Citywide re-zoning proposal stirs lots of interest and concern from property owners

'(The plan) has grown to propose zoning every unzoned property in the city, mostly businesses but some residences to the highest possible zoning designation – hundreds of them . . . in every respect, in every case, it is commercial'

In less than a month, the council could pass the plan into law as it now stands. And once passed you can't take it back. That's the law in the state of Texas

Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net

Compiled and edited by Bob Ochoa
RoundUp Editor

Thursday night's Feb. 12 public hearing at Wimberley city council chambers over a proposed citywide re-zoning plan attracted an unexpectedly large crowd of citizens. Local media has provided only scant coverage of this important matter. Many in attendance expressed surprise at the magnitude of the plan and others expressed concerns about its effects on their properties. The RoundUp is also hearing concerns that unnamed interests and members on the city council and planning & zoning commission appear determined to push through a transformation of Wimberley into a landscape of high intensity commercially zoned properties.

Here's a question to consider: Unless there's a really good reason to rush to judgment, shouldn't the city council delay final adoption of this re-zoning plan until after the May election? One would think a proposal this sweeping deserves more transparency, and a lot more open debate among the general population. Three council seats are up for election in May. Candidate filing is now open. Wouldn't it be best for all concerned to let the candidates campaign on their positions, and let the voters decide the best course to follow?

Following are the views of three well informed people who attended the Thursday night public hearing:

First View

Last night there was a public hearing attended by I estimate 80-100 people on the proposed citywide zoning plan. As you probably know Wimberley has taken a different tact than many cities concerning zoning since our incorporation. We started with a Comprehensive Plan developed through a citizen's stake-holder driven process that expressed the vision of what we want Wimberley to be. Based on this plan zoning ordinances were recommended by the appointed P&Z Commission to the elected City Council for approval.

Here is where the difference occurred. Wimberley initially allowed its residents to come forward and seek residential and commercial zoning on a tract specific basis. Through time a number of larger platted residential subdivisions were also zoned free of charge as our residential zoning is based primarily on lot size and single or multi-family use. Now with development pressures mounting the City Council felt it was time to finish the zoning of all remaining unzoned lots which are primarily commercial uses and those residential areas which haven't been zoned because they were either small, complex, or have grown topsy-turvy.

Last night there was agreement on the concept of Citywide zoning, but disagreement on whether the proposed zoning map was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which was reviewed and revised by the Council last year. There were about 20 people who spoke about their specific concerns while the P&Z Commissioners listened.

Next Wednesday at 6:00 PM the P&Z Commission will hold a workshop concerning developing regulations for the highway entrance corridors. There will be another Public Hearing before the Commission on February 26th. I hope other concerned citizens will turn out so they understand what is occurring and participate in making their concerns known.

Second View

It was standing-room only. Some folks were sitting on the floor, and people were lined up in the back of the room. Most of the council was there. There was a groundswell against the proposed zoning, and a clear voice against commercializing the river and Cypress Creek as well as the neighborhoods off River Road and the area off FM2325.

There were more people at this hearing than were at the meeting on the sewer system at the Community Center. Eighteen people spoke against it in some fashion. There was a petition signed by 43 people against the whole thing. Ten people living on Blue Heron signed a petition opposing the commercial zoning of that street. Five people on Loma Vista signed a petition against (commercial) zoning along Blue Heron and Cypress Creek.

One knowledgeable participant made what I think was the best argument against it – that the plan is not a map of Wimberley and is inconsistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan, and that it is illegal because it allows spot zoning; it puts dense development along the creek and river; not legal in terms of the zoning ordinance (single land uses can't dominate entryways). He urged taking this off the table and starting over.

P&Z Commissioner John Stefanowicz agreed. Lila M. tried to tell folks that, given our size, we wouldn't be the site for big-box stores and our zoning ordinance limits the size to no more than 20,000 square feet. LeAnn M. from Hoots Holler called for devising design standards before adopting new zoning. It was resoundingly criticized for what appeared as no consideration for buffer zones, green space, protecting Blue Hole, the creek or the river.

Residents living in the neighborhood along Rhodes and Jewell lanes opposed the change to commercial as well. A former city attorney was concerned about the lack of process in this huge rezoning effort as well as the impact on property values from all the commercial zoning (several were concerned about this point). Scott S., along with the former city attorney, said it "goes too far, too fast." He was especially concerned with the dense development (C-2) around schools and the need for sidewalks for the students who walk along there (3 schools and 2 school zones along there).

Don Ferguson gave an overview of the proposal at the beginning, and Tracy Dean moved quickly into taking public comments. There was no room for a motion. There was some discussion of this during the next agenda item, where the various commissioners were able to speak.

Folks were concerned their values would increase significantly, and although Don Ferguson said the chief appraiser at the appraisal district indicated they don't look at zoning when valuing properties, other folks said the values increase anyway. Another concern was placing more intense zoning along the river, which residents of South River did not like.

Third View

I have no idea what has driven this to such an extreme. I was at the council meeting where the initial charge was given to the planning and zoning commission. What council said then was do a city-initiated zoning of existing business. That would be great to do since we've avoided it in the past. But it has grown from that to we need to zone every unzoned property in the city, mostly business but some residences – and what is shown in the map is to put the highest possible zoning designation on those properties – hundreds of them. In very respect, in every case, it is commercial.

On top of that they have decided to rezone numerous properties commercial that are currently zoned residential – like all those properties along Rhodes Ln. They've taken all those little homes that are currently residential zoned and converted all that to commercial zoning. The big open field on RR 12 across South River – this map proposes to rezone it commercial even though the owner went through expense and time to get that property zoned agricultural.

In addition to that they've decided (no one by the way will take responsibility for the map that has been drawn up) that those planning areas we have in place now are not right. So they've suggested more intense zoning than would not otherwise be allowed in the planning area. An example, there's those new storage units by the high school, and the empty adjacent property there that should only be zoned residential, agricultural or neighborhood services – very low intensity. For some reason somebody decided that those properties should be Commercial 2, the second most intense commercial development allowed by the city. I don't understand it. And they put C2 and C1 zoning on properties that front Cypress Creek and the river.