0 thoughts on “City nears adopting form-based downtown development codes”

1. This is an interesting concept and I have seen it work well elsewhere. IMO, when people say they want more dense development and less sprawl, they mean they want more packed in downtown. Which, is what this talks about (it seems).

   I can’t envision any map of San Marcos today, which would include Buie tract as part of “downtown.”

   So, let’s truly keep with the spirit of the people’s responses to various surveys and get a walkable *downtown*, where people can work (for a decent wage), live and play.

2. I received a letter from PADS last week informing me they were changing the zoning of my property on the end of Johnson Ave, 2 acres on Purgatory Creek. I don’t know if I agree with the designation or what affect this change will have on my future land use or property value. The letter directs me to the City website, where I can find no definitions of “T-3” or any of the new designations. Really? Guess I”ll go down to City Hall today ; )

3. Chris, you need to jump right on it. T3 allows some “interesting” uses from a traditional neighborhood perspective. I’d email you a copy of the info, but I’m doing chemo all day today.

   This is surprising to see the city already starting to use SmartCode outside the downtown area.

4. I’m on it. Thanks, Steve. Good luck today, hang in there.

5. I live in the historical area and received a notice this week-end of a public hearing for a city initiated zone change to my area. The boundaries are not clear but we will be a T4 or T3. I went by Planning & Development yesterday and picked up the “Specific Function & Use” paper on these new categories. T4 allows for retail and other uses not particular to residential and this would be “by right” with no permits required. Under the new zone plan, it will no longer be called a “permit” but rather a “warrant” that will be needed is some cases. T3 is “sub-urban zone consists of low density walkable residential areas, adjacent to higher zones that have some mixed use”. T4 is “general urban zone consists of a mixed use but primarily residential urban fabric”.

   During the seminars held back in March/April on this smart code, several people referred to Hyde Park in Austin as what they were trying to achieve here in San Marcos. I also think that Hyde Park is a great area… to visit. Ask the folks that live near the restaurants among the residential homes. Do you think they have parking issues? Ever been there when you have had to walk blocks to find a parking space? People walking on their lawns, throwing garbage wherever?

   This is a new system being started by the city. I would highly recommend that we begin with ONLY the downtown area for this “smart code”. Let’s implement it and see how it works, take out the kinks and refine it BEFORE taking on surrounding neighborhoods. It seems that neighborhoods in San Marcos are constantly being assaulted with attempts to make them something else besides a “neighborhood”!

6. Sorry, I forgot to add…. I also hope, Steve that your treatment goes well today. It is obvious that you are a good citizen of San Marcos that you take the time to help make it a great place to live!

7. I suggest that we start with Willow Creek. That seems like a safer way to ensure that the kinks are all worked out, before it is rolled out to the rest of the neighborhoods.

8. Will this vision of Hyde Park increase the property value of targeted San Marcos neighborhoods? Will prop taxes increases force families out of these homes?

9. It would appear to me that a T4 zoning would be incompatable with a historic district.

   As for Hyde Park, that might not be the example the City would want. Didn’t go too well there when the parking garage went up.

10. The smart code seems to be a good idea, for Downtown, and trying to create more compact mixed use neighborhoods in good, in some places. However the persons pushing “smart growth” don’t ask, or don’t care to ask one thing, what if most people don’t want to live in such a neighborhood? Urban sprawl did not happen because people were forced to move out of the old compact mixed use neighborhoods, it happened because they wanted to move out of those neighborhoods. Once they had cars, and once the interstate highway system was built, it was easier for them to move out of these neighborhoods, so they did.

    The maddening thing about the recent Buie Tract controversy is that all the people who were pushing for that development did not ask that question. We were told how wonderful it would be to have the mixed use development in mist, where we could walk to shops and offices. But no one stopped to wonder if the people of Franklin Square, Oak Heights, and Castle Forrest moved to those neighborhoods because they did not what to live in a mixed use neighborhood.

    I have an office downtown, which is San Marcos’ one mixed use neighborhood, and in my mind it is quite successful. If I wanted to live down here I could. My landlord owns apartments directly over my head. I spend so much time down here I sometime think I do live down here. But at the end of the day I want to go back to my house with it’s space, yard, and relative quiet.

