Laserfiche WebLink
214 <br /> <br />Water Street to two-way traffic at this time and not Market <br />Street and Ms. Mueller replied that the immediate traffic <br />restrictions were considered to be south of the downtown <br />mall, particularly at the entrance to~ the parking garage <br />proposed for Water Street. <br /> <br /> Ms, Waters recommended that the CSX Yard and economic <br />perspective study projects be moved up into the category of <br />immediate priorities and that the South Street residential <br />development and undergrounding of utilities be moved to long- <br />range priorities. Ms.~ Waters stated that while <br />undergrounding of utilities was a desirable goal, the cost <br />was prohibitive at this-time. <br /> <br /> Mr, Vandever made a motion to accept the Urban Design <br />Plan as a planning concept document and to further explore <br />the possibility of creating an ongoing urban design <br />committee. Rev. Edwards seconded the motion and it was <br />unanimously approved by Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that he would provide the Council <br />with a recommendation regarding an ongoing urban design task <br />force. <br /> <br /> With regard to the Downtown Traffic Study, Mr. Towe <br />stated that changes to Garrett Street could have an effect on <br />the concept and design of the Ridge Street Bridge. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards questioned why the Traffic Study was being <br />presented to Council before being considered by the. Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br /> Ms. Water explained that the Traffic Study was being <br />presented in conjunction with the Urban Design Plan because <br />the two are so closely related and in order to allow Council <br />an opportunity to give additional direction to the Planning <br />Commission with regard to the Traffic Study. <br /> <br /> It was the sense of Council to pass the West Main Street <br />and Downtown Traffic Study on to the Planning Commission and <br />the issue of Garrett Street on to the Ridge Street Bridge <br />Committee for their consideration and recommendation. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Snook regarding the <br />time frame within which the Traffic Study should be <br />considered by the Planning Commission, Mr. Hendrix stated <br />that the recommendations regarding 9th/10th Streets should be <br />made as soon as possible, but the other issues could be <br />discussed as late as December or January. <br /> <br />APPROPRIATION: $1,100 - DONATION TO COMMUNITY ATTENTION HOME <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that the donation had been made to <br />the Community Attention Home program by Mr. Ralph Sampson. <br /> <br /> On motion by Rev. Edwards, seconded by Mr. Vandever, the <br />~1,100 appropriation to the Community Attention Home program <br />was offered and carried over to the next meeting for <br />consideration. <br /> <br />APPROPRIATION: $60,342.04 - SEIZURE PROCEEDS <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that these funds had been awarded to <br />the City Police Department by the U. S. Justice Department <br />from drug seizure proceeds and would be used for local drug <br />enforcement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck requested that Council be provided with a <br />report on how the money will be expended and how the <br />additional funds will affect the Police Department budget. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards asked for information about whether the <br />City's drug prevention programs could be enhanced with these <br /> <br /> <br />