×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

City of San Marcos - Draft Comprehensive Plan

The community provided comments on the plan in January/February 2023.

Welcome, and thank you for your interest in the future of San Marcos! The below draft plan was developed by the community to create and achieve a vision for the future of our community over the next 20 years. The Public Review period for the plan was open in January/February 2023. The below comments reflect those received online. Visit www.visionsmtx.com to see comments received on the plan in-person at our Open House and pop-up events. Thank you to all who have participated!

Summary Full Document

Summary

All Hide

Welcome!

San Marcos, Texas is a growing community of diverse and unique places. The Vision SMTX Comprehensive Plan aims to help shape the future of the places where San Marcans live, work, shop, and play by preserving what’s important to the community and guiding investments that help make San Marcos a vibrant and unique city for all.

You can learn more about the draft plan creation at www.visionsmtx.com.

Powered by Konveio

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Most recent

Most replied

Most supported

By page

Replies

Eric Mock Feb 3 2023 at 11:17PM on page 121

Comment

New infrastructure investments can be shared among new businesses (developing in the Industrial Corridor - 110 & 21 HWY) and county.

0 replies

Eric Mock Feb 3 2023 at 10:21PM on page 66

Comment

Absolutely agree with focus on East side.

0 replies

Eric Mock Feb 3 2023 at 10:19PM on page 66

Comment

based on the continuous & projected growth in San Marcos & Hays county, this should be an immediate priority and long term goal.

0 replies

Eric Mock Feb 3 2023 at 10:06PM on page 65

Comment

Especially on the east side of 35 between 35 & Park & Wildlife-Fish Hatchery. Similar setup like Rio Vista (park and access to include handicap access) to include the large pond off of Capes road.

0 replies

in reply to Alex Vogt's comment

"LMC" Lisa Marie Coppoletta Feb 3 2023 at 10:00PM on page 21

.... with no reason provided...perhaps a bent on new urbanism ideology. You just proved my point.

0 replies

in reply to Alex Vogt's comment

"LMC" Lisa Marie Coppoletta Feb 3 2023 at 9:58PM on page 23

He strongly disagrees...with no reason provided....replace with Equality, per his comments else where citing the US Constitution. Delete Equity and insert Equality.

0 replies

in reply to Brian Smith's comment

"LMC" Lisa Marie Coppoletta Feb 3 2023 at 9:54PM on page 32

Comment

EQUALITY is the use in constitutional law. EQUITY is a new term that has been politicized and used as a club word. Delete Equity and use equality. That is what these comments addressing my comments assume.

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 4:03PM on page 159

Comment

More context about the extraordinarily high cost of vehicular infrastructure—which nearly everyone seems to want but no one wants to pay for—would be valuable here.

0 replies

in reply to Alex Vogt's comment

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:51PM on page 96

Comment

Strongly agree

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:51PM on page 95

Comment

Would like to see this as the standard for medium density, too

0 replies

in reply to Alex Vogt's comment

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:49PM on page 92

Comment

Agreed

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:48PM on page 88

Comment

I would love do see a general principle emerge, where, as density increases, vehicular infrastructure decreases. We shouldn't have large 50 mph arterial roads cutting through dense neighborhoods in downtown.

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:45PM on page 88

Question

Not sure what an "access drive". Can it be defined parenthetically?

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:43PM on page 87

Comment

I am concerned about "shared streets" being interpreted as "sharrows". SHARROWS ARE TERRIBLE!!!

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:37PM on page 76

Comment

The historical overlay is incomplete because it does not acknowledge the streets within these historic neighborhoods as part of the historic built environment in San Marcos. By only recognizing private property boundaries within the historic district, the historic overlay misrepresents one of the most fundamental elements of these historic neighborhoods: the public streets that connect them. This oversight is crucial to highlight because while historic preservation is an important dimension to the present conversation about planning for the future of San Marcos, “historic preservation” is only ever discussed in terms of maintaining architectural integrity of existing private property and some public buildings (i.e., “character”). Equally important, however, is the historic preservation (or restoration!) of the streets within these neighborhoods and the transit behaviors they engender (biking, walking, slow driving) and fostering the historic SM character of community and neighborliness

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:34PM on page 75

Comment

I disagree. While new development cannot replicate the historic *status* of treasured historic neighborhoods (i.e., it's not possible to build an "old" building"), it is possible to replicate the style of historic buildings through aesthetic and architectural choices; that's the underlying principle of many "Neo" and "revivalist" architectural styles. It's possible, in other words, to make new buildings look old and simulate the appearance of historic character. I think a policy of including revivalist architectural styles in new buildings (e.g., Spanish Colonial revival architecture) would go a long way towards assuaging fears from the SM historic district residents about new construction not "fitting in" with the architectural vernacular of existing neighborhoods.

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:20PM on page 75

Comment

and viable multimodal transit options that connect the sites of those activities

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:17PM on page 69

Comment

Redesign roads to reduce speeding

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:16PM on page 71

Comment

Achieving passing walkability and bike ability scores for SM would be another worthy objective: link

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:14PM on page 71

Comment

Free public parking for private vehicle storage is socialism. END SOCIALIST PARKING!!!

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:09PM on page 68

Comment

I love this goal. However, I disagree with framing multimodal transportation" as some form of technology-fueled endeavor that "advances" SM transportation process. Since "multimodal" often means pedestrian, cycle, and transit infrastructure, it would be nice to see language that acknowledges these historic forms of transportation and presents multimodal transit as a movement to restore some of the historic character to the modes of transit that flow through SM streets.

