[0:00] Good evening. Uh, I, my brain is totally blinking
[0:05] right now. I would like to call this regular, uh, scheduled meeting of the planning and zoning commission
[0:09] to order the time is 6:30 pm on april 14th.
[0:13] uh, may I have a roll call, please? Copeland? Here. Webb? Here.
[0:18] segel here. Kin here. Cfet. Houck.
[0:22] hildreth.
[0:32] richard, can you hear us on online?
[0:39] I wonder? Uh, we might be muted. This is,
[0:50] are we muted on
[1:10] hildreth? I'm ready. Yeah, I'm ready. Alright, perfect.
[1:14] so we do have a quorum. Um, I would like to extend a welcome to our new commissioner
[1:18] who's joining us virtually today. Thank you for your service and, uh,
[1:22] looking forward to working with you. Uh, first item on our agenda is
[1:27] approval of minutes. So consider approval of the planning and zoning commission's february 24th, 2026.
[1:32] regular meeting minutes. We need a motion. And second on this
[1:37] madam chair, motion to approve the planning and zoning commission. February 24th, 2026.
[1:41] regular meeting. Minutes second. Okay. We have a motion to approve from commissioner
[1:45] copeland and a second from vice chair stegel. Is there any discussion on that?
[1:49] all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Na.
[1:54] perfect. We've got our minutes. Next step is our citizen comment period.
[1:58] the planning and zoning commission welcomes comments from citizens early in the agenda of
[2:02] regular meetings. Speakers are provided with an opportunity to speak during this time
[2:06] period on any agenda item or any other matter concerning city business,
[2:11] and they must observe the three minute time limit. So, at this time, I will open citizen
[2:16] comments and seeing none.
[2:20] well, hang on. Someone's walking into the building. I'm just gonna
[2:24] give it a minute. Oh, nevermind. Seeing none, we will keep moving.
[2:29] first up, we have our consider impossible action items.
[2:33] so, first is consider and make recommendation to the city council regarding
[2:38] a request by john hall, for exceptions from chapter 41, subdivisions
[2:42] of the city's code of ordinances related to detention, drainage, flood mitigation,
[2:47] and sidewalks for the property located at 200 veterans drive, kyle,
[2:51] texas 7, 8 6. This
[2:55] 2015, the requested exceptions
[3:00] include one, an exception from section 41 dash four,
[3:05] watershed and flood prevention to wave requirements for a detention pond and
[3:09] trickle channel two, an exception from section 41
[3:14] dash 1 34. General requirements to allow
[3:18] alternative culvert specifications. Three, an exception
[3:22] from section 41 dash 1 43 a one
[3:26] sidewalks to eliminate installation of new sidewalks along veterans drive,
[3:30] eliminate sidewalks along barbie street from wood street to veterans drive,
[3:35] wave sidewalk crossings over drainage ditches, and reduce the
[3:39] minimum sidewalk width from five feet to four feet.
[3:43] mr. Lutz?
[3:48] uh, yes. Good evening, chairman, commissioners. Um, so tonight, um, have a couple
[3:52] of variances for you. Um, I'm gonna let the, uh, presentation get loaded
[3:57] up. Um, that way it'll give me a reference point. Um, there's quite a few items to go through.
[4:01] um, so tonight we will do this a little bit, uh, differently. Um, because there
[4:05] are so many requests, uh, I would like to go through my entire presentation,
[4:10] um, kind of recommendations, and then we will circle back and visit
[4:14] each one of those requests individually. Um, it'll be at that point on each
[4:18] one of those items that, that mr. Hall can come and present his findings. Um,
[4:22] and then once we kind of do that, we will go through and make our motions. Uh, we would like
[4:26] request that we do separate motions for each item, um, just as a little cleaner and easier for
[4:30] staff to get those minutes, uh, forwarded on to counsel. So, uh, again,
[4:34] um, I'm gonna talk fast. There's a lot of information, so we just hold questions till
[4:38] the end. Um, that would be appreciated.
[4:43] okay. So, uh, property location, um, veterans drive, blanco
[4:47] and barbie street. Um, so this, this triangle, again, the applicant
[4:51] is constructed approximately 1500 square foot professional office.
[4:55] um, planning zoning commission did review a conditional use permit, uh, for this,
[5:00] uh, uh, as it's in the veteran's drive overlay district. That was done may 28th, 2024.
[5:05] um, the applicant is requesting several exceptions from city code, uh, from the
[5:09] city subdivision ordinance. Um, we did not reque, uh, receive
[5:13] documentation at the time of sub packet submittal, but mr. Hall has provided you
[5:17] some comments and some information tonight. Um, and then he'll go through those
[5:21] and he'll, you'll have a chance to answer, uh, ask him some questions.
[5:25] um, so what we're looking at is, um, several requested
[5:30] variances, um, an exception from section 41 40 watershed and
[5:34] floodplain prevention, um, to grave requirements for required detention, pond
[5:38] and trickle channel. Um, we're looking at exception from section 41
[5:42] dash 1 34 general requirements, uh, to allow alternative culvert
[5:47] specifications. Uh, we're also looking at exception from section 41
[5:51] dash 1 43. Um, this is regarding sidewalks. Uh, there's four
[5:55] separate distinct, uh, items there. Eliminate new sidewalks along veterans,
[6:00] uh, eliminate sidewalks along barbie street from woods to veterans. Wave the
[6:04] sidewalk crossing requirements over those drainage district ditches, and then reduce the minimum
[6:08] sidewalk width from four feet to five feet. Um, so what I've done is kind
[6:12] of broken these down into three main requests, uh, uh, requests.
[6:17] and so we'll tackle 'em that way based on the section of code. Um, so the request
[6:21] number one is waiver of requirements of a detention pond and trickle channel.
[6:25] again, city code, state law require properties to mitigate any additional impervious
[6:30] cover or runoff associated with their development. There's multiple ways
[6:34] they can do that. Um, uh, that section 41 10 outline
[6:39] standards and specifications, um, that may be used to meet these requirements.
[6:43] um, and then in this case, uh, the trickle channels and detention ponds are required
[6:47] for flood mitigation based on current city code. So when we look at
[6:51] request one a, um, detention ponds, um, they are not
[6:55] always required. As I mentioned, there are, uh, other options to,
[6:59] to kind of meet state requirements to handle runoff. Um, dos can be
[7:03] done through things such as low impact development or lid. Um, some of you're familiar with
[7:08] that. Um, these things can be rain gardens, bio bioswells, or other
[7:12] approved engineering practices. Um, staff, um, presented available
[7:16] options to the applicant regarding those alternative compliance options. Um, the
[7:20] applicant indicated to staff they do not wish to utilize those lid, um, options
[7:24] for their own various reasons. Um, so he's asking to waive the, the pond requirement.
[7:29] um, there are no alternative options, um,
[7:33] for the trickle channel. Um, uh, when we look at that,
[7:37] um, I'm sorry, and I'll get, I'm jumping ahead of myself. Um,
[7:42] so request one b of this same section is the trickle channel. Uh,
[7:46] trickle channels are required where the slope of the property is
[7:50] very shallow. Um, this allows or, uh, helps move the water
[7:54] from one area to another. Again, I'm not the engineer, so we do have staff
[7:58] engineer if you want details on that. Um, just, um, keep
[8:02] your questions from me, kind of process and requirements, and then I'll turn it over to staff
[8:07] if we need to get into details. Um, so the applicant is requesting
[8:11] exception to waive the trickle channel for the portion of the property extending from the detention
[8:15] pond area to their proposed driveway. Um, currently there are no alternative
[8:19] compliance options available for this requirement, so staff does not support this exception.
[8:25] um, so here on this image is kind of a breakdown of the first, um, request.
[8:29] so the detention pond location is in red. Um, there is a
[8:33] proposed trickle channel in green. You'll see this one. This is the one the applicant is
[8:37] requesting to wave. Um, there is a second trickle channel to the south
[8:42] on this plan set, um, highlighted in blue. Um, this
[8:46] was, um, provided by the applicant. This is their approved plans. However,
[8:50] the city has undertaken some road improvement projects on veterans. Um,
[8:54] we are changing the way water is flowing across his property
[8:59] slightly. Um, so in order to mitigate that, staff supported
[9:03] that we would build that as a, as a future cip project. We would waive that requirement
[9:07] from him since we were having some effect, um, on his development.
[9:12] um, going into exception request number two, this is approval of alternative
[9:17] culvert specifications. So our code does allow for alternative culvert,
[9:21] pipe sizes, materials, uh, um, as long as the proper,
[9:26] uh, engineering documentation is submitted, reviewed, and approved by staff.
[9:30] um, so staff did inform the applicant that the requested modifications could be supported,
[9:34] um, provided that we had updated plans and supporting engineering document, uh,
[9:38] documentation, um, uh, that these plans do need to be supported.
[9:43] um, at this time, the applicant, um, had concerns about having to
[9:47] reengage and engineer and updating those. Um, so they would like to, to waive
[9:51] the requirement for, um, updating that documentation
[9:55] would like to use what they're proposing.
[9:59] so this is kind of the map of exception area two. These are the culverts that you'll
[10:03] see connect across or underneath the driveway. Um, that is that location
[10:07] there. And then the exception request
[10:11] three. Um, there's actually four of these. Well, I'll touch base on all
[10:15] of them. These are all sidewalks. Um, starting with request three a.
[10:20] um, so his, the request is to eliminate new sidewalk along
[10:24] veterans drive. I do wanna point out that there is an existing sidewalk there.
[10:28] um, it just does not meet our minimum, uh, sidewalk width, uh, requirements.
[10:34] um, we require five foot sidewalks along all property boundaries. Um,
[10:38] staff did work with the applicant as part of their site development review and
[10:42] agreed to not require that sidewalk to be ripped up and
[10:46] replaced. Um, and then, um, this group
[10:51] approved that sidewalk kind of deviation as part of their cup.
[10:55] uh, but staff wanted to bring this forward today just as part of these other variances. Let's
[10:59] just go ahead and, and run that through, through the process. Um, so this is something we, we
[11:03] can support to maintain the existing sidewalk, um, in the area.
[11:08] uh, exception three b is to eliminate sidewalks along barbie street from
[11:12] wood street to veterans drive. So as part of our roadway improvements along veterans,
[11:16] this small section of road that kind of comes along barbie behind mr. Hall's property
[11:20] and then connects, um, at the intersection, um,
[11:24] right where the restaurant kind of, uh, back parking lot is,
[11:28] that road is actually gonna be a abandoned, um, we're not gonna connect that
[11:32] through. So that driveway will now connect straight to veterans. Um, so staff can
[11:36] support the, the waiver of sidewalks on that portion of mr. Hall's property.
[11:41] um, and again, I'll have a map, we'll, we'll go through that, um, here in a second,
[11:46] uh, exception request three c, um, was to waive sidewalk requirement
[11:50] crossings over the drainage ditches. Um, so again, mr. Hall is a, a triangular
[11:55] property. Um, it's all open ditch drainage on each side. So to, to cross
[11:59] the sidewalks and connect, you have to, to do a small pedestrian bridge, in
[12:03] essence, across those areas. Um, when we looked at this, uh, because
[12:07] it's a connection for sidewalks, um, staff cannot, you know, support that.
[12:11] um, p pedestrians connectivity is, is an issue for us. Um,
[12:16] creating gaps, um, could be an issue as well. Um, staff did
[12:20] want to highlight that kyle elementary school has discontinued, uh, bus service
[12:24] to hometown kyle and surrounding areas as part of their, as part of their budget makeup.
[12:29] um, so, um, we, we are seeing an increased amount of pedestrians
[12:33] kids coming from kind of the west side of veterans in all those residential neighborhoods. And
[12:38] we anticipate that that, um, traffic to, to
[12:42] increase. So at this time, staff does, does not recommend or support, um, this waiver exception.
[12:48] and then the final one is to reduce the minimum sidewalk widths from five feet to four
[12:52] feet. Again, minimum sidewalk width is five feet from city code. Um,
[12:57] again, we have a increase of pedestrian activity. Um,
[13:01] additionally reducing a sidewalk width may necessitate the installation of passing areas at regular
[13:06] intervals. So, um, toss has some language in there that at
[13:10] so many intervals of feet, you have to create a passing lane where two wheelchairs could safely
[13:14] pass, um, based on the minimum kind of size for passing
[13:18] and clearance. Um, staff again, does not recommend a waiver of this
[13:22] exception because this is our standard and we don't find a, a hardship, um,
[13:27] on this one. So when we looked at the exception request number
[13:31] three, um, again, this is kind of the layout. The red areas
[13:36] on this image here would be sidewalks that would have the reduction from
[13:40] five to four, the green areas, the existing sidewalk,
[13:45] that that would remain, that staff supports, um, not having to rip up, uh,
[13:49] existing infrastructure. The orange section to the south is the section
[13:53] along the roadway that, that, that road is actually going to be closed. Um,
[13:57] so we would support the waiver of that area. And then the light blue or
[14:01] the sidewalk, uh, kind of pedestrian crossings. Um, so you can see connecting,
[14:06] uh, the veterans drive over to the blanco, um, section, and then
[14:10] it would cross back over. Um, and then again, once the gaps
[14:14] down the road would have to be future cip, um, projects, or if those properties
[14:19] redeveloped, um, as at any point in the future that would trigger.
[14:24] um, so again, I have my recommendations. I'll go through those, um,
[14:28] you know, shortly after we kind of get into the, um, um, the requests.
[14:33] uh, but I'd like to give mr. Hall an opportunity to kind of come back. Lost audio?
[14:37] nope. Um,
[14:41] can you hear me, sir?
[14:47] one second.
[15:05] test one. Can you hear me, sir? Okay. Not good. Alright. Um,
[15:10] so I will kick back to the very first set of requests. Uh, I'll leave it up
[15:14] on the, on kind of one of these images. If, if y'all like, just let me know.
[15:18] um, but I'm gonna turn it over to mr. Hall. Um, you can ask him questions again, if it's very
[15:23] specific technical. Um, leon barbs into engineers here. Um,
[15:27] if you wanna, you know, get into those details more than welcome, um, if
[15:31] it's general process or reasoning, um, either subdivision
[15:35] or site plan or development, please address those to me. So, mr. Hall, I'll
[15:39] give you the floor. Sir, would you mind leaving the screen on the map? Yes, sir.
[15:43] thanks.
[15:52] uh, to the wizards in the back, um, if you could help me, um, move to,
[15:56] I guess, this last image that shows all the sidewalks,
[16:01] um, request d, yet this one may work for
[16:06] thank you. Appreciate it.
[16:20] and, uh, basically what we're trying to do is develop a small,
[16:25] irregular, highly irregular lot that for years was, uh,
[16:29] languishing here in the community, and we took over that lot, uh, clearing
[16:33] it. Uh, one of the things I found, you'll find this in your handout, we found that there was
[16:37] like a, a hollowed out place where, where young people were
[16:42] drinking beer and, and huffing, uh, paint and glue and, and other drug paraphernalia.
[16:46] tried to clear this up. And I think we've done a fairly good job on it. Uh,
[16:51] pleased to, to be able to, to work in this area and upon these things.
[16:55] uh, this is the, uh, barbie side of the, the property barbie
[16:59] street side of the property. And, uh, here's the
[17:03] ditch that has become quite the center of so much controversy. And I look
[17:07] at this ditch. This is a gentle, friendly, almost not
[17:11] a ditch. When we purchased this property, we looked at that and said, oh, that's no
[17:15] big deal. That's, uh, that's, uh, gentle, friendly
[17:20] piece of land that we can easily put in, a simple drive in as so many have
[17:24] been done along center street and throughout the community. Uh, just
[17:28] a, a nice little place to put a nice little
[17:32] office. And, uh, by the time
[17:36] the city worked with our engineers, it turned into this situation,
[17:41] which basically indicates the whole ditch is to be dug up and
[17:45] replaced with concrete reinforced concrete pipe and, and,
[17:49] uh, all kinds of paraphernalia that, uh, you know, it's not
[17:53] probably that natural to, to dig up a nice, nice little area and, and put, uh,
[17:57] this rcp reinforced concrete pipe, which is pretty unusual
[18:02] because our property is fed by two
[18:07] steel pipes from the city, both coming from,
[18:11] uh, under one 50, which is veterans drive.
[18:16] and they're, they're steel pipes and they're smaller than the pipes that we plan to put in. And
[18:20] so there should never be any kind of a drainage problem. The, uh,
[18:24] reinforced concrete pipe, very dangerous to handle, very hard to maintain,
[18:28] very hard to, to put into place, and it doesn't
[18:35] really look that good after a little bit of use.
[18:40] and I have some pictures here
[18:47] somehow. Rcp
[18:51] reinforced concrete pipe here is a section that apparently the water got
[18:55] into it and eroded it from the bottom, aided it out, dissolved the asphalt on top.
[19:03] I'm kind of nonplus of why the city is taking such an adverse
[19:07] reaction to using a steel pipe, because this is pipe.
[19:11] I took these pictures january 20,
[19:15] pardon me, january 29th, 2026,
[19:20] and january 28th, 2026 along veterans drive
[19:25] within walking distance of our project. Steel, steel, steel,
[19:29] steel. It's, it's very common application.
[19:33] so there's no reason we should not be able to use steel pipe there.
[19:40] I apologize. The city has a, a long
[19:44] use of steel pipe and it's, there's nothing wrong with it. Very good application.
[19:49] and, uh, as opposed to having the junk that I just showed you, I much prefer to put
[19:53] that in place. So we are asking that, uh,
[19:58] we be able to use a steel pipe. The pipe that drains into
[20:02] barbie, it's an 18 inch steel pipe coming under
[20:06] one 50, and we propose to have two
[20:11] eight inch steel pipes to drain the ditch. And I have
[20:15] given all of the, the math work to, uh,
[20:19] to the city, and I do not see that there's any need in deploying
[20:24] an engineer to, to, to stamp that. There's no need.
[20:29] I think it stands common sense that two 18 inch pipes can handle
[20:33] one 18 inch pipe. I don't think that needs any engineering work. I beg
[20:37] the city to allow me that variance
[20:43] on the retention pond. There is not
[20:47] a retention pond for this building. There is not a retention
[20:51] pond for the gigantic impervious parking lot that the
[20:55] city built next door. There's not a retention pond for the post office.
[21:00] mutts and puffs on and on and off.
[21:04] putting a retention pond in in our property, I feel is a,
[21:08] is a public nuisance because it can stand for a place for children to get in and drown,
[21:13] as been talked about, on and on. There are a stool of kids walking
[21:17] by here all the time. If it does still out of water, it becomes an attractive nuisance for some
[21:21] child of drowning. As it drains out, the retention of the moisture
[21:28] will create bugs and disease and other
[21:32] hazards. So I think it's just a really bad idea to put one in.
[21:36] and I, you know, when you talk to the city, they're always gonna say it's a law. It's a law.
[21:40] it's a law. Yeah, maybe so, maybe, no, I don't really
[21:44] think it is. I've been a member of the bar for 39 years, texas bar,
[21:49] been a member of the federal bar for almost as long. I've just not really run
[21:53] across that. And I know if you drive around through mountain city oaks, mountain city,
[21:58] you won't find a single retention pond in there, the whole
[22:02] city. So according to staff
[22:06] legend or staff, whatever, you know, maybe they should all be imprisoned for
[22:10] breaking this drainage law. I don't see it.
[22:14] uh, the efficacy of these bonds, that's a matter of debate.
[22:20] in 1998, there was superintendent schools in cuero, texas. We had a flood that
[22:24] covered about a third of the city
[22:28] retention pots didn't do any good this past check, uh, july 4th,
[22:33] I have property in hunt texas, uh, riverfront property. And I can
[22:37] tell you retention ponds didn't do any good down there. 2020,
[22:42] uh, 2017 here in kyle, I don't know if you remember this, but from
[22:46] east one 50, all along towards west one 50, all of
[22:50] these retention ponds that run up on one 50, they all burst loose.
[22:55] so if there's a big rain, it doesn't do any good. If it's a small rain,
[22:59] it really doesn't make any difference. So I'm asking you not
[23:03] to make my project be ul and made a point of danger by
[23:07] having a retention platform. I'm asking to let me use, let
[23:11] us use pipes and steel pipes that are widely used in
[23:15] this community, widely used. And not just a long time
[23:19] ago, just january, I showed you january, 2026
[23:24] picture. So coming to you in good faith,
[23:29] we've been working hard to do a good job here. I don't know if you've, I haven't seen
[23:33] those in the building. Building is complete and it looks
[23:37] nice. It's nice inside. We come to this community not
[23:41] to be some kind of, we come here
[23:46] to try to, uh, help people to stay planning with
[23:50] everyday legal, legal needs. I'm not trying to put something
[23:54] over city. Just trying to ask for a little branch of help. Just
[23:59] a little bit of help. Just a little bit of
[24:05] how I power here.
[24:16] all right. Thank you, mr. Hall. Um, all right, commissioners. Um, I'll go ahead and
[24:21] I can go through kind of my recommendation or did y'all have some questions you want
[24:25] to ask before I go through that? I'll, I'll kind of leave that up to you if you'd madam
[24:29] chair, knowing that mr. Hals is gonna pack it over to us, could we have five minutes just to read it
[24:33] over to make sure we have knowledge to ask questions on?
[24:38] I'm comfortable with that. My mic's not on. I am comfortable
[24:42] with that. How does that work? Do I need to like, put a hold
[24:46] on the meeting or can we just sit here in silence for five minutes? Or e either way. Um,
[24:50] it might be behoove to have a recess. Recess and give everybody a little time on their own.
[24:55] um, did we get that packet digitally? I wanna make sure that richard on the screen got
[24:59] it as well. He did. I did not get the, the, the updated packet.
[25:04] uh, I also, I do have one question on this. What is the amount of impervious service
[25:08] of this property, uh, prior to
[25:13] prior to construction there? Uh, it's 100%. Um,
[25:17] I do not have the overall impervious cover, uh, numbers on this.
[25:21] uh, but I could try and look real quick and, and get you an answer, sir. Oh, mr. Hall
[25:25] looks like he's got an answer. The reason what I, what I'm, what I'm concerned about is the, the
[25:30] impervious surface. Uh, I'm a firm believer that
[25:34] any development needs needs to cover its own, you know, any, any drainage
[25:38] it creates. So the amount of imper service detention pond should, or
[25:42] detention systems should be at least equivalent to that.
[25:46] yes, sir. And that's, that is what our plans are reviewed to. Um, but if you'd like the exact number,
[25:50] just let me know. And I, I can try and do some, some quick, I can give you, I I just wanna
[25:55] make sure there's an equivalent there. Yes, sir. There is.
[26:00] meantime, it looks like kayla went to go scan that packet so we can get it over to richard. So if
[26:04] you wanna take a recess, we, that might be a good idea. I'd rather wait to do the recess
[26:08] until he gets it. So I guess in the meantime,
[26:12] um, are there any questions that we immediately want to ask,
[26:17] maybe a question on the process just to make sure we understand what
[26:21] we're taking a vote on. If I read the ordinance correctly,
[26:25] 41 dash 10, what we would, should the planning and zoning commission
[26:30] tonight, grant, mr. Hall's exception, that would just be a recommendation
[26:34] to counsel, and counsel would take that final action. Is that correct? Yes, sir.
[26:38] every request tonight is recommendation only. Perfect. And then should
[26:43] this commission deny mr. Hall's re request, he still has an appeal
[26:47] option to counsel as well? Uh, it is not a an official denial. It is just
[26:51] recommendation for denial. So whether you recommend approval or denial, counsel ultimately has
[26:55] final, final approval on this matter? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.
[27:00] one other question I have, what about is, is is there any process for,
[27:05] um, a waiver of protest for any future development or
[27:09] anything like that that, uh, you know, if, if it doesn't
[27:13] make sense to do something at one point in, but future development
[27:18] when they put in sidewalks, everybody does, does well smash? Is there anything, is there any type of process
[27:22] for a waiver of, uh, protests that could be done in this, in any of these?
[27:27] um, yes. Um, not quite in the terms. Um,
[27:31] you're utilizing, sir. We do have some alternative processes. So, um, again,
[27:35] one of 'em was, um, for sidewalks. Uh, there has
[27:39] been instances where, say a development is coming in, um,
[27:43] but the city is doing a road project six months down the road, we will allow
[27:48] fees in lieu of, um, for those sidewalk constructions and then that
[27:52] goes into a fund and we can can do those at a later date. Um, ideally
[27:56] we'd like to do that as part of the project. 'cause those are future cip projects
[28:00] and, and staff doesn't have control over those which projects get
[28:04] assigned and funded. Um, so it can kick the, can a little bit. But there, there
[28:08] are some options there, um, as well as alternative compliance for, say, detention
[28:13] runoff of and some of those other issues. Okay.
[28:29] actually one other idea too, to see if it, if, I mean, if this would be peaceful, I don't have
[28:33] access to the maps right now, so I, I can't picture this as well.
[28:38] uh, would it be possible to maybe take the ditch that, um,
[28:42] uh, on the property that, um, the
[28:47] mr. Hall, uh, says is not really a ditch? I, would it be possible to
[28:51] maybe convert that to a bio swell? Um, I think
[28:55] in, in, in the, in replacement of the, of the drainage or the, uh, detention
[28:59] pond, um, I would have to defer to a city engineer on that one. On
[29:04] what would be allowed or alternative compliance. Uh,
[29:08] mr. Barbara, did you hear the question? And can you,
[29:14] good evening. Leon, barbara, city engineer. Are you talking about the one that's in orange?
[29:20] 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
[29:24] do the, the, the sidewalk, uh, going over the, going
[29:28] over the drainage. Um, but I guess three
[29:32] c is what I have written down. I think that's the one. Would it be possible,
[29:37] he's saying that ditch is not really a ditch. He would, what I'm wondering is, uh,
[29:41] is is it possible maybe to in, in lieu of the,
[29:45] uh, the, the detention pond, convert that into
[29:49] a bio swell to to, to basically take care of both problems? Both issues?
[29:54] there's a couple of issues here with the, uh, particular ditch that we're looking at. And they were talking
[29:58] about, uh, where it leaves one 50 and where it, uh,
[30:02] enters, uh, blanco street, there's a about
[30:06] a two and a quarter inch, two and a half inch drop in a hundred feet in this thing.
[30:10] so it's got a 0.23%. Okay, that's very, very flat if
[30:14] you think about it. Mm-hmm . Two and a half inches in a hundred feet, you can't even see that.
[30:19] so that's the reason that we proposed the, uh, uh, uh, ditch the, uh,
[30:23] concrete valley gutter in that area. Uh, bioswells we suggested
[30:27] to mr. Hall that you, you look at bioswells, look at other lid improvements, but
[30:31] he did not want to go that route. He doesn't wanna hire the engineer to do that extra work.
[30:36] so one of the problems with the, um, with that is that, uh,
[30:40] it, where if he were talking about the orange line, that that's not draining
[30:44] in that area. He needs to provide that protection where everything's draining to that ditch over
[30:49] there at barbie and de blanco. So I dunno if that helps or not,
[30:53] but it answers my question.
[30:59] commissioner hildreth, uh, check your email. I think, um, the information
[31:03] that, uh, mr. Hall provided should be attached.
[31:09] okay. I don't have it yet. While we're waiting for that to come through,
[31:14] I just wanna ask a clarifying question. On the image on the screen,
[31:18] we're showing two ditch crossings on barbie. I'm gonna call it like
[31:22] crossing north and crossing south. The packet that I'm looking at
[31:26] from, um, mr. Hall says he doesn't want a second
[31:30] pedestrian bridge along barbie street. So I just wanna confirm,
[31:34] are we talking about an exception from both ditch
[31:39] crossings or only from one ditch crossing? 'cause on the map, both of them are labeled
[31:43] as no ditch crossing. In my, in my original conversations
[31:47] with mr. Hall, uh, the request we got in writing was for all ditch crossings.
[31:51] so, um, if he has something else that he's willing to do one or or
[31:55] the other, then I, I'd let him answer that and then y'all can take that into consideration.
[31:59] okay.
[32:03] okay. For some reason came through on my phone, but it did not come through on my computer.
[32:08] so lemme look it on, on the phone, on my phone here.
[32:16] just before we review the packet, it would be helpful, mr. Hall, to understand what exactly
[32:20] is the scope of your request here, just to make sure it's consistent with what we're going
[32:24] to be, uh, thinking about. You
[32:28] know, the ditch belongs to the city. The city receives avalor
[32:32] taxes to maintain it. It receives special drainage taxes to maintain it. It
[32:37] has grants, it has all kinds of, uh, financial opportunities.
[32:41] um, and if the city wants to build whatever bridges
[32:46] it wants, I'm all for that. And I'd like to direct your
[32:50] attention to the package. I know you haven't had a good chance to look at it, but if you look at
[32:54] figure 15, which is about the third, the last
[32:58] page of the packet, fourth to the last page of the packet.
[33:03] this is a letter from this
[33:07] letter from the city, figure 15
[33:11] underlined. If the developer chooses to construct the
[33:15] detention or alternative methods to keep post-development runoff rates the same
[33:20] as pre-development rates, then the city will perform the improvements
[33:24] to the drainage ditch through the city's capital improvement plan.
[33:29] this would include the pipe and driveway improvements. My
[33:33] response to that was, okay, you do that and I will build
[33:37] the pond, I'll build the sidewalks, et cetera. But when I
[33:41] gave them that reply, they rescinded that
[33:46] offer. And that really hard
[33:50] for me to understand. Mr. Hall to confirm you,
[33:54] there is a world in which you're willing to construct the drainage pond
[33:58] and some of these culverts, is that correct? With some help from the city?
[34:02] yes. And that help, what would you want to see from the city to I would simply
[34:06] want to follow what the city says, uh, at in that letter
[34:10] that's dated, uh, february 19th, 2026.
[34:16] okay. If the developer chooses to construct the detention or
[34:20] alternative methods to keep post-development runoff rates the same as pre-development
[34:24] rates, then the city will perform
[34:29] the improvements to the drainage ditch to the city's capital improvement plan.
[34:34] this would include the pipe and driveway improvements. Black
[34:38] and white in writing seems pretty plain to
[34:42] me, assigned writing sent by an authorized official
[34:46] of the city. And as I told the city at the next meeting after that, I
[34:51] received that letter. I said, okay, I'll build the retention pond.
[34:55] I'll build the sidewalks. You just take care of the ditch
[35:00] and we'll all be happy ever after. And so to confirm if we, we can find a
[35:04] solution that fits the language presented inside this february 19th
[35:10] letter letter, you're willing to construct the uh, yes.
[35:14] basin yeah. And associated construction with the caveat,
[35:18] I don't think it's as necessary as being pled, but, and in
[35:22] order to, uh, extend an olive branch of good faith, yeah, I'll do that.
[35:28] I just want the city to do what the city said it would do.
[35:32] black and white. Signed writing.
[35:37] okay. Mr. Lewis, commissioner alkin, before we move on, did you get your question answered about
[35:41] clarification on which one of these ditches is request or sidewalks
[35:45] is requested to be waived? Because I'm still not clear on that either. Yeah. Thank you for following up on that.
[35:50] I, I'm not clear on how figure 15 addresses the,
[35:54] um, the matter of which pedestrian bridge
[35:58] on barbie street or either. Well, it addresses it because if the
[36:02] ditch, the bridges are over the ditch. So if they will do what they said
[36:06] and, and do all the ditch improvements, I'll do the other pretty plain.
[36:10] and as far as the sidewalk, I think we're making, look, excuse me, I don't mean to step on any toes.
