Lazy Oaks Ranch gets preliminary okay from city council
–
The former Storey-Robinson Ranch includes Hill Country topography such a scraggy canyon and at least one relatively significant cave. City officials say the most sensitive features of the 1,369-acre property will be protected as undeveloped open space under a development agreement approved on Tuesday. The proposed Lazy Oaks Ranch subdivision would have as many as 1,750 homes under the measure. MERCURY PHOTO
–
by BRAD ROLLINS
A measure that lays the groundwork for a 1,750-home subdivision on the former Storey-Robinson Ranch breezed through San Marcos City Council on Tuesday.
Downloads» Lazy Oaks Ranch concept plan map [pdf] » Lazy Oaks Ranch development agreement [pdf] |
Approved 6-1, the development agreement designates most of the 1,396-acre property off Ranch Road 12 for use as single-family residences and townhouses at densities ranging from three homes per acre to one home per 10 acres. The agreement sets aside 469 acres as drainage easements, parkland or open space, including areas around an earthen flood control dam, hills and canyons. The agreement expires after 10 years.
Jude Prather cast the lone vote in opposition with John Thomaides, typically the most skeptical council member of new development, voting in favor.
The development was opposed by nearby residents and by the San Marcos River Foundation which noted the whole property sits atop the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone where rainwater filters through porous rocks to replenish the subterranean reservoir.
“Water is so precious, and becoming more precious every day in Texas. If we are going to be able to serve our growing community in coming years, we cannot cause contamination of our own aquifer’s recharge zone. Our city is directly downstream of this recharge zone,” said Dianne Wassenich, the foundation’s executive director.
The final form of the agreement is “stronger and more enforceable” than earlier versions, assistant planning director Kristy Stark told council members.
Negotiations between the city and the landowners reduced the number of proposed housing units from 2,500 to 1,750 and includes a 100-foot undeveloped buffer between the Lazy Oaks property line and existing homes in the affluent Settlement and Fox Ridge subdivisions. A subcommittee of three council members added protections like the right to choose the firm that will map caves, karsts and other geographical features that ultimately will dictate where development can legally occur.
“Although I have not always been a fan of development agreements and voted against several of them, the reason [was] they didn’t have the broad representations of different viewpoints on a committee to help write them. They were written by very few people — maybe one on the council and the rest from staff — and there was very little input from anybody else. That didn’t happen in this case,” said John Thomaides, who served on the Lazy Oaks council subcommittee with Ryan Thomason and Wayne Becak.
Construction is not imminent. The property owners, members of an Austin law firm, must find a buyer who wants to develop the project and then must secure state and federal environmental clearance. Then the proposed project will re-enter the city process where the future developer must secure re-zoning to match the future land use designation approved as part of the agreement.
Some of the neighbors of the Lazy Oaks property have signaled that they might pursue legal action to stop the project. But in contrast to other recent controversial developments, the crowd was sparse with only four residents speaking on Tuesday against the development agreement.
“If we’re going to approve this deal, you really ought to think of putting a sign on each of town that says ‘We’re for sale.’ You can’t say you’re protecting the river if you approve this deal,” said attorney Charles Soechting, who lives off Pioneer Trail and tried to organize opposition to Lazy Oaks.
RELATED IN THE MERCURY:
- Live Feed: Lazy Oaks Ranch, Zelick’s permit council discussion | 01/15/2013
- Live Feed: Lazy Oaks Ranch, Retreat at Willow Creek council discussion | 12/04/2012
- San Marcos council okays Cape’s Camp park, apartments | 01/07/2013
- Construction of Windemere subdivision still months away, developer says | 01/31/2012
- City council approves Paso Robles annexation | 09/22/2010
Posted by Brad Rollins
on 02/06/2013. Filed under Business, Featured, News, Real Estate, San Marcos, The Corridor.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
18 Responses to Lazy Oaks Ranch gets preliminary okay from city council
Leave a Reply
Charles Soechting, is it true that you spoke before City Council in favor of Casey’s Sessom Canyon monstrosity?
