Laserfiche WebLink
staff that a condition be added, which was not approved by the commission. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch noted that the motion on the floor was to approve the <br />recommendations of the Plan Commission. <br /> <br />Ms. Ricci asked if the Plan Commission saw this new recommendation or if it was <br />turned down by the Plan Commission. Mr. Walker said by his information, it was not <br />considered by the Plan Commission. Ms. Ricci asked if this was a time sensitive <br />matter and he agreed that it was. She then asked if Ms. Riganti could speak on it. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow said his motion was in regard to Attachment A and thought the confusion <br />was that subsequent to getting attachment A from the Plan Commission, Council <br />also had a cover sheet that was Attachment 1 that had changes versus Attachment <br />A and tonight there was a second set of changes. He said the issue was the Plan <br />Commission passed Attachment A and subsequent to that, staff had an epiphany <br />that changes needed to be made that would change the parking structure without <br />any knowledge of going through the Plan Commission. <br /> <br />Andrea Riganti, Director of Community Development <br />Ms. Riganti noted that what was before Council are development conditions as <br />proposed by staff and the City Manager, on the City Manager’s report, a transmittal <br />letter from Plan Commission with their recommendations and a subsequent report <br />that details staff recommendations. Ms. Riganti said that Plan Commission did not <br />adopt all of staff’s recommendations. Staff recommended limiting the hours of <br />operation that was deleted by the Plan Commission which is Attachment A. Ms. <br />Riganti noted that as part of the CUP review process the City Council can make <br />changes to Plan Commission recommendations. Ms. Riganti said the site plan <br />approval was not tied to the CUP and is remanded back to the zoning administrator <br />for approval rather than being brought back before the Plan Commission as per U <br />City’s zoning code. Ms. Riganti said the developer had some discussions with <br />some City Councilmembers about whether the building could be brought forward to <br />be more consistent with the prevailing pattern of the area, and to provide more <br />green space which is consistent with the triangle piece in the Delcrest site. She <br />said what staff recommended was that this feasibility be explored; the staff was not <br />making it a requirement. Ms. Riganti stated that University City is trying to be a <br />more sustainable community, provide more green space, reduce number of parking <br />spaces provided, and the number of pervious surfaces. She noted that the <br />additional green space would meet the City’s requirement of becoming a more <br />sustainable community. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow asked about the timing, as it was his understanding that the developer has <br />worked with the City for more than a year and then two weeks before the vote, after <br />it has gone through Plan and Traffic Commissions, the Council then gets a sentence <br />that says subsequently there was a suggestion of shifting the retail building. He <br />noted there was a 30 million dollar development; where the developer is not asking <br />for a thing and at the last minute, Council is getting one sentence that says <br />subsequently there was a suggestion. Mr. Crow asked if this was staff’s suggestion. <br /> <br />Ms. Riganti said in respect to the timing of the process, University City fast tracks all <br />of its development process. She noted that University City’s process is by far one of <br /> 9 <br /> <br /> <br />