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 3:03PM on page 67

Comment

I am concerned this will be interpreted as meaning every street in SM should be large enough to accommodate the ridiculously large fire trucks common to the U.S. Smaller fire trucks can be used and are just as effective!

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:59PM on page 65

Comment

I'm not sure how to incorporate this into this policy, but we need to eliminate the standard of "curb tight" sidewalks on busy streets, which placed pedestrians in close proximity to cars.

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:52PM on page 59

Change to a 10-minute standard to be consistent with the standard mentioned later in the Plan.

0 replies

in reply to Rosalie Ray's comment

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:52PM on page 63

Comment

I do too!!! But isn't this inconsistent with the 15-minute metric mentioned earlier? I prefer the 10-minute standard!

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:50PM on page 62

Comment

Free public parking for private vehicle storage is socialism. END SOCIALIST PARKING!!!

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:47PM on page 62

Question

What purpose would these studies have -- to define a priority area's character? Wouldn't doing so be inherently reductive and preclude the development of the treasured and eclectic character in the SM historic districts, whose "historic" houses span nearly 150 years of architectural history? Seems like a good impulse but bad policy

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:40PM on page 60

Comment

Missing period here

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:33PM on page 56

Comment

add "and alternative forms of transit", or something similar, as not all households own—or want to own‚ a car in order to live in this city.

0 replies

in reply to Alex Vogt's comment

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:30PM on page 56

Comment

Agreed!

0 replies

in reply to Lisa Arceneaux's comment

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:27PM on page 52

Comment

This sentence appears to provide the working definition of "sustainable" that an other commenter requested earlier in the plan.

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:24PM on page 50

Comment

I'd like to see "road" de-prioritized in this policy by moving it after "transit"

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:19PM on page 46

Comment

Maybe I missed this -- support for artists galleries and co-ops would be great

0 replies

in reply to Alex Vogt's comment

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:16PM on page 45

Comment

Great idea!!!

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:15PM on page 44

Question

Multi-modal transit infrastructure that would allow SM residents to access arts, cultural, and educational resources without out having to drive a car?

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:14PM on page 44

Comment

Yes, but the walkability of downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods is literally a failure: link.

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:07PM on page 39

Comment

Small point -- it's incoherent to suggest "building... on the future"

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 2:05PM on page 38

Comment

The notion of SM's "small-town feel" conflicts with its development trend that enforces private vehicle ownership as a condition of SM resident status. The challenge of this conflict requires balancing the vision statement that San Marcos "embraces its small- town feel" with the impulse to build more and wider roads that funnel high volumes of vehicular traffic. These arterial and other high-capacity roads plague San Marcos and they destroy any plausible case that this wonderful city possesses a "small-town feel". Small towns are not characterized by high capacity vehicular infrastructure; they are characterized by walkability, bike-ability, and transit -- in other words, means of living in a city without a vehicle, where residents can meet and wave in person-to-person modes of transportation, not mediated by steel and glass boxes of aggression and pollution. More simply: prioritize walking, transit cycling, and public transit *over* private vehicular transportation.

0 replies

in reply to "LMC" Lisa Marie Coppoletta's comment

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 1:55PM on page 32

Comment

I disagree. Equity as an historic principle enshrined in the U.S. constitution. I appreciate the invocation of this historic value for San Marcos.

1 reply

Alana Rosenwasser Feb 3 2023 at 1:32PM on page 123

How is the university not a "center"?

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 1:26PM on page 18

Comment

Historical context about the number of vehicles per household and/or housing units—and how those rates have evolved since the mid 20th century—would be valuable, if available. Data about these historic trends would provide insights into the historic character of San Marcos streets and the number of cars they originally served, if any at all.

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 1:18PM on page 18

Question

missing word "growth"?

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 1:15PM on page 16

Comment

The acronym "EJT" should be established here.

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 1:11PM on page 14

Comment

The official name of the university is now Texas State University. The "-San Marcos" suffix was dropped in 2013: link

0 replies

Brian Smith Feb 3 2023 at 1:06PM on page 12

Comment

This vision statement should acknowledge that transit between the places San Marcans live, work, shop, and play is an essential component to the fabric of civilian live in SM.

0 replies

in reply to Alex Vogt's comment

Alana Rosenwasser Feb 3 2023 at 1:05PM on page 59

City-mandated parking minimums are city-mandated sprawl and city-mandated housing costs.

0 replies

in reply to Shirley Ogletree's comment

Alana Rosenwasser Feb 3 2023 at 12:58PM on page 54

Agree!

0 replies

Peter Tschirhart Feb 3 2023 at 9:33AM on page 65

Comment

Agree with earlier comment about including utilities easements. Other cities (Dallas, Houston) are expanding their greenways into these under-utilized areas.

0 replies

Peter Tschirhart Feb 3 2023 at 9:32AM on page 64

Comment

I think it's risky to say it isn't feasible to provide sidewalk access UNLESS we provide an extensive, safe, reliable transportation alternative. (I.e., Bus)

0 replies

Cynthia Hobson Feb 2 2023 at 4:06PM on page 54

Comment

I support implementation of all three resilience-related goals. Speaking as a citizen, we continue to face climate change impacts and natural disasters that we haven't had to face before. Residents look to the city for help and advice. We have to have plans that consider future risk, and we have to continue to implement those plans. Communicating and educating the community is a big part of this also.

0 replies

Leave this field blank