important for circulation, given the school children that are gonna be passing through there
and moving them back and forth twice a day. Um,
but since we've, we've done this all as one, I am at this point in favor of supporting
the motion to deny.
just to clarify my, my reasoning on this, I am a firm believer
in avoiding setting precedents that might be adverse, uh, to future
development. Um, absent any, you
know, any mitigating circumstances that, that, uh, that justify us
waiving, uh, those requirements, I cannot, you know, I have
to support, I have to support denying that request.
we have to do our due diligence.
my thought is that we have to take into consideration that this is an area that's
in flux in terms of development, that there will be a lot more pedestrian
traffic. Um, we already see what's going on in terms of sidewalk development
safety zones down near the kyle elementary. Um, we
have the, the, uh, middle school on the other side of
veterans. This whole area, the character of it's beginning to change great gardens coming
online in entire area. I think we need to do what we need to do to
maximize, uh, pedestrian and auto safety and, uh, appropriate
drainage so that that does not become a, uh, uh, a problem
in that area. This is an area that's in change for sure,
but I think, uh, the plans the city has, uh, so far approved, uh,
um, put us in the direction of accommodating those changes
for the future. And
that was one of the reasons I asked about the wa protest, uh, process. And there,
looking at the, the letter, there is a procedure in place that
stimulates a waiver protest. Um, and the, the applicant
has, has cited, they don't, they don't wish to go that route. So,
okay. Any other, uh, comments on the motion, gentlemen? No.
okay. So, uh, to restate, the motion on the table is to
recommend to counsel denial of exception request three c
and 3d. All those in favor of recommending denial, please say
aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay.
okay. That one is done. Thank you, mr. Lutz. Thank
you, chairman. Thank you, madam chair, just to confirm, we voted on three a.
we did three a and b together. Yeah. Cool. Those are my notes. Two, but
no, we missed one, one month and so I wanted to make sure we didn't do that again. , thank
you for making sure our, our t's are crossed and our I's are dotted. We appreciate that.
thank you. Okay. Alright. Next
up we've got, um, consider approval of a conditional use permit for
a proposed public restroom facility located at 1 0 1 south burleson
street. Mary kyle hartson park, cup dash 26
dash 0 1 5 5.
sorry, bear with me a moment. Lemme get this synced up.
there we go. Alright. All right. Good evening commissioners. I'm angel
nine senior planner. Um, this is for a conditional use permit for
a new bathroom facility over here at mary kyle hartson park.
um, this is a city project. This is through the parks and recreation department.
um, I would like to point out that will atkinson from parks and rec is here. Um, and he
can help answer any questions, um, at the end. Um, so this will be a single
phase project for a brand new bathroom. I really hate to do this, but we don't have a quorum in the
room currently. We're gonna need a recess until we have a quorum in the room. Okay. We are meeting
exact, we are recess. Thank you for pointing that out. So, uh, while
we are recessed, can I ask you, so if we have someone virtually, but
on the dais, we don't have enough physical bodies? That's right. Form. Okay.
for anybody not located within at least three counties, which we are not, um, you must
have a quorum present at the diocese in order to have the meeting,
or at least in the room. Okay. Well,
I guess I, we've been here for a little while so I could maybe we wanna take a recess and let everybody
go to the bathroom and then we go break. Yeah, let's meet back at,
um, what do y'all think? Eight 15 is that way
too much time? 15. I go eight 10. That's fine.
let's do 8 10, 8 10. It is, yeah.
okay. So be it.
back to the, uh, mary kyle harson park c um, this
is going to be a 600 foot public rest,
oops, sorry, , um, a water fountain as well as additional outdoor
seating that are, um, a da compliance.
um, here's a more detailed summary. Um, the site is in both the I 35
overlay and center street overlay districts, um, for new
projects, new construction in the overlay districts. Um, they are required
to come through with a cup for aesthetics, um, the architectural
renderings and so forth for the exterior of the buildings. Uh, the
I 35 overlay district does have some standards, um, for the
exterior. The proposed project meets those standards.
um, the restroom facade is almost a hundred percent brick masonry. Um,
brick maner around the entire building, um, with the small stucco
detail. And it has a standing seam and it's proposed to have a standing seam metal roof.
um, additional sidewalks decomposed granite, um,
adjacent to the oak trees on site. Um, and additional seating are going
to be incorporated. And additionally, native landscaping will include
the installation of over 80 shrubs and ornamental grasses as well
as a tree. Um, this project came through to city council,
um, which approved the contract for design and construction of the restroom back on
january 20th of this year. And the building facade has preliminary
approval, um, by the texas historic commission, uh, since the project is
located in a historic site.
um, over here is the site plan. I know it's a little bit hard to see some of those details.
um, that's the overall site plan. And on the next slide you can see that
a little bit better in color and you can see more of the landscape details. The
decomposed granite area with the picnic tables are shown as well
as the little, um, the planting area as well and the, uh, new sidewalks that are
proposed. On this slide, we have the
three dimensional rendering of what the restroom facility is going to look
like. Um, you can see the water fountain at the front there, um,
and the brick that surrounds the entire building.
