Citizen comment:
- Several people spoke about the HSAB money. We’ve seen this item several times this year; it finally gets concluded tonight.
- Two people talk about the Pick-a-pet ordinance, also coming back around tonight.
- Two people talk about the SMART Terminal re-zoning. Not up tonight, though.
- One person talks about Joshua Wright and the Hartman reforms
I had a stray thought about the SMART Terminal. I was on Charles Austin, next to the baseball stadium, stopped at a train. The train was going slower and slower, headed east towards 35. I was doing the thing where you try to figure out if the train is going to come to a complete stop before it gets across your path and trap you, or if the last car will make it across and set you free.
It occurred to me that the train was probably headed in the general direction of the future SMART Terminal. And I remember that it takes a train 1-2 miles to come to a stop. So imagine if we have a new SMART train intersection just east of town? The number of stopped trains is going to go through the roof. Traffic is going to be hella gummed up by stopped trains, if the SMART Terminal delivers on what they’re claiming.
I mean, we should still focus on the river pollution and massive amount of concrete, and all the rest of the questionable parts. But let’s save a little angst for worrying about the future train stoppings of San Marcos.
…
On to the meeting!
Item 6: Way up by Whisper Tract, some developers want to rezone this little blue piece:
It used to be partly zoned Manufactured Homes, and partly zoned Future Development. They want to make it all Heavy Commercial.
Here’s what’s at the eastern tip of that little blue rectangle:
That is, the Saddlebrook mobile home community.
So is it fair to build heavy commercial next to them? Let’s put it this way: it would never be proposed next to wealthier neighborhoods. At the same time, the western edge of that little blue rectangle is along I-35, and it’s reasonable to put Heavy Commercial along the highway. Finally, the folks at Saddlebrook might like some commercial services like restaurants or laundromats or whatever nearby. (But there’s no guarantee this will be restaurants or laundromats.)
Jane Hughson and Mark Gleason aren’t sure about the size of the project on the east side being so close to the community. A 40 foot building with 30 foot setbacks is still pretty looming, even with a privacy wall.
The developer talks in person. He and his partner are from central Texas, and they make little spec buildings that can later be configured for small businesses. So it’s unclear what would end up there.
In the end, council approves it unanimously. Hopefully it turns out the businesses that move in make good neighbors.
…
Item 7: Two acres in Cottonwood Creek, off 123. This one kind of pissed me off.
Here’s Cottonwood Creek:
It’s down by the high school. Bowie Elementary is in Cottonwood Creek. (I realized I could get some useful maps off the planning department website.)
Here’s a close up. Today’s proposed rezoning is for that little red trapezoid, in the yellow circle:
This area has seen tons of development in the past 2-3 years. In fact, this little red piece in that blue circle:
is right where this new Chevron just went in:
So back to the subject property: right now it’s zoned General Commercial. The developer wants to re-zone it CD-4. In theory, you can still put commercial in CD-4, but that’s not what will happen. It will be townhomes or apartments.
Here’s the thing: the east side desperately needs commercial. They shoudn’t have to drive so far for grocery stores and basic retail. And that’s not just my opinion – the city planners are constantly saying that people on the east side tell them this.
And furthermore, many residents wrote in on this very item so say so! Apparently Council got letters from people in Cottonwood Creek saying to please keep it commercial. This is not hypothetical! They were told exactly what the neighbors want!
The developer is arguing that the property has sat there for 20 years and nobody has wanted to put commercial there, so therefore he should be able to re-zone it. But he’s being a twerp. He knows that commercial lags behind residential, and residential is finally just now getting built. If you don’t set aside land and earmark it for commercial uses, an entire area will get zoned residential and by the time someone might like to put a restaurant in, there won’t be viable places left.
Mark Gleason seems to be toting water for the developer. He knows the neighborhood wants commercial there. First, Mark asks what commercial is allowed in CD-4. He’s told that all kinds of commercial is allowed – offices, restaurants, etc. Could be a lot of possibilities! (But it won’t.)
Next, Mark asks the developer directly: “Are you looking to build housing? Or are you looking for more flexibility?”
Here’s what that means, “I have constituents that don’t want housing there. I want to be able to tell them I voted for flexibility. Could you supply me with my excuse?”
The developer cheerfully agrees that he is all for flexibility! We love flexibility!
Jane says dryly, “Clearly they are going to reduce the amount of commercial and add housing. Otherwise they’d just stick with the existing commercial zoning.”
Mark says, “I’m a yes on this one. I hate to lose commercial, but I trust the developer!”
Gentle Reader, listen to me: do not trust developers.
Alyssa Garza weighs in: she’s opposed, because of all the letters they’ve gotten from residents who are opposed to this. They all want commercial services to be built there.
Mark and Jane tut over how it’s a weird place for commercial, because it’s not on 123 directly. It’s a little off 123.
The vote: Should the little red trapezoid become apartments/townhomes?
Yes: Mayor Hughson, Mark Gleason, Saul Gonzales, Shane Scott, Matthew Mendoza, Jude Prather
No, keep it commercial: Alyssa Garza
This is really hypocritical. Right now, the VisionSMTX comprehensive plan is working it’s way through P&Z and City Council. The historic district has turned out in large numbers to complain. Several members of P&Z and Jane Hughson are going through the proposed plan closely, with an eye to preserving neighborhoods and preventing anything from happening to them.
The most sacred thing in the world, based on all language being used to criticize VisionSMTX stuff, is the voice of a neighborhood for self-determination. Neighborhood plans! Neighborhood character studies! Ask the neighborhood if Zelick’s should get a CUP! Neighborhoods are sacred.
But this vote tells the lie: we didn’t mean all neighborhoods! Sorry for the confusion. We just meant that we should pander to the noisy, wealthier neighborhoods west of I35. Cottonwood Creek wants to preserve that red trapezoid of commercial on the corner? Sorry, suckers!
Finally: we do need housing. There are multiple, competing needs here. But you shouldn’t pit one need against another. The whole city needs housing, but it doesn’t need to come out of Cottonwood Creek’s limited options for commercial development.
The San Marxist 