12301981 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 Regular Meeting December 30, 1981 Page 2 and the Planning and Zoning Commission would approve all new plat- ting. Mayor Craddock opened the public hearing to consider the Interim Site Development Ordinance (Alternate I). Mr. Cliff Nieland stated the engineering cost of $15,000.00 as presented in the cost estimate to enforce Alternate I was unrealistic; it would be much more. Gerald Farr stated that the yellow areas on our zoning map in the Council Chambers show the "R-1" or low density areas of the city. The hilly area of San Marcos where the run-off and water quality issues need to be addressed are in the western and northwestern portions of the "R-1" zoning on the zoning map and the interim site development ordin- ance actually excludes low density areas, thus excluding the area where run-off and water quality problems exist and need to be addressed. Mr. Gonzalez pointed out that Alternate I applies to development throughout the city and if all single-family and duplex housing development was addressed in Alternate I, they would have to comply with the same re- quirements as an entire subdivision would. Mrs. Norris stated drive- ways and streets of single-family dwellings could do as much harm with run-off and silt as anything else could. Mr. Gonzalez stated he thought, as Gerald Farr had pointed out, it could actually do more harm because so much land area was single-family, and that was one of the trade-offs the Council would have to decide upon. Mayor Craddock added there would be no perfect solution. The best way would be to get all view- points offered and the physical problems and try to resolve them in a manner that would give the most protection. Shirley Wickersham raised the question of who would pay for retention ponds and who would main- tain them, the city, the taxpayers, the consumers or no one. Mr. Gon- zalez said in Alternate II proposed amendments to the subdivision ordinance would provide a requirement of retention structures, etc. at a subdivision level when the subdivision plat comes in for review for any development, and the burden of the increased cost will be passed on down to the consumer, rather than on a piecemeal basis. Tom Goins wanted to know if the good of both alternatives could be combined to one. He felt that the large developers should pay for our environmental protection. Ada Burke stated the large trees and the San Marcos River are what makes San Marcos, and that she would be willing to pay more taxes to have proper enforcement to protect them. Harvey Ginsburg stated he thought the disadvantages of Alter- nate II were a time-frame factor to put it in ordinance form, the time needed for down zoning of property and the fact that it existed only in a skeletal form at this point. The advantages of Alternate I are that it already exists as a document to be considered and that Austin had a similar ordinance in effect. He stated he felt Alternate I may need to be scaled down and put into effect soon because many building permits were being given every month (approximately 45) and it could offer immediate control. After some discussion Mayor Crad- dock closed the public hearing. Mr. Brown asked Staff what time period would be involved in implementing an ordinance and Mrs. Norris reiterated that the main issue to be addressed is density. Mayor Craddock then moved that the Staff proceed to place in ordinance form Alternate II, the Landscaping Ordinance, amendments to the zoning and subdivision ordinances, this alternative addressing "R-1" and "R-2" development, density and the sensitive (slope) areas and that this be presented to the Council within 45 days. Mrs. Norris seconded the mo- tion. On roll call the following vote was recorded: AYE: Brown, Cavazos, James, Craddock, Mendez and Norris. NAY: Kreczmer. ABSTAIN: None. Mayor Craddock introduced for consideration adoption of a Resolution, the caption which was read as follows: