2014-10-27 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

begin to work on the City’s real problems. Ms. Zaggy asked that her written comments be attached to the minutes. Gene Ruth, 7210 Waterman, University City, MO Mr. Ruth stated that he is the Treasurer of Citizens for Restoring Transparency (CRT), the non-profit organization that initiated the recall efforts against Councilmember Kraft. In response to Mayor’s email, Councilmembers Crow and Carr have played no role in the organization of CRT. Mr. Ruth stated that the Mayor had also called CRT a small, but loud group of bullies however bullies do not form a non-profit organization and work through the legal process to rectify a disturbing situation. Mr. Ruth asked that a copy of his written statement be attached to the minutes. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS J. CONSENT AGENDA K. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 1. Approval of the Heman Park Master Plan. Dr. Carr moved to approve and was seconded by Mr. Jennings. CITIZEN’S COMMENTS Ellen Bern, 7001 Washington Avenue, University City, MO Ms. Bern stated that although she is excited to see such a robust plan for Heman Park there are still several unanswered questions that she would like to share with Council.  Has staff conducted sufficient research to determine the feasibility of Skateboard Park?  What impact will such a park have on the City’s insurance and liability?  What will be the hours of operation for the park?  Will the park be supervised?  To what extent will Centennial Commons be expanded  Will additional parking be added to accommodate these new activities? Ms. Bern stated that while she understood this is a concept plan, sometimes it becomes the blueprint for how things move forward in the future. She asked that Council to elicit additional public feedback and work out some of the details before approving the Master Plan. COUNCIL’S COMMENTS Mr. Kraft stated that as the liaison to the Park Commission, he noted there were a lot of very involved citizens who attended the meetings, and agreed that there are still a number of unanswered questions. The consultants, as well as the Park Commission, made it clear that this was a very broad plan and the master plan identifies that the park as it currently exists is divided into three separate parks. The thrust of the plan is to open up the vegetation, add bridges and other means to change the flow of the park. Based on the understanding that this plan was not about exact details, as both parties’ discouraged detailed discussions about what the park should or would include. Mr. Kraft stated that the plan also provided information on the cost to implement some of the suggested ideas and many will not happen. The plan merely makes space available for ideas like a skate park or additional parking, but whether the City wants to implement any of the suggestions is something that Council and future administrations will decide in the next 10 to 20 years. Dr. Carr stated that while she truly respects Ms. Bern’s concerns and typically loathes the approval of a concept, this case does not mandate the expenditure of any funds. She stated that Heman Park is in her ward and in desperate need of renovation, so she is in favor of the plan and appreciated the work put forth by the Parks Commission. Mayor Welsch stated that as the City moves forward with this plan she asked Mr. Walker and Public Works to work with the consultants to determine whether or not Heman Park can become SITES landscape certified, a national rating system for environmentally sustainable landscapes; similar in nature to a LEED certification for buildings. She stated that there are only 36 sites in the country that hold this 4