um, and here are the elevations. Um, that's the front facing view
and side view. And then on the next slide
we've got the rear view and then the, the other side of the building
and staff have reviewed the request and found the proposal to be compliant
with the I 35 and center street overlay district regulations,
as well as other applicable city codes. Uh, staff recommends
approval of the conditional use permit, um, with texas historic commission providing
the final approval. And the commissioners have
these three following options, um, to approve the cop as
presented. Um, approve the cop with conditions or
to deny the cop. And I'm happy to answer
any questions. And if I can't answer anything, um, will, can help me out
too. I would have a question about the planting area. Uhhuh, and the sidewalk. You're
not, this, the current sidewalk's gonna remain there and the
planting area will be hard up against it then.
um, lemme go back to the slide. Yeah, you're gonna have to go back. Yes, there
this slide. Um, so
I see from the corner down the lower right corner, that would be the sidewalk heading towards
the gazebo and into the center of the park. The planning area would be
hard up against that sidewalk opposite the gazebo. Oh,
that's a good question. And, and the gazebo access to the gazebo
and so forth, nothing's gonna be compromised.
correct? To my knowledge. Okay. Um,
I walk that today. Ideally I love that park. Ideally it wouldn't be
in the, that square block. I understand why, but I ideally it
wouldn't be, I it's real cramped in that corner of the
park and, um, it's the only
place to put it there, frankly, as far as I can see. But I would hope that they would be very
careful about impinging on that sidewalk. And the act flow
of activity around the gazebo, that is a place where people do gather. In
fact, um,
there are other questions for staff.
we need a motion and a second to take action on the, uh,
approval of a cup motion to approve as represented.
second, I didn't see who said that. You. Okay. We
have a motion to, um, approve the cp from vice chair stegel and
a second from commissioner copeland. Is there any discussion on that? ?
okay. Um, I think this looks nice and it's
gonna be a welcome addition. I know that I, I know people who go to
the park and then they have to leave because they've got little ones and,
uh, bladders and things like that, . So hopefully this will encourage more people
to use our parks and stay there for a longer time. And well done to the parks
team on putting that together. It will take away my excuse to leave the park early with my 2-year-old.
so yes, , it does, it's still a good plan.
well, they'll just get tired and go to sleep. Maybe, probably not. They'll just get stronger.
good luck. That probably worse, right? Okay. All those
in favor of, uh, approving the motion, please say aye. Aye.
aye. All opposed, say nay. Okay. That one's
approved. Thank you, ms nine. Thank you.
okay. Next up we've got consider approval of a conditional use permit for
proposed revisions to the building materials for a building located at 2 3 1 5 0
ih 35 poco loco travel center, cup
dash 24 dash 0 1 1 3 ms. Sharp. Alright,
good evening. Kayla sharp, senior planner. Tonight we have a revision
to a conditional use permit for the poco loco that
is currently under construction on the southbound I 35 frontage road.
um, the applicant is seeking a revision to the previously approved plans.
uh, the approved plans consisted primarily of stone veneer and
gray brick. Uh, the proposed materials will remain the same, but they are
proposing a change in color, uh, to red brick on the sides and rear
of the building. Um, for some background, the original cup was
approved back in november of 2024, and construction began shortly after.
uh, we were recently informed that some of the building materials were changed during
construction and the materials and colors did not match what was previously
approved. Um, some of the materials are being corrected in the field, so
you'll see some images here in a minute. Um, that probably don't look
like what was approved. Some of that is being corrected as we speak. Um, but they are
proposing to make some changes to the, the brick color.
so the applicant's rationale for this is material availability
for the, um, gray brick and also some lead time constraints,
um, on, on ordering that material. So they're opting for a
material that they'll, they're able to get, uh, more quickly.
so they are also, um, clarifying that red brick will
be used on the fuel canopy. The previous elevation showed
red brick, but included a note stating that the color of the brick would match
the color of the building. Um, staff interpreted that to mean it would match the gray
brick that was proposed for the entire building. Um, they want to clarify that their intent is
to use red brick. So here are the
approved renderings. They have a white kind of limestone, um, on each
side of the building. They've got some gray brick on the front as well.
um, but then the, the sides in rear are primarily gray brick
with a little bit of stone.
here are the current conditions. Um, as you can see, they have a note on
here. They're removing some of this, um, wood look tiles
on the front that will be replaced with stone to match the approved, um, renderings
and elevations also better look at at what
the front is currently looking like. So they do have the, um, gray, brown,
whichever you wanna call it, brick on the front. Um,
and then on the sides they've started to put red brick and that's when
it was brought to our attention. Um, so now we are here and they're requesting
that change. So the back currently doesn't have
any brick on it, but their intent is to install red brick if approved tonight.
and here are the proposed elevations updated to show they
would be keeping the gray brick on the front. Um, it's just everywhere else that
they would be opting to switch to red brick
and the sides, the fuel canopy.
so your options here tonight are two approved as presented with
modifications or deny the request. Staff have found the
materials to be compliant with the I 35, however, um, I 35
overlay. However, since the changes were made in the field rather than through the
established cop process, um, staff is bringing this
request forward and asking the commission to consider and make a final
determination. Any
questions? Thank you. Uh, any questions from up here? Yes, mr. Copeland,
ms. Sharp. So a few months ago we had a similar situation with
the developer where it was discovered at the time of issuing a co that they had
not adhered to the cep plans on that had been approved at the time mm-hmm .
