The University Park City Council unanimously passed a motion to postpone voting on an ordinance limiting curbside parking in Snider Plaza from two hours to one hour Tuesday evening.

“We feel that until we can really look this issue of enforceability in the eye and feel comfortable that it can truly be carried out, that we need to table this and not rush into passing this ordinance at this time,” Mayor James Holmes said.

Holmes cited insufficient technology as the main reason to postpone the vote, and asked for a “full report of the functionality of the technology.”

The city currently has a cart-mounted enforcer that drives by parked cars, recording the license plate numbers, time and location. The cart then drives by an hour or two hours later, depending on the time limit, and issues tickets, University Park City Manager Bob Livingston said.

“We’ve had some problems with GPS location on it and other things like that,” Livingston said. “It’s relatively new technology.”

Although the council cited technology as a main reason for the postponement, they’ve received various petitions and e-mails regarding the issue. The ordinance would also decrease the time limit on side streets near the plaza, like Rosedale Avenue, Milton Street and Rankin Street. All parking in the median of the shopping center will remain at two hours.

“The council has heard from many of you with respect to your feelings and wishes,” Holmes said. “We’re trying to do as best we can, whether it is good for the customers, residents or owners within Snider Plaza.”

Aubrey Wyatt works at Avalon Salon, one of the businesses that started its own petition against the ordinance. According to Wyatt, many of the salon’s clients have appointments that easily take more than two hours, making even the current parking time limit a problem.

“We have guests that have to stop in the middle of their service and move their car so they don’t get a ticket,” Wyatt said. “And we have customers that want us to pay their ticket.”

Wyatt estimates that Avalon’s petition garnered 60 to 70 signatures, and said that other businesses are also working against the ordinance.

After Holmes announced the postponement of the vote, nearly half of the audience members in the council chambers left. But according to Livingston, the ordinance is not a dead issue.

“I think the council will look again at it later,” Livingston said, “but right now I think they want to see how the equipment we just purchased, and are still debugging, will work, and see what impact that has before they go forward.”

The council’s next meeting is April 21 at 5 p.m., although they have not decided whether a vote on the ordinance will be made then.