Part 1 of 3
LDC changes 3-3-2026 message board and notes
There are 262 changes in the table. I’m only asking about less than 50 of them.
#2-3 “A separate row for a “City Initiated Zoning Map Amendment is not needed because it follows the same process as the row below, Zoning Map Amendment “(Rezoning)”. Edits recommended by City staff.
JH Posted notice column is different. City initiated is No, Zoning Map Amendment is Y*. Is this part of #2-5?
2-5 Removing the requirement of posted notices from Certificate of Appropriateness. This recommendation was made by the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Joint Notice Committee.
JH What was the reasoning? What did HPC say about it?
#2-9 “Approving Historic Districts and Landmarks, Section 2.2.4.2, Review Authority
This change is added to comply with the Texas Local Government Code - 211.0165. Edits made to comply with state law.”
JH Regarding “three-fourths” may we please state the actual number? I assume three-fourths was in the law, but let’s be clear what it is in San Marcos. I’m ok with “three-fourths (6)”
2-10 “Increase in size of posted notices to comply with the Texas Local Government Code. Additional changes are recommended by the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission Joint Notice Committee.”
This also changes the responsibility from the staff to the applicant. While I can see why we might want this, I believe this will result in signs not following design requirements and signs not staying up. Recall the postponement by the PZC last year for a rezoning on Chestnut St because a PZC member lives nearby and noticed the sign was not still in place the week before the vote. I would not be opposed to a fee for the sign to be paid by the applicant, enough to cover the cost of the sign and some staff time to ensure signs are still posted the week prior. I think we need consistency in the signage. Some applicants might see this as a chance to advertise their business and THAT name may dominate the sign unless we are very strict and provide templates?
2-13 and 2-14 ”This change is proposed to allow a customer more time to finish a project following issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.”
I see 3 years for expiration and 3 years for an extension. Is the intent to provide a full 6 years?
2-20 “Removing text and figure to clarify when a Certificate of Appropriateness is required. Applicability is outlined in Section 2.5.5.1.B.” does not explain WHY all of this is no longer required. Why would that be?
2-26 “Section 2.8.3.7 Procedures Specific to Conditional Use Permits for On-Premise Sale [delete sale] of Alcohol Consumption [insert consumption] of Alcohol”
What does this change? I would care what is happening anywhere that alcohol is available for sale, regardless of consumption. AND would this then, as written, apply to anywhere alcohol is consumed, even if not for sale? Perhaps part of the dinner package or a BYOB place?
3-5 “The amendment would allow a plat applicant to commence public improvements associated with a Final Plat without needing an approved Preliminary Plat.”
This sounds like we would allow work to be performed before the Final Plat is approved. Accurate?
3-8 “Clarification that the preliminary subdivision plat is approved by the Responsible Official rather than the Planning and Zoning Commission. This change is added to comply with the Texas Local Government Code.”
Have plats been on PZC agendas for approval? When did this change to not being on their agenda?
3-11, 3-12 “The change allows the applicant to record a plat as opposed to staff which aligns with current practice.” When it states the Responsible Official “will cause” that sure sounds like the city is doing it. If we aren’t, I think we should clearly state we are requiring the applicant to record it. Otherwise, there may be some assumptions with results we don’t want.
What is our assurance that it gets done? Do we check and if it isn’t then we contact them? What do we do if they just don’t?
3-19 Section 3.3.3.3 Protest – same comment as above about three-fourths. State the number.
If a public hearing is not required, why notify the neighbors AFTER it is approved?
3-26 3-72 “Requires new street names to be approved at the time of platting to reflect current practice. Also requests the applicant to include a summary of the significance of any street names in their application.”
Since you are making this optional for the applicant, I’ll be making a motion to amend to make it a requirement. But just in case that fails, I’ll also be making a motion to add to the end of “The applicant shall include a list of proposed street names with the plat application including, at the option of the applicant, a summary of the significance of the requested street names.” The words “for historical purposes.” I would entertain other wording suggested by staff.
3-58 “Clarify that the 5% Open Space/ Plaza requirement may contribute towards the parkland dedication requirements. Also allows the requirement to be waived by the Parks Board.”
Amendment Proposed: Section 3.10.1.2 Parkland Dedication B. Land Required in the Downtown and Midtown areas as identified in Figure 1.1 of the Design Manual. Residential or mixed use developments with 30 or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum of five percent (5%) of the site or lot as plazas that are either privately held and open to the public or dedicated as parkland. Land dedicated under this Section 3.10.1.2.B shall count towards the general parkland dedication requirements in Section 3.10.1.2.A. Upon determination of the responsible official, this requirement may be waived by the City Council upon recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Board.
To be continued. There is a character limit on these posts.