in that case, that was found after the fact. And in this
instance, the applicant is proactively working with the city to
identify and, and work through the differences. Is that correct?
correct. Yes. Okay. And if this applicant had brought
to the commission at the beginning of the process, the current design
and where it's at today, it still could have been approved because it otherwise
adhered to the I 35 overlay. And the only difference tonight is because
it's not that plan that was approved, but both are equally approvable
in theory. Is that fair? Primarily, um, if
they were asking to keep the tiles on the front, we don't know what that material is. Um,
so that could have potentially been an issue upfront if it didn't meet the
masonry requirements. But as far as the rest of it goes, if that's what
they had presented to the commission from the beginning, um, it could have in theory
been approved. If, if that was the commission's decision at that time in the items
mentioned that are unknown, are still unknown as of tonight. The,
it's just the, the wood look, um, tiles on the front here,
um, that are being removed. We don't know what that material is
specifically. Um, so I couldn't say if they were to propose this, that it
would be approved. Um, but as far as the, the red brick that we're
considering here tonight, if they were to have proposed that from the beginning, that's something
that the commission could have approved and the applicant is proactively working with city staff
to come into alignment in some regard. Is that fair?
um, they, they did start installing the red brick without any approvals.
so they were kind of, you know, made aware of, hey, those changes need to be
approved by the planning and zoning commission. They haven't been issued a stop work order or
anything like that. We're trying to work with them. Um, so it's, it's a little bit of
both. Um, we are, you know, trying to work with them, as I said, but they did technically,
um, move forward with this without approvals. But at least they're responsive to
the discussion, correct? Yes. Thank you. And was this a
contractor substitution where yes.
other questions for staff? It looks like commissioner hilde is trying to talk to us,
but I can't hear him. Is, lemme try
this again. There you go. Can you hear me now? Yes, sir. Yes. Okay. I, and this
is, this is also based on availability of the material, the, or it, was it
the original material's not available, is that correct? I don't believe
that it's not available. I believe it was a timing issue for, for when it
was going to be available and I don't know exactly what the lead time was, but I know it
was okay. So not re not reasonably available anyway. Yeah, it was gonna slow
down the, the, the developer's timeline. I'm not sure how
by how much though. Madam
chair. I'd like to make the motion that we approve as presented.
I've got one last question for staff and then, uh, we will move
forward with your motion. Um mm-hmm . I I see
on the proposed elevations,
I just have a question about the material. 'cause I'm not a builder, I'm
not familiar with these things. So the part of the building that's already
been constructed with the, um, stone veneer limestone,
uh, there's going to be something called adhered stone veneer
on the area where those wood look tiles were, were taken
down. Do we know if the adhered stone veneer
is going to age differently than the
regular stone veneer? Will it be as durable? Will it have any issues that might
down the road? Cause some, you know, unsightliness or will
they be expected to look and age in a consistent way?
um, to our knowledge it should be essentially the same product. Um,
I, there shouldn't be any difference between what's already been installed and what's now being replaced.
um, it could just be that one of them's more of like a thin set veneer versus,
um, I believe the original was also veneer. So it's not like it was a full stone
versus veneer. Now, um, they should be relatively the
same. Okay, so it's got good, good stickum on the, on
the back for the adhered stone veneer? Should be, yes. Okay. Um,
I don't have any other questions for staff on this one, so does anyone else have
a question? Alright, we have a motion that got thrown out from commissioner hildreth to
recommend approval of this. Is there a second on that? Second? Okay. Second. From
vice chair stegel. Any discussion?
okay, all those in favor of approving this up, please say aye. Aye.
aye. All opposed? Nay. Okay. That one's
taken care of. Thank you. Okay,
next. We have a very exciting honor of recognizing daniel
serato for his dedicated years of service on the planning and zoning
commission, mr. Lutens.
okay, so, uh, I'm gonna recognize, uh, daniel today,
so the stranger you see in the back of the room, mr. Serrano, I know it's been a while since y'all seen him.
um, we want to thank him for, for the time he served, um, even though it
was a short, uh, timeframe, september 23 through december, 2025.
um, he was very committed to this board, asked a lot of questions, uh,
actively engaged in training, um, uh, was part of
our impact advisory fee. You know, a lot of conversations on our projects,
uh, and a lot of good comments, uh, during our, our reviews of, of cup.
so again, thank daniel, we appreciate it and thank you very much, um, and
look forward to hopefully having you back one day. Thank y'all
picture, no, no picture suitable for framing with our,
I was gonna say, let's do a picture. Appreciate it. Mark the moment.
put the computer in there for me.
.
alright,
cheers. All right, thanks guys.