    Now I am more cynical than I’m letting on. I sure some people bought in to the vision painted for the Buie Tract, some people are just in it for the money, and don’t care. You can decided who is who. But it seems that the persons currently in charge of this city’s government are intent on implementiung a new planning model, a new vision for San Marcos without asking the rest of use if this is where we really want to go.

11. I suppose I am more than a little thick between the ears, as many would eagerly agree. That given, could some word-wizard please give me a sound definition of the word, “smart,” in general? All-purpose?

    Then, as a favor, could someone really up to date on urban planning outside “metro centers” of over a hundred thousand tell me how the newly defined term “smart” applies to the growth pattern historic to our town? Does it mean mainly “mixed”? Anybody ever hear of the great classic of Ian McHarg, “Designing with Nature”? Nah, too old, I imagine.

    Maybe I’m beyond help. Sounds to me as if the current fad in the use of “smart” means two things, mainly: “agreeing with me,” and “mixed”–i.e., open use–zoning. The second is really difficult to apply to long-established, but not yet decaying toward “transitional” (read “devaluing”) areas of the City. In my experience, slipping in an incompatible or “non-traditional” use is quite often the quick way to clear out a residential neighborhood, in particular, and MAKE it become “transitional.” It is both costly and traumatic, as neighborhoods surrounding colleges and industrial areas around the country clearly show. Thus the formation of special “Historic Districts” with unique land use and development requirements.

    The “New Urbanism” really works best in new development or in areas decayed enough and therefore cheap enough to “gentrify”, i.e., mostly tear apart and redevelop. Or might the intent be to create little self-contained enclaves which become tiny towns unto themselves, where the residents come to think only of their own, local needs?

    I heartily endorse well-designed, before-the-fact, compatible mixed uses. But I look at the decay that surrounds many central cities (including even small ones) and see no analogy YET to San Marcos. That was most of the original momentum for creating a “downtown bar ordinance” at a time when opportunists were aching to make our declining CBD into a “Sixth Street” playground and trouble spot. The community chose then to go a better way, which included placing residential space downtown in unused second-floor space, helping upgrade buildings and streetscapes, and encouraging common public uses other than “entertainment.” That’s Main Street San Marcos, which has amassed huge sums in redevelopment, a great roster of civic and tourist events and piles of awards, in spite of being largely ignored. God bless Saint Kelly Franks.

    One wag along the way immortalized the comment that “When Austin eats beans, San Marcos farts.” Thus far, we are not yet entirely the tail end of Austin, but an observer might conclude with some justification that we really want to be. Why, we might even create our own “drug enterprise districts” like Austin has! That’s commerce! Money! Yum, yum! Smart! Fast! Hip! (None of which applies to your gentle commentator except, often regrettable, the last.)

    Diversifying the tax base seems like a more noble pursuit, and more lasting and beneficial, than jiggering land use to speed up development–some times people riding that horse go so fast they fall off, forever handicapped. Why did the Corridor Business Incubator (Yes, there ‘is’ one, 202 W. San Antonio.) languish and become just a cheap City rental property, rather than a creator of new jobs?

    Ah, well, maybe the average taxpayer might benefit from a new slogan and logo more than anything we could do to make it better for those who live and work here. Reminds me of one of those old Mickey Rooney movies where he says to Judy Garland, “I’ve got it! We could put on a show!” They always end happily, so why not?

    Today’s word is “sustainable” growth–appropriate to the highest and best land use, efficient, economical, compact, expandible, and self-sustaining through the self-interests of the community. Long-term solid. Easy to manage and maintain.

12. Mayor’s aggressive pro-growth and TSU’s land grab have created instability in single family neighborhoods. Whose block is next to have a business and parking lot next door? Thus existing residents will move outside of town to live creating more sprawl.

    Sounds like an emphasis on “look and feel” translates to more brands, logos, banners and fancy street signs.
    Look- the Emperor has no clothes!

13. Mr. Moore, sentence 1, paragraph 4 is a home run.

14. Pingback: QUOTE CORNER - San Marcos Local News