LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Will Wimberley recognize and welcome a sustainable, conservation-oriented village and natural area proposal? Or is the tendency to lump all development into the category of ‘evil & greedy’ just too strong? I am the developer and architect behind the Citaspel proposal that has been discussed in recent Letters to the Editor of the Wimberley View. Both in those letters, in discussions on social media, and in the public meetings we have held to pitch the proposal to neighbors and solicit feedback, we (my team and I) have met with oppoosition from some neighbors. I would like to respond to those opponents.
The opponents appear at this time to represent not the entire Wimberley community, but mainly a vocal portion of closer neighbors who are either committed NIMBYs (not in my back yard) or in some cases BANANAs (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything). Some of them acknowledge that this is a worthy, sustainable proposal that has many benefits for the community and the environment, but they are more concerned, for example, with preventing change to the view from their property. Others expressed to me that they are most worried that people of lesser means will move next door, thus somehow ruining the exclusivity and affluence of the neighborhood. We believe that mixed incomes make for stronger, better communities. Others have expressed a varety of concerns that we have organized into a Frequently Asked Questions section at the website. To see how we have taken various concerns into account and to view images of the proposal, please visit www.citaspel.com.
The Citaspel proposal reckons directly with big questions about how Wimberley can achieve the aims set forth in the Wimberley Comprehensive Plan. It offers a conservation-based blueprint on how Wimberley can face inevitable growth, while preserving open space, maintaining small town feel, providing housing choice and affordability within city limits, honoring and building on Hill Country design heritage, resisting sprawl, and supporting small business and the arts.
Opponents of this proposal have the difficulty of the fundamental agreement of Citaspel with the Comprehensive Plan. In order to deny that agreement, they must paint Citaspel as “dense urbanization,” or a “typical Kyle or Buda Development” or a “strip mall proposal” packaged in “green buzzwords.” Those are unserious criticisms. Such claims depart from the facts of the proposal. Here are the facts.
Citaspel is the antithesis of “dense urbanization.” The proposal has three pieces: a pedestrian-oriented retail village (quite the opposite of a strip mall) for the arts and small business, a residential village of mixed-income homes, and a large natural area. Fully half the site is dedicated nature preserve with a permanent conservation easement. We propose about 25-30% fewer homes than would be allowable if we pursued the blend of R1 and R2 zoning that surrounds the property.
Citaspel is not mere “packaging in green buzzwords.” The proposal embodies a passionate commitment to conservation of precious resources: greenspace, water, and energy. We follow the One Water protocol of the Wimberley Valley Watershed Association, which resulted in a 90% water use reduction at Blue Hole Elementary. Every roof harvests rainwater. We also plan onsite renewable energy production, organic gardening, and high performance building envelopes.
Citaspel is the antithesis of a “typical Kyle subdivision.” This proposal is built on the conservation subdivision philosophy of Randall Arendt, author of Rural By Design. This philosophy guides the recent update of the Hays County code to incentivize conservation development. The idea is simple: propose a quantity of homes that matches or reduces the existing density in the community, pull the homes a bit closer together to help reduce the footprint of the development, and set aside at least half the site as a large, continuous greenspace. This approach, called conservation development, reduces infrastructure by about 60%, and in this proposal results in impervious cover for the entire site of a mere 17%. If we were to spread the homes out uniformly over the site, each home would have lots of 0.8 acre each. But, being conservationists opposed to sprawl, we are proposing a more compact settlement pattern based on a simple, historically-rooted idea: the village. Does a village proposal make sense for Wimberley Village? We think it does. Does our proposal look anything like Kyle or Buda? Absolutely not-- it looks like a historic hillside village settlement pattern.
Citaspel offers a blueprint and a precedent for how responsible, conservation-oriented development can fulfill the goals and objectives of the Wimberley Comprehensive Plan. Future development proposals can be measured against this one to gauge conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and whether a proposal fits well with the Wimberley Way, and demonstrates a serious commitment to conservation. The many benefits of this proposal for the community and for improving environmental standards, outweigh the more personal interests of its opponents. If you support green, sustainable development, if you support setting aside large continuous areas of greenspace as we grow, if you wish to preserve small town feel in Wimberley, if you wish to set a clear and unambiguous precedent of conservation development in Wimberley, please contact your Planning and Zoning Commissioners and City Council members in support of the Citaspel proposal.