My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08111980 Regular Meeting
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
01 City Council Minutes
>
1980 s
>
1980
>
08111980 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2008 1:48:29 PM
Creation date
8/18/2006 1:37:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Minutes
City Clerk - Type
Regular Meeting
Date
8/11/1980
Volume Book
53
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />81 <br /> <br />regular meeting <br /> <br />august 11, 1980 <br /> <br />page two <br /> <br />The Mayor then stated that Item #18 on the agenda had been withdrawn <br />at the request of the applicant. Mr. Brown wished to suggest a moratorium <br />of Townhouses until the General Zoning Ordinance is adopted. The Mayor <br />stated that the discussion was not in order as it was not on the agenda. <br />He said he or three members of the Council would place it on a future <br />agenda. Mr. Brown said he thought it could be discussed under the General <br />Zoning Ordinance item. The City Attorney said it could have been discussed, <br />but that the General Zoning Ordinance had been tabled. Mr. Brown moved <br />to. place a moratorium on TD development until the General zoni.ng ordinancI <br />is in effect. The Mayor ruled that the motion was out of order. <br /> <br />The Mayor then introduced for consideration Item #10, to receive a <br />report from the Board of Equalization. Mrs. Lou Cole presented the report <br />to Council. Mr. James moved to accept the report which is attached. <br />Mrs. Norris seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. <br /> <br />The Mayor introduced for consideration an Ordinance on first reading <br />having the following caption: <br /> <br />AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, <br />TEXAS, ABANDONING, VACATING AND CLOSING AN ALLEY IN BLOCK <br />25 OF THE WESTOVER ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS; <br />PROVIDING FOR THE REVERSION OF FEE IN SAID LAND AND DECLARING <br />AN EFFECTIVE DATE. <br /> <br />Mr. Cavazos moved to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Mrs. <br />Norris seconded the motion. On roll call, the following vote was recorded: <br /> <br />AYE: Brown, Cavazos, James, Kraus, Norris, Stokes <br /> <br />NAY: None <br /> <br />ABSTAIN: Tarbutton <br /> <br />The Mayor introduced for consideration an Ordinance on first reading <br />having the following caption: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS,' <br />TEXAS, ANNEXING TO SAID CITY A CONTIGUOUS TRACT OF LAND <br />CONTAINING 20.91 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL <br />JURISDICTION OF SAID CITY AND LYING ADJACENT TO PRESEl\iT CITY <br />BOUNDARIES AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. <br /> <br />Mr. James moved to approve the Ordinance on first reading. Mr. Brown <br />seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. <br /> <br />The Mayor then introduced for consideration Item #13 A & B to consider <br />two Ordinance amending the General Zoning Ordinance by changing the zoning <br />of properties located in the W. S. Smith Addition on third and final <br />reading. Mr. Stokes stated that the applicant wished to table these <br />Ordinances. Mr. Stokes made the request into the form of a motion. Mrs. <br />Norris seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. <br /> <br />The Mayor then introduced for consideration sidewalks on Roosevelt St. <br />The City Manager stated that this item was requested by the neighborhood <br />and that staff recommends the contruction of both Roosevelt St. and <br />Alabama St.reet sidewalks in the Phase II contract. Mr. Gonzalez reportedt <br />that the rebidding of the Alabama Street sidewalks would delay the side- <br />walk project since the Phase II contractor would not agree to simultaneou <br />construction o~ the Pha~e II project and the separate sidewalk proiect. <br />The bid specif~cat~ons tor th~ Phase II s~aewalKs would have to ~nClude <br />a provision that the sidewalk contractor could not contract the sidewalks <br />in the Phase II area until after the Phase II utility and street improve- <br />ments are completed and accepted by the City. He also advised that the <br />delay would probably increase the price of the sidewalk project. Mrs. <br />Norris made a motion to bid all sidewalks again. Mr. Cavazos seconded <br />the motion, which passed unanimously. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.