[36:15] I think we're making a little bit bigger deal outta sidewalks than necessary. We're willing to
[36:19] build the sidewalks as agreed with the city and make 'em to aada a,
[36:23] uh, standards four foot wide, uh, with, uh, five foot turnarounds
[36:27] as needed, but willing to do that. So, you know, they
[36:31] want to go five foot wide. I'll build 'em five foot wide. I'll build the, uh,
[36:35] pond if they will do the improvements in the ditch with the steel pipe
[36:39] as they said they would. I don't know if that
[36:43] answers your question, but let's, I don't think the, the sidewalk deal is that big a deal
[36:48] actually. Well, I I think what we're trying to do is clarified the request
[36:52] in front of us, um, rather than try to renegotiate a different request, we're just trying
[36:56] to understand the request in front of us as it sits right now. And I see
[37:00] three on that map up there on the screen. I see three blue
[37:05] sidewalks, but, uh, to chairman or chairman woman kins point, I
[37:09] only see two referenced in the letter. Well, if I may, and this is
[37:13] my understanding, let me share it with you. The green sidewalk is a moot point. It's
[37:17] in place, and the city I think, accepts it and I accept it. I think it would
[37:21] be a ridiculous waste to dig it up. So let's don't even talk about
[37:25] that. It's a good sidewalk. It's not that used that much. But I do see
[37:29] it being used, uh, the sidewalk along, uh,
[37:34] blanco street, we're willing to build that sidewalk along blanco street. We'd like
[37:38] it to be four foot instead of five foot, but if the city will do what they said they would in
[37:43] their letter, then we'll build it five foot wide. And, uh, I believe the city
[37:47] told us that we didn't have to build the south southernmost
[37:51] barbie street sidewalk. So I think that's kind of off the table too.
[37:55] so let's try to get together on the, on the sidewalk deal. That's
[38:00] not that big a deal. I,
[38:05] madam chair, maybe could we go to the picture on slide
[38:09] nine of the packet? Um, that way it shows where
[38:13] the channels are at versus the sidewalks.
[38:23] I'm not the one driving the ship, but yes, I they're working on it.
[38:28] yes, sir.
[38:33] so jason, a moment ago, uh, when mr. Hall was speaking about the letter
[38:37] from february 19th, it looked like you had, um,
[38:42] a comment that you wanted to, to share with us. Yes.
[38:46] um, so this letter, uh, I will tell you, this was a letter that was drafted by myself,
[38:50] uh, in coordination with, uh, city's engineering department and, uh,
[38:54] transportation department. Um, I will tell you that context is
[38:58] key. So there's two pieces of context that I wanna share with that. Um, so mr. Hall
[39:02] has highlighted, um, uh, the statement that staff would,
[39:07] um, do these things if he did this detention pond. Um, so the first
[39:11] issue is, I wanna call the second sentence, the second part of that sentence.
[39:15] uh, I said, this issue may require further discussion is there are multiple options
[39:19] that could be implemented each with their own set of challenges. So at the time
[39:23] of this discussion, staff had just kind of undergone the review
[39:27] of the veterans drive road project. We had just found
[39:31] out that we were modifying some of the drainage into the area. So staff's
[39:35] discussion at the front was, if he builds the detention and we
[39:40] are truly affecting that drainage, then we would do those things. The hence
[39:44] why we need to have further discussion. At the time of the writing of
[39:48] this letter, we did not have a full understanding of what those modifications were
[39:52] to that drainage ditch. Um, wasn't until prior to our subsequent meeting that
[39:56] we got that information. Um, we were on a call with, uh, um,
[40:00] the city's, uh, road bond engineer. Um, we found that the change
[40:05] in water was not a volume or channelization issue. Um, so
[40:09] actually there's no increase in the amount of water that we were putting into that ditch. So that would
[40:13] negate a city's, uh, or the city's stance that we would then perform those.
[40:18] uh, again, that that was written. And, and, and I, I will say that
[40:22] I, I probably should have worded that better. Um, uh, but that
[40:26] was basically we need to have this conversation. If we do this,
[40:31] if the city is causing these issues, then we would do those things. That was the
[40:35] intent. So I've apologized several times for not making that more clear, but I do have to to
[40:39] stress. Um, that was a reason for that section of, of this sec sentence.
[40:44] um, but really what the city found when we were doing is, is
[40:48] we're really kind of changing the, not the total water that's
[40:52] moving across this property, but the percentages. So before, and I'm, I'm just giving
[40:56] numbers, say it was, um, 80% in the pipe and 20% surface.
[41:01] now it went to like 75% pipe and
[41:05] 25% surface. Like the change wasn't enough for us to
[41:09] say, yes, this would, would make us do those improvements to
[41:14] that channel, including the pipe. Had that been the case, then that would've been what
[41:18] the city said, yes, we caused this, which is why we are supporting the trickle channel
[41:22] because our change on that did affect that. So just two pieces of context I wanted
[41:26] to share with you on that. Okay, thank you. Mr. Lukes, could I repeat my understanding what you
[41:30] just said there to make sure the shared understanding, the proposed attention
[41:34] pond, the purpose of that is to offset the potential surface
[41:39] flooding from the building that is now the impervious cover cover
[41:43] that offsets that possible drainage concern. The line in
[41:47] green, the intention of that is to help convey that water
[41:51] out because this is a basically flat piece of land. The water would otherwise
[41:56] not leave the property. It would pool, it would rise, it would stay there.
[42:00] the items in blue are proposed by the city because that is
[42:04] the portion that the city has assessed would need to be
[42:09] offset by the increase in storm water movement because of
[42:13] the other impervious cover planned by the city in the future. Yes, and
[42:17] I would, I would caveat not increase, but just modification on how it
[42:21] moved across. 'cause we did verify we did. We're not increasing that, that flow. Thank you, sir.
[42:32] all right. So we all have our packets now. Um,
[42:37] I am going to say that we're gonna go into a, what do you think?
[42:41] five minutes guys? Commissioner hildreth. Would five
[42:45] minutes be sufficient for you to look through the document? Yeah, I've, I I'm actually, I actually almost done
[42:49] with it, so, oh, look at you. Go. Okay. Um, so we're gonna take a
[42:53] five minute break. We're going to, uh, recess until seven 18.
[42:59] do I have to bang the thing that's more fun if you do, that's
[43:03] true. Yeah. Okay.
[48:17] . Um, is that sufficient for everybody or
[48:21] do you need a few more minutes? Comfortable. You're comfortable? Good, good, good.
[48:26] okay. I'm fine. We will, um, keep moving
[48:30] forward then. So I believe
[48:34] you were going to, I don't know, be there for questions or did
[48:38] you have more you wanted to present to us? Um, I kind of wanted to see if y'all had any
[48:43] questions. If not, I can go on to my next, uh, kind of, we can go through
[48:47] what, what staff's recommendations are. If, if you don't have any specific questions.
[48:51] I have one specific question. I think it's wonderful that we have a very diverse
[48:56] commission up here, and there are people that are a lot more engineering oriented than I am.
[49:00] so this might sound like a dumb question, but what is the problem with
[49:04] steel pipe? Leon ?
[49:09] I can give you a kind of boring answer, but you'll want the engineering one. Okay.
[49:16] there's, there's many types of pipes that you can install for as drainage structures. There's plastic,
[49:20] there's, uh, steel, there's corrugated metal pipe galvanized, there's,
[49:25] uh, even plastic pipes. And of course there's, uh, concrete pipe, reinforced
[49:29] concrete pipe for at least the last 10 years, the city of kyle's been requiring
[49:33] concrete pipe in the right of way for driveways. Uh, we had a new, uh, division
[49:37] manager over at the public works department and since, and came from another city, and that's what they
[49:42] required. That's actually in our drench criteria manual that we've adopted where we
[49:46] require concrete pipes in the right of way. One of the things about concrete pipe is that, uh, we have a
[49:50] lot of construction going on around the cities. And, and on occasion, uh, when
[49:54] you have contractors out there and they're digging with their backhoe and whatever, ev every once in a while they'll
[49:58] find one of our pipes with the concrete pipe. It's not less likely for them to break that. They
[50:02] 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
[50:06] to stop with metal pipe. You don't have that flexibility once you cut through it.
[50:11] uh, it's, and, and it's torn. It's hard to patch that kind of pipe. But the
[50:15] biggest deal that we have a concern about the metal pipe is that it's only got about a 20 to 40 year
[50:19] lifespan. And, uh, with the concrete pipe, you're looking at 50 to maybe even a hundred years.
[50:24] now the, the, the key point here is it has to be installed properly, properly. If you don't install it properly,
[50:28] none of the pipes are gonna be that good or serve their function for that particular drainage issue.
[50:33] 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,
[50:37] uh, there, and when it's particular at blanco at uh, barbie, there's a pipe, metal pipe that was used
[50:41] there way before my time, our time. And it's crushed in. That's one
[50:45] of the disadvantages of using metal pipe. It does get crushed in on the ends. Now if you put a nice head ball on
[50:49] it, less chance of that happening. But back, back, back then, they did not do that. So
[50:54] 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
[50:58] the downside of the metal pipe. Plus it does corrode doesn't last as long as, as
[51:02] a concrete pipe does. So those are the big differences. Thank you.
[51:07] and you said, sir, that it is standard for under current code
[51:11] in the city to use the concrete versus steel. Is that what you said? Yes, sir.
[51:15] actually, uh, on a, like, on a development, uh, we do allow them to use whatever pipe they need
[51:20] because if they're gonna maintain it, then we don't have an issue with that. We're seeing a lot of these developments
[51:24] now using this plastic pipe. So, which is a good product. But, uh, and actually
[51:28] I, as a public servant, at one point I did use a plastic pipe, but I was between two houses. I didn't
[51:32] have room to work, so I used a plastic pipe, but that was between two houses. We did not allow
[51:36] it in the streets because of the concern, uh, for contractors turned up or, uh,
[51:40] and, and the long life that it has, and that, excuse me, that requirement is,
[51:45] is codified in code, correct? It's, it's in the drainage criteria manual that we've adopted,
[51:49] uh, city of austin's in, in at least two places. It says, we shall use concrete, reinforce
[51:53] concrete pipe or reinforce concrete box culverts. Thank you. It's in code.
[51:59] I'd like a chance to respond to that. Uh, metal pipes are being
[52:03] put in today, right on one 50 with walking distance. Uh,
[52:07] here's some, some indications of concrete pipe versus metal
[52:11] pipe. Here's a, here's a homeowner or property owner that
[52:15] had this concrete pipe and replaced it with this new
[52:19] design metal pipe. So, uh, the
[52:23] concrete pipe is not the be all wall, all it's, it's to up to
[52:28] be. And as far as lasting 20 years there pipe, and this city
[52:33] way over a hundred years, I'm, I'm sure that's it's, uh, metal pipe. And
[52:37] mr. Barbara pointed out at co at the confluence of barbie
[52:41] and lanco street, there is a, a metal pipe culvert
[52:45] under that road that is crushed down. And I have asked the city, why don't you come out there
[52:49] and do something about that? Because this crushed down. It is going to
[52:53] impede the flow from my property and down to the regular drainage
[52:57] ditches, and it is virtually gonna turn my property possibly
[53:02] into a, uh, a, a tension pond itself because of that,
[53:06] that poorly maintained pipe under the city street.
[53:18] share a little information. Um, mr. Hall is correct on the pipe on one
[53:22] 50. Unfortunately, uh, the city did not have the authority. That was a txdot
[53:26] project. Um, they're, they're installing that. Um, so they
[53:30] are, are not beholden to some of our regs, um,
[53:35] as it, it's their highway. My response to that
[53:39] is, let me ask you a question. Is that pipe in the city of co?
[53:45] it is, yes, sir. Okay. It is in the city of kyle. So
[53:49] saying you can't use, you cannot use metal pipe. The city of kyle is
[53:53] not really true. You're saying, well, it's texdot. So I'm a person against whom you would
[53:57] enforce your local rules, but you won't stand up to t dot. Is that
[54:01] correct? I, I think we've gotten a little far off the scope of the question.
[54:06] in any case, I think it would be known that the state law, ems, local.
[54:20] are there any other immediate questions? No.
[54:24] okay. I will say I don't think it was a dumb question at all. 'cause I had the same one written
[54:28] down that I was going to ask. So thank you for beating me to the punch there.
[54:32] uh, mr. Roots, you can continue. Uh, yes. So, um,
[54:36] staff recommendations, again, I'm gonna go through all those recommendations and then we
[54:41] will go back and you can make your motion on, on each item individually.
[54:45] um, just to help us, uh, clarify minutes, uh, for council's,
[54:49] uh, next meeting, which would be may 5th. Um, so requesting,
[54:53] uh, exempt exemption requests one a and one b.
[54:57] um, so staff looked at these requirements. Um, staff recommends denial
[55:02] as these are specifications within the code to mitigate flood damage due to development
[55:06] activities. Um, no hardship exists that would prevent the application from adhering
[55:10] to the requirements of the code. When we looked at exception
[55:15] requests number two, uh, to allow alternative culvert specifications,
[55:20] again, uh, staff can recommend approval of alternative culvert specifications
[55:24] as allowed by city code and approved by the city engineer. Once we receive the updated
[55:28] plans and engineering documents is are submitted. Um, if the,
[55:33] if the request is to not install it without any of that, um,
[55:37] verification, um, again, we're recommending denial on
[55:41] on that. Um,
[55:47] request recommendation, exception request three a and three
[55:51] b. Um, new sidewalks along veterans drive. Um, so
[55:55] staff does recommend approval of the exception request, um, as the
[55:59] existing sidewalks are along veterans, um, it's, it's existing infrastructure.
[56:04] uh, pnz has approved that as part of their cup and staff had previously agreed
[56:09] to allow that as part of their site development, eliminate sidewalks along
[56:13] barbie street from wood street to veterans drive. Staff does recommend approval of that
[56:17] variance request again, as this portion of, of that road is going to be closed.
[56:23] when we get into the recommendation, um, except request
[56:27] three c and 3d wave sidewalk crossings over drainage ditches,
[56:31] uh, staff recommends denial of that. Um, again, pedestrian connectivity and
[56:35] safety issues are our concern. Um, again, no hardship that we found
[56:40] and then reduce them. Minimum sidewalk wi width from five feet to four feet. Again, staff
[56:44] does recommend denial, um, as this is the minimum standard, uh, found in
[56:48] city code and would not identified a hardship, um, that would keep the applicant from meeting
[56:52] this code requirement.
[56:56] so here's a quick and dirty of the breakdown, um,
[57:03] but I can go back to the, the first options if you'll want to entertain motions.
[57:12] thanks for leading us through all of these. Send me,
[57:21] I heard like, did y'all hear that? Yes. Okay. Okay. Maybe I was too close
[57:25] to it. Um, thank you for leading us through all of these. Um,
[57:30] at this time, you know, are there any questions for staff
[57:36] ? Sounds like we don't have questions for
[57:40] staff. Okay. Um, so we do have a few
[57:44] items here of different natures. So I'm gonna propose that we,
[57:49] um, break this into three different votes,
[57:53] I guess. Um, a vote for the watershed and flood prevention items, a vote
[57:57] for the general requirement items, and a vote for the sidewalk items. Is that
[58:01] okay with everybody? Okay. So, um,
[58:06] let's go ahead and somebody throw out a motion. We don't have to go in the order
[58:10] of, um, item one, two, or three. We can
[58:14] start with sidewalks or we can start with general requirements or watershed. Uh, but
[58:18] who has a motion that they would like to throw out there so we can begin discussion?
[58:26] madam chair, I'm sorry. I have one more question for mr. Hall, if you don't mind. Could we go back one
[58:31] second. I wanted to confirm one thing. Um, mr. Hall,
[58:35] on item, let me get the right number,
[58:39] exception two in which it talks about where the city would support
[58:43] an alternative procedure or alternative culvert if there was engineering
[58:47] documentation to support it. Earlier, your, such, your presentation, I heard you say,
[58:52] uh, that you provided the math work to the city. That documentation
[58:57] was that prepared by an engineer. Was that prepared by, by yourself,
[59:01] by a consultant who prepared those values that were presented to the city?
[59:05] I prepared those. Okay. With my research. I, I would imagine
[59:10] an engineer would find the same results. Okay. But basically the question simply
[59:15] put is, can two 18 inch pipes adequately drain
[59:19] the feeding of one 18 inch pipe? Now, concrete pipes
[59:23] are a little bit slicker inside, so water flows a little bit faster as
[59:28] opposed to corrugated. But the research and literature I found
[59:32] says that if they're laying flat, as, as mr. Barbara pointed out to you,
[59:36] they're, they're not laying flat, but they're have a very, very tiny
[59:41] incline that negates any friction because the water is gonna go
[59:45] in, uh, the same in either one because it is a flat
[59:49] tube, it's flat, not if it's, uh, if there, if there's more
[59:53] elevation to it, if corrugations might slow it down a little bit,
[59:58] but if it's flat, no difference. And I, I sent
[1:00:02] that to these guys with plenty of time to look. I, I don't know if they looked at it or not,
[1:00:06] but I, I was pretty impressed with what I found and how understandable it really was.
