SMCP - Vision and Goals

Test Comment

My husband and I have had issues with the our Garbage and Recycling company. We need to a find better company and have them come more often than just once a week. We pay so much for so little service. Look into finding a better group.

We really need another grocery store option on southside San Marcos near Hwy 35 area, around McCarthy or Centerpoint streets. I heard rumors that SMTX council had made an agreement with "H-E-B" that the council cannot allow a permit for any other grocery store company like Kroger/Aldi, etc. That only H-E-B has the control of their stores are only to built in SMTX. Any truth to that? Both the big and small HEB are so crowded and it is so dangerous to park and walk in their lots. I am a senior citizen. The small H-E-B has very small aisles and fewer food options. Can we get another grocery store built on the southside soon?

The new road construction with bike paths are confusing on the Wonder World and Hunter. And is downright dangerous. I have seen many cars accidently drive over the makeshift island on Hunter next to CVS. That small raised island really needs to be removed. Take another look at that and watch for 30 minutes to see how many cars and trucks run over that island or they will made a wide turn on the lane next to them in order to go around that island.

The roads on McCarty and Centerpoint needs further road improvements near the railroad tracks. Wonder World has so much traffic that we need another thoroughfare going from East to West toward Wimberley from Highway 35. OR set up overpass on both Centerpoint and McCarthy. Hopkins Street need to be worked on quickly. (your hired contractors work at tooooo slow of pace) Start offering incentive bonus for finishing up construction and road projects quicker.

My sister is in an 55+ community but she is in need of further assistance for having prepared meals and housekeeping. We looked at assisted living or 55+ independent living/assisted living that provides meals and housekeeping amenities. They are SO overpriced, that she cannot afford it. We looked into home health care service options for her which are still expensive. She is a little bit over the income limit that does not qualify her for Medicaid benefits (even though she has many medical needs that she has to pay for which she barely break even) . She is in "between" the two categories. We need more affordable options for senior citizens to get the needed amenities so they can get a quality of life.

There needs to be more busses heading to all different areas of town at more frequent times during the week and weekend. And there also needs to be a bus that goes all the way to New Braunfels and Kyle daily and on the weekends.

I think the four C's section of this presentation really emphasized a stark reality. We have a limited number of options: - Sprawl, - Unaffordability, or - Density and Infill, In order to keep housing remotely affordable we have to work with developers and stop thinking of them as the enemy. We also have to recognize that choices about where to build are the responsibility of the *entire* community. We have to stop letting the richest communities prevent growth and change in their neighborhoods.

I actually really like the student housing that's been built downtown. There are some bad things (that one building is too tall, the old telephone building shouldn't have been torn down, they've been forced to build too much parking, and some of them are a bit ugly), but it's great to have students, the life-blood of this town, front and center. I hear so many so many complaints about students living in or near suburban neighborhoods, but most students don't want to live there anyways. Students generally want to be able to walk to class (student parking on campus is not that practical). It's great that they can now also walk to our downtown businesses. I do think that we need to observe what these apartments do to the rental market for a year or two before approving anymore new rent-by-the bedroom student housing (downtown or elsewhere). We've seen an explosion of new units in that segment while enrollment has remained steady. However, if there is a need for more student housing, I hope that it is similar to some of these recent complexes (just remove minimum parking requirements!). I think these new apartments will help keep our rental rates affordable.

Need to focus on the missing middle (condos, townhomes, duplexes, cottage courts, etc) housing needs of our community. This type of housing can be incorporated into existing and new neighborhoods.

Probably would approve the Georgetown approach over Kyles's if that were a clear choice, but some degree of all four of the approaches are needed if proper balance amount them is maintained. Would like to see different price levels interspersed rather than all high dollar or all starter housing. But code enforcement will be critical in such a situation, particularly in a university town. Absentee owners of homes in single family neighborhoods is already a significant problem. There are numerous middle class/upper middle class homes in Oak Heights occupied by students that would be ideal homes for families. Code enforcement people have a difficult time confirming violations, but the violations are there. Concerning economic development, the employers sought should provide environmentally desirable jobs with middle class salaries and wages. We do need more public transportation, namely bus routes. And keep student housing (apartments, etc.) away from single family neighborhoods. Every effort should be made to make/keep downtown attractive and flourishing. High rise buildings are not desirable.

