Cibolo advisory committee kicks off Old Town plan; consultants outline options on parking, drainage and school-site reuse

The Cibolo City Old Town Advisory Committee met for its first working session to review the planning process, timeline and preliminary options for downtown revitalization. City planner Aaron Spencer opened the session and introduced Lionheart, the consultant team leading the project.

The consultant presented a phased schedule that includes two public stakeholder workshops this fall, an emphasis on testing materials with the advisory committee before each public event, and a target to bring a draft plan to the city planning commission and City Council in the February timeframe. Abby, the Lionheart consultant, told the committee the project will move from broad vision and goals to a narrowed, fiscally constrained list of action items intended to be implementable rather than “documented on the shelf.”

Why it matters: committee members and staff said Old Town sits amid rapidly expanding residential subdivisions, and decisions about parking, drainage and key catalyst sites could shape whether downtown retains its small‑town character or becomes congested. The consultant presented two high‑level frameworks for redevelopment: a “gathering grounds” centered on the school‑district parcel and a “heart and hub” that concentrates investment along Main Street.

Key takeaways

- Outreach and timeline: The consultant described a three‑phase public process (vision and goals, choosing a preferred path, and prioritizing implementable projects). Committee members were asked to serve as local ambassadors to promote an upcoming mid‑October public workshop and related events. The consultant said committee advisory meetings will be scheduled just before each major public dialogue so the committee can test materials.

- Public input so far: The project team said an early survey and pop‑up events produced about 220 responses, which the consultant called “really high” for this stage and said will inform the priorities presented at the next workshop.

- Two redevelopment frameworks: The consultant showed two alternative approaches. The “gathering grounds” option centers redevelopment on a large school‑district parcel near Old Town to create a new civic plaza, add boutique lodging, mixed commercial/residential buildings and parking behind storefronts. The “heart and hub” option focuses investment on Main Street to anchor a formal plaza and encourage infill on adjacent parcels.

- School site reuse and floodplain constraints: Committee members pressed whether the school‑district parcel is buildable. The consultant said parts of the plan boundary include floodplain and that the gathering‑grounds area itself is not shown as developable in the floodplain maps reviewed. She also flagged that hydrology is flat in places and moving water out of Old Town is difficult; redeveloping a large parcel could provide an opportunity to add drainage infrastructure.

- Drainage study not in scope: The consultant cautioned several times that producing a full engineered drainage study or implementing drainage fixes is outside the scope of this planning project. “It is not in the scope of this project to fix, come up with these solutions, for the drainage,” she said, adding the team will identify approaches and priority locations but that actual engineering and construction would require a separate, full study.

- Parking options and limits: The team said it has engaged a parking consultant and summarized tools and trade‑offs: signage and wayfinding, paid parking as an initial management tool, and parking structures only as a later, costly option. Committee members noted a lack of visible wayfinding and the difficulty of crossing railroad tracks between parking and Main Street.

- Implementation and fiscal constraints: City staff and consultants emphasized a need for a financially realistic plan. Planning director Rick Vasquez described his department’s responsibilities and the city’s limited resources: “I do planning and development ... economic development ... and then code enforcement,” he said, and the project team said the plan will be fiscally constrained and prioritize projects the city can realistically fund and implement over time.

Discussion vs. decisions

The meeting produced discussion, feedback and direction but no formal actions or votes. Committee members agreed to help the city publicize upcoming events and to test workshop materials in advisory meetings. The consultant and staff will set dates for the October public workshop and follow‑up advisory sessions and will continue outreach through existing city channels.

What remains open

The reuse of the school district parcel, the extent of boundary expansions, and specific drainage and parking engineering solutions were left for future technical work and for further consultation with the school district and implementing agencies. The consultant said she expects the project to present prioritized, implementable actions at later workshops and to identify likely funding pathways, including regional partners and grants, but noted the plan will not assume large new tax increases.

Next steps

The consultant and city staff will finalize dates for an October community workshop, distribute outreach materials to committee members for local promotion, and continue stakeholder engagement and the next round of public input.

(Quotation sources: Aaron Spencer, City of Cibolo planning staff; Abby, Lionheart consultant; Rick Vasquez, Cibolo planning director.)