My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06092003 Regular Meeting
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
01 City Council Minutes
>
2000 s
>
2003
>
06092003 Regular Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/4/2009 4:11:42 PM
Creation date
10/10/2003 10:41:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Minutes
City Clerk - Type
Regular
Date
6/9/2003
Volume Book
152
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
134. <br />Regular Meeting June 9, 2003 Page 4 <br /> <br />stacking will be allowed, and bench signs will not be allowed. He stated <br />he agrees with Mr. Thomaides on the requirement of same size and height <br />requirements for replacement signs. Mr. Mihalkanin stated he respects the <br />work the three Council Members did on the proposed Ordinance. He stated <br />he feels the Council needs to look at the recommendations the Planning and <br />Zoning Commission passed by majority vote. He stated he also agrees with <br />Mr. Thomaides concerns with square footage for replacement signs. Mr. <br />Thomaides asked Ms. Gueringer about her proposed square footage <br />replacements and how to keep from going from small billboards to larger <br />billboards. Ms. Gueringer stated the City already has other Ordinances, <br />which would make the sign companies apply for demolition permits and then <br />apply for a new sign permit. She stated the Council could adopt a 2 or 3 <br />signs be taken down in order to replace a larger billboard on IH35. Mr. <br />Thomaides asked Mr. Hazen to explain the effect on the Ordinance if the <br />rights were given to the landowner. Mr. Hazen stated when a lease expires <br />the sign company will have to renegotiate with the landowner, which is a <br />benefit for the landowner. If the sign company has the rights, then the <br />landowner has to negotiate with only one business. Ms. Narvaiz stated she <br />is looking for a balance, which will work for everyone. She feels the <br />Council should make amendments, approve and move forward. She also stated <br />she agrees with the cap and replace as long as IH35 is not included. Mr. <br />Thomaides moved to amend Section 106.074(2)d. to remove the language, <br />which allows signs in the Downtown Historic District, and Mr. Diaz <br />seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Thomaides asked Mr. <br />Mark Taylor to amend the proposed Ordinance to modify the size and height <br />of replacement signs. Mr. Mark Taylor stated he would prepare the <br />amendments for the second reading. Mr. Thomaides and Mr. Diaz stated they <br />are in favor of a cap and replace throughout the City. Mr. Taylor <br />inquired about the 16 new locations on IH 35. Jori James stated the <br />Council was given a map which shows 15 available locations on IH35. He <br />also stated some of these locations would have to be rezoned Commercial or <br />Industrial. Mr. Mihalkanin asked Mr. Mark Taylor to provide wording to <br />not allow new signs in the Central Business District. Mr. Mark Taylor <br />stated he would provide wording for the second reading. On roll call the <br />following vote was recorded: <br /> <br />AYE: <br /> <br />Narvaiz, Thomaides, Mihalkanin, Habingreither, Taylor and Diaz. <br /> <br />NAY: Montoya. <br /> <br />ABSTAIN: None. <br /> <br />Mayor Habingreither introduced for consideration a public hearing and <br />adoption of a Zoning Ordinance, the caption which was read as follows: <br /> <br />AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, <br />AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY BY REZONING LOT 2, BLOCK <br />14 OF THE SUNSET ACRES ADDITION LOCATED AT 427 PARKER DRIVE, FROM <br />COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO ~R-1" SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LOW <br />DENSITY); INCLUDING PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR <br />PENALTIES. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.