If so, why is development bad at Lazy Oaks and good at Sessom Canyon? Is it because one is next to your property and the other one isn’t?
It is time that we San Marcans stand together, each of us realizing that a Darren Casey-like predator will come to our own neighborhood to sow havoc and harvest profit at the expense of single-family neighborhoods and the natural environment. San Martians stand up!
Heartbreaking.
Regardless of how many people have input into this plan, the facts don’t change that this development and the waste water lines servicing it, will slice into the recharge zone and put our aquifer at serious risk.
Why, oh why, is that so difficult to understand? Do these intelligent developers, council members, and city planners not read what happens down in San Antonio with leaks and contamination where development is over the recharge zone? How come affluent newcomers who want their big expensive homes out in the “Hill Country” and not over east of I35- where it is SAFE to build – get to put us all at risk? Why are the decision makers in this town in the pockets of developers and realty companies?
I’ll tell you why I wasn’t weren’t there last night to speak out against this ill conceived project- it has become more than obvious that NO ONE is listening. What would be the point?
The people were out canvassing for the recall election…
I’m really disappointed with recent decisions by the San Marcos City Council. If they’re so itchy for develop, why don’t they bring more jobs to San Marcos. As an alumni with two degrees from TX State, it broke my heart to leave San Marcos facing the reality that the only jobs in town were positions at the outlet mall and in the service industry. There are scarcely any career opportunities in San Marcos.
This town has at its fingertips some of the brightest students/minds in Texas and they let them just slip away to use their talents in the big cities.
Shame on the San Marcos City Council for continuing to build cookie-cutter subdivisions and apartments when they should be trying to attract INDUSTRIES to the city. Tap the largest departments at the university. Find out where they want to work. Attract those businesses to San Marcos.
We have the BEST geography department in the state, and one of the best in the nation. Why doesn’t GoogleMaps have an office here?
What I spoke to was the inconsistency in the application of rules in San Marcos and that Darren Casey has an excellent reputation for building quality projects. I think that you either knew the answer and chose to ignore what you knew or you are a shill for the realtor/title companies etc. promoting this project. Why don’t you use your last name so we can know which Patrick you are. I would have responded sooner but I seldom look at this rag anymore.
Well, I’m getting all to used to this game ~ check mate ~ bucky couch gone, Angie Rameriez in ~ also had some other decent folks appointed to committees last night.
Lazy Oaks is far from over, whether you like those fighting it or not, this is more detrimental to a healthy environment in SM than even Sessom is. After the Capes Camp decision I have to agree w/ Charles ~ put freakin billboards “San Marcos for Sale” on the main entrances and exits to town, less they confuse us w/ a city that actually cares!
In Brad Rollins article he said that “Soechting…..tried to organize opposition…”. When the neighborhood met with Jim Nuse nearly every household was present on a Saturday morning in a parking lot on the side of RR 12. Over 50 people (well over half ofnthe hoiuseholds were represented) attended although Mr. Nuse now only remembers “some people” coming to express their displeasure. Council’s approval is only one step but it was an unnecessary first step giving an huge financial bailout to a developer who, notwithstanding his training as an attorney, and the challenges to the project, would not respond to numerous opportunities to deny this project was a loser that he needed to get out. The city gave him the right to let someone build up to 1750 homes on approximately 700 usable acres. Once again, the city fell for the promise of parkland which is fact is land that was unusable and will remain as such. However my greatest criticism in the project is for some staff. Some did a great job representing the interests of the citizens. Kristi Stark deserves an A. Matt Lewis IMHO gets an low D, if that high. I do not presume for one moment that he cares what I think. The citizens of SM can thank the 6 members of council for helping a developer rape a beautiful piece of property that could have been developed safely and properly.
To those council members of the council who voted to reappoint me to the Airport Commission , thank you.
