Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Meeting Minutes September 20,2016 <br /> that's their choice, but she will not participate. She stated that this should have <br /> been sent back to P&Z, and that she can't in good conscience vote on <br /> something that has not gone through the process according to our own code. <br /> Council Member Derrick left the Council Chambers. (Council Member <br /> Derrick did not file a disclosure affidavit abstaining for this item therefore she <br /> will be recorded as absent from the dais instead of abstaining.) <br /> Main Motion: A motion was made by Council Member Gregson, seconded by <br /> Council Member Prather, to approve Ordinance 2016-27, on the second of two <br /> readings. <br /> Motion to Postpone: A motion was made by Council Member Hughson, <br /> seconded by Deputy Mayor Pro Tern Prewitt,to postpone the zoning PDD item <br /> until the City procedures are followed and this item has been returned to the <br /> Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation. Council <br /> Member Hughson stated that this is the proper process and our citizens expect <br /> us to follow our Ordinances just as we promised to do when we are sworn in as <br /> Council Members. I can't set a date certain because I don't know when exactly <br /> it may appear on the P&Z agenda and then returned to us. If there are major <br /> changes I would like there to be more than one week before it is on our agenda <br /> again. Mayor Pro Tem Thomaides asked City Attorney, Michael Cosentino to <br /> provide a legal explanation of the process. Mr. Cosentino explained that <br /> Section 1.5.1.2 of the Land Development Code is a provision regarding the <br /> processing of applications. It speaks to acceptance of applications by City <br /> Staff. It is not a prohibition of the Council moving forward and approving the <br /> zoning tonight. Sending it back to the P&Z does not address the concern of the <br /> application for zoning being accepted prior to the PSA amendment being <br /> approved. Only starting all over with a new application would do that. <br /> Council Member Prewitt asked is there would be any legal implication for the <br /> City of San Marcos if we violated our code and this got approved? Mr. <br /> Cosentino stated that the Code addresses the Staff's process not the Council's <br /> power to approve it. Under State Law the requirement is that the approval of <br /> a zoning change must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in effect. So <br /> you can't rezone until you have amended your Comprehensive Plan and you've <br /> done that, and that was done in the correct sequence as a governing body. The <br /> provision of the Code that we are talking about right now is one the governs <br /> the Staff's behavior, not the conduct of this Council. Council Member Prewitt <br /> stated that she supports this postponement and that if doesn't go through that <br /> she will also abstain from the vote because she does feel that there was a <br /> mistake made, it was a violation of Code, and if she continues personally that <br /> she will feel like she is part of that Code violation because she hasn't stopped <br /> City of San Marcos Page 11 <br />