My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04091984 Regular Meeting
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
01 City Council Minutes
>
1980 s
>
1984
>
04091984 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2007 8:26:33 AM
Creation date
12/2/2003 4:25:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Minutes
City Clerk - Type
Regular Meeting
Date
4/9/1984
Volume Book
65
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> 16 <br />Regular Meeting April 9, 1984 Page 5 <br />Mr. Coddington moved to amend the Ordinance to include a Section 7 <br />as follows: "During the moratoria prescribed herein, no residential <br />construction in excess of fifteen (15) units per acre shall be per- <br />mitted in the City." Mr. Brown seco rrled the motion. The City Secre- <br />tary read Section 7 in its entirety into the record. The Council <br />voted unanimous approval of the amendment. <br />There was a discussion regarding the City Manager's report to be made <br />by June 4, 1984. Mr. Farr stated such matters should be addressed as <br />water, sewer, traffic, particularly in Planning Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 <br />and 17 of the City. Mr. Moore said it shouldn't be just recommendations <br />of Staff but also of the Planning and Zoning Commissions. City Manager <br />Gonzalez stated he would put this matter of the report on a future <br />agenda for the Council's direction. <br />Mr. Moore moved to amend the Ordinance to add the following language <br />to the end of Section 2: "No builder, developer, construction company <br />or any sim~lar entity or anyone working in consort with such an entity <br />may receive a building permit for more than twenty (20) units of multi- <br />family residential construction during this sixty-five (65) day mora- <br />torium. Mr. Brown seconded the motion. Mr. Moore read the amendment <br />in its entirety into the record. On roll call the following vote was <br />recorded: <br /> AYE: Brown, Coddington, Farr, Craddock, Kissler, Moore. <br /> NAY: Guerra. <br /> ABSTAIN: None. <br />During discussion Mr. Farr asked Mr. Boeker how many remaining LUEs- <br />did we have. Mr. Boeker stated approximately 350. Mr. Gonzalez said <br />we had requests for approximately 200 LUEs for reservation of future <br />capacity. Mr. Gonzalez stated we have not received approval from <br />Texas Water Resources for some of our alternatives and would request <br />later in the month for authorization to bid the sewer plant. City <br />Attorney Hankins stated the sludge injector would not be in place <br />until October. Mr. Boeker was asked what the projection of LUEs would <br />be with the sludge injector. Mr. Boeker stated there would be an addi- <br />tional 1500 LUEs with the sludge injector and clarifyer combined. Mr. <br />Gonzalez estimated the sludge injector alone would produce an additional <br />300-500 LUEs. Mr. Guerra asked Mr. Hankins who interprets the meaning <br />of "substantial amount of construction" in Section 6 of the Ordinance. <br />Mr. Hankins stated substantial would mean anything beyond site prepara- <br />tion and would be interpreted by the Planning Department, Mr. Garza. <br />Mr. Gonzalez stated the City was still several months away from full <br />depletion of LUEs as all projects would not come on line immediately. <br />Mr. Brown asked Mr. Garza what type growth was being permitted pre- <br />sently and Mr. Garza stated mainly multi-family, commercial, mostly <br />with low water usage and single-family is the lowest percentage. Mr. <br />Brown asked Mr. Garza if he favored the moratorium being considered <br />or a full moratorium of multi-family development throughout the City. <br />Mr. Garza thought the moratorium needed to be extended over a larger <br />area of the City. Although the area was not extended, the Council <br />through the above amendments, did make the moratorium more restrictive. <br />The Council voted unanimous approval for adoption of the Ordinance as <br />amended. <br />Mayor Craddock introduced for consideration the adoption of an Ordinance <br />on emergency, the caption which was read as follows: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.