Laserfiche WebLink
<br />122 <br /> <br />Regular Meeting <br /> <br />November 9, 1987 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />The Council moved to Item 16.A. on the Agenda, a discussion by Ted <br />Hindson and Irene Hindson regarding a decision of the Planning Com- <br />mission on September 29, 1987 regarding a plat in Holland Hills (Cox <br />Street). Ted Hindson stated he was representing the Holland Hills <br />Subdivision regarding an unofficial appeal of the plat approved by <br />the Planning Commission. Mr. Hindson read into the record his unoffi- <br />cial appeal dated October 16, 1987 and a handwritten list of violations <br />in addition to those listed in the appeal, both of which were included <br />in the Council's packet. Mr. Robbins stated the property used for a <br />cul-de-sac was an option, and that another option would be to abandon <br />the street and make it a private street. Mr. Guerra asked Mr. Robbins <br />what the City's options are. Mr. Robbins stated the City can file suit, <br />the City can file an injunction to prohibit the Staff from filing the <br />plat or after the plat if filed, to vacate the plat. Mr. Hankins added <br />the City could sue Mr. Witte if the plat is not filed and the County <br />Clerk if the plat is already filed, to have it vacated. Mr. Robbins <br />stated the Council could give direction at this meeting how to proceed. <br />Mr. Farr stated he would like to have Mr. Witte's matter reviewed by the <br />Planning Commission again, and that if a two-step process is available, <br />to have it placed in our Ordinance. Frank Rich stated the Council has <br />previously directed a review process be placed in the Ordinance when <br />the Hughson Heights III matter was before the Council. Mr. Farr stated <br />to Mr. Robbins there are no subdivision plats without master plans. Mr. <br />Robbins stated Holland Hills I had no master plan. Mr. Gonzalez stated <br />the Tarrod Phillips project was involved in a lawsuit, and the City <br />could not force Mr. Witte to master plan because he did not own some <br />of the property in between. Mr. Robbins stated the cul-de-sac language <br />in the subdivision ordinance is now more explicit, where a cul-de-sac <br />is now required. The Council discussed that Mr. Witte should be con- <br />tacted and we should pursue his not filing the plat, and that if a two- <br />step appeal process is an option of the Council, for an amendment to <br />be made to the Ordinance for the Council's consideration. Mr. Aart <br />Millecam of the Planning Commission stated a variance should be given <br />to the cul-de-sac requirement, because no good would be served if the <br />cul-de-sac was required. Mr. Gonzalez stated the neighborhood is con- <br />cerned with the character of the neighborhood, and would the Council be <br />open to the City and Mr. Witte participating in a cul-de-sac, possibly <br />the City providing the materials and manpower and Mr. Witte the land. <br />Mr. Hindson stated the neighborhood was insisting on the cul-de-sac from <br />Lots 1 and 2 (owned by Mr. Witte and his daughter). The Council directed <br />the Staff work with Mr. Witte and the neighborhood to try to achieve a <br />resolution and to bring an amendment of a two-step process in the Subdi- <br />vision Ordinance regarding appeals to the Council. <br /> <br />Mayor Younger then went back to Item 10.C. on the Agenda. Mayor Younger <br />introduced for consideration adoption of a Resolution, the caption which <br />was read as follows: <br /> <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN <br />MARCOS, TEXAS, APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT TO STOKES <br />CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR COMPLETION OF THE DUNBAR <br />RECREATION CENTER PROJECT, ACCEPTING SAID PROJECT <br />FOR USE BY SAID CITY, AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN <br />THE AMOUNT OF $79,599.10, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE <br />DATE. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr moved for adoption of the Resolution and Ms. Kissler seconded <br />the motion, which passed unanimously. <br />