CITY OF SAN ANGELO
The City of San Angelo’s Planning Commission meeting on Monday revealed there seems to be some confusion about the proposed Northeast Sector Plan, which city staff members addressed in a general note attached to the agenda packet that states:
The land uses, thoroughfares, and development patterns shown on this plan are conceptual and may change based on market conditions, development interest, economic factors, and other consideration affecting the future development of the property.
Final land uses and development plans shall be determined through the applicable planning, zoning, entitlement, and development review processes.
Only a Plan City Says
According to Asst. City Manager Rick Weise, this plan is designed to show different ways this large tract of city-owned land situated in a corner alongside U.S. Highway 67 North and the Paint Rock Highway could be divvied up to accommodate several different interests including further business park expansions and possible residential developments, laying out theoretical paths for the infrastructure to service it all.
“This is land that has been owned by the city for years,” Weise told the Planning Commission, “It’s been primarily used as a discharge for wastewater… over the years you’ve seen bits and pieces of it go for different things; there’s the Animal Shelter, and the county has things… so it’s been used for a variety of purposes, especially along (U.S. Hwy 67).
“As we looked at this, the City has received requests for the use of this land over the years–multiple requests — and the staff recommended to Council that they really should look at this just like any other development — and if they’re going to do it, do it right.
“So they should look at a long-term vision for this property, and how that could develop over time, but done in a way that maximizes the property for highest and best use for San Angelo.”
Weise said at the time this planning project was launched the City was being approached with several offers on parts of the property, and for the entirety of the acreage.
“You know, with the data center discussions, we had some people come in and say ‘We just want to buy it all,’ but that’s not a good idea… so Council got together with (the City of San Angelo Development Corporation) to look at developing a concept plan.”
Weise also explained that about half of the acreage involves land that is currently governed by TCEQ permitting requirements, even though the city hasn’t actually discharged any water there in years, noting that those rules could change in the future opening new avenues for development.
Weise was clear in saying this plan doesn’t mean they’re breaking ground on any actual projects; this is merely speculative, and they hope, will give future planners and developers a leg up while including the land in the city’s larger master plan.
From a preliminary “Bubble Plan,” consulting firm Westwood Professional Services, Inc. looked at potential throughfares and water and sewer lines based on existing rights-of-way for electric service, creating a “super-tracts” concept plan using typical building footprints for light, medium and commercial businesses and possible residential development, providing some infrastructure cost estimates, and establishing design guidelines for the Highway 67 corridor.
The design also explores ways the development can meet the future with possible interstate highway expansions, and added access to the east side of the property.
The plan also spells out the new data center regulations, regarding site plan requirements for setbacks, building sizes, parking, screening/fencing/landscaping, lighting, noise, and water usage and discharge.
Board Chair Brittany Davis spoke to the pair of public comments delivered before the actual agenda item, both of which urged board members to keep the public in mind and make sure nobody is surprised by any developments.
Davis noted that the bulk of the calls they’ve received in connection a few controversial items in the last couple of years have been focused on a public perception that there weren’t enough notices sent out in conjunction with the projects.
Board members discussed the plan for several minutes following the presentation and voted to adopt the new plan 6-0, with Mitchell Gatlin having recused himself ahead of the presentation.