[1:00:11] I've gone through the city with this cycle of go to the engineer, we'll
[1:00:15] have a meeting, go back to the engineer, we'll have a meeting. I, you
[1:00:20] know, this is common sense stuff. This is not
[1:00:24] engineering stuff. There's no nasa involved here. This is a simple
[1:00:28] third grade word problem and two 18 inch pipes, and the same
[1:00:33] level drain as much as one 18 inch pipe.
[1:00:37] and also the 18 inch pipe that's feeding it from the city is a
[1:00:41] corrugated pipe. It's not a concrete pipe.
[1:00:45] so I've had, I adequately answered the question, now the city
[1:00:49] indicates that I should go hire an, uh, hire a, uh,
[1:00:54] an engineer, and that'll be 2, 5, 6, $8,000. I don't know,
[1:00:59] I don't have hired an engineer lately, but, uh, they
[1:01:03] come with big numbers, big, big numbers and
[1:01:07] mr and it's just wasteful. And I feel like I'm being singled out for,
[1:01:11] for, for wasteful activity. Wasted my, my time, wasted
[1:01:15] my money. And, uh, you know, I started this project about
[1:01:19] three years ago and I get in this cycle, hire an engineer. Let's have a meeting, let's talk about this.
[1:01:24] hire an engineer, have a meeting. Let's talk about hire an engineer. I've hired engineers to tell us where to
[1:01:28] put the plants, engineers that, this, that and the other. It's,
[1:01:32] it's, it's outta hand. It's ridiculous. It's off the hook
[1:01:36] and they're just got, you know, somebody gotta have put some foot down. I'm
[1:01:40] putting my foot down. I say, no, I'm not hiring more engineers for simple little common
[1:01:45] sense things. So that may not be the answer that
[1:01:49] staff or you want to hear, but that's a real answer. I've gotta, I've
[1:01:53] got to get to the reality of getting this done and I can't be
[1:01:57] delayed, delayed, delayed. On and on and on. Uh,
[1:02:03] I hope that answers your question. And mr. Hall, under ordinance, we are
[1:02:07] required to identify if there's a special circumstance or condition affecting the
[1:02:11] land involved, such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter
[1:02:15] would've had a substantial adverse impact on the applicant's reasonable
[1:02:20] use of his land. What, what special
[1:02:24] circumstances have we not asked you that we should have, that we should be aware of
[1:02:28] for why we need to grant this exception? Special circumstances,
[1:02:33] 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
[1:02:37] bark. I keep getting the view of the bark from these guys. Let's look at the forest. Let's look at
[1:02:41] the trees out there. There's not a trickle channel anywhere.
[1:02:46] if I, if I said I gave the first one of you who can go walk and
[1:02:50] find me a trickle channel, I'll give you 25,000 cash. You wouldn't be able to come
[1:02:54] back within hours. There's not out. They're not out there. And the exceptions that,
[1:02:58] uh, uh, to the, to the, to the ponding situation, why, if
[1:03:02] it's, if it's the law, why isn't there one here? If it's so important, the
[1:03:06] city should start tomorrow and build a big retention pond out there.
[1:03:11] you know, let's look at the forest, let's look at the comparisons. Let's look at what goes on
[1:03:15] in the larger community and not say, well, we found on page an exception here on
[1:03:19] page 37, 14 14 b, come on, let's
[1:03:23] look at what does it take to make a community prosper? And that means helping
[1:03:27] the people who were trying to help the community prosper and not relying on,
[1:03:32] oh, I got you, I got you on this, I got you on that. Go hire 42
[1:03:36] engineers to prove me wrong. I'm not doing that anymore. I'm done with the engineering route.
[1:03:42] it has not led anywhere. I'm here tonight because of
[1:03:46] engineers. I,
[1:03:58] okay. Are there any other questions for staff?
[1:04:03] okay, we need, um, a motion to start discussion
[1:04:08] on anything.
[1:04:17] I think for staff, we would like to kind of take it item by item, um, just so
[1:04:21] we can have those motions instead of kind of back and forth. Um, just because it's laid
[1:04:25] out that way, I think it'll be easier for council to, to kind of follow and understand. Okay.
[1:04:29] so start with watershed and flood prevention and then work our way down.
[1:04:34] yes. Okay. Um, so this is would be exception one a or one
[1:04:38] b, um, to waive requirements for detention pond and or trickle
[1:04:42] channel. Okay.
[1:04:52] um, I'd like to make a motion to recommend, uh, denial of
[1:04:56] request number one related to watershed and flood prevention. Second.
[1:05:00] okay. We have a, um, motion to recommend
[1:05:04] denial of the exception request for items one, a and b.
[1:05:09] a and b, a and b, uh, from commissioner webb and seconded by vice chair
[1:05:13] siegel, is there any discussion on that one? One
[1:05:22] seeing that as I would read ordinance, we have to relay out in a very
[1:05:26] explicit way in the minutes and everything else as to why that is being recommended for
[1:05:30] denial. Um, I'll start by outlining that under item
[1:05:34] c one about a special circumstance. I have not heard tonight,
[1:05:38] a special circumstance that would rise to that level to warrant a waiver
[1:05:43] in this case for item two, that the granting of
[1:05:47] this exception would not be detrimental to public health or safety or welfare or injurious
[1:05:51] to other property in the area. I think we've heard tonight that that's
[1:05:55] a risk, both in terms of known hazards and expected hazards
[1:05:59] with changing in the flood landscape for item three,
[1:06:04] that the granting of this exception would not have the effect of preventing the orderly
[1:06:08] subdivision or other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the chapter.
[1:06:12] I think he's met this one. I, I don't see why this would be a reason for denial,
[1:06:16] but for two of the three not being met, I don't think, I could
[1:06:20] not read the ordinance say that we could grant an exception here.
[1:06:33] is there other discussion on that motion?
[1:06:38] I wanna make sure, um, commissioner hildreth, can you hear us okay? Do you have anything you wanna chime in? Yes,
[1:06:42] I can. Okay.
[1:06:49] all right. Yeah, I mean, the, the points
[1:06:54] laid out in the, um, code about what we need, the requirements
[1:06:58] we need to meet here. Um, I don't, I don't see that either
[1:07:03] for all three of 'em. Um, I, I, if I
[1:07:07] remember correctly, a long time ago when we first had the cup, um,
[1:07:12] a detention pond was included in the plan at that time. So this is kind of
[1:07:16] something that they knew about going in and now
[1:07:20] they're deciding, no, we, we don't wanna do it. I think that there's plenty of
[1:07:25] alternate options that have been made available. Um, rain gardens, bioswales,
[1:07:30] lid, um, to, to give options
[1:07:34] if you don't wanna build a detention pond, I think there's options there
[1:07:38] for the, for the applicant that can get them out of
[1:07:42] building a detention pond if they don't wanna build a detention pond. Um, but to
[1:07:47] do nothing, um, yeah,
[1:07:51] that one, I don't think we've made a strong case for that yet,
[1:07:57] in my opinion. Attractive options, if you're talking bios, swales and such,
[1:08:01] yeah. Much more attractive than a detention pond, that's for sure. ,
[1:08:06] uh, I guess I, I have a,
[1:08:10] a kind of question for staff, a detention pond on the site, because it is so
[1:08:14] flat already, what would that even look like? Uh, would it just be
[1:08:18] like a depressed area of a couple of feet deep? Or like, how,
[1:08:22] how do you even make a detention pond on something that's already yeah, I'm,
[1:08:26] I'm not sure on the plan set. It is fairly shallow. I don't believe this was 2, 3, 4, 5
[1:08:31] feet deep. I mean, it's taking a small amount of water. Um, now
[1:08:36] dressing it up, that's, that's, that's the landowner. Some people just leave them as are, and
[1:08:40] some people plant shrubs and flowers and dress it up. So,
[1:08:44] um, I don't believe on this rendering, there was, uh, not much landscaping that was,
[1:08:49] that was proposed around there. So it'd be your typical small, shallow detention pond
[1:08:53] like a foot. Yeah. If, if you're asking deep how deep it is, I'd,
[1:08:57] I'd have to get that answer to you, but I, I'm not sure that it's kind of pertinent for
[1:09:01] the discussion. Okay.
[1:09:07] any other discussion? I on that one?
[1:09:12] okay. Uh, let's go ahead and take a vote. The motion is to recommend
[1:09:16] denial of the exception request for items number one about the
[1:09:20] detention pond and trickle channel. All those in favor
[1:09:24] of recommending denial, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[1:09:28] all opposed say na. Okay. That one is completed.
[1:09:34] uh, next up on our list is about the general requirements. This one's about
[1:09:38] the culvert specifications.
[1:09:43] so, may I say one thing about the, uh,
[1:09:47] metal pipe versus the concrete pipe? Yes, sir. I'm not opposed to using the metal pipe.
[1:09:51] what, uh, mr. Hall doesn't realize, uh, we have a set of engineered drawings
[1:09:56] signed and sealed by a registered professional engineer. We can't just change his
[1:10:00] plans without him knowing or without him making those changes. The
[1:10:04] pipe that, uh, he mentioned it's, it's rougher than, than
[1:10:08] our concrete pipe, as he will. And good job in your research, john, by the way, uh,
[1:10:13] he did, uh, say it is rougher. So that's the friction factor. In
[1:10:17] one report that I have. It says to replace an 18 inch pipe, it needs to be a 27 inch corrugated
[1:10:21] galvanism metal galvanized metal pipe. That's a pretty large size pipe,
[1:10:26] but I need the engineer to tell me the two eighteens that are there that are concrete
[1:10:30] can be replaced by two 18 inch galvanized metal pipes. And I need that from
[1:10:34] the engineer because that's, it's an ethical issue. Now, I cannot change that without him knowing
[1:10:38] or him telling me what the right pipe size should be. So I'm gonna let you know that.
[1:10:44] so, mr. Barber, that was a part of the plan submitted to you, signed and
[1:10:48] sealed by another professional engineer? That is correct.
[1:10:57] okay. We need a motion and a second to take action on this one, or to even
[1:11:01] hold discussion, of course. A question on the process,
[1:11:05] if we take action to recommend denial, and mr. Hall
[1:11:09] comes back at a future date with a licensed stamped engineering report that
[1:11:14] outlines his, his plan, that could be reconsidered. Is that correct?
[1:11:18] mm-hmm . Um, if he came back with a licensed professional that updated
[1:11:22] his plans, this would not come back to y'all. That would go through leon. And leon has every,
[1:11:26] every approval authority to, to do that. So again, we've, we've said we are willing
[1:11:30] to, to go with the alternative material sizes, but we, we,
[1:11:34] and spec specifically, leon cannot sign off on that. I mean, he, he's
[1:11:38] an engineer. He has a license. He has to, you know, his has his own
[1:11:42] set of, of laws that they, they have on that. So, uh, again,
[1:11:47] we, we can support alternative specifications, um, but we cannot
[1:11:51] support a request to approve those without any kind of documentation.
[1:11:55] and so, right here on the screen where it says, staff recommends approval of alternative culvert
[1:12:00] specifications as allowed by city code and approved by city engineer once updated, blah,
[1:12:04] blah, blah, as of tonight, you don't have those plans
[1:12:08] in hand to where a motion towards that could even be effective.
[1:12:13] is that correct? Correct. Okay.
[1:12:20] so I guess this one's a little, this one's a little interesting. Um, your motion
[1:12:24] could be a couple of options. You could, you could approve,
[1:12:28] um, the requested waiver to allow the specifications
[1:12:32] without any documentation. Um, you could,
[1:12:37] uh, recommend denial of the, of the request without
[1:12:42] documentation. Um, but that if documentation was provided, you
[1:12:46] would allow city staff to sign off as normal. So this one's a a little
[1:12:50] interesting, but, um, staff cannot sign off on any changes without,
[1:12:54] without new plans. I, I think, um, mr. Lutz,
[1:12:59] I think if the code allows staff to approve with the updated plans, I think you're
[1:13:03] gonna get the same effect from denying as you are from approving
[1:13:08] the recommendation to allow staff to approve with updated plans.
[1:13:12] so I think we, we stick with our general motion of, uh, recommend acceptance
[1:13:16] or recommend denial.
[1:13:21] and to clarify, when you say two recommended, we're voting, we're voting on what is being presented,
[1:13:25] we're not, uh, voting on what could be presented in the future.
[1:13:30] correct. That was,
[1:13:34] uh, that's where I was going. So we're good.
[1:13:40] would anyone like to bring microphone? Would anyone like to bring a motion
[1:13:44] for this? One more question, if you don't mind, ma'am, I don't mind.
[1:13:50] are we allowed to take action to recommend that the plans already on file
[1:13:56] remain? Like, is that an option where we keep the status quo? If they,
[1:14:00] if you have plans on file that we stick to those plans? That would, I would
[1:14:04] say would be a recommendation of denial, yes. Yes. That's, that's a denial recommendation. Okay.
[1:14:08] thank you. I have approved plans and I, I plan to use those.
[1:14:16] I'm sorry, sir. Could you clarify? You have approved plans as in what has already been approved plans,
[1:14:20] and I plan to use those, which would
[1:14:24] be plans that have been stamped, signed by licensed engineer that's already on file with the city,
[1:14:28] the engineer. They're signed by y'all's engineer approved by, uh,
[1:14:32] whatever the process is here. And, uh, I've gotta get this thing finished. If y'all want help
[1:14:36] 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
[1:14:40] gotta get this project finished. I'm an elderly person
[1:14:45] and I've gotta get it done.
[1:14:49] so, and, and so you would follow don't, I don't want this group deck to reneg
[1:14:53] on the plans I have that are approved, so please don't. And so
[1:14:57] the plans that are currently approved, you would follow them to include the culverts, the
[1:15:02] piping that's already outlined in that I've gotta get it done. Yeah. And then any
[1:15:06] action by us tonight to deny the request would default back to the
[1:15:10] approved plans, is that correct? Um, I think that's a good way to put, yeah. So any action you
[1:15:14] take tonight will be forwarded to counsel. Counsel will take that action.
[1:15:18] if they follow your suit and deny it, then yes, it, it, it goes back to the approved
[1:15:22] plans. Madam
[1:15:26] chair, motion to recommend denial of this exception. Second.
[1:15:32] okay. We have a motion to recommend denial of exception
[1:15:36] two about the culvert specifications made by commissioner copeland and seconded
[1:15:41] by vice chair stegel. Is there any discussion on that one?
[1:15:47] um, I, I think I understand the logic
[1:15:51] behind wanting to deviate from the plans, but I also understand
[1:15:56] that while we may not always see it, there's value in following the process and doing
[1:16:00] things according to the process. Mm-hmm . Um, and I think that's
[1:16:04] what's important here. Uh, it seems the city's open to other,
[1:16:08] other alternatives as long as it follows the correct process.
[1:16:13] um, so in that, in that light, I support the denial,
[1:16:17] um, so that we can follow the correct process if we wanna make a change in the plans.
[1:16:24] and then similar with that first motion that we did, I have not heard any special
[1:16:28] circumstance or condition that would allow for us to issue that exception.
[1:16:33] I haven't seen anything. Uh, I think we, we have heard about the risk
[1:16:37] of flooding and social welfare by granting the exception.
[1:16:42] um, but for the third item, again, I, I don't see how granting this would prevent the
[1:16:46] orderly subdividing subdividing of other land. And so since
[1:16:50] we have not met two of the three, that is the basis of my motion to deny
[1:16:57] . Okay. Any other discussion
[1:17:01] on the motion? Okay.
[1:17:05] let's go ahead and take a vote on that one. Again, this is a motion to recommend denial
[1:17:09] of exception number two related to culvert specifications. Um,
[1:17:13] all those in favor of recommending denial, please say aye. Aye. Aye.
