Council balks at missing pieces of plan

The same parcel of land that was the subject of questions and concerns at Tuesday’s Planning and Zoning Commission meeting prompted similar questions and concerns at Wednesday’s San Marcos City Council meeting.

Council held the first of two public hearings on the annexation of about 934 acres of land located to the east of San Marcos at State Highway 80 and Farm to Market Road 1984. 

The acreage, which city officials have said is in the San Marcos extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), includes 66 acres slated for development by manufacturing firm Katerra. 

The city struck an economic incentive deal with Katerra for the construction of a manufacturing facility, providing hundreds of jobs. 

Public comments

San Marcos resident Lisa Marie Coppoletta praised the P&Z commission for its decision and chastised council for what she called “closed-door” dealings to approve the Katerra agreement at the expense of the city’s land development code.

“There’s no PSA (Preferred Scenario Amendment request). In fact, this is The Woods times a million. This is in a floodway, this is in a floodplain, there is no buffer for the single family homes that are going to be impacted,” she said. 

Dianne Wassenich of the San Marcos River Foundation raised concerns about potential flooding, despite the rules the city has put in place to protect people downstream from flooding. She pointed out that 2D flood modeling is not required in that area and that “there are things that we need to look at.”

Marybeth Harper, who lives in the Martindale ETJ and who spoke at the P&Z meeting about this issue, spoke again to council.

“The area that is to be annexed, a big bunch of that is in the Martindale ETJ. Not San Marcos -- Martindale,” she said. “And I don’t like the idea that San Marcos has its tentacles out trying to reach those of us in the Martindale ETJ.”

Harper also said the land being considered for annexation has a floodway on it that drains directly into the San Marcos River. Among her other concerns was traffic, which she said is already thick on highways 80 and 21 and on FM 1984.

On the other side of the issue, Caldwell County Commissioner Ed Theriot, whose precinct includes the property under consideration for annexation, spoke in favor of the development and of the annexation.

“We’re very supportive of the efforts of San Marcos to annex and get this property zoned,” he said, “primarily for the reason that it’s better codes related to water quality, drainage, building codes — county doesn’t have building codes —- fire protection … all the regulations that will make this a better development.”

Like San Marcos, Caldwell County has entered into an economic incentive agreement with Katerra.

Developer Mike Schroeder also spoke to council about his proposed development — an industrial rail park called SMART Terminal that would be located on the 934 acres. According to Greater San Marcos Partnership President Adriana Cruz, “SMART” stands for San Marcos Air, Rail and Truck. The development would offer options for moving freight.

“It was about two years ago that we recognized the possibility and the vision of having something that could be a great economic stimulus for our area,” Schroeder told council.

He said the railroad track at the front of the property is not typically busy but he has secured rail service from Union Pacific and BNSF. He said that several companies are interested in using the SMART Terminal and that the development would end up having a taxable value of between $4 billion and $6 billion.

“What heavy industrial does is it pays for everything else in the city,” he said.

Schroeder said he is mindful of floodplain and water quality concerns.

“We want to be successful, but we want to be respectful, and we want to be a part of this community going forward,” he told council.   

Council’s questions

During the staff presentation, city engineering chief Laurie Moyer discussed the flooding and drainage issues that arose at the P&Z meeting. 

“This property will come in and it will be required to comply with city ordinances,” she said, including those dealing with floodplain and stormwater management and water quality. One of those ordinances states that new development can’t increase flooding downstream.

“They can’t increase water surface levels offsite,” she said.

Moyer also noted that the maximum amount of impervious cover allowed under Heavy Industrial zoning — 80 percent — would include all public facilities, not just the development itself. Moreover, no impervious cover is allowed in water quality zones included in the acreage, and buffer zones near the water quality zones allow only reduced impervious cover.

Schroeder said the rail component of his planned SMART Terminal will take up about 100 acres and will be pervious. Moreover, he said he has no plans to develop areas in the floodplain.

“There’s a considerable amount of property that won’t be developed,” he said.

Council member Ed Mihalkanin expressed concerns about the allegations that part of the land is in Martindale’s ETJ. City planning chief Shannon Mattingly told Mihalkanin that staff did research and found that this land is within the San Marcos ETJ, except for one small corner which is part of the proposed project but is not being annexed or rezoned. 

Mayor Jane Hughson asked how many acres of the proposed development site are within the Martindale ETJ and Mattingly said she was unsure because the metes and bounds — a system of land measurement used sometimes when survey areas are an irregular size or shape — have not been finalized.

“How can we annex it if the metes and bounds aren’t finalized?” Mihalkanin asked.

Mattingly said that the measurements will be finalized before the second reading of the annexation ordinance. 

Council members made requests to city staff for composite maps for clarity. Hughson asked staff to create a map that includes the proposed FM 110 on it before council discusses the issue again. The roadway is expected to be built near the development. Mihalkanin had said that a single map showing the Katerra property and the floodplain areas would have been helpful instead of two separate maps.

Council member Melissa Derrick asked Moyer if staff could do 2D flood modeling before the second reading or give council access to prior 2D modeling. Mihalkanin and Hughson supported the idea.

“Just because it’s not required doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea,” Hughson said.

Next week council will hold a second public hearing on the annexation. The first reading of the annexation ordinance will be on Jan. 15, and the second reading on Jan. 29.Twitter: @arobingoestweet