07271998 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

163 Regular Meeting July 27, 1998 Page 5 area she was concerned about was around Yale and Harvard behind the water tower and she felt it would be an area which should be acquired by the City. Ms. Hindson asked the Council to clarify what is being negotiated regarding the 7.2 acres in the Schulle Canyon area. Mr. Gilley stated it was almost 22 acres. Mr. Mike Hennesy stated Mr. Gilley had informed him that the whole 21 acre tract was still being negotiated and did not know why a vote was not being taken on the plan tonight. Mr. Hennesy stated he was told it was partly because of the negotiations over Schulle Canyon. Mr. Hennesy stated if that was true he applauds the City for keeping the playing field the same as when the negotiations started. Mr. Hennesy stated he was concerned that while the City is trying to keep the playing field the same the developers are not, and are coming back to the Planning and Zoning Commission with another Master Plan for the 14 acre segment. Mr. Hennesy suggested the Council direct the staff to request the developers withdraw their proposed Master Plan and not submit another one until the negotiations are successfully concluded. Mayor Moore suggested Mr. Hennesy find out from Ron Patterson the process regarding what the proposals and the procedures are to pursue this. There were no other speakers, so Mayor Moore closed the public hearing. Ms. Hughson stated she would like a list of all the changes which were being proposed and neighborhood requests. Mr. Patterson stated he would be glad to provide the list. Mr. Patterson stated Dr. Horne had gone through a legal process in late 1981 or early 1982 where he rezoned the property to Limited Business shortly after that designation came into existence and has been zoned that way since that time. Mr. Patterson stated he agreed with Dr. Horne that it does create an inconsistency and for him to proceed with any development, he would have to resolve that with either a zoning change or land use amendment. Mayor Moore introduced for consideration a public hearing regarding an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of a San Marcos River Corridor Development Permit for the paving of a parking lot at the San Marcos River Pub & Grill located at 701 Cheatham Street. Mayor Moore opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. Mr. Winton Porterfield stated he lives at 318 Riverside Drive and his backyard backs up to the property in question. Mr. Porterfield stated he was not going to tell the Council to allow Mr. Gunnarson not to have a restaurant on the banks of the river even though he wished he would not. Mr. Porterfield stated his concern with the granting of the permit was that it includes a significant variance to what is one of the most important parts of the River Corridor Ordinance, which bans impervious cover within 100 feet of the river. Mr. Porterfield stated this was not a minor variance to the scale of the plat or to the pavement density and it is a significant variance and a bad precedent. Mr. Porterfield stated the Council should stand up for the river and have Mr. Gunnarson do it right. Mr. Kelly Kilber of Pro-Tech Engineering stated he represented Mr. Gunnarson before the Planning and Zoning Commission with his permit and variance request. Mr. Kilber stated they have been working with Mr. Gunnarson which has been an ongoing problem basically due to the unpaved parking lot. Mr. Kilber stated the dust problem which exists is pointed out in his letter to the staff and Mr. Gunnarson states he also has an ongoing health concern. Mr. Kilber stated as far as protecting the river, visits with staff in many attempts to resolve the different issues, the staff appeared at the time to support a variance request allowing for paving of an area about 2200 feet with a provision of reinstalling a filtration system that would adequately protect the river from any contaminants from the parking lot. Mr. Kilber stated that system has been designed and approved by Engineering and is able to be placed now pending action tonight. Mr. Mark Cusack stated he wanted to address two issues, the first was whether or not the appeal is a matter the Council can consider tonight. Mr. Cusack referenced Mr. Taylor's memo to the Council. Mr. Cusack stated the minutes needed to be researched to find whether the Council discussed repealing Chapter 110 and their intent to repeal it as to the River Ordinance or the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Cusack stated there appeared to be no discussion of the repeal of Chapter 110 in the information provided to him. Mr. Cusack stated from a legal point of view an appeal right which must be done pursuant by a specific statute is not an appeal because that appeal right still exists. Mr. Cusack stated since there are no guidelines as to when you must appeal then the appeal right could be extended forever. Mr. Cusack recommended the Council consider the entire request just as it was presented and stated it would be a benefit to the establishment and not a detriment to the river. There were no other speakers so