Laserfiche WebLink
<br />reappointed to one board or commission at a time. She said there was one <br />reappointment on the list which needed to be reconsidered since that person was <br />presently on another commission. <br /> <br />2. Council Liaison Reports on Boards and Commissions <br /> Ms. Carr stated that the President of the Human Relations Commission had <br />requested to have a member replaced. <br /> <br /> Mr. Glickert mentioned that there might be a problem in the terminology between <br />excused versus being absent and asked the City Clerk to send information to all <br />commissions regarding the proper terminology since Council has been aggressive in <br />their policies and procedures as far as the commission are concerned. He felt this <br />would be of help to the commissions. <br /> <br />3. Boards, Commissions and Task Force Minutes <br /> Mayor Welsch noted that the Council received copies of the Board and Commission <br />minutes in their packets. <br /> <br />4. Other Discussions/Business <br /> <br /> Parkview Gardens Plan Requested by Ms. Carr and Mr. Crow <br />Ms. Carr discussed the Parkview Gardens Neighborhood Sustainable <br />Development Plan regarding appropriating an additional $40,000 to remove <br />references to building on parking lot #4. She noted certain points from the report <br />were subject to revision including graphic and appearance based on further <br />comments from the public hearing and other stakeholders interviewed, which <br />would be critical in shaping the project team’s understanding of the Parkview <br />Garden neighborhood. Ms. Carr questioned why there was only one property <br />owner listed as a stakeholder (Joe Edwards), but there were four property owners <br />that surround parking lot #4 (Mr. Warshaw, Mr. Stone, Mr. Wall and Mr. <br />Edwards). Ms. Carr said during the reading she discovered that there was only <br />one property owner that had been consulted, and others consulted were a range <br />of governmental people and a developer (Mr. Bruce Mills) who did not have any <br />stake in University City. She questioned why the developer of the plan did not <br />consult with the stakeholders who have been long time investors in University <br />City. Ms. Carr said she believed that H3 Studio made the choice to include <br />structured parking, condominiums in the plan, but the City Council rejected it by <br />taking a vote to keep parking lot #4 as a free surface parking lot. The Plan <br />Commission asked that it be removed from the draft plan. Ms. Carr wanted to <br />know if H3 Studio was responsible for revision because they chose to ignore a <br />potential, political and controversial issue by excluding people that should have <br />been included as stakeholders. Ms. Carr requested a study session with Council <br />in regard to this, as it was Council’s fiduciary responsibility to spend money <br />correctly. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow suggested to the City Manager to contact H3 Studio or the consultant <br />responsible for this plan and find out how the stakeholders were selected as it <br />seemed to be quite an anomaly for longtime partners in the Loop, not to be <br />stakeholders. He also questioned if money have been paid to the consultant and <br />if there was any funds left. <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />