Responses provided by Amanda Hernandez, Director of Planning & Development Services:
In the ARF, there is this:
"The property contains several existing residential structures identified on the Historic Resources Survey; 419 North St is identified as “High Priority”, and 409 North St and 413 Lindsey St are classified as “Medium Priority.” These structures would be subject to the City’s Demolition Delay Ordinance. A condition requiring the relocation of the High Priority structure is proposed as part of the associated CUP (CUP-23-22)."
But it's only mentioned in the Additional Analysis on page 424 and not in the presentation. Might be good to remind some and inform others what this means.
Will do.
There was a lot of discussion about flooding and how further development of this site could adversely affect others. Would this meeting be a good time to discuss or wait until the zoning cases for all of it?
Please ask questions on 3/19 – this will allow staff to prepare any answers which are not immediately available and present them on 4/2.
At what point will we see the actual number of units planned? Realistically, when the site permit is submitted – the applicant has not completely designed the buildings to meet the City’s design standards which may affect the currently proposed 300-unit count.
What am I missing from Jean Baggett's email message about the Downton Area plan as it relates to this item? Page 455. It looks like this was included by mistake – the downtown plan and this item were originally planned to be heard on/near the same date. This letter will be removed for the 4/2 packet.
Who created the online petition? Tenants Advocacy Group (TAG) – It is referenced in the email from the “TAG Team” signed by Emily Langley (pdf pg 472)
What is the source of the list entitled "Long-Term Rental Registration with the City of San Marcos, TX - 10.06.23"? Tenants Advocacy Group (TAG) – It is referenced in the email from the “TAG Team” signed by Emily Langley (pdf pg 472)
A number of these show Property Type of Multi-family Property but the address is clearly a single family home.
There are also a number shown as Single Family that are likely under construction by DHI. Does this mean they are intended to be rental units? Upon spot checking those addresses, the homes appear to have completed construction and appear to be owned by the developer. This indicates the developer intends for them to be rental units but does not prevent them from selling at any point.
When the zoning cases are considered, please insert separator pages so we know what came from the public, the developer, and staff. Since others sometimes use staff-created graphics and page styles it can get confusing. Like the pages starting on page 571. Not suggesting in-between each email message, but between groups of pages per source. Cover pages have been provided per “attachment” (developer submitted document, public comments, staff maps, etc.)
Plus, there is a lot in this packet that is not relevant to the agenda item but I know the developer and those opposed are looking at it as one project. I'm not suggesting the staff should have separated it. I know you will make it clear what is on the current agenda. Even page 585 doesn't state who prepared it pdf pg 585 is the end of the McLain presentation that begins on pg. 564 – staff will look at including a header or footer within each attachment to clarify.
Note: when the 4 items are presented on 4/2 there will be a lot of duplicate information in the packet in staff’s attempt to be as transparent as possible with the information received.
