Laserfiche WebLink
recorded. She stated the minutes should be an accurate synopsis of what was said by <br />every Councilmember and believed that there should be a verbatim record of the <br />proceedings, rather than the minutes as allowed by Robert’s Rules of Order. She then <br />questioned the time frame that audio recordings of Council meetings would be made <br />available to the public via the City’s website <br /> <br />Jim Carr, 7901 Gannon, University City, MO <br />Mr. Carr noted that he is the husband of Councilmember Carr and a licensed insurance <br />agent for the State of Missouri. He then expressed his opposition to the resolution <br />regarding the disposing of a motion and stated that according to Robert’s Rules if <br />something has been voted down it should not come back before Council for a period of <br />six months. Mr. Carr stated that the wording “disposed of” was vague. <br /> Mr. Carr stated that with Council’s process for eliminating the rights of the minority, he <br />was concerned with the possibility of litigation. Mr. Carr stated that insurance is not <br />permission to use bad judgment or act irresponsibly and thus putting University City at- <br />risk through efforts to silence the minority. <br /> Mr. Carr asked that his complete comments be attached to the minutes. <br /> <br />Dr. Carr asked Mayor Welsch for a roll call vote. <br /> <br />Roll Call vote was: <br />AYES: Mr. Kraft, Mr. Glickert, Mr. Sharpe, Mr. Jennings and Mayor Welsch. <br />NAYS: Dr. Carr <br /> <br />2. Resolution 2014 – 36 <br /> Adoption of the Parkview Gardens Neighborhood <br />Sustainable Development Plan as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan Update <br />of 2005. Introduced by Mr. Kraft and seconded by Mr. Sharpe. <br /> <br />COUNCIL’S COMMENTS <br />Dr. Carr concerns are: <br /> <br /> The official approval appears to be getting the rush treatment <br /> <br /> There are conflicts of interest <br /> <br /> The plan is not in the best interest of University City due to its failure to address <br />increased parking needs as a result of increased population density and other <br />incremental, yet significant loss of tax base within the Parkview Gardens <br />Neighborhood <br /> <br /> Neither HUD or DOT require adoption of the plan for payment and there are no <br />further grants to be obtained as a result of the plan’s adoption, and <br /> <br /> One of the major partners, the Parkview Gardens Association has not endorsed <br />the plan. <br /> <br /> Opening and closure of certain streets <br /> <br /> Sale or trade of park land <br /> <br /> Washington University tax exempt status <br />Dr. Carr asked that a copy of her detailed comments be placed in the minutes <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft stated that this plan has been in the making for a long time and the precursor, <br />which is already a part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, was to redesign a park within <br />the Parkview Gardens Neighborhood which was approved by the Plan Commission. Mr. <br />Kraft stated that this is just a plan. There are no zoning changes contained within the <br />plan. Council would not be approving any ideas or changes at this meeting but every <br />proposed change would have to come back before Council for approval. Mr. Kraft noted <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />