Laserfiche WebLink
<br />180. <br /> <br />Regular Meeting <br /> <br />December 10, 2001 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />reference State law. Ms. Hughson stated in Section 90.272, if we are not <br />addressing requirements, then we need to take it out of the title. Ms. <br />Hughson stated concern for misplacement of provisions. Division 4 <br />provides rates, and 90.293 invoices for storage fees, and 90.292 states <br />vehicles are not to be towed unless signs are posted. Ms. Hughson stated <br />that should be in the 90-250-260 section, and Mr. Taylor stated he would <br />look at that. Ms. Hughson inquired about maximum fee amount being set by <br />City Council and asked if it usually said by City. Mr. Taylor stated most <br />of the Fee Ordinances in the Code Book state that fees are set by the City <br />Council. Ms. Hughson asked for clarification regarding non-consent tows. <br />Mr. Taylor stated the Parking Advisory Committee's recommendation is the <br />driver be charged one-half the normal fee if the tires are off the ground, <br />and if they just arrived at the scene and the wrecker service had not <br />raised the tires, they should not be charged. Ms. Hughson referenced <br />Section 90.278(7) regarding fees and asked if the second vehicle is <br />transported by the same tow, if that is physically the same truck, or is <br />that second vehicle transported by the same towing company. Mr. Taylor <br />stated transported by the same vehicle. Ms. Hughson asked if it is State <br />law where the signs in a parking lot have to be in order to post notice. <br />Mr. Mihalkanin stated he does not think a tow truck should be paid any <br />money if the truck has not hooked to the car. Ms. Hughson stated she is <br />okay with no payment to the tow truck if they have not connected. She <br />stated if they have hooked up and whether they have lifted the wheels or <br />not, she would like to see a different point in the sequence. Mr. <br />Mihalkanin stated he is okay with the way the Ordinance is written. Mayor <br />Chiu stated he is in agreement with Mr. Mayhew's point about the number of <br />days for payment and thought this point needed to be worked on. The <br />Council voted unanimously for approval of the Ordinance on first reading. <br /> <br />Mayor Chiu introduced for consideration a public hearing and approval of <br />an Ordinance on first reading, 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 SAN MARCOS HORIZONS CITY MASTER PLAN ADOPTED IN SECTION <br />102.026 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADOPTING A NEW APPENDIX ENTITLED "WONDER <br />WORLD DRIVE LAND USE PLAN"; INCLUDING PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS; AND <br />PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES. <br /> <br />Mayor Chiu opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. <br />No one wished to speak, so Mayor Chiu closed the public hearing. Ms. <br />Hughson moved for approval of the Ordinance on first reading and Ms. Tatum <br />seconded the motion. Jon James stated this draft Plan is an extension of <br />Wonder World Drive from Hunter Road to Ranch Road 12 and is a five-square <br />mile area. The development of the area is to match the goals of the <br />community and will be added to the Annexation Plan, public hearings will <br />be held and the Planning and Zoning Commission will provide a <br />recommendation. Mr. James stated the Plan will encompass the character <br />of the community to preserve and enhance the hill country image. The land <br />use reflects 500 acres of open space, and residential development with <br />three homes per acre or one home per acre. The Plan recommends <br />