06091997 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 Regular Meeting June 9, 1997 Page 4 present form. Ms. North stated they have been working on this for sometime for the sensitive parcel to remain undeveloped as dedicated open-space. Ms. North stated on January 24th the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board voted to recommend the Council initiate steps to purchase the 9.2 acres. Ms. North stated while Mr. Morris is willing to donate 7.5 acres as part of the transfer of development rights the position of the 9.2 acres is for many reasons unchanged. Ms. North stated the neighbors do not want any more homes built behind Progress Street but more importantly the 2 acres not included are no less environmentally sensitive than the other 7. Ms. North stated when Mr. Morris was asked by Commissioner Davis if Mr. Morris would add the land lot piece at the rear of the property to the granting zone, Mr. Morris stated he would. Ms. North encouraged the City to acquire the entire 9.2 acres by whatever means available. Ms. North stated the original parcel is 9.2 acres and the granting zone is 7.25 acres. Ms. North also stated the neighborhood would like to have a voice in naming the park when the time came. There were no other speakers so Mayor Moore closed the public hearing. (Vote taken-see Page 5- Item 5.13.). Mayor Moore introduced for consideration a public hearing and adoption of a Zoning Ordinance (Item 5.C.), the caption which was read as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY BY REZONING A 7.25 ACRE TRACT OF PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF PROSPECT AND COLUMBIA STREETS FROM "ZL" ZERO LOT LINE DWELLING DISTRICT (MEDIUM DENSITY) TO "TDR-GZ" TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS-GRANTING ZONE DISTRICT; INCLUDING PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES. Mayor Moore opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. There were no speakers so Mayor Moore closed the public hearing. Mr. Patterson stated basically the tract on the granting zone has an allowed unit of 6 units per acre which would allow 34 units on the existing tract. Mr. Patterson stated the receiving zone has MF-2 zoning which would allow 164 units and the proposal is to go to 277 or the net increase of 113 units. Mr. Patterson stated the latest TXDOT survey has about approximately 14, 000 cars per day. Mr. Patterson stated the granting zone is 100% over the recharge zone. Mr. Hart stated if characteristics of the Ranch Road 12 property have changed that would cause the Planning and Zoning Commission to view it in a different light in terms of density. Mr. Patterson stated it was turned down three years ago for it to go to an increased density. Ms. Hughson asked what the density was on the granting zone. Mr. Patterson stated it was 6 units per acre which would be approximately 34 units. Ms. Hughson stated if this item passed and it would go to MF-4 and it really is 20, how would they track that. Mr. Patterson stated since this is the first transfer of development rights they would place a special designation on the zoning map that would reference the ordinance number and the cap on the particular zoning density. Mr. Patterson stated the sector plan is the next sector to be done and would be preferable if it could be placed prior to this discussion; however, they do have the existing master plan which has been in place since 1983 and the map for this particular area has been amended over the years since 1983 and is the current governing master plan for this area. Mr. Guerra asked Ms. Festervan what she had seen since 1968 regarding drainage and traffic. Ms. Festervan stated she is protected by the _ traffic light but her neighbors are not. Ms. Festervan stated on the drainage the way the i subject property is shaped one side drains to one end of her property and another part drains to another side. Ms. Hughson stated she is opposed to density increase. Mr. Hernandez stated he would like clarification on the issue of transfer of development rights because to him it seemed it was either one or the other, and would have to vote in favor of both of them or against both of them. Mr. Taylor stated the transfer cannot be completed without the passage of both of the ordinances, so if either of the two are defeated his opinion to the Council would be the other one would need to be reconsidered. Mr. Hernandez stated if the Council denied both of them then the City would have the responsibility if they wanted to save the greenbelt to come up with the money to buy 9 acres to keep it as greenbelt at fair market value at whatever density and zoning it is right