Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Ricci moved for approval and was seconded by Mr. Glickert. <br />Mr. Crow asked Ms. Watson to explain the reason for this ordinance. <br />Ms. Watson stated that this should have already occurred because there is not enough <br />room for two lanes of traffic with parking on both sides. She stated that meters will be <br />placed on the south side of LOOP south and no parking will be on the north side. <br />Mr. Crow asked where the safety recommendation came from. Ms. Watson stated that <br />when they were looking at the meters they determined that when LOOP south was done as <br />it is now it was not to have parking on the north side of the street. <br />Mr. Kraft asked if they could make it all one way. Ms. Watson noted there was a lot of traffic <br />going into business lots and was the need for two way for a section. <br />Mr. Crow asked again who proposed the safety issue and Ms. Watson stated it was Public <br />Works that determined this in their review of the meters. <br />Mr. Sharpe noted that at a Traffic Commission meeting they were asked to approve this and <br />noted that the commission did not feel it was in their purview and ask to send it back to <br />Council with no recommendation. <br />Mr. Kraft stated that when he was just there it seemed like the traffic was only going in one <br />direction and asked if they could take another look at this. Ms. Watson stated they could <br />postpone this and have a full report at the next meeting. <br />Ms. Ricci withdrew her motion and moved to postpone this approval until more information <br />be given to the Council. The motion to postpone till more information could be reviewed by <br />Council, was seconded by Mr. Glickert and was approved unanimously by a voice vote. <br />M. NEW BUSINESS <br />RESOLUTIONS <br />1. <br />Resolution 2010 – 9 Mr. Sharp introduced this resolution for the application for <br />playground equipment in Mooney Park was seconded by Mr. Crow and was passed <br />unanimously. <br />Ms. Ricci stated the Council was asked to spend $91,000, with pretty scant <br />information as to what it was needed for. She moved to postpone this also until <br />Council can receive more informatio and was seconded by Mr. Glickert. <br />Ms. MacCartney stated that this is a must be passed as she is required to get <br />information with other state applications that is passed on to the Federal government <br />and if the deadline is missed the grant is lost. She explained that the playground <br />equipment was greatly needed and the most costly was the replacement of the <br />retaining wall. The grant is a Land and Water Conservation Grant and would provide <br /> 6 <br /> <br />