Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Meeting Minutes December 10,2020 <br /> both residential and commercial uses. Commissioner Agnew and Council <br /> Member Derrick dissented. <br /> •As far as the noise, can this be addressed in another way and not in the <br /> design standards for the rooftop amenity deck? <br /> There was a consensus of the City Council and the Planning and Zoning <br /> Commission to address noise outside of the design standards. <br /> 6. Durable Building Materials: Discussed recommendations to add additional <br /> alternative compliance language in this section. <br /> Other Discussion: <br /> Mayor Hughson stated that we need to preserve the view shed and asked if <br /> they were going to be defined later. <br /> The consultants stated the specific views are not defined. They have on their <br /> list a recommendation that a view study be done at some point but that it is <br /> not part of this scope. Discussion can be held regarding the creation of a map <br /> to show where those view sheds are but it is not something that we have right <br /> now. <br /> Consensus of the Council and Commission is that preserving views is <br /> something we need to do and that we need to get a list of what they are because <br /> somebody new to town may not have the same appreciation to know what <br /> we're talking about. General consensus of the City Council and the Planning <br /> and Zoning Commission. <br /> Mayor Hughson asked for a final thumbs up all the elements just discussed <br /> and the discussion that occurred. General consensus of the City Council and <br /> the Planning and Zoning Commission. <br /> The next topic addressed Neighborhood Transitions: <br /> 1. Property Adjacent to a Sensitive Site: Discussed recommendations to the <br /> transition options for properties adjacent to a sensitive site. The <br /> recommendations include two options that can be selected. <br /> The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council discussed the <br /> combination of options 1 and 2 regarding step backs and setbacks. Currently, <br /> option 1 has a 10' setback adjacent to the sensitive site. Option 2 has a 25% <br /> step back along the street/corner of the property adjacent to the sensitive site. <br /> General consensus from the City Council and the Planning and Zoning <br /> City of San Marcos Page 5 <br />