Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Heeting January 14, 2002 Page 7 <br /> <br />the property so the complex would not serve as a through street. Ms. <br />Davila stated she is opposed to the use of gates and access through their <br />neighborhood. No one else wished to speak, so Mayor Chiu closed the <br />public hearing. Mr. Mihalkanin moved for approval of the Ordinance on <br />first reading and Ms. Hughson seconded the motion. Ms. Tatum stated she <br />was confused about the cul-de-sacs, and was advised they are not actually <br />cul-de-sacs, but rather are gates. Mr. Patterson stated there are some <br />tough issues to resolve. He stated the one lightning rod issue is whether <br />or not to connect the street. This could be resolved with the use of a <br />cul-de-sac, but it may be shortsighted for the future. There may be <br />tradeoffs. Mr. Patterson stated with all Sectors, the neighborhoods want <br />the traffic problems resolved, but no one wants traffic being routed close <br />to their property. Mr. Patterson stated one option may be to look at the <br />Transportation Master Plan. He stated this portion of the Master Plan <br />regarding traffic only could be pulled out and input provided to the <br />Council in a two to three-week period. Jon James stated the Sector 3 <br />process began two to three years ago. The maps include adjacent Sectors <br />and the ETJ. The Leah connection has been a controversial issue. It was <br />originally planned as a connection. In Option 2 the Texas Department of <br />Transportation opposed a street connection halfway between Broadway and <br />Leah and stated they would not permit the installation of a traffic light <br />at this location. The School District also opposed this without the <br />traffic light. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Option 3, <br />and there was a split vote by the P&ZC on this recommendation. Mr. <br />Mihalkanin asked Mr. James to identify Option 3 on the map, and Mr. James <br />stated it is shown in orange. Mr. Mihalkanin asked what the rationale was <br />for the Del Sol extension, and Mr. James stated for general connectivity <br />for the neighborhoods. Mr. James stated other options also include Del <br />Sol for connectivity. Mr. Mayhew asked the time frame for the consultants <br />providing traffic information, and Mr. Patterson stated if the Council <br />tabled first reading for at least two weeks, and then resumed the <br />readings, the consultants could probably provide information by third <br />reading. Mr. Mayhew then moved to table first reading until the first <br />meeting in February and Ms. Hughson seconded the motion, which passed <br />unanimously. <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 SECTIONS 86.197, 86.199 AND 86.200 OF THE CITY CODE TO <br /> REVISE CITY UTILITY DEPOSIT POLICIES AND TO REVIEW UTILITY BILL <br /> PAYMENT DUE DATES, PENALTY DATES AND DISCONNECTION DATES; INCLUDING <br /> PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES. <br /> <br />Mayor Chiu opened the public hearing. Ne one wished te speak, se Mayer <br />Chiu closed the public hearing. Mr. Hayhew moved for approval of the <br />Ordinance en first reading and Ms. Tatum seconded the motion. Ms. Hughsen <br />asked if you have a geed payment history, you can get your deposit back <br />without having t© disconnect your service, and Mr. Taylor stated that is <br /> <br /> <br />