I love how dedicated this community is to its green spaces! I'd love to see lots of work done on the bike/hike trail and more public parks.

Need to encourage and incentivize long-term, affordable residency rather than short-term housing for college students.

The street improvement programs need to be coordinated and performed on an expedited schedule. The previous projects take way too long and tie up traffic un-necessarily.

There is a great need for affordable housing. San Marcos is not a wealthy community, it needs good housing for the entire population. Developers need to include affordable housing in their programs.

Road diets coupled with adding bike lanes on streets when they are scheduled to be re-paved. Love the delineated bike lanes on Hunter Rd. The City needs to work diligently toward combining our bus transportation system with TX State Shuttle.

There is nothing historic about minimum parking requirements.

Singly family zoning is a racist relic from the early 20th century. It was conceived to make housing less affordable to minorities and it has be hugely successful! We need diversified housing types everywhere so we can live near people who aren't all like us. A monoculture becomes diseased.

I concur with Melissa's comments about creating a development ring around the city to stop endless urban sprawl. This is the way we move toward Betsy's goal of beginning to address climate change.

I really like the Emerald Crown Trail vision. I hope the city can continue to work with regional partners to make it a reality.

I think we should move some of the non-river facilities out of the river-side parks. As these facilities age (tennis courts, city pool, chamber of commerce building, that weird office building at the intersection of C.M. Allen and Hopkins...) let's try to find new locations for them. This would give us more space by the river to reduce impermeable cover, move some parking away from the river itself, and give more space to seriously over-crowded parks. We had an old mayor that used to say we can't increase the size of our parks by the river, but I don't think that's actually true.

I would be cautious in downsizing open space on E side of freeway. This soil is dense and will not absorb runoff so more prone to flooding. And its another way of making the E side "less than" the W side and we don't need to encourage that. If requiring less pervious for bus transportation or services that will attract all residents and stay in the neighborhood. With rain collection, possibly.

I have one caveat to add to Suzanne Polk's comment. Prioritize utilizing existing non-profit art and culture organizations as opposed to creating more government. The dollars will go much further.

Do NOT create housing restrictions for certain people groups like Kyle is currently attempting to do. This only further increases the homeless population and is not equitable and fair.

San Marcos Greenbelt Alliance does so much good for our community. We need to continue to support and encourage their efforts and work collaboratively with them.

Creating an office of sustainability to guide the city into reducing its carbon footprint, providing equity for all community members, and protecting the river and greenspaces.

We need to add commercial spaces for greenfield developments to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce traffic etc. but we must be mindful and codify usages across the board to ensure quality of life isn't jeopardized by high levels of noise & pollutants.

Since we are now to become a "Music Friendly City" I believe Ms. Polk's suggestions here would ensure that we can walk the talk. A small percentage taken from economic development agreements, developments etc. to fund this renaissance that is trying SO HARD to happen would be a game changer. We shouldn't pass this expense off to developers, but take a small percentage for a new arts program. We have many citizens with the experience to spearhead this project, but there are moving parts that need to be considered.

We need a solid list of environmental requirements for our economic development agreements to include solar, low water usage etc. We also need more focus on our local small businesses, and to create hubs of affordability for them on any current or future city owned land in the downtown. Corporate sandwich shops litter our downtown while spots sit vacant for years because downtown is so unaffordable. We should offer bigger, BIG grants and give staff assistance regarding historic tax breaks and grants so the "small guy" can afford to purchase downtown property to stabilize their expenses and not be subjected to ever rising rental costs.

