My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04101989 Regular Meeting
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
01 City Council Minutes
>
1980 s
>
1989
>
04101989 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2007 4:41:10 PM
Creation date
12/2/2003 2:38:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Minutes
City Clerk - Type
Regular Meeting
Date
4/10/1989
Volume Book
94
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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 /> Because our long-standing interpretation had been challenged, <br /> staff and the Zoning Commission feel that perhaps a written <br /> clarification of what has always been our practice, anyway, would be a <br /> desirable improvement to the Zoning Ordinance. It would simply make <br /> the existing provision more explicit, thereby minimizing future <br /> misunderstandings. It does nQt impose any new requirement or standard <br /> that has not already been in effect, nor does it affect the past <br /> enforcement or future "grandfathering" of any specific situation. If <br /> the proposed amendment is not approved, we will continue requiring <br /> all-weather surfacing, including any new alternatives which may be <br /> approved at a future date, for all off-street parking areas as we have <br /> in the past. <br /> As indicated by the City Attorney's Office, if you specifically <br /> do not wish that all-weather surfacing be required in parking areas <br /> used for the display of vehicles for sale or rent, it would be <br /> necessary to adopt an ordinance amendment specifically stating such. <br /> It is assumed that it would not be your intention to exempt the <br /> required employee and customer off-street parking areas from the <br /> paving requirement, nor delete the paving standards for any uses other <br /> than vehicle sales and rental businesses. <br /> Finally, in the case of Mr. Luna, the Zoning Board of Adjustments <br /> has already concurred with the staff interpretations of the ordinance. <br /> Even when given discretion to grant a variance that would have waived <br /> the paving requirement for where the cars for sale are parked (or <br /> "displayed") in Mr. Luna's yard, they declined to do so. Appeals <br /> from Zoning Board of Adjustments decisions can only be made to a court <br /> of record. A Certificate of Occupancy could not, and still cannot, be <br /> granted to Mr. Luna for his relocated building unless he either <br /> obtains a variance or complies with the requirements of the Zoning <br /> Ordinance for off-street parking areas. Hopefully, Mr. Luna's <br /> dissatisfaction with the denial of his variance request will not be <br /> confused with the actual intent of the proposed amendments. <br /> Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.