[1:17:18] aye. All opposed say nay. Okay. Um,
[1:17:22] that one's cleared. Next we have the exceptions pertaining
[1:17:27] to sidewalk. So we have four of these. Um, does
[1:17:31] staff want us to break them into four separate motions? Yes. I'd like to, uh,
[1:17:35] look at three a and three b items. Um, so staff has looked
[1:17:39] at these, um, staff recommends approval of, of these requests
[1:17:43] slash exceptions. Um, again, the first one is because,
[1:17:47] uh, we have existing infrastructure on veterans. Um, it was
[1:17:52] approved as part of the overlay. And if you recall through your training overlays,
[1:17:56] you can reduce some of your, your requirements through code as part of
[1:18:00] the overlays. And so, um, again, staff will support that one
[1:18:04] because it was under some previous approvals. But we wanted to add this layer
[1:18:08] in here as well. Uh, when it comes to eliminate the sidewalks along barbie
[1:18:12] street, again, from woods to veterans, um, we also support this request.
[1:18:16] again, we are closing that right of way, um, or we're not abandoning the right
[1:18:20] of way, but we are closing the street. Um, and because you have adjacent pedestrian
[1:18:26] crossing literally 10 feet away, um, we feel that that's not a life safety
[1:18:30] issue. So we do recommend approval of both of these exceptions or requests.
[1:18:37] madam chair, I'd like to make a motion. Do we approve, uh, the exceptions
[1:18:41] three a and three b. Okay, I'll
[1:18:45] second. Okay. We have a motion to recommend approval of exceptions three
[1:18:49] a and three b from commissioner hildreth and a second from commissioner webb. So
[1:18:54] any discussion on that one?
[1:18:58] okay. All those in favor of recommending approval, please. I'm sorry, chair had some
[1:19:02] discussion there just to make sure we round it out. Yeah, perfect. Go. My microphone's
[1:19:06] not on. Um, so going down that same list, just to be consistent,
[1:19:12] we have the special
[1:19:17] circumstance. I don't love that we're reducing the width
[1:19:21] of the sidewalk. I think the five inch, the, sorry, five foot is
[1:19:25] appropriate. However, if the city's already previously granted
[1:19:29] an exception there, and as part of the existing cup, it would be unfair to
[1:19:34] an applicant for the city to backtrack on previously approved plans.
[1:19:38] mm-hmm . So I think that does rise to the level of a special circumstance
[1:19:42] has been met. I have heard nothing tonight to indicate that the
[1:19:46] reduction from five foot to four foot would cause any kind of debt detriment to public
[1:19:50] health, safety, welfare, et cetera. And
[1:19:55] reducing that sidewalk width does not, in my opinion, alter our ability
[1:19:59] to subdivide further land. So I think in this case, we've met all three requirements.
[1:20:04] um, and so I am also in support of that. Okay.
[1:20:10] any other, uh, discussion on the motion?
[1:20:15] okay. This motion is to recommend approval of exceptions
[1:20:19] three a and three b. All those in favor of recommending approval, please say
[1:20:23] aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I nay.
[1:20:27] okay. Those are approved. And then we've got, um,
[1:20:32] three c. This is about sidewalk crossings over drainage
[1:20:36] ditches. So, um, I guess I just wanna clarify, we're talking
[1:20:40] about both the north and south crossings. This will be all
[1:20:45] three. All three of 'em. All three, okay. Um, and so
[1:20:49] again, this is all three crossings and reducing
[1:20:53] the sidewalks width from five to four feet for the newly installed
[1:20:58] ones, that was my question. That would be along, don't exist yet, right?
[1:21:02] and barbie? Yes. So that, that's up to the commission. If you wanna vote on them separately,
[1:21:06] you can do so. If you want to take the same action on both, you can make that a single motion.
[1:21:14] mr. Lutz, for the existing plans that have been approved
[1:21:18] to date, does it include all three crossings as depicted
[1:21:23] on our packet? Yes, sir. Thank you.
[1:21:30] I guess I have one other question about, sorry, this just came to my mind. I should have asked
[1:21:34] earlier when it was staff time. Um, so for these ditch crossings
[1:21:38] on the image that we were shown earlier today, those, those ditches
[1:21:42] are rather shallow. So for these ditch
[1:21:47] crossings, is it just simply making the, the level
[1:21:51] even with the pavement on either side? So just a, a few inches higher, or
[1:21:55] is there a special like engineering that goes into kind of
[1:21:59] making a little hump or, um, I don't, I'm not aware
[1:22:03] of the engineering behind it, but I know they've, they've been reviewed and approved.
[1:22:08] reviewed and approved. Okay. So they are in there. Um, when we talk about the shallowness,
[1:22:12] um, so yes, the southern one, very shallow. Um, that
[1:22:17] crossing is, is not gonna be very much, but the, the crossing's on, on
[1:22:21] blanco, um, especially the one north crossing barbie
[1:22:25] next to blanco, those, those are fairly deep there. Um, so
[1:22:29] I think that was an 18 inch culvert. Um, so it's definitely deeper than that. So that
[1:22:33] one, most likely, there's a couple ways you can do it. Uh, culverts, I've
[1:22:37] seen some the concrete thicker with reinforced steel. Um, but whatever's
[1:22:41] been approved in the plans would, would be approved. I
[1:22:45] hate to intervene, but there is only two crossings here. What
[1:22:50] crossings are you talking about? There's only two, uh, I'm, I consider the
[1:22:54] one between, um, from the green
[1:22:58] sidewalk. Um, do you see that connection from, from veterans that goes
[1:23:02] to the sidewalk on blanco, I believe. Right there, I think is a
[1:23:06] portion of the drainage. So I think it, it kind of connects there, if I
[1:23:11] remember correctly. And, uh, there's not a, there's not a bridge over the ditch
[1:23:15] that blanco blanco, uh, the city, another
[1:23:19] one of your departments has already waved that saying it crosses in the middle of the,
[1:23:24] the middle of the block, which makes it jaywalking. And, and they,
[1:23:28] that section doesn't, whatever department
[1:23:33] is that they wave that. So we looks looking at the north barb and
[1:23:37] the south barb across, there's no, there's no bridge across the ditch
[1:23:41] on blanco street. Okay. Thank you.
[1:23:49] so to confirm with the plans that are signed
[1:23:53] and stamped by a licensed engineer that are on file with the city, that is where
[1:23:57] this image is from. We have crossings over,
[1:24:02] I'm gonna call it north and south, which are both along barbie
[1:24:06] street, correct? The one that is, I'm gonna call east,
[1:24:11] connecting veterans to blanco. It sounds like
[1:24:15] there was debate a minute ago over whether that exists or not. I,
[1:24:19] my question is, um, I think there was an originally, if it's hard to see
[1:24:23] on that image at the, where the blue line and the red line meets
[1:24:27] on blanco, those two sidewalk connections. I think originally they were talking about putting
[1:24:32] an actual crosswalk, like, hey, we're gonna put
[1:24:36] a ramp and this is where someone would come from the other side. That one was waved.
[1:24:40] what I'm talking about is from the green to the red, that little run right
[1:24:44] there. Um, I can't remember if that is,
[1:24:48] I believe that is flat enough that can make that connection. And I think that's
[1:24:53] inside the other drainage ditch there. If I,
[1:24:57] if I remember.
[1:25:02] and so a pedestrian walking along blanco street on that red section there
[1:25:07] could continue northwest,
[1:25:12] at least northwest on this plane. I'll assume it's north south directing right now. It may
[1:25:17] not be, but could continue northwest walking
[1:25:21] into the green line off veterans. Is that correct? Or do they have to cross if they
[1:25:25] utilize that blue section there? And so if the blue section does not exist, they could
[1:25:29] not walk from the red to the green, you on the unmapped
[1:25:33] area, correct. It, it, it, you have to cross over the blue. Correct. All
[1:25:37] of all of these are sidewalk connections. Okay. Thank you.
[1:25:50] are there other questions for staff on that one? Okay,
[1:25:55] we need a motion, um, to discuss
[1:25:59] and take action. Um, again, we can do this as three
[1:26:03] c and 3d together, or one at a time. It depends on
[1:26:08] the motion you wish to make. Madam chair, I'd like to make the
[1:26:12] motion that we deny items three c and 3d
[1:26:17] and follow status recommendations. Second.
[1:26:21] okay. We have a motion to recommend denial of three c and 3d
[1:26:26] from commissioner hildreth and seconded by commissioner webb. Is
[1:26:30] there any discussion on that?
[1:26:35] go ahead. Lemme pull up that section again.
[1:26:39] so I have not heard of a special circumstance or condition affecting
[1:26:44] that land to grant that waiver, especially noting that we have
[1:26:48] already on file signed stamped engineering reports that include that
[1:26:54] the grantings of this exception would not be detrimental to the public health, safety
[1:26:58] or welfare. I don't know that we have met that burden if we are talking about
[1:27:03] school children walking along that sidewalk crossing over ditches, that
[1:27:07] does seem like a public safety or welfare concern.
[1:27:11] however, the granting of the exception would not have the effect of preventing orderly subdividing.
[1:27:16] I think the applicant has met that requirement. I don't see a reason why that would be a basis of
[1:27:20] denial, but because two of the three have not been met, I'm gonna vote in
[1:27:24] favor of denying this request.
[1:27:30] um, I'll add some perspective from the community
[1:27:34] of plum creek. Um, we have two small lakes
[1:27:38] ponds, um, with a trail that goes in the figure eight around
[1:27:42] them. Um, for a long time that trail was unfinished. It was dirt trail,
[1:27:47] um, about two, three years ago. Um, we made it
[1:27:51] a big priority to finish that trail. And the big debate was, do you make the
[1:27:55] sidewalk four feet wide, five feet wide, or six feet wide? Um,
[1:28:01] after a lot of upset conversations and
[1:28:05] people, we came around to five feet wide was the answer. The argument
[1:28:09] for four feet wide is, I don't want to encourage a whole bunch of people to be
[1:28:13] on there with strollers and bikes and things like that. It just, it, it couldn't just
[1:28:17] sit too much. And the argument for five feet wide was, isn't that the point of having that
[1:28:21] trail there? Um, and so let's make it as walkable
[1:28:26] as possible. I I say that in the context of
[1:28:30] it's been a big priority for the city and on every city survey and from
[1:28:34] every, uh, from just about every person that sits on city council
[1:28:38] to increase walkability in our city. And there is a massive difference
[1:28:43] between four feet and five feet in accomplishing that goal. Um,
[1:28:49] so which would address 3d on three c,
[1:28:53] connecting these sidewalks, I think is also a really big part of walkability.
[1:28:58] um, and so that is kind of my basis for, uh,
[1:29:02] voting in favor of the denial as well. I'd like to interject
[1:29:07] a piece of information that's been admitted, uh, by the city. If you cross the street,
[1:29:11] there are no sidewalks over there. There's a dirt ditch and nothing over there.
[1:29:15] there's no, no sidewalks across blanco
[1:29:19] and across, uh, barbie. So going there is gonna
[1:29:23] get you to nowhere as far as footpath goes.
[1:29:36] vice chair, I thought I saw your finger over the button. Were you doing that to vote
[1:29:40] or did you have a comment? I was also scratching my eye, but oh, .
[1:29:45] okay. Okay. Um,
[1:29:50] so yeah, this one for me, this one's, um, interesting.
[1:29:55] I definitely see the need for the ditch crossings on the north side of
[1:29:59] the property along blanco, uh, barbie and veterans. I think that's important for
[1:30:04] circulation. Um, the
[1:30:08] southernmost ditch crossing the one that's quite shallow,
[1:30:12] um, and connecting onto a, a small segment of,
[1:30:17] um, sidewalk there in the red. Um,
[1:30:22] I don't foresee that one getting a lot of use. So I might've been able to,
[1:30:27] you know, get behind exempting from that section of sidewalk and
[1:30:31] that ditch crossing, especially 'cause the road beyond there is
[1:30:35] going to be closed and there won't be a sidewalk beyond it. So
[1:30:40] I do think that that one is kind of wasteful and, um,
[1:30:45] unnecessary. But, uh, the two northern most crossings
[1:30:49] I think are important for circulation, given the school children that are gonna be passing through there
[1:30:54] and moving them back and forth twice a day. Um,
[1:30:58] but since we've, we've done this all as one, I am at this point in favor of supporting
[1:31:03] the motion to deny.
[1:31:07] just to clarify my, my reasoning on this, I am a firm believer
[1:31:11] in avoiding setting precedents that might be adverse, uh, to future
[1:31:16] development. Um, absent any, you
[1:31:20] know, any mitigating circumstances that, that, uh, that justify us
[1:31:24] waiving, uh, those requirements, I cannot, you know, I have
[1:31:28] to support, I have to support denying that request.
[1:31:34] we have to do our due diligence.
[1:31:39] my thought is that we have to take into consideration that this is an area that's
[1:31:43] in flux in terms of development, that there will be a lot more pedestrian
[1:31:47] traffic. Um, we already see what's going on in terms of sidewalk development
[1:31:52] safety zones down near the kyle elementary. Um, we
[1:31:56] have the, the, uh, middle school on the other side of
[1:32:00] veterans. This whole area, the character of it's beginning to change great gardens coming
[1:32:04] online in entire area. I think we need to do what we need to do to
[1:32:08] maximize, uh, pedestrian and auto safety and, uh, appropriate
[1:32:12] drainage so that that does not become a, uh, uh, a problem
[1:32:17] in that area. This is an area that's in change for sure,
[1:32:21] but I think, uh, the plans the city has, uh, so far approved, uh,
[1:32:26] um, put us in the direction of accommodating those changes
[1:32:30] for the future. And
[1:32:34] that was one of the reasons I asked about the wa protest, uh, process. And there,
[1:32:38] looking at the, the letter, there is a procedure in place that
[1:32:43] stimulates a waiver protest. Um, and the, the applicant
[1:32:47] has, has cited, they don't, they don't wish to go that route. So,
[1:32:54] okay. Any other, uh, comments on the motion, gentlemen? No.
[1:32:58] okay. So, uh, to restate, the motion on the table is to
[1:33:03] recommend to counsel denial of exception request three c
[1:33:07] and 3d. All those in favor of recommending denial, please say
[1:33:11] aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed say nay.
[1:33:16] okay. That one is done. Thank you, mr. Lutz. Thank
[1:33:20] you, chairman. Thank you, madam chair, just to confirm, we voted on three a.
[1:33:24] we did three a and b together. Yeah. Cool. Those are my notes. Two, but
[1:33:28] no, we missed one, one month and so I wanted to make sure we didn't do that again. , thank
[1:33:32] you for making sure our, our t's are crossed and our I's are dotted. We appreciate that.
[1:33:36] thank you. Okay. Alright. Next
[1:33:40] up we've got, um, consider approval of a conditional use permit for
[1:33:44] a proposed public restroom facility located at 1 0 1 south burleson
[1:33:49] street. Mary kyle hartson park, cup dash 26
[1:33:53] dash 0 1 5 5.
[1:34:02] sorry, bear with me a moment. Lemme get this synced up.
[1:34:06] there we go. Alright. All right. Good evening commissioners. I'm angel
[1:34:11] nine senior planner. Um, this is for a conditional use permit for
[1:34:15] a new bathroom facility over here at mary kyle hartson park.
[1:34:20] um, this is a city project. This is through the parks and recreation department.
[1:34:25] um, I would like to point out that will atkinson from parks and rec is here. Um, and he
[1:34:29] can help answer any questions, um, at the end. Um, so this will be a single
[1:34:33] phase project for a brand new bathroom. I really hate to do this, but we don't have a quorum in the
[1:34:37] room currently. We're gonna need a recess until we have a quorum in the room. Okay. We are meeting
[1:34:42] exact, we are recess. Thank you for pointing that out. So, uh, while
[1:34:46] we are recessed, can I ask you, so if we have someone virtually, but
[1:34:50] on the dais, we don't have enough physical bodies? That's right. Form. Okay.
[1:34:54] for anybody not located within at least three counties, which we are not, um, you must
[1:34:58] have a quorum present at the diocese in order to have the meeting,
[1:35:02] or at least in the room. Okay. Well,
[1:35:06] I guess I, we've been here for a little while so I could maybe we wanna take a recess and let everybody
[1:35:10] go to the bathroom and then we go break. Yeah, let's meet back at,
[1:35:15] um, what do y'all think? Eight 15 is that way
[1:35:19] too much time? 15. I go eight 10. That's fine.
[1:35:24] let's do 8 10, 8 10. It is, yeah.
[1:35:28] okay. So be it.
[1:35:34] back to the, uh, mary kyle harson park c um, this
[1:35:38] is going to be a 600 foot public rest,
[1:35:46] oops, sorry, , um, a water fountain as well as additional outdoor
[1:35:50] seating that are, um, a da compliance.