The river is top priority always, and we must ensure it's protection for future generations. As I stated elsewhere we must continue to acquire sensitive recharge land to protect river/aquifer as well as to lessen flooding. We must finish the "ring around the city" that will do all of these things. We also need to continue the city's efforts to reducing our carbon footprint, and that of any business that wants to come here. We need a solid list of environmental requirements for our economic development agreements to include solar, low water usage etc. We also need a river protection buffer X distance around the river that has environmental restrictions and more limited impervious cover than our code requires now or we will go the way of Lady Bird Lake in Austin with high rises blocking and polluting our river.

We were promised "neighborhood character studies" back in 2012-ish. We desperately need to get these studies done, so we will have guidance regarding how to proceed with infill development that doesn't ruin the character and adds more housing for families, young professionals etc. Some neighbors DO want commercial within walking distance, while others are older neighborhoods with green space and tree canopies lining the streets where commercial would be not be appropriate. Other's are historic districts, and still others suburban sprawl where adding walkable/bikeable services would be a huge improvement.

If there were a way to move City Hall into downtown, I believe it would rejuvenate the area and allow small businesses to thrive and compete with corporations. We need to continue to acquire sensitive recharge land - green space - to protect the river and aquifer as well as to lessen flooding. We also need more greenspaces in neighborhoods. We should also increase the parkland fee in leu of for developers, as it hasn't been adjusted in ten years and the cost of land has skyrocketed in that time. At this point there is zero incentive for developers to dedicate parkland when the fee is so low to forgo it and it increases density/money as they use it to build more units.

While a great deal of economic development in this area is tied to the I35 corridor, much of what brings money into this city, especially in the summer, is the RIVER. We need to start approaching how we deal with the river not only as a responsible partner in the preserving/conserving the Edwards Aquifer, but as something that needs to be sustained and protected as an economic development tool. If the river is polluted from trash and runoff no one is going to want to come here when New Braunfels with the Comal and Guadalupe is just down the road.

Preservation of San Marcos’ unique natural resources is my co-occurring top priority (along with better and safer walkability).

There are many improvements we can make within our existing ROWs that can help to reduce vehicular congestion and improve multimodal access. We should invest in better sensors that can detect the difference between humans, cyclists, and vehicles (these have been available for many years now) and we need to invest in regular re-timing and syncing (every 2 years or so) of the lights on Hopkins. We have seen a lot of success with round-a-bouts in the Rio Vista Neighborhood, and should look to expand their use where appropriate. We need an additional bike/bed river crossing south Hopkins Bridge in Veterans Park. The City has been much more supportive of multi modal transportation over the past few years and should be congratulated for it. But multi modal is more than paint and concrete, in Texas it means TREES. Bike/Ped facilities desperately need shade in the summer if they are expected to be used by large numbers of people. Trees should be considered just as much part of transportation infrastructure as the paint.

Land prices are going up, building costs are goin up. We need more options, but many of the options being offered by developers are trying to cut out the cost of public infrastructure (condoized single family with no public roads). We need the ability for small lot single family or condominiums with appropriate infrastructure. But we also need to make sure that we don't put all of these more economical options out at the fringes of the community were there are no easily accessible amenities or services. New communities over a certain amount of acres should be required to provide some commercial properties, integral to the community, to allow for community services meet the needs of residents as the community grows. Luckily, we have the Planning Area Districts in the Development code with encourages this type of land use pattern.

Historic buildings are a great asset to any community. But in addition to the building themselves, it is important to focus on the characteristics and standards that made those buildings possible, so that the spaces in which these buildings were created and thrived can be replicated. Providing spaces with adequate public infrastructure in the form of utilities and connectivity, and development standards that encourage or require smaller lot development similar to our cherished historic spaces will allow new great spaces to develop with similar character, which will help to make access to these spaces more equitable, and relieve some of the competition and pressure within the existing historic spaces. There should be nodes of this type of development character throughout the City, it is particularly lacking on the east side of 35. One of the major issues has been encouraging this type of development at major intersections ("because that's where commercial wants to go"). It doesn't work for a variety of reasons. When a developer wants to take down a 100+ acres, there should be a requirement for 10 or so acres, fairly central to the development, to have these historical commercial/mixed use characteristics. This way the property infrastructure can be installed, rather than relying on the exterior roadways that were constructed with suburban development in mind.

