A compromise masonry standards amendment for metal buildings passed the Temple City Council on a 3-2 vote after a failed attempt by Russell Schneider, District 4 council member, to decrease the number of corridors that would have been included in the proposed ordinance.

The ordinance requires that new metal buildings be mostly covered by masonry material in a large area of the city.

The second reading of the ordinance voted on Thursday night by the council during its regular meeting was for a modified version of one passed on first reading during the council’s Feb. 7 meeting.

The version approved Thursday contained an extended list of corridors in the city that would fall under the ordinance rather than citywide coverage. Other changes included lessening the amount of coverage of masonry required on metal buildings. It also eliminated regulations regarding reconstruction or repair of existing metal buildings.

The compromises were hammered out by stakeholder groups at the request of the Temple Planning and Zoning Commission.

After Tony Jeter, District 1 council member, moved that the council approve the modified version of the ordinance and Patsy Luna, District 2 council member seconded it, Schneider moved that the motion be amended to include a reduced number of corridors and that the amendment be sunsetted. Sunsetting means the ordinance would have to be voted on again in a year.

His motion to amend Jeter’s motion was seconded by District 3 council member Marty Janczak. But the vote on the amendment failed 3-2 with Temple Mayor Bill Jones III, Luna and Jeter voting against.

Jeter’s original motion passed by the same 3-2 vote.

Representatives of some of the groups that had worked on the ordinance, which included Temple Chamber of Commerce, Temple Area Builders Association, Keep Temple Beautiful and Temple Economic Development Corp., seemed to agree that no one was completely happy with the compromise, but that everyone felt it was an ordinance they could live with.

Troy Glasson, director of government affairs at the Temple Area Builders Association, said his organization was neutral on the ordinance.

“Our association from our standpoint has taken a neutral position on this ordinance,” he said. “I’ve heard from some that say this is a necessary step for beautification purposes for our city. Others have adamantly opposed any kind of regulation.”

“We have made some steps in the right direction as far as our group is concerned, going from what was a city-wide ordinance to one that was not quite as overwhelming but still is extensive,” he said. “It is pretty much a blanket approach with some holes in the blanket.”

He said he was pleased that existing businesses were exempted from having to retrofit with masonry.

Jeter asked, “Would you say that a good compromise was made on both sides and everybody met in the middle?”

“I’d say a compromise was reached,” Glasson said.

Thomas Baird, representing Keep Temple Beautiful and who was chairman of the stakeholders committee, said the meetings were productive.

“There was a lot of compromise. There were a lot of discussions with ‘ifs ands and buts’ to try to deal with all the various issues of all the various groups,” he said.

Those who were opposed to the ordinance argued that it would discourage small businesses utilizing metal buildings and were opposed to the citywide nature of the original version.