I thought about it. We've been here long enough.
well, thank you, daniel. It's been, it's been fun to serve with you and I wish you all the
best in your, in your new spot. Okay,
next up, we have hold a public hearing to receive comments on the
proposed amendment to the program year 2025 annual action
plan for the us department of housing and urban development hood
community development block grant, cdbg program.
so there is a public hearing for this item. I'm gonna go ahead and open that now at 8 29.
seeing none, I'm going to close it at 8 29.
alright, ms. Sharp, good evening. Kayla sharp, senior planner.
um, so this is really intended to fill one of our requirements,
um, for hud. There's gonna be lots of acronyms throughout this, so my
apologies. Um, but, um, as part of our creating our annual
action plan, we're required to consult the public stakeholders, things like that, to,
um, gain feedback on our proposed plan. So this is,
we're kind of using y'all to, to fulfill that public meeting requirement.
um, so just to kind of give y'all an overview, we're entitled or we're
identified as an entitlement city, um, with hud and receive
block grant funding annually. Um, the amount is determined
by a statutory formula, so we receive a different amount each year. We just got our
allocation for next year, and it is more than we thought, so that's awesome.
. Um, for the current year that we're in, we
are, I kind of already went through that. Um, we are proposing some
changes to our plans. Um, and so that's why we're here
tonight. We have to basically resubmit everything to hud all over again.
um, so that is what we're here for tonight. We are proposing
to reallocate funding from a wastewater improvement project
to a sidewalk project that will benefit low to moderate income areas in
the city. So the original project was the quail ridge
wastewater improvements. Um, it was for installation of first time wastewater
service in the quail ridge subdivision, and we had, um, a little over $277,000
allocated in cdbg funding for that.
our proposed project will be, um, brent boulevard sidewalk improvements.
so this would be construction and replacement of sidewalks, a da compliant curb, ramps
and related pedestrian safety improvements along brent boulevard. And
in the park steeplechase subdivision. The allocation amount is not
changing. So this is truly just moving those
funds from a wastewater infrastructure project to the sidewalk infrastructure project.
um, as I said, the allocation is not changing. Um, and this
is compliant with the national objective compliance requirements
for hud. As you can see, everything in the green here on this map is a
low to moderate income area. Um, and so this kind of outlines
the, the service area for this project. Again,
community benefits improved pedestrian safety, a da accessibility,
increased walkability, um, benefit to lmi areas
and also supports the goals of our five year consolidated plan that is already
approved by hud. So the public notice
has been provided, provided in accordance with hud guidelines, and we
just had the opportunity for public comment. We've also had a public comment period
open for the last 30 days. So next steps. We
just held that public hearing. Um, any comments received either tonight or in
that 30 day public comment period will be incorporated into the pro pro
words are not coming out tonight, sorry, um, into the proposed amendments.
and then city council will consider, consider the amendment at the may 5th
council meeting, and then we will submit everything to hud for their approval.
any questions? Yes. Um,
it had been discussed for some time, had it not, that this grant would probably be applied to
sidewalks. Yes. So that was one of our, our top priority,
um, needs as identified in our five year consolidated plan.
um, so at least for this year and, and likely the next fiscal
year, um, we'll probably be looking at, so nothing was prompted by council or
other changes? It's been pretty much, yes. We,
when looking the, the quail ridge project was another kind of top
priority. Um, but when analyzing the, the feasibility of
that project, the timing just wasn't there. Um, we
have some compliance, uh, requirements that we have to meet in terms of
when we spend the money, um, and we just weren't gonna be able to meet that.
the project just wasn't there yet. So it doesn't leave them up the creek? No. It's, it's
still, um, a project for the city to work on. It just probably won't
use cdbg funds.
how wide are the sidewalks? , they will meet minimum code requirements.
, . Yeah, this project was
really kind of working off. I don't know that this year was the first year that we were
entitlement city and we used, um, amberwood, um, ramps and some sidewalk improvements
in that, um, in that existing subdivision and replaced 'em there. And it was a really successful
project. So we appreciated kind of holistically how it helped,
uh, that neighborhood and we're hoping to duplicate it here in this, this brentwood neighborhood.
yeah, we got lots of positive feedback on that project in that particular neighborhood. Is it gonna be
physically hard to actually get five foot sidewalks in on that right
away? Um, I know there are already existing sidewalks.
um, so if there's already an existing four foot sidewalk because this neighborhood
has been around, it's possible that they continue with that. Um, but any
new sidewalks would be compliant with, with current standards. Um,
and where they're able to, to widen them to five feet, I believe they will. But that
level of detail hasn't necessarily been evaluated just yet.
and the primary driver for that change is that the quail ridge project
just would not likely meet the timelines for the expenditure of the funding,
but that there's still, uh, objectives and goals to complete that project at
some point in the future. Yes, so the, that project, again,
it, the timing, we pretty much have one year to, to complete this
and spend all of the money. Um, and from the time we
actually get approvals on that annual action plan, um, which we submit
in august, sometimes it's not approved until december or january
and you've, you're already a couple months into the fiscal year, you've got engineering and all of that.
um, it just turned into a much more complex project than we initially thought.
no action required. No thank you. All right. Thank you.
okay, next up we have receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff
feedback regarding a proposed mixed use development project. Filo,
uh, mr. Lutz.
