Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Session 1557, Minutes <br />November 18, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />'!he roll call vote was as follows: AYES: eouncilmembers Price, Adams, Wag- <br />ner, and '!hClll'pSOn. NAYS: Ca.mcilmernbers Schuman and Schoomer, ani Mayor Ma- <br />jerus. '!he motion carried by a vote of four to three. Bill No. 8043 became <br />Ordinance No. 5832 . <br /> <br />BILL NO. 8044 - AUIHORIZING '!HE CI'lY MANAGER 'ro CONVEY AND GRAN!' 'ro JOHN PErL <br />THE #2 FIRE srATION AT 6970 OLIVE InJIEVARD. FOR VAIlJABIE CONSIDERATION. <br />Bill No. 8044 was given its secx:n:i reading. . - <br /> <br />Bill No. 8044 was given its third readi.rg. <br /> <br />Mr. Adams llXJVed that this bill be adopted as an ordinance. Mr. Schoomer sec- <br />onded the motion. Upon roll call, the following vote was recorded: AYES: <br />Councilmembers Adams, Wagner, Schuman, Schoomer, '!hClll'pSOn, Price, ani Mayor <br />Majerus. NAYS: None. Bill No. 8044 became Ordj..nance No. 5833. <br /> <br />BILL NO. 8045 - AMENDING rnAPI'ER 21 MUNICIPAL roDE REIATING 'IO MJroR VEHIClES <br />AND TRAFFIC, BY AMENDING SECl'ION 21-6.2 movrDING FOR A RESIDENI'IAL PARKING <br />PERMIT. BY EXCIDDING '!HE TIME LIMITATION OF SUBSECI'ION (13). <br />Bill No. 8045 was given its sea:>m readi.rg. <br /> <br />Mr. Tony Ansel.m:>, operator of A cut NxNe, 381 N. Big Berxi, asked to address <br />the Council. He said his business has been affected by the evenin:J parking <br />restrictions on Pershing, ani while the ordinance addressed. the needs of res- <br />idents ani business customers, it did not help his enployees. He asked that <br />they receive parking pennits or something similar, adding he could not stay <br />in business without gcxxl employees, who needed to park reasonably close. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner had several proposed arnerrlIrents, one of which would substitute the <br />word "street" for "block" because he felt that better described the intent <br />of the ordinance. Mayor Majerus suggested usinj specific addresses. <br /> <br />Mrs. SchUl'l'aI1 said the original ordinance was generic and called for estab- <br />lishing specific areas through petition, am she believed there may have been <br />some reason that "block" was not used originally. Mr. Wagner said his point <br />had nothing to do with the 7000 block of Pershing; he felt "street" could be <br />construed as the full length of a street rather than a specific block. <br /> <br />Mrs. ThClll'pSOn felt this should be tabled rmtil there was agreement on how to <br />proceed and those affected are notified. Mr. Adams said tablinj was unneces- <br />sary; the third reading could sinply be postponed. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollerrlorff suggested Mr. Wagner was trying to tighten the ordinance so <br />its roeaninj was abundantly clear. He noted that prior to considering the <br />pennanent adoption of this ordinance, questionnaires (to be returned by Sep- <br />tember 18) were sent to the adjacent residences and businesses, am all were <br />invited to discuss this matter at the October 9 Traffic Cormnission reetinj. <br /> <br />Mayor Maj erus said she would have felt proper notification had not been made <br />if the questionnaire had not been sent, however, all involved received it ani <br />were invited to the Traffic Camnission reeting in which this matter was to be <br />considered. <br />