Large employers are good. But much more important is a healthy small business environment. In order to help promote small business we need the infrastructure that does not overly cost burden small business development. By that I mean we need more location opportunities for small businesses to thrive. Like our downtown, for instance. Up until the past few years, the scale of lots and buildings in our downtown allowed for business to develop with much more affordable rents and development costs. The cost of locating or constructing in a comparable shopping center pad site rendered it infeasible for all but chain restaurants and doctors offices. Developments standards and zoning districts that allow for business to locate in proximity to residents and other businesses, without the huge startup costs associated with I-35 style greenfield development is critical to growing opportunity for local small businesses.

we need more large greenspaces, particularly in our environmentally sensitive areas. We are getting a lot of pressure from housing developers on the west side of town over the recharge zone, and on the east side in the farmlands. Luckily, our current code has tools to require large open space requirements in these sensitive areas, like the Planning Area Districts. Unfortunately, many single use developers do not want to use these districts for the very reason that the open space requirements are so high. It might make sense to reduce some of the open space requirements for development on the east side (that is not river adjacent) in order to encourage the use of these districts. For example, reducing the requirement from 50% open space to 25/30%. While still significant, it makes developing a property based on the superior code requirements in the Planning Area Districts a little more financially feasible. I do not suggest decreasing the open space requirements for any properties that are over the recharge zone or that are river adjacent.

Long time resident (17 years and counting) TX State Graduate, and former City employee. Housing has always been an issue in San Marcos since I have been here, and while there has historically been a shortage of student housing close to campus, there is now another issue. The price of housing all over Central Texas is being driven by the Austin Economy as well as material shortages. Land prices today are skyrocketing, and they do not show signs of slowing. Many of the homes being purchased in our "old core" neighborhoods are not being purchased by parents trying to make an investment for their students to live in, but by people who are leaving Austin. Now that people can Telework and do not have to be close for a regular commute it is likely to get even more competitive. I agree with other commenters that many of the "affordable" neighborhoods being added on the east side of IH-35 are lack some of the charm and character of our "old core". However the San Marcos Development Code that was adopted in 2018 provides many viable ways to create character and charm while still building "affordable" communities. Home builders just are not interested. The Trace subdivision, while developed under a PDD that was adopted prior to the current Development Code, uses many of the same or similar standards available, and in some cases required, under certain zoning districts that are available in the Development Code. Homes are selling well and are being built quickly, particularly the alley loaded homes built by Pacesetter, and they range from 2-5 bedrooms. Yet other home builders will say that it is impossible to sell homes like this in Central Texas. The truth is they have a limited amount of building floor plans in their inventory and they do not want invest in anything different. The biggest issue is when housing developers request 100s of acres of single use residential development. They will argue that it is the only "affordable" way to develop housing, and that their product is the only thing people will buy. This is not true, and it is bad for the environment, our health, AND our tax base. The amount of TAX PAYER dollars used to maintain services on these large single family only communities is substantially higher than on subdivisions that mix single family with a substantial amount of commercial or more dense residential uses (not just a gas station at the major intersection on the edge). While I am not suggesting that single use zoning districts should be removed, I am suggesting that there should be a maximum acreage of single use zoning districts to mitigate the issues. Maybe 40-60 acres for single family, could be broken up with corridors that allow for mix of uses, or natural areas such as linear parks/greeways etc. This would allow for significant single family development while still integrating enough of a mixture of uses to defer tax payer cost of infrastructure, and as well as potential to solve for some transportation and health related costs. It would also go a long way to helping create community character as well. And the best thing is that our current code has the ability, already, to implement these kinds of neighborhoods, through the Planning Area Districts!