thank you. Uh, everybody can hear me now. So, uh, tonight, uh, staff
report regarding your philomena pro, uh, pud, um, this is project philo
has been noticed on other agendas. Uh, the applicants will be introducing
this. They're referring to this as a crossroads development. Um, so a little back
background on this property. Um, this property was annexed and zoned
agricultural in oh two. Um, initial discussions regarding
possible mixed use zoning. District mxd started with staff in january
of 2023. Uh, mxd zoning is a fairly unique,
uh, zoning, or not unique, but new zoning district that hasn't been utilized,
uh, uh, much in the city. And so it presented some challenges, uh, which
is why the developer looked at going the pud route. Um, their
pud was submitted in august of that 23, and then they submitted a
da to accompany the pud, uh, the following year.
um, this pud and development agreement is pretty basic when it comes to kind
of level of detail that maybe some of the things that you've seen in the past. Um, they're
looking for, uh, base zoning land uses of retail services, about
177,000 square feet of commercial, and then about 535
feet, uh, 535 units of, uh, multifamily. Uh, the comprehensive
plan does, uh, identify this area as urban mixed use. Um,
so the proposed pud would meet the, the future land use plan. They're also
donating, uh, land for a right of way, uh, for a roundabout. Um,
and that is a 0.2, two acres is roughly, has a $150,000
value. Um, staff is requesting feedback regarding this proposed development.
again, feedback may include overall design, land uses, density, landscaping,
um, kind of any other, your other concerns or issues. Um, we're
just asking that you provide direction regarding items you would like to see specifically addressed,
uh, during the pud review process. Um, so staff, uh, uh,
has been working with the applicant. We've gone through several rounds, kind of fine tuned some
negotiating points. Um, they will be looking at making some modifications and
then resubmitting that to staff for kind of the, the, the final phase of, of
review, uh, to get that back to y'all. So now's the time to, to speak if
you want anything to include in that. Um, I will be introducing the
developer and then I will turn it over to them, uh, to handle your questions. Um,
this is kaplan development. They got 40 plus years of residential and commercial experience,
um, backgrounds in commercial civil engineering, lending, construction, uh,
financial analysis. Uh, and they have one local project, uh, they worked on parked
in square slash greg gardens. Um, and having said that,
I will go ahead and turn that over to someone
from the team. Thank you guys.
ip I'm, uh, michael linehan with lsi representing kaplan development.
um, and this is our presentation for the crossroads district as we have been calling
it. Um, so just so we're, uh, all on the same page of where the site
is located is just south of the hospital on, uh, uh, with
fina drive going right through the middle of it. Um, uh,
so this shows our conceptual, uh, land use plan and
site plan. Um, we do have, uh, multifamily development where
we've pushed the, um, the buildings out towards, uh,
the right of way, as is called for an mxd zoning, uh, which screens a lot of the surface parking
away from the kind of walkable streets. Um, we've also incorporated
a, uh, a pedestrian greenway that goes through
both the multi-family sites so that we can connect, uh, the residents to
green space as well as the, uh, commercial space, um, that abuts that on the
north side. Um, further to the west, uh, is
still rs donating, but we have con uh, conceptualized, uh, hotel
sites in that location. Um, and there's been a good amount of demand, uh, based off
market feedback for, uh, hotel sites in this location.
uh, so going to the mxd zone that shows in, uh, yellow here.
um, so just a few inspiration images of the type of, um, uh,
multifamily development that that would accommodate, uh, giving that more,
uh, urban mixed use development aesthetic, uh, while still allowing surface parking,
um, which is supported by the market. Uh, then going into the
rs zoned areas, uh, shown in red in the map here, uh,
with some, um, retail services, restaurants, uh, office
and the, uh, affirmation hotels, uh, to support, um,
uh, different commercial uses, uh, especially adjacent to the hospital. There.
uh, this just shows, uh, more of the green space, uh, that has been incorporated into this
design. Uh, so that we have commercial and residential
connecting to open spaces that allows for production connectivity throughout the
site. Uh, and this, this shows
everything put together with our, uh, mxd base zoning and our
rs zoning, uh, and highlighting the, uh, the green space through the center spine
of this development.
so, um, the zoning is consistent with the future land use map. Um,
and, um, wanted to also highlight
that there's no real incentive being requested by kaplan development. So no pit
orts or anything of that nature or, uh, significant variances
to code. There's a couple of challenges with the mxd based zoning,
uh, that just make it challenging to develop, um, with the, the current
market state of, um, of the area. Uh, so there's
just minor, um, variances that we we'd be looking for there in terms of,
um, parking and, um, vertical mixed use percentages and things
of that nature. Um, and what the city receives out of this is the urban walkable
mixed use development consistent with the, uh, future land use map. Um, donation
of the right of way, uh, as jason mentioned, is, uh, roughly $150,000
value that the, uh, landowner is, um, donating
to the city for that roundabout. And then, uh, enhanced
cohesive design standards. Uh, there's a portion of the site that's in
the I 35 overlay, but we've taken information from that I 35 overlay
and baked it into the overall, uh, pod and development agreement. Things such as, uh, consistent
signage standards, uh, 60% masonry facades,
uh, street trees and things of that nature to make it a more comprehensive, um,
plan for the area. And then, uh, we, we'll be doing a traffic
impact analysis, um, as part of the, the p and
then, uh, the city also benefits from the full property taxes and
hotel occupancy tax and sales tax. So thank you for
your time and, uh, we appreciate your feedback, uh, to help us make revisions into our next presentation.
