Laserfiche WebLink
<br />69. <br /> <br />Regular Meeting <br /> <br />March 5, 2001 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, <br />AMENDING ARTICLE 2 OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE CITY CODE TO ADD A NEW <br />DIVISION 4 REGARDING OBSTRUCTIONS IN ALLEYS; AND INCLUDING PROCEDURAL <br />PROVISIONS. <br /> <br />Mr. Cox moved for adoption of the Ordinance on third and final reading and <br />Mr. Mayhew seconded the motion. Joe Schneider expressed some concerns he <br />has regarding this Ordinance. He stated there is no notification <br />provision for a closure of an alley. Interior lots may not continue to <br />have access if one end of the alley gets closed. Mr. Schneider asked in <br />Section 74.104 who surveys and pays for the survey. Mr. Schneider stated <br />after a survey, the survey pins may not stay in place. Mr. Schneider <br />asked if this agreement would be recorded. Santos Duran stated he <br />received a letter from the City Attorney permitting Mr. Duran to build a <br />fence in his alley. He stated people place trash in alleys, and that is <br />why he wanted to fence a portion of the alley adjacent to his property. <br />Mr. Duran stated his neighbor has a well on his property and has access to <br />his well through his property. Mr. Mayhew stated interior lots could be <br />landlocked through partial alley closures. Mr. Cox stated the City will <br />continue to be confronted with other instances as this one if the City <br />does not establish a policy. Mr. Doiron stated if a landowner wants a <br />fence, he should be required to get permission from all adjoining <br />landowners, and Mr. Taylor stated the City has already established this in <br />a formal policy. Mr. Cox stated if an alley remains open, it will require <br />the City's maintenance of same. Ms. Hughson moved to table further <br />consideration of this Ordinance until later in the meeting for the City <br />Attorney to prepare revised wording and Mr. Moseley seconded the motion, <br />which passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Mayor Chiu introduced for consideration Item 18 removed from the consent <br />agenda, adoption of a Resolution, the caption of which was read as <br />follows: <br /> <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, <br />APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CAPITAL <br />METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR A VANPOOL PROGRAM; <br />AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF <br />THE CITY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. <br /> <br />Mr. Moseley moved for adoption of the Resolution and Mr. Cox seconded <br />motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Cox inquired if CARTS provided <br />type of service and Mr. Gilley advised they have no program of this <br />nature. The Council then voted unanimously for adoption of the <br />Resol~tion. <br /> <br />the <br />this <br /> <br />Mayor Chiu introduced for consideration Item 22 removed from the consent <br />agenda, approval for use of General Fund Contingency Funds in the amount <br />of $5,520.00 for the Greater San Marcos Youth Summit. Mr. Moseley moved <br />to approve the funding in the amount of $5,520.00 and Mr. Doiron seconded <br />the motion. Mr. Moseley stated this is a part of America's Promise and <br />