Brittany Kelley
KYLE — Kyle City Council listened to the beginning of a proposed ordinance related to construction within riparian zones, the Edwards Aquifer and water quality at its July 2 special meeting.
Jason Lutz, interim director of planning, began the presentation by noting that the ordinance draft is a result of council direction to look at water quality and riparians, or land bordering water sources, for the Edwards Aquifer recharge zones.
So, staff began by looking at several cities and the Save Our Springs Ordinance and reviewed the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulations.
“We were looking at San Antonio and Dripping Springs, as those will be the best templates for us, mostly because of the way they were laid out. They had good definitions, good processes [and] good penalties,” said Lutz. “We did want to take a base ordinance, so we didn’t have to recreate the will. We started adding regulations to address Kyle’s specific needs.”
These regulations include additions regarding Plum Creek and the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. Initially, staff was also going to consider the requirements to be within the city limits, but Lutz stated that it would not make sense to be pollution cognizant within the city, only to have it come in the city from upstream.
“If you’re a citizen in the [extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ)], you generally don’t have a lot of conversations with the city of Kyle, unless you’re subdividing your land. Now, we would be asking you to submit a site plan outlining your water quality measures,” he explained.
Next, he discussed repairing the city’s corridor and stream buffers, where the changes would be based on stream type — major, intermediate and minor — and zones — managed, transition and protected; labels will be determined by the watershed. The protected zone would have no improvements, Lutz said. Additionally, utility crossings would be allowed, but may increase costs for city projects and developments.
The interim director stated that the city would include a no adverse impact demonstration, which means that there would be no increase in erosion potential, degradation of water quality and riparian habitat function, all of which would align with Kyle’s existing floodplain management framework.
Buffers would be around critical environment features, such as karst features, springs, sinkholes, caves, significant fractures, recharge features and wetlands. Because recreation areas are often in these locations, council member Marc McKinney requested flexibility or reviewing development on a case-by-case basis, to which Lutz stated that staff would suggest only allowing city parks, so council could review.
The interim director then shared that San Antonio had the “best practical model” when it came to aquifer protection and recharge features. Therefore, staff is looking into feasible language to implement into Kyle’s ordinance, including impervious cover limits of 40% for single-family homes, 55% for multi-family buildings and 65% for commercial facilities.
“We are [also] looking at water quality treatment for the first 1.5 inches [and] spill containment for fuel storage. Hazardous management plans would be something that would be submitted and then, there would be recurring inspections per the city stormwater maintenance program. Now, again, the reason I bring this up is because, originally, we were looking at just the city, but we felt that it’d be important to extend this to the ETJ. So, we have two staff in that department that may get a little cumbersome with yearly inspections; I just wanted to throw all of the issues out there,” he said.
Council member Lauralee Harris emphasized that she would like to include as much of the ETJ as possible, since “sometimes developers or businesses prefer to be in the ETJ because some of the regulations don’t apply and our ETJ areas are our most sensitive areas right now.”
“The people who don’t want to follow the city rules or engage in a development agreement, they can just be asked to be annexed out of the ETJ. That’s where I would see somebody who has a problem going is … they would just disengage altogether and asked to be taken out of the ETJ,” said Mayor Yvonne Flores-Cale. “I’m afraid if we do [include the ETJ] then people are going to just leave and then, they’re going to have to use the county … As far as buffers and the regulations, I believe we don’t have very stringent regulations and theirs are less restrictive.”
Continuing on the topic of water quality, San Antonio and Dripping Springs have approaches consistent with the best management practices and low impact development standards using bioswales, sand filters, constructed wetlands, bioretention and more, according to the presentation. They also incentivize developments to use these, Lutz noted, adding that Kyle could do this, as well.
Council member Courtney Goza asked whether there would be availability of a waiver for property owners developing land. In response, Lutz stated that because the ordinance is still being drafted, a waiver could be added for specific criteria.
“I definitely do not want to impose anything that is so restrictive that there is no way around it, where pieces of property become unusable to the person who owns it because that is not being friendly to property owners. So, that is a concern to me,” she said, adding that she is in favor of having caps for impervious cover and requests can be considered.
“I have seen this ordinance in action, actually, in Dripping Springs, and it can become a little burdensome to council if y’all are having to review site plan variances once a meeting. I’m not sure that y’all want to do that. So, that was going to be my next question: Would you like the variance to come to you guys or are you okay with Planning and Zoning calling that and then, appeals go to you,” asked Lutz.
Goza stated that if it’s done in Dripping Springs and it’s working, then it’s a good process to follow.
A question regarding the water quality review fee came from council member Melisa Medina, who asked whether it will be a flat fee or based on acreage. According to the interim director, the fee already required for site development would be increased and then, additional fees for each acre. But he did state that a different fee or exception may need to be made for single-family homes, due to the possibly high cost.
“The goal is to protect our water, but the single-family, individual home is not the one that’s deteriorating the water quality, so we do want to keep that in mind,” said Lutz.
Next steps include: redlining the existing water quality ordinance template and modifying it to match Kyle needs and council direction; implement ing a fee for water quality review and amending fee schedule; and adding workflows, application checklists and processing procedures into the city’s plan review software process. The full drafted ordinance will appear in front of council in August.
To listen to the discussion, visit bit.ly/4f2JgUw.