[1:35:55] um, here's a more detailed summary. Um, the site is in both the I 35
[1:35:59] overlay and center street overlay districts, um, for new
[1:36:03] projects, new construction in the overlay districts. Um, they are required
[1:36:07] to come through with a cup for aesthetics, um, the architectural
[1:36:12] renderings and so forth for the exterior of the buildings. Uh, the
[1:36:16] I 35 overlay district does have some standards, um, for the
[1:36:20] exterior. The proposed project meets those standards.
[1:36:24] um, the restroom facade is almost a hundred percent brick masonry. Um,
[1:36:29] brick maner around the entire building, um, with the small stucco
[1:36:33] detail. And it has a standing seam and it's proposed to have a standing seam metal roof.
[1:36:38] um, additional sidewalks decomposed granite, um,
[1:36:42] adjacent to the oak trees on site. Um, and additional seating are going
[1:36:46] to be incorporated. And additionally, native landscaping will include
[1:36:51] the installation of over 80 shrubs and ornamental grasses as well
[1:36:55] as a tree. Um, this project came through to city council,
[1:36:59] um, which approved the contract for design and construction of the restroom back on
[1:37:03] january 20th of this year. And the building facade has preliminary
[1:37:08] approval, um, by the texas historic commission, uh, since the project is
[1:37:12] located in a historic site.
[1:37:16] um, over here is the site plan. I know it's a little bit hard to see some of those details.
[1:37:21] um, that's the overall site plan. And on the next slide you can see that
[1:37:26] a little bit better in color and you can see more of the landscape details. The
[1:37:30] decomposed granite area with the picnic tables are shown as well
[1:37:34] as the little, um, the planting area as well and the, uh, new sidewalks that are
[1:37:38] proposed. On this slide, we have the
[1:37:42] three dimensional rendering of what the restroom facility is going to look
[1:37:46] like. Um, you can see the water fountain at the front there, um,
[1:37:51] and the brick that surrounds the entire building.
[1:37:57] um, and here are the elevations. Um, that's the front facing view
[1:38:01] and side view. And then on the next slide
[1:38:05] we've got the rear view and then the, the other side of the building
[1:38:12] and staff have reviewed the request and found the proposal to be compliant
[1:38:16] with the I 35 and center street overlay district regulations,
[1:38:21] as well as other applicable city codes. Uh, staff recommends
[1:38:25] approval of the conditional use permit, um, with texas historic commission providing
[1:38:29] the final approval. And the commissioners have
[1:38:33] these three following options, um, to approve the cop as
[1:38:37] presented. Um, approve the cop with conditions or
[1:38:42] to deny the cop. And I'm happy to answer
[1:38:46] any questions. And if I can't answer anything, um, will, can help me out
[1:38:50] too. I would have a question about the planting area. Uhhuh, and the sidewalk. You're
[1:38:54] not, this, the current sidewalk's gonna remain there and the
[1:38:58] planting area will be hard up against it then.
[1:39:02] um, lemme go back to the slide. Yeah, you're gonna have to go back. Yes, there
[1:39:07] this slide. Um, so
[1:39:11] I see from the corner down the lower right corner, that would be the sidewalk heading towards
[1:39:15] the gazebo and into the center of the park. The planning area would be
[1:39:19] hard up against that sidewalk opposite the gazebo. Oh,
[1:39:23] that's a good question. And, and the gazebo access to the gazebo
[1:39:27] and so forth, nothing's gonna be compromised.
[1:39:32] correct? To my knowledge. Okay. Um,
[1:39:36] I walk that today. Ideally I love that park. Ideally it wouldn't be
[1:39:40] in the, that square block. I understand why, but I ideally it
[1:39:44] wouldn't be, I it's real cramped in that corner of the
[1:39:49] park and, um, it's the only
[1:39:53] place to put it there, frankly, as far as I can see. But I would hope that they would be very
[1:39:57] careful about impinging on that sidewalk. And the act flow
[1:40:01] of activity around the gazebo, that is a place where people do gather. In
[1:40:05] fact, um,
[1:40:15] there are other questions for staff.
[1:40:19] we need a motion and a second to take action on the, uh,
[1:40:24] approval of a cup motion to approve as represented.
[1:40:29] second, I didn't see who said that. You. Okay. We
[1:40:33] have a motion to, um, approve the cp from vice chair stegel and
[1:40:37] a second from commissioner copeland. Is there any discussion on that? ?
[1:40:43] okay. Um, I think this looks nice and it's
[1:40:47] gonna be a welcome addition. I know that I, I know people who go to
[1:40:52] the park and then they have to leave because they've got little ones and,
[1:40:56] uh, bladders and things like that, . So hopefully this will encourage more people
[1:41:00] to use our parks and stay there for a longer time. And well done to the parks
[1:41:05] team on putting that together. It will take away my excuse to leave the park early with my 2-year-old.
[1:41:09] so yes, , it does, it's still a good plan.
[1:41:14] well, they'll just get tired and go to sleep. Maybe, probably not. They'll just get stronger.
[1:41:18] good luck. That probably worse, right? Okay. All those
[1:41:22] in favor of, uh, approving the motion, please say aye. Aye.
[1:41:26] aye. All opposed, say nay. Okay. That one's
[1:41:31] approved. Thank you, ms nine. Thank you.
[1:41:35] okay. Next up we've got consider approval of a conditional use permit for
[1:41:39] proposed revisions to the building materials for a building located at 2 3 1 5 0
[1:41:44] ih 35 poco loco travel center, cup
[1:41:48] dash 24 dash 0 1 1 3 ms. Sharp. Alright,
[1:41:52] good evening. Kayla sharp, senior planner. Tonight we have a revision
[1:41:57] to a conditional use permit for the poco loco that
[1:42:01] is currently under construction on the southbound I 35 frontage road.
[1:42:05] um, the applicant is seeking a revision to the previously approved plans.
[1:42:10] uh, the approved plans consisted primarily of stone veneer and
[1:42:14] gray brick. Uh, the proposed materials will remain the same, but they are
[1:42:18] proposing a change in color, uh, to red brick on the sides and rear
[1:42:22] of the building. Um, for some background, the original cup was
[1:42:27] approved back in november of 2024, and construction began shortly after.
[1:42:31] uh, we were recently informed that some of the building materials were changed during
[1:42:36] construction and the materials and colors did not match what was previously
[1:42:40] approved. Um, some of the materials are being corrected in the field, so
[1:42:44] you'll see some images here in a minute. Um, that probably don't look
[1:42:48] like what was approved. Some of that is being corrected as we speak. Um, but they are
[1:42:52] proposing to make some changes to the, the brick color.
[1:42:57] so the applicant's rationale for this is material availability
[1:43:01] for the, um, gray brick and also some lead time constraints,
[1:43:06] um, on, on ordering that material. So they're opting for a
[1:43:10] material that they'll, they're able to get, uh, more quickly.
[1:43:16] so they are also, um, clarifying that red brick will
[1:43:20] be used on the fuel canopy. The previous elevation showed
[1:43:25] red brick, but included a note stating that the color of the brick would match
[1:43:29] the color of the building. Um, staff interpreted that to mean it would match the gray
[1:43:33] brick that was proposed for the entire building. Um, they want to clarify that their intent is
[1:43:37] to use red brick. So here are the
[1:43:41] approved renderings. They have a white kind of limestone, um, on each
[1:43:46] side of the building. They've got some gray brick on the front as well.
[1:43:50] um, but then the, the sides in rear are primarily gray brick
[1:43:54] with a little bit of stone.
[1:43:59] here are the current conditions. Um, as you can see, they have a note on
[1:44:03] here. They're removing some of this, um, wood look tiles
[1:44:07] on the front that will be replaced with stone to match the approved, um, renderings
[1:44:12] and elevations also better look at at what
[1:44:16] the front is currently looking like. So they do have the, um, gray, brown,
[1:44:21] whichever you wanna call it, brick on the front. Um,
[1:44:25] and then on the sides they've started to put red brick and that's when
[1:44:29] it was brought to our attention. Um, so now we are here and they're requesting
[1:44:33] that change. So the back currently doesn't have
[1:44:37] any brick on it, but their intent is to install red brick if approved tonight.
[1:44:43] and here are the proposed elevations updated to show they
[1:44:47] would be keeping the gray brick on the front. Um, it's just everywhere else that
[1:44:51] they would be opting to switch to red brick
[1:44:55] and the sides, the fuel canopy.
[1:45:01] so your options here tonight are two approved as presented with
[1:45:05] modifications or deny the request. Staff have found the
[1:45:10] materials to be compliant with the I 35, however, um, I 35
[1:45:14] overlay. However, since the changes were made in the field rather than through the
[1:45:18] established cop process, um, staff is bringing this
[1:45:22] request forward and asking the commission to consider and make a final
[1:45:26] determination. Any
[1:45:30] questions? Thank you. Uh, any questions from up here? Yes, mr. Copeland,
[1:45:35] ms. Sharp. So a few months ago we had a similar situation with
[1:45:39] the developer where it was discovered at the time of issuing a co that they had
[1:45:43] not adhered to the cep plans on that had been approved at the time mm-hmm .
[1:45:48] in that case, that was found after the fact. And in this
[1:45:52] instance, the applicant is proactively working with the city to
[1:45:56] identify and, and work through the differences. Is that correct?
[1:46:01] correct. Yes. Okay. And if this applicant had brought
[1:46:05] to the commission at the beginning of the process, the current design
[1:46:10] and where it's at today, it still could have been approved because it otherwise
[1:46:14] adhered to the I 35 overlay. And the only difference tonight is because
[1:46:18] it's not that plan that was approved, but both are equally approvable
[1:46:23] in theory. Is that fair? Primarily, um, if
[1:46:27] they were asking to keep the tiles on the front, we don't know what that material is. Um,
[1:46:31] so that could have potentially been an issue upfront if it didn't meet the
[1:46:35] masonry requirements. But as far as the rest of it goes, if that's what
[1:46:39] they had presented to the commission from the beginning, um, it could have in theory
[1:46:44] been approved. If, if that was the commission's decision at that time in the items
[1:46:48] mentioned that are unknown, are still unknown as of tonight. The,
[1:46:52] it's just the, the wood look, um, tiles on the front here,
[1:46:56] um, that are being removed. We don't know what that material is
[1:47:01] specifically. Um, so I couldn't say if they were to propose this, that it
[1:47:05] would be approved. Um, but as far as the, the red brick that we're
[1:47:09] considering here tonight, if they were to have proposed that from the beginning, that's something
[1:47:13] that the commission could have approved and the applicant is proactively working with city staff
[1:47:17] to come into alignment in some regard. Is that fair?
[1:47:22] um, they, they did start installing the red brick without any approvals.
[1:47:26] so they were kind of, you know, made aware of, hey, those changes need to be
[1:47:30] approved by the planning and zoning commission. They haven't been issued a stop work order or
[1:47:34] anything like that. We're trying to work with them. Um, so it's, it's a little bit of
[1:47:38] both. Um, we are, you know, trying to work with them, as I said, but they did technically,
[1:47:42] um, move forward with this without approvals. But at least they're responsive to
[1:47:47] the discussion, correct? Yes. Thank you. And was this a
[1:47:51] contractor substitution where yes.
[1:48:01] other questions for staff? It looks like commissioner hilde is trying to talk to us,
[1:48:05] but I can't hear him. Is, lemme try
[1:48:09] this again. There you go. Can you hear me now? Yes, sir. Yes. Okay. I, and this
[1:48:13] is, this is also based on availability of the material, the, or it, was it
[1:48:17] the original material's not available, is that correct? I don't believe
[1:48:22] that it's not available. I believe it was a timing issue for, for when it
[1:48:26] was going to be available and I don't know exactly what the lead time was, but I know it
[1:48:30] was okay. So not re not reasonably available anyway. Yeah, it was gonna slow
[1:48:34] down the, the, the developer's timeline. I'm not sure how
[1:48:38] by how much though. Madam
[1:48:42] chair. I'd like to make the motion that we approve as presented.
[1:48:47] I've got one last question for staff and then, uh, we will move
[1:48:51] forward with your motion. Um mm-hmm . I I see
[1:48:55] on the proposed elevations,
[1:48:59] I just have a question about the material. 'cause I'm not a builder, I'm
[1:49:04] not familiar with these things. So the part of the building that's already
[1:49:08] been constructed with the, um, stone veneer limestone,
[1:49:12] uh, there's going to be something called adhered stone veneer
[1:49:17] on the area where those wood look tiles were, were taken
[1:49:21] down. Do we know if the adhered stone veneer
[1:49:25] is going to age differently than the
[1:49:29] regular stone veneer? Will it be as durable? Will it have any issues that might
[1:49:33] down the road? Cause some, you know, unsightliness or will
[1:49:37] they be expected to look and age in a consistent way?
[1:49:42] um, to our knowledge it should be essentially the same product. Um,
[1:49:48] I, there shouldn't be any difference between what's already been installed and what's now being replaced.
[1:49:52] um, it could just be that one of them's more of like a thin set veneer versus,
[1:49:57] um, I believe the original was also veneer. So it's not like it was a full stone
[1:50:01] versus veneer. Now, um, they should be relatively the
[1:50:05] same. Okay, so it's got good, good stickum on the, on
[1:50:09] the back for the adhered stone veneer? Should be, yes. Okay. Um,
[1:50:14] I don't have any other questions for staff on this one, so does anyone else have
[1:50:18] a question? Alright, we have a motion that got thrown out from commissioner hildreth to
[1:50:22] recommend approval of this. Is there a second on that? Second? Okay. Second. From
[1:50:26] vice chair stegel. Any discussion?
[1:50:32] okay, all those in favor of approving this up, please say aye. Aye.
[1:50:36] aye. All opposed? Nay. Okay. That one's
[1:50:40] taken care of. Thank you. Okay,
[1:50:45] next. We have a very exciting honor of recognizing daniel
[1:50:49] serato for his dedicated years of service on the planning and zoning
[1:50:53] commission, mr. Lutens.
[1:51:01] okay, so, uh, I'm gonna recognize, uh, daniel today,
[1:51:05] 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.
[1:51:10] um, we want to thank him for, for the time he served, um, even though it
[1:51:14] was a short, uh, timeframe, september 23 through december, 2025.
[1:51:19] um, he was very committed to this board, asked a lot of questions, uh,
[1:51:23] actively engaged in training, um, uh, was part of
[1:51:27] our impact advisory fee. You know, a lot of conversations on our projects,
[1:51:32] uh, and a lot of good comments, uh, during our, our reviews of, of cup.
[1:51:36] so again, thank daniel, we appreciate it and thank you very much, um, and
[1:51:40] look forward to hopefully having you back one day. Thank y'all
[1:51:47] picture, no, no picture suitable for framing with our,
[1:51:52] I was gonna say, let's do a picture. Appreciate it. Mark the moment.
[1:51:59] put the computer in there for me.
[1:52:16] .
[1:52:27] alright,
[1:52:31] cheers. All right, thanks guys.
[1:52:47] I thought about it. We've been here long enough.
[1:52:56] well, thank you, daniel. It's been, it's been fun to serve with you and I wish you all the
[1:53:00] best in your, in your new spot. Okay,
[1:53:04] next up, we have hold a public hearing to receive comments on the
[1:53:09] proposed amendment to the program year 2025 annual action
[1:53:13] plan for the us department of housing and urban development hood
[1:53:17] community development block grant, cdbg program.
[1:53:22] so there is a public hearing for this item. I'm gonna go ahead and open that now at 8 29.
[1:53:30] seeing none, I'm going to close it at 8 29.
[1:53:34] alright, ms. Sharp, good evening. Kayla sharp, senior planner.
[1:53:39] um, so this is really intended to fill one of our requirements,
[1:53:43] um, for hud. There's gonna be lots of acronyms throughout this, so my
[1:53:47] apologies. Um, but, um, as part of our creating our annual
[1:53:51] action plan, we're required to consult the public stakeholders, things like that, to,
[1:53:55] um, gain feedback on our proposed plan. So this is,
[1:54:00] we're kind of using y'all to, to fulfill that public meeting requirement.
