Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes October 20, 2020 <br />Council Member Baker asked Mr. Siefert regarding the letter that was included <br />in the packet. Mr. Siefert stated the letter is not related to the proposed <br />project. <br />Council Member Baker Baker inquired about compatible zoning adjacent and <br />nearby. Mr. Cosentino noted that there are uses in the FD category and Mr. <br />Mattingly reviewed that list. <br />Ms. Moyer mentioned that the project is in the contributing zone and there is <br />not an impervious cover related to environmental standards. Mr. Moyer stated <br />that the impervious cover would be to the development limited only around <br />sensitive features found, on steep slopes and increase water quality volume of <br />requirements of the discharge. Council Member Derrick asked about the <br />impervious cover for the SF -6 zoning. Ms. Mattingly confirmed that with the <br />project it will be 50% impervious cover except around sensitive features or no <br />steep slopes and would require water quality of 85% treatment due to the <br />closeness of the water zone. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Mihalkanin inquired about access to the property. Ms. <br />Mattingly noted that it would be Steen Rd. Mayor Pro Tem Mihalkanin <br />pointed out that Steen Rd is not a built road at this time. He also expressed <br />concerns about drainage and the slopes. <br />After the scheduled break, Council Member Baker made motion to deny #17. <br />Seconded by Council Member Saul. A motion to deny would not allow the <br />developers to ask for the same zoning for one year. Council Member Derrick <br />stated she suggested that we encourage the developers to have discussions with <br />the neighborhood. Mayor Pro Tem Mihalkanin also stated that it would be <br />better to allow the developers to work with the neighborhood. Max inquired <br />as to how the city could enforce any agreement with the neighbors. Mr. <br />Cosentino noted that restrictive covenants could be filed and the zoning be <br />effective after that filing. Council Member Baker withdrew his motion and Mr. <br />Gonzales withdrew his second. <br />The motion to approved failed by the following vote: <br />For: 1 - Council Member Derrick <br />Against: 5 - Mayor Pro Tem Mihalkanin, Council Member Marquez, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem <br />Rockeymoore, Council Member Baker and Council Member Gonzales <br />Recused: 1 - Mayor Hughson <br />City of San Marcos Page 12 <br />