Laserfiche WebLink
128 <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />REGULAR MEETING <br />September 13, 1982 <br />Page ~9 <br /> <br />object to Mr. Mendez' request, and that was a primary reason for <br />denial. Mr. Mendez stated that a number of other businesses <br />impact the parking, and why should he be discriminated against. <br />Mr. Brown asked about the question of legality. Ms. Edwards <br />advised that in her research done for the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission when they began this study showed this to be a zoning <br />decision which sets out what can and cannot be allowed in certain <br />areas. The anti-trust question had not been tested to date. <br />But the City can set up this type of zone as long as the businesses <br />prohibited are allowed in another area. Mr. Brown asked about <br />the ones in the area presently. Mr. Mendez stated that there <br />are thirteen (13). Ms. Edwards stated that nonconforming uses <br />are a historical issue in zoning law. Mr. Mendez stated that <br />in closing he would like to comment that the City Council in <br />approving this ordinance will be spending City money defending <br />actions which are ill-conceived. Mr. Brown moved the ordinance <br />be approved on second reading. Mrs. Norris provided the second, <br />and the votes were cast as follow: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Brown, Farr, Kreczmer, Craddock, Norris <br />Mendez <br /> <br />Mrs. Norris wished to add the comment that it is necessary to <br />address the DWI issue in San Marcos. Mr. Kreczmer added that <br />he would not vote for this ordinance if he had any idea it was <br />made especially to exclude one particular individual. He had <br />attended the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings during the <br />origination of this ordinance and did not get that feeling. The <br />primary reasons for this ordinance being originated were other <br />concerns. Mr. Farr was shocked that this accusation came at this <br />late date; this argument was never heard during the writing of <br />this ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Craddock introduced for consideration approval of an <br />ordinance on third and final reading, the caption of which was <br />read as follows: <br /> <br />AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY <br />OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, AMENDING APPENDIX C OF <br />THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF SAID CITY TO REQUIRE <br />COMPLIANCE WITH THE DRAINAGE AND EROSION <br />CONTROL ORDINANCE OF SAID CITY BY TIME OF <br />SUBMISSION OF THE FINAL PLAT OF A SUBDIVISION <br />AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. <br /> <br />Mrs. Norris moved the ordinance be approved and adopted on third <br />and final reading. Mr. Kreczmer provided the second, and the <br />motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Mayor Craddock introduced for consideration approval of an <br />ordinance on third and final reading, the caption of which <br />was read as follows: <br /> <br />AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY <br />OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF <br />ORDINANCES OF SAID CITY TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER <br />TO PROVIDE FOR THE DEMOLITION, VACATION OR <br />REPAIR OF SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS; DEFINING <br />TERMS; DECLARING UNSAFE BUILDINGS TO BE A <br />NUISANCE; SETTING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR CON- <br />TINUED USE AND OCCUPANCY OF STRUCTURES; SETTING <br />STANDARDS FOR REPAIR, VACATION OR DEMOLITION; <br />DESCRIBING DUTIES OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR <br />WITH REGARD TO UNSAFE BUILDINGS; PROVIDING <br />FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS; PRO- <br />VIDING FOR NOTICE; PROVIDING FOR APPEALS; <br />PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS; SETTING RULES <br />OF PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS; PROVIDING <br />FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING A PENALTY AND <br />DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. <br /> <br /> <br />