Mystic Canyon proposal gets the OK from P&Z
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING
After hearing members of the public share their opinions about the proposed Mystic Canyon development, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted Tuesday to approve a zoning change request for 56 acres to accommodate the project. The zoning change request stirred controversy because the land is undeveloped greenspace over the environmentally-sensitive Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, and because residents of adjacent neighborhoods have voiced numerous concerns about the development.
The commission first heard the request to change the zoning of that acreage from Future Development to Single Family-6 a month ago and held a public hearing. A motion to deny the request was left on the table when the commissioners decided to postpone their decision until the applicant, Jim Ladner, had reached out to the public about Mystic Canyon.
“I was not notified in advance ... We were told nobody would develop back there because of the aquifer and the preservation back there. … I would love to see nothing built back there.”
Ramika Adams
Resident near
development site
“That means our public hearing has been conducted,” commission chair Jim Garber said; however, Garber allowed the public comment period at the beginning of Tuesday’s meeting to run long if needed to allow everyone who wanted to speak about Mystic Canyon to have their turn at the podium.
Several residents spoke in favor of the development, noting that Ladner has seemed willing to address the concerns of the residents of Castle Forest, Franklin Square and other neighborhoods near the proposed development. Sarah Lee Underwood Meyers said she had heard Ladner give three presentations on the development and that he has expressed willingness to work with a buffer zone around the neighborhood and take steps to alleviate traffic.
Dianne Wassenich of the San Marcos River Foundation, which owns land adjacent to the proposed development site, said that the foundation agreed with the city staff recommendation to approve the zoning change.
“Of course we would like to preserve all of the recharge zone,” she said. “... But we realize that other people own some of the land and want to use it.”
Wassenich pointed out that Ladner’s plan for the development includes a buffer zone and the clustering of housing units and that he is working around the geological features of the land.
“They are paying attention to the geology,” she said. “They have a geologist that we (the river foundation) trust enough that we’ve used him on our properties that we have for conservation. … We are thinking these developers are doing their best to try to satisfy the neighbors and all the much stricter rules the city has now.”
Most speakers were not as keen on Mystic Canyon, however. People who live near the proposed development voiced concerns about increased traffic on streets that already accommodate plenty of cars, worsening drainage when some houses are already in danger of flooding, and losing habitat for wildlife.
Greg Clayton, who lives near the proposed development, said that when he went around his neighborhood, people told him the commisison had already made up its mind.
“I’m beginning to get the vibe that this decision has already been made,” he said. “What I’m beginning to get the feeling is that people with political influence in this town have gotten together with other people on the planning and commission and what have you and have talked and decided that this, for better or for worse, is in the best interest of the community.”
Ramika Adams, who lives on a street near the proposed development, said that she had not received any notification about Mystic Canyon.
“I was not notified in advance,” she said, adding that she found out about it on NextDoor.com.
Adams said that when she and her husband bought their house five years ago, “We were told nobody would develop back there because of the aquifer and the preservation back there. … I would love to see nothing built back there.”
Adams said that she, too, had heard that the commission had already made up its mind, but, “I am standing firm and hoping that you guys have not made a decision, like I’ve been told within the community.”
Lisa Marie Coppoletta spoke in favor of not only the development, but also the P&Z commission.
“I think I’ve got more at stake than the rest of you because I’m downhill,” she said, adding that the developer has expressed willingness to work with buffers and solutions to help with drainage from the development.
Coppoletta responded to the accusations that the commission had already made its decision without input from the public.
“This is the best dais you’re ever going to get,” she said. … “These people are true blue, and I’ve watched some pretty crappy ones up there make some bad votes.”
Ladner gave a presentation to the commission on his intentions with the land and his ideas for alleviating traffic in Castle Forest and drainage issues that would worsen flooding. He said that of the total 61 acres of the site — about 5 acres is already zoned residential, he said — a maximum of 30 acres will be used for home sites, and in keeping with impervious cover regulations, a maximum of 15 acres will have impervious cover. Moreover, he pointed out that the Vista de los Santos is less than 2 miles away, built on top of very similar geography.
“I want this to be a process and a product that has everyone’s involvement,” he said. “... I’m local. I love San Marcos. I’ve said it over and over again. My daughter goes to Texas State, I do business here. … I want to be a good neighbor.”
Commissioner Angie Ramirez, who had made the motion to deny the zoning change four weeks ago, said that she had mixed feelings about the development but would leave her motion on the table. The commission voted down the motion to deny the zoning change request and then voted in favor of the request 4-3.