[1:54:04] um, so just to kind of give y'all an overview, we're entitled or we're
[1:54:09] identified as an entitlement city, um, with hud and receive
[1:54:13] block grant funding annually. Um, the amount is determined
[1:54:17] by a statutory formula, so we receive a different amount each year. We just got our
[1:54:22] allocation for next year, and it is more than we thought, so that's awesome.
[1:54:26] . Um, for the current year that we're in, we
[1:54:30] are, I kind of already went through that. Um, we are proposing some
[1:54:34] changes to our plans. Um, and so that's why we're here
[1:54:38] tonight. We have to basically resubmit everything to hud all over again.
[1:54:42] um, so that is what we're here for tonight. We are proposing
[1:54:46] to reallocate funding from a wastewater improvement project
[1:54:51] to a sidewalk project that will benefit low to moderate income areas in
[1:54:55] the city. So the original project was the quail ridge
[1:54:59] wastewater improvements. Um, it was for installation of first time wastewater
[1:55:03] service in the quail ridge subdivision, and we had, um, a little over $277,000
[1:55:09] allocated in cdbg funding for that.
[1:55:14] our proposed project will be, um, brent boulevard sidewalk improvements.
[1:55:18] so this would be construction and replacement of sidewalks, a da compliant curb, ramps
[1:55:22] and related pedestrian safety improvements along brent boulevard. And
[1:55:26] in the park steeplechase subdivision. The allocation amount is not
[1:55:30] changing. So this is truly just moving those
[1:55:34] funds from a wastewater infrastructure project to the sidewalk infrastructure project.
[1:55:39] um, as I said, the allocation is not changing. Um, and this
[1:55:44] is compliant with the national objective compliance requirements
[1:55:48] for hud. As you can see, everything in the green here on this map is a
[1:55:52] low to moderate income area. Um, and so this kind of outlines
[1:55:56] the, the service area for this project. Again,
[1:56:01] community benefits improved pedestrian safety, a da accessibility,
[1:56:05] increased walkability, um, benefit to lmi areas
[1:56:09] and also supports the goals of our five year consolidated plan that is already
[1:56:14] approved by hud. So the public notice
[1:56:18] has been provided, provided in accordance with hud guidelines, and we
[1:56:22] just had the opportunity for public comment. We've also had a public comment period
[1:56:26] open for the last 30 days. So next steps. We
[1:56:30] just held that public hearing. Um, any comments received either tonight or in
[1:56:35] that 30 day public comment period will be incorporated into the pro pro
[1:56:40] words are not coming out tonight, sorry, um, into the proposed amendments.
[1:56:44] and then city council will consider, consider the amendment at the may 5th
[1:56:48] council meeting, and then we will submit everything to hud for their approval.
[1:56:54] any questions? Yes. Um,
[1:56:58] it had been discussed for some time, had it not, that this grant would probably be applied to
[1:57:02] sidewalks. Yes. So that was one of our, our top priority,
[1:57:07] um, needs as identified in our five year consolidated plan.
[1:57:11] um, so at least for this year and, and likely the next fiscal
[1:57:15] year, um, we'll probably be looking at, so nothing was prompted by council or
[1:57:19] other changes? It's been pretty much, yes. We,
[1:57:23] when looking the, the quail ridge project was another kind of top
[1:57:28] priority. Um, but when analyzing the, the feasibility of
[1:57:32] that project, the timing just wasn't there. Um, we
[1:57:36] have some compliance, uh, requirements that we have to meet in terms of
[1:57:40] when we spend the money, um, and we just weren't gonna be able to meet that.
[1:57:44] the project just wasn't there yet. So it doesn't leave them up the creek? No. It's, it's
[1:57:48] still, um, a project for the city to work on. It just probably won't
[1:57:53] use cdbg funds.
[1:57:59] how wide are the sidewalks? , they will meet minimum code requirements.
[1:58:04] , . Yeah, this project was
[1:58:08] really kind of working off. I don't know that this year was the first year that we were
[1:58:13] entitlement city and we used, um, amberwood, um, ramps and some sidewalk improvements
[1:58:17] in that, um, in that existing subdivision and replaced 'em there. And it was a really successful
[1:58:22] project. So we appreciated kind of holistically how it helped,
[1:58:26] uh, that neighborhood and we're hoping to duplicate it here in this, this brentwood neighborhood.
[1:58:30] yeah, we got lots of positive feedback on that project in that particular neighborhood. Is it gonna be
[1:58:34] physically hard to actually get five foot sidewalks in on that right
[1:58:38] away? Um, I know there are already existing sidewalks.
[1:58:43] um, so if there's already an existing four foot sidewalk because this neighborhood
[1:58:47] has been around, it's possible that they continue with that. Um, but any
[1:58:51] new sidewalks would be compliant with, with current standards. Um,
[1:58:56] and where they're able to, to widen them to five feet, I believe they will. But that
[1:59:00] level of detail hasn't necessarily been evaluated just yet.
[1:59:07] and the primary driver for that change is that the quail ridge project
[1:59:12] just would not likely meet the timelines for the expenditure of the funding,
[1:59:17] but that there's still, uh, objectives and goals to complete that project at
[1:59:21] some point in the future. Yes, so the, that project, again,
[1:59:25] it, the timing, we pretty much have one year to, to complete this
[1:59:29] and spend all of the money. Um, and from the time we
[1:59:33] actually get approvals on that annual action plan, um, which we submit
[1:59:38] in august, sometimes it's not approved until december or january
[1:59:42] and you've, you're already a couple months into the fiscal year, you've got engineering and all of that.
[1:59:46] um, it just turned into a much more complex project than we initially thought.
[1:59:54] no action required. No thank you. All right. Thank you.
[2:00:01] okay, next up we have receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff
[2:00:05] feedback regarding a proposed mixed use development project. Filo,
[2:00:10] uh, mr. Lutz.
[2:00:24] thank you. Uh, everybody can hear me now. So, uh, tonight, uh, staff
[2:00:29] report regarding your philomena pro, uh, pud, um, this is project philo
[2:00:33] has been noticed on other agendas. Uh, the applicants will be introducing
[2:00:37] this. They're referring to this as a crossroads development. Um, so a little back
[2:00:41] background on this property. Um, this property was annexed and zoned
[2:00:45] agricultural in oh two. Um, initial discussions regarding
[2:00:49] possible mixed use zoning. District mxd started with staff in january
[2:00:54] of 2023. Uh, mxd zoning is a fairly unique,
[2:00:58] uh, zoning, or not unique, but new zoning district that hasn't been utilized,
[2:01:02] uh, uh, much in the city. And so it presented some challenges, uh, which
[2:01:06] is why the developer looked at going the pud route. Um, their
[2:01:11] pud was submitted in august of that 23, and then they submitted a
[2:01:15] da to accompany the pud, uh, the following year.
[2:01:19] um, this pud and development agreement is pretty basic when it comes to kind
[2:01:23] of level of detail that maybe some of the things that you've seen in the past. Um, they're
[2:01:27] looking for, uh, base zoning land uses of retail services, about
[2:01:31] 177,000 square feet of commercial, and then about 535
[2:01:36] feet, uh, 535 units of, uh, multifamily. Uh, the comprehensive
[2:01:40] plan does, uh, identify this area as urban mixed use. Um,
[2:01:44] so the proposed pud would meet the, the future land use plan. They're also
[2:01:48] donating, uh, land for a right of way, uh, for a roundabout. Um,
[2:01:52] and that is a 0.2, two acres is roughly, has a $150,000
[2:01:57] value. Um, staff is requesting feedback regarding this proposed development.
[2:02:01] again, feedback may include overall design, land uses, density, landscaping,
[2:02:06] um, kind of any other, your other concerns or issues. Um, we're
[2:02:10] just asking that you provide direction regarding items you would like to see specifically addressed,
[2:02:14] uh, during the pud review process. Um, so staff, uh, uh,
[2:02:19] has been working with the applicant. We've gone through several rounds, kind of fine tuned some
[2:02:23] negotiating points. Um, they will be looking at making some modifications and
[2:02:27] then resubmitting that to staff for kind of the, the, the final phase of, of
[2:02:31] review, uh, to get that back to y'all. So now's the time to, to speak if
[2:02:35] you want anything to include in that. Um, I will be introducing the
[2:02:39] developer and then I will turn it over to them, uh, to handle your questions. Um,
[2:02:43] this is kaplan development. They got 40 plus years of residential and commercial experience,
[2:02:48] um, backgrounds in commercial civil engineering, lending, construction, uh,
[2:02:52] financial analysis. Uh, and they have one local project, uh, they worked on parked
[2:02:56] in square slash greg gardens. Um, and having said that,
[2:03:00] I will go ahead and turn that over to someone
[2:03:05] from the team. Thank you guys.
[2:03:09] ip I'm, uh, michael linehan with lsi representing kaplan development.
[2:03:13] um, and this is our presentation for the crossroads district as we have been calling
[2:03:17] it. Um, so just so we're, uh, all on the same page of where the site
[2:03:21] is located is just south of the hospital on, uh, uh, with
[2:03:26] fina drive going right through the middle of it. Um, uh,
[2:03:30] so this shows our conceptual, uh, land use plan and
[2:03:34] site plan. Um, we do have, uh, multifamily development where
[2:03:38] we've pushed the, um, the buildings out towards, uh,
[2:03:42] the right of way, as is called for an mxd zoning, uh, which screens a lot of the surface parking
[2:03:47] away from the kind of walkable streets. Um, we've also incorporated
[2:03:52] a, uh, a pedestrian greenway that goes through
[2:03:56] both the multi-family sites so that we can connect, uh, the residents to
[2:04:00] green space as well as the, uh, commercial space, um, that abuts that on the
[2:04:04] north side. Um, further to the west, uh, is
[2:04:08] still rs donating, but we have con uh, conceptualized, uh, hotel
[2:04:12] sites in that location. Um, and there's been a good amount of demand, uh, based off
[2:04:16] market feedback for, uh, hotel sites in this location.
[2:04:21] uh, so going to the mxd zone that shows in, uh, yellow here.
[2:04:25] um, so just a few inspiration images of the type of, um, uh,
[2:04:29] multifamily development that that would accommodate, uh, giving that more,
[2:04:34] uh, urban mixed use development aesthetic, uh, while still allowing surface parking,
[2:04:38] um, which is supported by the market. Uh, then going into the
[2:04:43] rs zoned areas, uh, shown in red in the map here, uh,
[2:04:47] with some, um, retail services, restaurants, uh, office
[2:04:51] and the, uh, affirmation hotels, uh, to support, um,
[2:04:56] uh, different commercial uses, uh, especially adjacent to the hospital. There.
[2:05:02] uh, this just shows, uh, more of the green space, uh, that has been incorporated into this
[2:05:06] design. Uh, so that we have commercial and residential
[2:05:10] connecting to open spaces that allows for production connectivity throughout the
[2:05:15] site. Uh, and this, this shows
[2:05:19] everything put together with our, uh, mxd base zoning and our
[2:05:24] rs zoning, uh, and highlighting the, uh, the green space through the center spine
[2:05:28] of this development.
[2:05:32] so, um, the zoning is consistent with the future land use map. Um,
[2:05:37] and, um, wanted to also highlight
[2:05:41] that there's no real incentive being requested by kaplan development. So no pit
[2:05:46] orts or anything of that nature or, uh, significant variances
[2:05:50] to code. There's a couple of challenges with the mxd based zoning,
[2:05:54] uh, that just make it challenging to develop, um, with the, the current
[2:05:58] market state of, um, of the area. Uh, so there's
[2:06:02] just minor, um, variances that we we'd be looking for there in terms of,
[2:06:06] um, parking and, um, vertical mixed use percentages and things
[2:06:11] of that nature. Um, and what the city receives out of this is the urban walkable
[2:06:15] mixed use development consistent with the, uh, future land use map. Um, donation
[2:06:19] of the right of way, uh, as jason mentioned, is, uh, roughly $150,000
[2:06:23] value that the, uh, landowner is, um, donating
[2:06:27] to the city for that roundabout. And then, uh, enhanced
[2:06:31] cohesive design standards. Uh, there's a portion of the site that's in
[2:06:35] the I 35 overlay, but we've taken information from that I 35 overlay
[2:06:40] and baked it into the overall, uh, pod and development agreement. Things such as, uh, consistent
[2:06:44] signage standards, uh, 60% masonry facades,
[2:06:49] uh, street trees and things of that nature to make it a more comprehensive, um,
[2:06:53] plan for the area. And then, uh, we, we'll be doing a traffic
[2:06:57] impact analysis, um, as part of the, the p and
[2:07:01] then, uh, the city also benefits from the full property taxes and
[2:07:05] hotel occupancy tax and sales tax. So thank you for
[2:07:09] your time and, uh, we appreciate your feedback, uh, to help us make revisions into our next presentation.
[2:07:16] thank you for being here. Presentation. I'm one, one question or comment I'd like to add in.
[2:07:20] yes, sir. Go ahead. Um, are you familiar with, are you familiar with the third way,
[2:07:25] uh, type type projects in the incorporating those into this? I love the
[2:07:29] green, the green space and stuff, but you know, we have a, we have our work
[2:07:33] location, we have our home location, a a third way location's, a a a spot where people
[2:07:37] might gather, um, around in shopping malls, they'll often use like a fire pit
[2:07:41] or something like that. Have you looked at any consideration of something like that to incorporate
[2:07:46] that into the green space that you have? Uh, not currently. That's something we was certainly, uh,
[2:07:50] looking into the next one. And you, you said third way location is the term.
[2:07:54] I, I, that that's what I've heard it called. I, I'm trying to remember the exact term. It's
[2:07:59] been a few years since I've worked with mixed use development, but it, it's actually something that, um,
[2:08:03] uh, is a standardized concept with third way. Uh, as an example, you have mixed
[2:08:07] use development. You might have, uh, in, in some cases in c city of seattle's example,
[2:08:12] they have, um, some green space up on a roof of an apartment building
[2:08:16] and they have, uh, you know, benches and areas for people to gather the community
[2:08:20] to gather. Yeah. It's like the, the third place. Yeah. For that third
[2:08:24] place. That's what I'm, that's, that's, I'm thinking of not third way, third place. Yep. In,
[2:08:28] in regards to kind of looking at the live, work, play kind of, um, component
[2:08:33] of it. Mm-hmm . And certainly, and, and I would say a lot g and lot
[2:08:37] h uh, where those two come together, we have the green space between that and the intent there was that we would have
[2:08:41] kind of back patio space for the commercial, uh, as well as the
[2:08:46] amenity space for the multifamily space. So you kind of have that
[2:08:50] intermingling third place in that location.
[2:08:55] are you willing to yeah, I'll say right in front, I'm a strong believer in, in mixed use development.
[2:09:00] so are you
[2:09:04] willing to, uh, as part of the pud uh,
[2:09:09] agree to some, uh, performance metrics regarding phasing of the project
[2:09:13] and completion thereof? Uh, I'd have to discuss that with the development
[2:09:18] team, but something we can take into consideration as we go into the next stages. I think that's something we'd be
[2:09:22] interested in. Okay.
[2:09:27] um,
[2:09:32] also, uh, how much is there in the market? You meant
[2:09:36] to mentioned the market a couple of times, I believe. How much interest in the market
[2:09:40] is there out there throwing money into mixed use where you've got retail on
[2:09:44] the first floor, or is that still a difficult thing to find financing
[2:09:48] for? It's still challenging this, uh, this
[2:09:53] pod does, uh, accommodate first floor retail in the mxd
[2:09:57] zoned areas. Um, it, it is, I I will say just an experience in
[2:10:01] multi-family development that getting the financing for retail and that their level
[2:10:05] is, it can be challenging. Um, and
[2:10:09] comments towards the market is just the, uh, mxd calls for
[2:10:13] structured parking and just the cost of that and the current rental rates in the area are just really
[2:10:17] challenging. And so that's why this proposes some of the intent of mxd while still
[2:10:21] allowing the surface parking. Yeah, because I, I, I like intent,
[2:10:26] but I also like fulfillment. So, uh, I know the financing for
[2:10:30] the retails is hard, but I'd like to see it. You're saying you want
[2:10:34] it. I'm interested in hearing what the development team has in response to
[2:10:38] the idea of doing this in phases with com. You know, very concrete,
[2:10:42] understandable, uh, performance standards. Uh, just so that we are
[2:10:47] very clear about what we're getting, this is a very important parcel of land. I've
[2:10:51] driven through here on philomena many times, and I think anybody knows this
[2:10:55] part of town knows that it is really quite important to the development there.
