01251982 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

30 January 25, 1982 Regular Meeting Page 3 AREA; PROVIDING FOR USE OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES; PROVIDING FOR INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT; SETTING FACILITIES MAINTENANCE CRITERIA; PROVIDING FOR THE GRANTING OF VARIANCES; PROVIDING AN APPEAL PROCESS; PROVIDING PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT WITH OTHER ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR SEPARABILITY AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mrs. Norris moved that the Ordinance be approved on second reading to get it on the table for discussion and Mrs. Mendez seconded the motion. During discussion Mrs. Norris stated she did not think 15% slope was very much slope. Mr. John Stokes said the Ordinance re- ferred to the Soil Conservation Manual which he had not reviewed and had been unable to locate such a manual. He said the map in the Manual showing 15%-25% slopes needed to be made available for review by the Council and public before the Ordinance was passed. He did not feel the Ordinance addressed density and that he had not been furnished enough information to study. Mr. Craig Farmer said the map in the Soil Conservation Manual was approximately 85%-90% accurate and would give a general idea but that the individual sites needed to be reviewed for accuracy. Mr. Troy Ulmann of the Watershed Resources in Austin stated 15% slope would be a rise of 15' in 100'. He stated the three things this Ordinance provided were (1) limitations on im- pervious cover, (2) flow control and (3) erosion and sedimentation control. He said the Ordinance was similar to that used in the Lake Austin Watershed area. The Ordinance has limited control on density. There would be less length of streets per lots. During construction phase more damage is done and the erosion and sedimentation provisions address this problem. He felt the Ordinance needed more strength to address 25-year storm flow rates peak run-off. He felt some standard format needed to be developed that would calculate drainage. He felt the Ordinance was administratively workable, particularly in the con- struction phase and the Soil Conservation Manual refers to construction sequence. City Manager Gonzalez asked Mr. Ulmann if the 15% slope re- quirement pertained to just the portion of property in the slope area or the entire piece of property and Mr. Ulmann stated generally just the slope portion was common. Kelley Kilber made recommendations to the Council where he felt more specific wording was required. Stanley Stemen stated he thought the impervious cover requirement was too strict. Mayor Craddock asked Craig Farmer what a reasonable compromise would be wherein the people would not be penalized and we could stop silt and runoff, what a reasonable restriction of impervious cover would be. Craig Farmer stated the community would need to decide what is reasonable, that there is no magic answer. He felt that the City was moving in giant strides forward to addressing the problems, yet the Ordinance was not as restrictive as Austin's. Mr. Cavazos moved that the Ordinance be tabled until such time as some of the concerns expressed could be addressed and Mrs. Norris seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mayor Craddock introduced for consideration an Ordinance on second reading, the caption which was read as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, ADOPTING A CHAPTER TO BE ADDED TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF SAID CITY, SAID CHAPTER TO BE ENTITLED "LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING" AND TO BE NUM- BERED CHAPTER 14 1/2, DEFINING TERMS; SETTING REQUIRE- MENTS FOR THE AMOUNT OF LAND WHICH MUST BE DEVOTED TO LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING; EXEMPTING THE CENTRAL BUSI- NESS DISTRICT FROM SAID REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING CREDITS AGAINST THE LANDSCAPING AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLANT- ING AND/OR PRESERVATION OF TREES; PROVIDING FOR THE REVOCATION OF SAID CREDITS IF SAID TREES DIE; DESCRIB- ING APPLICABILITY TO NEW AND EXISTING DEVELOPED AREAS; SETTING STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING MATERIALS AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING AREAS; ESTABLISHING PLANTING CRITERIA; REQUIRING A PLOT PLAN; EXEMPTING SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FROM THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVI- SION OF A PLOT PLAN; EXCEPTIONS IN SPECIFIED CASES;