thank you for being here. Presentation. I'm one, one question or comment I'd like to add in.
yes, sir. Go ahead. Um, are you familiar with, are you familiar with the third way,
uh, type type projects in the incorporating those into this? I love the
green, the green space and stuff, but you know, we have a, we have our work
location, we have our home location, a a third way location's, a a a spot where people
might gather, um, around in shopping malls, they'll often use like a fire pit
or something like that. Have you looked at any consideration of something like that to incorporate
that into the green space that you have? Uh, not currently. That's something we was certainly, uh,
looking into the next one. And you, you said third way location is the term.
I, I, that that's what I've heard it called. I, I'm trying to remember the exact term. It's
been a few years since I've worked with mixed use development, but it, it's actually something that, um,
uh, is a standardized concept with third way. Uh, as an example, you have mixed
use development. You might have, uh, in, in some cases in c city of seattle's example,
they have, um, some green space up on a roof of an apartment building
and they have, uh, you know, benches and areas for people to gather the community
to gather. Yeah. It's like the, the third place. Yeah. For that third
place. That's what I'm, that's, that's, I'm thinking of not third way, third place. Yep. In,
in regards to kind of looking at the live, work, play kind of, um, component
of it. Mm-hmm . And certainly, and, and I would say a lot g and lot
h uh, where those two come together, we have the green space between that and the intent there was that we would have
kind of back patio space for the commercial, uh, as well as the
amenity space for the multifamily space. So you kind of have that
intermingling third place in that location.
are you willing to yeah, I'll say right in front, I'm a strong believer in, in mixed use development.
so are you
willing to, uh, as part of the pud uh,
agree to some, uh, performance metrics regarding phasing of the project
and completion thereof? Uh, I'd have to discuss that with the development
team, but something we can take into consideration as we go into the next stages. I think that's something we'd be
interested in. Okay.
um,
also, uh, how much is there in the market? You meant
to mentioned the market a couple of times, I believe. How much interest in the market
is there out there throwing money into mixed use where you've got retail on
the first floor, or is that still a difficult thing to find financing
for? It's still challenging this, uh, this
pod does, uh, accommodate first floor retail in the mxd
zoned areas. Um, it, it is, I I will say just an experience in
multi-family development that getting the financing for retail and that their level
is, it can be challenging. Um, and
comments towards the market is just the, uh, mxd calls for
structured parking and just the cost of that and the current rental rates in the area are just really
challenging. And so that's why this proposes some of the intent of mxd while still
allowing the surface parking. Yeah, because I, I, I like intent,
but I also like fulfillment. So, uh, I know the financing for
the retails is hard, but I'd like to see it. You're saying you want
it. I'm interested in hearing what the development team has in response to
the idea of doing this in phases with com. You know, very concrete,
understandable, uh, performance standards. Uh, just so that we are
very clear about what we're getting, this is a very important parcel of land. I've
driven through here on philomena many times, and I think anybody knows this
part of town knows that it is really quite important to the development there.
if you, if you think about it, the roundabouts on the east side of it
are there for a reason because daisy lane in that entire area is so busy with traffic
mm-hmm . And you've got major commercial and retail up behind you
there. So I would like to see something special built there that provides
good residences, good, uh, walkable space with good retail.
and so if you can bring that to this plan, I'm more than
willing to hear more. Thank you.
um, I have a question more, more to educate
myself than I, I, I like what you've presented. When we talk about live workplace,
somehow work always equals retail. Um,
clearly you've made some demand driven decisions as you've put this together.
what, is there a demand? What is the demand for like
commercial office space, anything like that? Or is the demand for work
in kyle just retail stores? Uh,
so I, I can't answer that very specifically. Just not having
full market data to throw numbers back at you. But I, I'll say at least what we've
accommodated in the plan is, uh, lot a on that east side is
intended to be office space. Um, so there is, uh, uh, even
though, um, you know, conceptual land plan with retail hotel office
that, um, we feel something of this size needs to have some kind of office space
in there. Love it. So many of these talent, so thank you.
early your presentation, sir, you mentioned that you were, sorry, exclude, uh, exploring
the put idea in order to get more flexibility on the parking requirements.
could you speak more towards that? You're trying to gain more parking, less parking changes
in parking. What, what was the, the context? So, uh, mxd calls for structured parking
mm-hmm . And, uh, a surface parking space is about $3,500. A
structured parking space can range from 20 to 40,000. And so just with the rental rates there are there,
we, in order to make this a successful development, we would need some relief from the parking
standards in mxd. Okay. Um, so that's what kind of led to going through a pud rather
than just straight up bay zoning. Okay. I know I would be in,
in more favor trying to find a way to reduce the amount of surface area that
is dedicated to the parking, because as you look at it, it is a large
proportion of that entire plot of land. Right. And
as you are exploring this too, it might just be that these maps
aren't detailed enough. They're conceptual, they're, they're not final obviously. But
I, I wanna think about the people who are in lot g trying to get to lot
h mm-hmm . And that way they don't have to hop in their car and drive through lot f to get there.