[2:11:00] if you, if you think about it, the roundabouts on the east side of it
[2:11:04] are there for a reason because daisy lane in that entire area is so busy with traffic
[2:11:08] mm-hmm . And you've got major commercial and retail up behind you
[2:11:12] there. So I would like to see something special built there that provides
[2:11:16] good residences, good, uh, walkable space with good retail.
[2:11:21] and so if you can bring that to this plan, I'm more than
[2:11:25] willing to hear more. Thank you.
[2:11:32] um, I have a question more, more to educate
[2:11:36] myself than I, I, I like what you've presented. When we talk about live workplace,
[2:11:41] somehow work always equals retail. Um,
[2:11:45] clearly you've made some demand driven decisions as you've put this together.
[2:11:50] what, is there a demand? What is the demand for like
[2:11:54] commercial office space, anything like that? Or is the demand for work
[2:11:59] in kyle just retail stores? Uh,
[2:12:03] so I, I can't answer that very specifically. Just not having
[2:12:07] full market data to throw numbers back at you. But I, I'll say at least what we've
[2:12:11] accommodated in the plan is, uh, lot a on that east side is
[2:12:16] intended to be office space. Um, so there is, uh, uh, even
[2:12:20] though, um, you know, conceptual land plan with retail hotel office
[2:12:24] that, um, we feel something of this size needs to have some kind of office space
[2:12:28] in there. Love it. So many of these talent, so thank you.
[2:12:34] early your presentation, sir, you mentioned that you were, sorry, exclude, uh, exploring
[2:12:38] the put idea in order to get more flexibility on the parking requirements.
[2:12:43] could you speak more towards that? You're trying to gain more parking, less parking changes
[2:12:47] in parking. What, what was the, the context? So, uh, mxd calls for structured parking
[2:12:51] mm-hmm . And, uh, a surface parking space is about $3,500. A
[2:12:55] structured parking space can range from 20 to 40,000. And so just with the rental rates there are there,
[2:13:00] we, in order to make this a successful development, we would need some relief from the parking
[2:13:04] standards in mxd. Okay. Um, so that's what kind of led to going through a pud rather
[2:13:08] than just straight up bay zoning. Okay. I know I would be in,
[2:13:13] in more favor trying to find a way to reduce the amount of surface area that
[2:13:17] is dedicated to the parking, because as you look at it, it is a large
[2:13:21] proportion of that entire plot of land. Right. And
[2:13:25] as you are exploring this too, it might just be that these maps
[2:13:30] aren't detailed enough. They're conceptual, they're, they're not final obviously. But
[2:13:34] I, I wanna think about the people who are in lot g trying to get to lot
[2:13:38] h mm-hmm . And that way they don't have to hop in their car and drive through lot f to get there.
[2:13:43] or, or if you're trying to go from g to a to that business park
[2:13:47] that you really could live, work, play and walk or bike
[2:13:51] or do something other than hop in the car, drive through lot f cross
[2:13:56] fina, go to lot e like mm-hmm . That, that defeats the purpose of
[2:14:00] what I think the intent of that mxb type
[2:14:04] zoning is intended for. Right, right. And, and you, and you're
[2:14:08] absolutely right that the, this is not detailed to the level of where we've got crosswalks
[2:14:12] and sidewalks and everything, but that kind of green spine that runs through here through the
[2:14:16] whole property, the idea would be that over filming drive where would be a crosswalk with
[2:14:20] some traffic calming devices and have sidewalks that would legitimately connect
[2:14:25] lot g all the way over to lot a so that you could have that connectivity. And we would anticipate
[2:14:29] that within the site development permit level drawings. I wanna encourage
[2:14:33] that, that thought through this process of how can we best integrate the,
[2:14:37] the people and the places they need to be in either third spaces or workspaces
[2:14:41] or what, whatever mm-hmm . In a way that doesn't require them to hop in the car
[2:14:45] and move from this parking spot to that parking spot. And that also might reduce
[2:14:50] the demand on the number of parking spots that you need. Mm-hmm . Across that development.
[2:14:54] mm-hmm . Absolutely. Thank you. Now, I know we're not incentivizing
[2:14:59] this, you said we don't need city money or anything like that. Don't need to tears.
[2:15:03] so it may be a tough sell for me to say we would
[2:15:07] like to phase in this in and have some, uh, clear
[2:15:12] standards for you doing that. But part of the issue here
[2:15:16] is there's gotta be some give and take on this because, um,
[2:15:20] this is a terrible parcel to be abandoned half
[2:15:24] built out. Mm-hmm . We've have examples
[2:15:29] of projects in this town without financing
[2:15:34] as assured failing and having to be resold
[2:15:39] to be built out. I don't want to see that happen
[2:15:43] on this kind of property. It's too important, uh, parcel.
[2:15:48] and so we've gotta come to some understanding about how clear we are about how
[2:15:52] this dance is gonna go till the end of the tune here. Um,
[2:15:56] 'cause I, you've got a great plan, but it's, it's gotta be built
[2:16:01] and we've gotta be clear about how that's gonna proceed. Um, so that we're
[2:16:05] all doing this with from a place of integrity and accountability.
[2:16:12] understood. Thank you.
[2:16:18] on these plans, I see markings for detention ponds. Do you have thoughts
[2:16:22] currently as to how that looks? Is it gray infrastructure? Is
[2:16:26] it green infrastructure? What, what does that, what's your concept right now of
[2:16:30] that? Right. So it has not been engineered just to answer that. Um,
[2:16:34] but the, uh, uh, we have talked about, you know, is there ways of doing more,
[2:16:39] um, kind of fighter remediation through plantings and making it more of an aesthetic
[2:16:43] value than just your standard pond. Um, currently that's
[2:16:47] conceptual, but what's been discussed between the design team and the, the developer in, in terms
[2:16:51] of how we can amenitize those spaces and treat green water perfect.
[2:16:56] I like to encourage as much of that green as we can that we has multiple
[2:17:00] uses and not just a block of concrete somewhere. Right. But obviously
[2:17:04] engineers, but their stamp on it and we gotta trust that too. Yeah. Yeah. Get a big splitter box
[2:17:08] and and that's it. Yeah. Understood. ,
[2:17:16] um, are there other comments? Can I jump in? Yes. Okay.
[2:17:20] um, so I wanna start with a few things that I do like about
[2:17:24] what's been presented today. Um, I appreciate that there's no
[2:17:28] financial incentives requested. It's refreshing to see that. And so thanks for
[2:17:32] prioritizing that. Um, the right of way donation, um,
[2:17:38] compliance overall with the comprehensive plan and the intended use for this area, it
[2:17:42] is meant to be, um, kind of a, a denser
[2:17:46] more intensive use and I think they are achieving that
[2:17:50] for us. Um, the things that I am concerned
[2:17:54] about is this, this doesn't feel
[2:17:58] as mixed of uses as I, as I would want it
[2:18:03] to be. Um, so when I was looking at the, the
[2:18:07] details there, we're looking at, um, in
[2:18:11] lot d and lot g 4,000 square feet of ground floor retail
[2:18:15] in each one. And I understand the market is influencing some decisions
[2:18:19] there, but, um, to say that we have 19 acres
[2:18:24] of mxd, we really don't. We have 8,000 square feet of
[2:18:28] mxd. And so I don't think that we've quite achieved,
[2:18:32] um, the objective yet of true mixing of uses here.
[2:18:37] um, and then another concern that
[2:18:41] I have is about that uh, five acre green belt.
[2:18:45] um, if y'all could go to slide, so it's kind of going across the middle
[2:18:49] of the, the screen here. If you could go onto slide
[2:18:54] six, kind of the, the cover image.
[2:19:02] perfect. So on this one here, that's, um, that rendering
[2:19:08] to me that's what's being called green belt.
[2:19:12] um, and as someone who's lived in central texas for a while in the
[2:19:16] austin area, I have some specific ideas in my head about what
[2:19:20] green belts mean and look like. And I don't think that
[2:19:24] we are quite showing a pedestrian oriented, natural
[2:19:29] kind of respite area. We're showing a parking lot
[2:19:34] on the cover image of the project. This is a parking lot with
[2:19:38] a a a, a mode green space in the
[2:19:42] middle. I'm not seeing the connection between the,
[2:19:46] uh, kind of inspiration images that are showing parks with people hanging
[2:19:51] out and using that space. So I, I think there's a,
[2:19:55] a disconnect there with that green belt use. So,
[2:19:59] um, yeah, to me this isn't saying mixed use. It's not
[2:20:04] saying green belt, it's not saying walkable. I, I think that there's
[2:20:08] more we could do with this. So my
[2:20:12] feedback would be for the commercial space.
[2:20:16] um, I understand that you can't, the market doesn't really support you
[2:20:20] doing more of it at this time. So if we could
[2:20:24] maybe work somehow into the p some protections that are going
[2:20:29] to make that more possible, like making sure that it is
[2:20:33] street facing, um, all the, all the commercial units
[2:20:37] being street facing or that they're built out, um, with,
[2:20:41] um, higher, higher ceilings to accommodate
[2:20:45] commercial or kitchen uses. Things that might need special
[2:20:50] hvac requirements or grease traps, things like that to really ensure that
[2:20:54] these are spaces that are not going to after a few years,
[2:20:58] well, you know, we can't really find a, a permanent tenant for it. Let's put
[2:21:02] some storage in there and call it a day. Um, so if we
[2:21:06] can integrate language into the p that's going to
[2:21:11] really ensure as much as possible the success of commercial in
[2:21:15] these 4,000 square feet in the two separate
[2:21:19] lots. Um, I think that would be really helpful,
[2:21:24] um, helpful for me being able to get behind
[2:21:28] the vote that is to, to support a pud for this site. Um,
[2:21:32] an alternative idea would be, um, instead of retail
[2:21:36] facing fina, if you actually turn the green belt into
[2:21:40] a green belt retail facing the green belt, um,
[2:21:45] 'cause then if, if you have good quality retail, coffee, ice cream,
[2:21:49] whatever at the, at the green belt, I could see how those,
[2:21:53] you know, green belt use might encourage support of those businesses, but also
[2:21:58] use of those businesses might encourage sup, like use of the green belt if there's
[2:22:02] something interesting to activate that space right there and to really draw
[2:22:06] people in. Um, so
[2:22:10] I guess those are my two main feedbacks. I would love to see improvement with, um,
[2:22:16] ensuring quality space is provided in those buildings for retail
[2:22:20] and commercial and, um, improvements made to the green belt.
[2:22:27] I'll be honest, I don't love this project overall, but it would go a long way towards
[2:22:31] getting me to be able to support this one if we, if we could see those two. Mm-hmm
[2:22:36] . And I appreciate that. And I, I went to this slide just 'cause I wanted to show
[2:22:40] the, uh, second image on the right, uh, where
[2:22:44] it has the retail space next to the green space. And again, that just at this point,
[2:22:49] uh, the, that the less detailed level is just green is mowed grass
[2:22:53] and the intent would be that that green belt be landscaped. And we know in
[2:22:57] central texas, just having mowed lawn is never a successful use of the space just with
[2:23:01] shade and upkeep. And so there'd be the intent of having more
[2:23:05] features and, and, and usable areas in that, that space. And just, it's not at that level
[2:23:10] of design quite yet. Uh, but certainly the intent of the greenbelt space to be much more landscape
[2:23:15] designed, uh, space for use. Um, and then, uh, certainly get behind
[2:23:19] the, um, retail spaces opening up to public areas or to
[2:23:23] the green belt, um, to, to help support those desires. Okay. Thank you.
[2:23:28] thanks. And ms. Longan, you
[2:23:32] brought up some ideas that I have follow up questions on from that of knowing
[2:23:36] that in that instance 8,000 square feet is what really is that
[2:23:40] mixed use area 'cause of market demands. Do you have data you can
[2:23:44] share with us on what those market demands are and why that is a limiting factor?
[2:23:50] not off the top of my head, brett, at the moment. Um, just mostly in the experience
[2:23:54] of capital partners, um, looking at how much retail
[2:23:58] and from a percentage base sizes. But, uh, we could look into some data that we could
[2:24:02] share, share with city staff. Yeah. That we can understand what you mean by
[2:24:06] the market won't support that type of design that could help inform future
[2:24:11] decisions. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Yep. Um, and then thinking
[2:24:15] through that option on, on that central area of the green belt
[2:24:19] in which the retail's then connected to, I know that there are some
[2:24:23] cities like san antonio's river walk or other locations that are kind of
[2:24:27] designed like that where you have the, the public space there, you can walk through to find
[2:24:32] different retail or different food, whatever. Um, sometimes
[2:24:36] those are designed to allow beer, wine to be transported
[2:24:40] in that confined area. Is that something that the city could explore?
[2:24:45] I'm not saying that's an endorsement, but like what, what would that process look like
[2:24:49] to kind of give more options to the developer if that was
[2:24:53] an incentive that could be helpful to them? I, I think we
[2:24:57] definitely could, we would just lean on like tabc rules, uh, for that
[2:25:01] in, in regards. So, um, but yeah, that's something that we could, we
[2:25:05] could look at. Okay. Thank you.
[2:25:09] so another idea that is just sprung into my mind, I know that we're
[2:25:14] trying to, um, use that mxd
[2:25:18] um, zoning in order to pull things kind of closer to
[2:25:22] the roadway and tuck parking back behind it. But that is in fact
[2:25:26] creating a parking lot that people have to walk through in order to
[2:25:31] use the green belt. Do we value more
[2:25:36] having the units closer to the roadway for the kind
[2:25:40] of like urban feel or do we value more having the units closer to
[2:25:44] greenbelt as for parking or
[2:25:48] maybe we do a bit of both where some things are right on the green belt and some things have
[2:25:53] a parking buffer. It is the, the crux there where it's, if you
[2:25:57] really value pushing things to the street, then you get the sea of parking
[2:26:01] in between all the buildings and it's hard to make those spaces really attractive. And so this
[2:26:05] was kind of the, uh, you know, the happy medium of like,
[2:26:10] can we get enough green in that space to break up the asphalt and make it really
[2:26:14] desirable? But I would tend to agree that if we could get more of
[2:26:18] that green right up against that, um, commercial
[2:26:22] and and residential units, that it activates that space more allowing for some of
[2:26:26] the, the parking out on the street edge because that the right of
[2:26:30] way is not quite as walkable as the green space would be. And I think that
[2:26:34] that's the intent of mixed use design is to be able to make it walkable. Yeah.
[2:26:38] like if I'm in building lot d building four and I wanna
[2:26:43] go over to, I don't know, something
[2:26:47] lot a building one or lot e building three, um,
[2:26:51] have to walk through parking lots or drive to get there.
[2:26:56] that's not the most pleasant experience when it's like a hundred degrees outside for large swaths
[2:27:00] of the year here. Uh, so food for thought,
[2:27:05] definite food for thought. I do agree, um, with what vice chair stegel
[2:27:09] said, this is a very important parcel for the city of kyle. The proximity
[2:27:13] to the hospital, it's very central. There's gonna be, um,
[2:27:18] a lot of importance on this area of our city. A lot of people are gonna move through here
[2:27:22] every day and we want people to stay and use it. And so I think it's important that
[2:27:27] this area is attractive and durable and it's something that,
[2:27:32] you know, 20, 30 years from now when it needs reinvestment, somebody
[2:27:36] would be happy to to do that. And I think that starts with
[2:27:40] how it's designed at the start. Thank you.
[2:27:47] any other feedback?
[2:27:53] I guess not. Yeah. Cool. Appreciate your feedback counsel. Thanks for being here. Absolutely.
[2:27:58] okay. I think we did it. We did. We're at the end.
[2:28:02] . All right. So do y'all want me to close this out
[2:28:06] or does somebody wanna make a motion? I may make a motion that we adjourn.
[2:28:11] a motion to adjourn from vice chair stegel. Seconded by,
[2:28:16] seconded. Commissioner copeland, I just drug that out for an
[2:28:20] extra 30 seconds 'cause I just really enjoyed being here with y'all tonight. You just on your own every
[2:28:24] night or time about you. I know your own wants. Just wait. All right.
[2:28:29] we are officially adjourned at 9 0 4.