It has become overtly obvious that not one single area of our city is safe from the scurge of high-density/ profit driven developement! I have heard in the grapevine that upscale, proven developers will not come near San Marcos due to the inferior level of leadership and vision present in our elected leaders. This is truly a travesty for those of us that depend on quality developements for our living! There is surely more to life that stick-frame ” Rent-by-the bedroom” private dorm rooms and “low-end residential cracker box” spit on your neighbor five feet away housing. Good grief, this is the most sensitive region of the Edwards Aquifer! All toxins from rooftops, driveways and streets will pour directly into our water source, and appear within hours in our river! Mr Bass is being threatened by these encroachments, Mr Gurerro! I once told you that if Mr Bass is harmed in our beloved San Marcos River, that there would be consequences for this environmental injustice! It grieves my heart to see our natural jewels sanctity endangered! This travesty must not be allowed!
http://www.protectsmtx.org jlb
In the future, Mr. Soechting, instead of speaking in favor of Mr. Casey, I trust you will stand up for single-family neighborhoods and the San Marcos River. Mr. Casey will take care of himself.
This battle demands that we all stand together. Casey’s ugly move against Sessom Canyon was a wake up call. The watershed is not safe. The River is not safe. No neighborhood is safe.
PROTECT SAN MARCOS!
Charles Soechting for City Council!!!
Loved Caroline’s letter to the editor in the Record Charles, she has certainly grown into a very aware and caring young lady. It’s a crying shame when our children are so disappointed in our own city official’s decisions to put our river and our aquifer at risk that they feel they need to speak out about THEIR future. My own daughter has had her fair share of doing so as have many of her friends.
I am positive that more than a few of our young people who were appointed to the youth master plan committee are equally as disappointed about recent events.
The people of San Marcos need to stand as a united front against this assault on our city, if for no other reason than to show our children that if our city will not be the voice of the people, then the people’s will, will be done one way or another. Add that to the list of reasons that we must stop this runaway train of city mismanagement before there is nothing left to save in San Marcos.
In related news….
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
LMC, you bring nothing to the table worth noting. Every time you have some comment it is so off the wall and nothing insightful. You leave city council meetings before they end and then try to “rally the troops” with some unrealistic notion. This is why you were not elected to office remember
On the off chance that someone might thing that “A Ram.” is me, please let it be known that it is not. I have posted on this site just a couple of times and always use my full name. I am not suggesting that anybody used that tag to be misleading in any way. But when I saw it, it occurred to me that even I would think that my authoring the post was a reasonable conclusion. Thanks.–Angie Ramirez
I assure you it was not Angie Ramirez either
My family has hunted this land for over 70 years. And know it better than any one. the damn on the ranch is flooded to its brim every 20 years or so. And has large sink holes and caves all over the land. You can find arrow heads any where you go. And there is a old stone wall that runs for a half mile. The law firm in Austin that owns most of the land don’t care about the water there and only care About flipping the land. They don’t live here And don’t care about us that do. The cost of development will be enormous due to the rock. The 1750 homes will cater only to the Austin and San Antonio commuter. I think the city council should focus on bringing industry to the city before poring city funds into a costly short sighted project that will sure enough be a detriment to our source of water and the history of our home. If the city wants to get a true since of our history and cloture. And truly experience the grandeur of this land all they need to do is ask the family’s that have been on it for close to a hundred years. To loose this land to bull dozers and over development will be a irreplaceable huge detriment to our community’s for generations to come.
What are you talking about A Ram? Nice try, All my speeches are online if you’d like to tell me exactly which one you are referencing. Actually take a look at the voting returns. And, take a look at the boxes which have been ELIMINATED by your elected officials. Pretty funny from a poster who won’t even use his or her real name. FIVE THOUSAND VOTES and a runoff loosing with 200 votes aint half bad. There has only been a few run offs as of late. And, please compare the expense reports before you pop off with your poison keyboard advocacy.
Warm Regards, LMC