or, or if you're trying to go from g to a to that business park
that you really could live, work, play and walk or bike
or do something other than hop in the car, drive through lot f cross
fina, go to lot e like mm-hmm . That, that defeats the purpose of
what I think the intent of that mxb type
zoning is intended for. Right, right. And, and you, and you're
absolutely right that the, this is not detailed to the level of where we've got crosswalks
and sidewalks and everything, but that kind of green spine that runs through here through the
whole property, the idea would be that over filming drive where would be a crosswalk with
some traffic calming devices and have sidewalks that would legitimately connect
lot g all the way over to lot a so that you could have that connectivity. And we would anticipate
that within the site development permit level drawings. I wanna encourage
that, that thought through this process of how can we best integrate the,
the people and the places they need to be in either third spaces or workspaces
or what, whatever mm-hmm . In a way that doesn't require them to hop in the car
and move from this parking spot to that parking spot. And that also might reduce
the demand on the number of parking spots that you need. Mm-hmm . Across that development.
mm-hmm . Absolutely. Thank you. Now, I know we're not incentivizing
this, you said we don't need city money or anything like that. Don't need to tears.
so it may be a tough sell for me to say we would
like to phase in this in and have some, uh, clear
standards for you doing that. But part of the issue here
is there's gotta be some give and take on this because, um,
this is a terrible parcel to be abandoned half
built out. Mm-hmm . We've have examples
of projects in this town without financing
as assured failing and having to be resold
to be built out. I don't want to see that happen
on this kind of property. It's too important, uh, parcel.
and so we've gotta come to some understanding about how clear we are about how
this dance is gonna go till the end of the tune here. Um,
'cause I, you've got a great plan, but it's, it's gotta be built
and we've gotta be clear about how that's gonna proceed. Um, so that we're
all doing this with from a place of integrity and accountability.
understood. Thank you.
on these plans, I see markings for detention ponds. Do you have thoughts
currently as to how that looks? Is it gray infrastructure? Is
it green infrastructure? What, what does that, what's your concept right now of
that? Right. So it has not been engineered just to answer that. Um,
but the, uh, uh, we have talked about, you know, is there ways of doing more,
um, kind of fighter remediation through plantings and making it more of an aesthetic
value than just your standard pond. Um, currently that's
conceptual, but what's been discussed between the design team and the, the developer in, in terms
of how we can amenitize those spaces and treat green water perfect.
I like to encourage as much of that green as we can that we has multiple
uses and not just a block of concrete somewhere. Right. But obviously
engineers, but their stamp on it and we gotta trust that too. Yeah. Yeah. Get a big splitter box
and and that's it. Yeah. Understood. ,
um, are there other comments? Can I jump in? Yes. Okay.
um, so I wanna start with a few things that I do like about
what's been presented today. Um, I appreciate that there's no
financial incentives requested. It's refreshing to see that. And so thanks for
prioritizing that. Um, the right of way donation, um,
compliance overall with the comprehensive plan and the intended use for this area, it
is meant to be, um, kind of a, a denser
more intensive use and I think they are achieving that
for us. Um, the things that I am concerned
about is this, this doesn't feel
as mixed of uses as I, as I would want it
to be. Um, so when I was looking at the, the
details there, we're looking at, um, in
lot d and lot g 4,000 square feet of ground floor retail
in each one. And I understand the market is influencing some decisions
there, but, um, to say that we have 19 acres
of mxd, we really don't. We have 8,000 square feet of
mxd. And so I don't think that we've quite achieved,
um, the objective yet of true mixing of uses here.
um, and then another concern that
I have is about that uh, five acre green belt.
um, if y'all could go to slide, so it's kind of going across the middle
of the, the screen here. If you could go onto slide
six, kind of the, the cover image.
perfect. So on this one here, that's, um, that rendering
to me that's what's being called green belt.
um, and as someone who's lived in central texas for a while in the
austin area, I have some specific ideas in my head about what
green belts mean and look like. And I don't think that
we are quite showing a pedestrian oriented, natural
kind of respite area. We're showing a parking lot
on the cover image of the project. This is a parking lot with
a a a, a mode green space in the
middle. I'm not seeing the connection between the,
uh, kind of inspiration images that are showing parks with people hanging
out and using that space. So I, I think there's a,
a disconnect there with that green belt use. So,
um, yeah, to me this isn't saying mixed use. It's not
saying green belt, it's not saying walkable. I, I think that there's
more we could do with this. So my
feedback would be for the commercial space.
um, I understand that you can't, the market doesn't really support you
doing more of it at this time. So if we could
maybe work somehow into the p some protections that are going
to make that more possible, like making sure that it is
street facing, um, all the, all the commercial units
being street facing or that they're built out, um, with,
um, higher, higher ceilings to accommodate
commercial or kitchen uses. Things that might need special
hvac requirements or grease traps, things like that to really ensure that
these are spaces that are not going to after a few years,
well, you know, we can't really find a, a permanent tenant for it. Let's put
some storage in there and call it a day. Um, so if we
can integrate language into the p that's going to
really ensure as much as possible the success of commercial in
these 4,000 square feet in the two separate
lots. Um, I think that would be really helpful,
um, helpful for me being able to get behind
the vote that is to, to support a pud for this site. Um,
an alternative idea would be, um, instead of retail
facing fina, if you actually turn the green belt into
a green belt retail facing the green belt, um,
'cause then if, if you have good quality retail, coffee, ice cream,
whatever at the, at the green belt, I could see how those,
you know, green belt use might encourage support of those businesses, but also
use of those businesses might encourage sup, like use of the green belt if there's
something interesting to activate that space right there and to really draw
people in. Um, so
I guess those are my two main feedbacks. I would love to see improvement with, um,
ensuring quality space is provided in those buildings for retail
and commercial and, um, improvements made to the green belt.
