04.02.13 Regular Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that what they asked for is reflected in the graphics and that people found errors in the wording and have twisted it. He asked the Council to positively consider this amendment. Richard Herman, 104 Elm Hill Court, addressed the Council regarding how he felt about this project and how the developer was working with the neighbors to satisfy some of their requests. He felt that the process should serve as a model on how developers and neighbors should work together. David Wendel, 118 E. Holland, completed Mr. Hiebert's comments... asking why we have laws that are not enforced. Planning and Zoning obviously felt the same and that their intent was to have the 150 ft. buffer. He asked the council to deny the amendment and to order removal of this building. Megan Gotcher, 1420 N LBJ, addressed the Council regarding the amendment because her house is the closest to the building and she has been negatively affected and she stated that she was not included in neighborhood discussions and asked the Council to deny this request. Pat Corley, 104 Elm Hill. Court, addressed the involvement of Megan Gotcher and her husband. She stated that the building has never changed and they were invited to all the meetings and they never showed up. She asked Council to passed the amendment. David Sergi, San Marcos, addressed the Council about his meetings with the neighbors and the Gotchers, and asked the Council. to deny this request. Jarrod Schenk, Chicago„ IL, addressed the Council regarding the project and the process in how this was a thought out design. All permitting has been approved and he explained how he has acted in good faith. He asked that the council pass the amendment. Annette Dever, San Marcos, addressed the Council regarding how the developer knew the risk when he continued to keep building. She stated that she felt that there was no integrity by him continuing to build. It should be enforced the way it was agreed upon and she felt that he is abusing the town and the council. There being no further comments; the public hearing was closed at 9:01 p.m. MOTION: Upon a motion made by Council Member Scott and a second by Council Member Thomason, the City Council voted seven (7) for and none (0) opposed, to approve Ordinance 2013 -15, as previously captioned. The motion carried. 15.7:OOPM Receive a Staff presentation and hold a Public Hearing to receive comments for or against Ordinance 2013 -17 amending various sections of Article 6, Downtown Design Standards, of the San Marcos SmartCode (Subpart C of the San Marcos City Code) to allow the Development Review Committee to approve certain variations to building design elements if they meet the criteria in the Downtown Design Guidelines; including procedural provisions; and consider approval of Ordinance 2013 -17.