12131999 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

28. Regular Meeting December 13, 1999 Page 3 on first reading rather than on emergency and Mr. Moseley seconded the motion. On roll call the following vote was recorded: AYE: Mihalkanin, Hughson, Moseley, Cox, Hernandez. NAY: Moore. ABSTAIN: None. 1e Council then voted unanimously for approval of the Ordinance on first ~ading . Mayor Moore introduced for consideration adoption of an Ordinance on emergency, the caption which was read as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CITY BUDGET ORDINANCE FOR THE 1998-99 FISCAL YEAR TO PROVIDE FOR END-OF-YEAR RECONCILIATION OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY DATE. Mr. Moseley moved for adoption of the Ordinance on emergency and Mr. Cox seconded the motion. On roll call the following vote was recorded: AYE: Mihalkanin, Moore, Moseley, Cox, Hernandez. NAY: Hughson. ABSTAIN: None. Mayor Moore introduced for consideration adoption of a Zoning Ordinance, the caption which was read as follows (public hearing held December 6, 199) : AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY BY REZONING A 30.66 ACRE TRACT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BISHOP STREET AND RANCH ROAD 12, FROM ~R-1" (SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT [LOW DENSITY]) TO "PDD" (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT); INCLUDING PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES. Mr. Hernandez moved to send the Ordinance back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Mr. Moseley seconded the motion. Mr. Hernandez stated he thinks some of the issues brought to the Council's attention need to be rectified and thinks it would be worth another look. Mayor Moore agreed with Mr. Hernandez and felt there were a lot of concerns to be addressed. Mr. Hernandez stated the two variance issues, insufficient parking and the need for a tree survey, need to be addressed, and the applicant has expressed his desire to address the concerns. Mr. Patterson stated the Planning Department received a letter last week from Dr. Weatherford, and formal maps will need to be presented to be reconsidered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Moseley asked why these concerns were not addressed in the charrette process, and Mr. Patterson responded the ~~arrette process proposed a land use plan which was incorporated in the ~ctor 2 Plan. Applicant filed a site plan with a couple of variances, 1d now it is in question whether or not the Sector 2 Plan was followed given the variance requests. Charles Soechting, representing Jack Weatherford, stated they delivered a site plan last Friday to the Planning Department. Previously they were told an aerial would comply for the tree survey. They have tried in good faith to comply. A tree survey is being done now to mark all trees over thirty feet. Mr. Patterson also stated it is estimated there were be 2000-2500 more trips per day on Ranch Road 12 from the proposed plan. Mr. Hernandez a~ this point included in his original motion that the matter be tabled and sent back to the Plannlng and Zoning Commission to consider the Planned Development District zoning designation without the two variances and Mr. Moseley seconded the motion. Mr. Cox stated he will vote against this zoning because it includes