I'll be honest, I don't love this project overall, but it would go a long way towards
getting me to be able to support this one if we, if we could see those two. Mm-hmm
. And I appreciate that. And I, I went to this slide just 'cause I wanted to show
the, uh, second image on the right, uh, where
it has the retail space next to the green space. And again, that just at this point,
uh, the, that the less detailed level is just green is mowed grass
and the intent would be that that green belt be landscaped. And we know in
central texas, just having mowed lawn is never a successful use of the space just with
shade and upkeep. And so there'd be the intent of having more
features and, and, and usable areas in that, that space. And just, it's not at that level
of design quite yet. Uh, but certainly the intent of the greenbelt space to be much more landscape
designed, uh, space for use. Um, and then, uh, certainly get behind
the, um, retail spaces opening up to public areas or to
the green belt, um, to, to help support those desires. Okay. Thank you.
thanks. And ms. Longan, you
brought up some ideas that I have follow up questions on from that of knowing
that in that instance 8,000 square feet is what really is that
mixed use area 'cause of market demands. Do you have data you can
share with us on what those market demands are and why that is a limiting factor?
not off the top of my head, brett, at the moment. Um, just mostly in the experience
of capital partners, um, looking at how much retail
and from a percentage base sizes. But, uh, we could look into some data that we could
share, share with city staff. Yeah. That we can understand what you mean by
the market won't support that type of design that could help inform future
decisions. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Yep. Um, and then thinking
through that option on, on that central area of the green belt
in which the retail's then connected to, I know that there are some
cities like san antonio's river walk or other locations that are kind of
designed like that where you have the, the public space there, you can walk through to find
different retail or different food, whatever. Um, sometimes
those are designed to allow beer, wine to be transported
in that confined area. Is that something that the city could explore?
I'm not saying that's an endorsement, but like what, what would that process look like
to kind of give more options to the developer if that was
an incentive that could be helpful to them? I, I think we
definitely could, we would just lean on like tabc rules, uh, for that
in, in regards. So, um, but yeah, that's something that we could, we
could look at. Okay. Thank you.
so another idea that is just sprung into my mind, I know that we're
trying to, um, use that mxd
um, zoning in order to pull things kind of closer to
the roadway and tuck parking back behind it. But that is in fact
creating a parking lot that people have to walk through in order to
use the green belt. Do we value more
having the units closer to the roadway for the kind
of like urban feel or do we value more having the units closer to
greenbelt as for parking or
maybe we do a bit of both where some things are right on the green belt and some things have
a parking buffer. It is the, the crux there where it's, if you
really value pushing things to the street, then you get the sea of parking
in between all the buildings and it's hard to make those spaces really attractive. And so this
was kind of the, uh, you know, the happy medium of like,
can we get enough green in that space to break up the asphalt and make it really
desirable? But I would tend to agree that if we could get more of
that green right up against that, um, commercial
and and residential units, that it activates that space more allowing for some of
the, the parking out on the street edge because that the right of
way is not quite as walkable as the green space would be. And I think that
that's the intent of mixed use design is to be able to make it walkable. Yeah.
like if I'm in building lot d building four and I wanna
go over to, I don't know, something
lot a building one or lot e building three, um,
have to walk through parking lots or drive to get there.
that's not the most pleasant experience when it's like a hundred degrees outside for large swaths
of the year here. Uh, so food for thought,
definite food for thought. I do agree, um, with what vice chair stegel
said, this is a very important parcel for the city of kyle. The proximity
to the hospital, it's very central. There's gonna be, um,
a lot of importance on this area of our city. A lot of people are gonna move through here
every day and we want people to stay and use it. And so I think it's important that
this area is attractive and durable and it's something that,
you know, 20, 30 years from now when it needs reinvestment, somebody
would be happy to to do that. And I think that starts with
how it's designed at the start. Thank you.
any other feedback?
I guess not. Yeah. Cool. Appreciate your feedback counsel. Thanks for being here. Absolutely.
okay. I think we did it. We did. We're at the end.
. All right. So do y'all want me to close this out
or does somebody wanna make a motion? I may make a motion that we adjourn.
a motion to adjourn from vice chair stegel. Seconded by,
seconded. Commissioner copeland, I just drug that out for an
extra 30 seconds 'cause I just really enjoyed being here with y'all tonight. You just on your own every
night or time about you. I know your own wants. Just wait. All right.
we are officially adjourned at 9 0 4.