The Board of Commissioners of the City of
PROCLAMATION
Mayor Dunfield proclaimed Saturday, February 28th to be “SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESSES DAY.”
Commissioner
Rundle announced that a presentation would be sponsored by the Neighborhood
Resources Department, the Coalition on Homeless Concerns, and the Task Force
that he chaired on Homeless Services.
Michael Stoops, Community Organizer for the National Coalition for the
Homeless,
Commissioner Hack said she attended the Board of Education meeting, where school resource officers were recognized by the school board and the superintendent for their work in our two high schools and four junior high schools. She has had the opportunity to work with four of the gentlemen and they were incredibly good teachers, counselors and role models for young people in our secondary schools. She said that she was appreciative of their recognition and that the school district was as well.
CONSENT
AGENDA
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve
the City Commission meeting minutes of
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by
Hack, seconded by Highberger, to
approve the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by
Highberger, to approve claims to
335 vendors in the amount of $3,151,645.56 and payroll from
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the Drinking Establishment
Licenses for Old Chicago, 2329 Iowa; El Mezcal Restaurant II, 4821 West 6th,
Suite A; Bubba’s, 2228 Iowa Street; The Pool Room, 925 Iowa; the Retail Liquor
License for Hird Retail Liquor, 601 Kasold No. B101; and a Street Vendor
License for
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by
Hack, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the recommendation of
the Mayor and appoint Mike Higgins to the Board of Electrical Examiners and
Appeals that will expire February 31, 2005 and Lt. Russell Brickell to a term
that will expire March 31, 2007; appoint Scott Woodward to the Business
Retention Task Force; appoint Judi Geer Kellas and Paul Hotvedt to the Lawrence
Arts Commission which will expire on January 31, 2007; reappoint Dr. Tom Liebel
to the Lawrence-Douglas County Public Health Board which will expire March 31,
2007; and reappoint
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by
Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to execute the Engineering
Services Agreement with Landplan Engineering for the design of
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the sole bid from Hillcrest Wrecker & Garage, Inc., for a one year contract with the option to renew for an additional year in the amount of $26,455 (Police/Patrol). Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance
No. 7749, establishing no parking along the south side of
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first
reading Ordinance No. 7604, text amendment to Section 21-104(a), City/County
Subdivision Regulation [TA-05-02A-02] requiring subdivision plats within the
City of
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first
reading Ordinance No. 7745, levying the maximum assessments on lots, pieces and
parcels of land in the city of Lawrence, Kansas, to pay a portion of the costs
for the construction of Folks Road from 6th Street (hwy40) south
approximately 1500 feet to Mulberry Drive, Old Oak Court, and a part of Larissa
Drive from Folks Road approximately 200 feet west including property
acquisition, traffic calming devices, bicycle facilities, subgrade
stabilization, stormwater improvements and other necessary and appropriate improvements,
as authorized by Resolution 6512. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Ordinance
No. 7740, rezoning [Z-11-39-03] 5,000 square feet from RM-2 (Multiple-Family
Residential) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District, property located at
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to adopt Resolution No. 6527,
authorizing and approving Agreement No. 18-04 with the Kansas Department of
Transportation for Project No. 1-SR1-104(S), 6th Street, Arizona to Arkansas,
mill overlay & pavement marking (KLINK), FY 2004. This project is funded by
KDOT up to a maximum of $200,000. Motion
carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve a revised site plan (SP-01-03-04) for a 141,653 square foot building addition for an existing industrial manufacturer of garage doors, located at 3820 Greenway Circle in the East Hills Business Park, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;
2. Provision for a local floodplain development permit;
3. Approval and filing of a lot split prior to release of the site plan to Neighborhood Resources;
4.
Provision of an agreement not to protest a
benefit district for sidewalk improvements to
5. Provision of the following revisions to the site plan:
a. Relocate proposed structure (Building Addition 2) off the 17’ Industrial Railroad Easement;
b. Correct the legal description;
c. Correct the building information/site summary; and
d. Correct the parking information.
6. Provision of the following Stormwater Drainage Items:
a. Revise the proposed contours along the frontage and show the necessary driveway culvers to convey the existing public drainage system. Submit public improvement plans for the channel and culverts within the street right-of-way prior to release of the plan to the building inspector;
b. Label the size and elevation of all on-site inlets and pipes. Specify that all curb inlets are constructed per City standard details;
c. Correct the impervious surface summary table; and
d. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to execute two (2)
Dedication of Right-of-Way and a utility easement for
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize staff to submit an application
for Federal Aid for the Federal Aid
Safety Program for Fiscal Years 2006-2007 for the following
intersections: 9th and Iowa
Streets; 23rd and Harper Streets; 23rd and Haskell
Streets; and 23rd and Louisiana Streets. Motion carried unanimously.
(10)
The
annexation and rezoning requests for the property located north of
Mayor
Dunfield said he was just informed yesterday that there was a valid protest
petition and because of that, he thought it was appropriate that the Commission
not act on those annexation and rezoning requests as consent agenda items. He suggested that since the Commission did
not have a chance to study those items in depth, that those items be deferred.
The
City Commissioners agreed.
Mayor
Dunfield asked the public if it was opposed to that action.
A
member of the public asked if their would be public comment at a later time.
Mayor Dunfield said yes. He suggested that those items come back to
the City Commission in one week.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to defer the annexation
and rezoning requests for the property located north of
A member of the public
pulled from the consent agenda the site plan for Rick’s Place for separate
discussion.
Commissioner Highberger
said he saw a letter dated last October from the City’s Planning Office,
indicating that some variances might be required. He was operating under the assumption that it
would be a significant alteration.
Day said correct. She said that there were some preliminary
conversations that had been going on. Staff
was under the impression, during that time, that the modifications would be
much more significant than what the applicant was actually proposing.
Mayor Dunfield said when
talking about the need for variances if it were a more extensive improvement,
he asked if those variances did not include parking counts. He also asked if the parking lot was adequate
for the uses according to the current situation.
Day said the number of
parking stalls that was provided was sufficient. She said the question was where was that
parking lot setback in relationship to the property line. If pulling that parking lot back, then you might
not be able to count some of those stalls.
That could be a problem in the future.
Commissioner
Schauner asked why the parking lot might be pulled back in the future.
Day said if the site were
to be redeveloped under the definition of a significant alteration, that was to
say bring the site into complete compliance with current regulations, building
set-backs, parking lot set-backs, green space provisions, they could lose
parking over what they had.
Mayor
Dunfield called for public comment.
Mike
Goans,
He said he believed that
the City codes and regulations were flawed.
Those regulations recognize that bars could have a negative impact on
the public and the area around them. He
said by City code, bars were not allowed to be within 400 feet of churches or
schools without deviation. He proposed
to the Commission that the activity surrounding a bar differed with the time of
day. A bar at
He asked the Commission to
pursue that issue where the front doors of bars face the front doors of
residences and parking lots exit onto residential streets. He also asked the Commission to make
decisions which would stop the proliferation of bars in neighborhoods and which
would, given time, eliminate or at least minimize bars in residential
neighborhoods.
Janet
Gerstner,
She raised a question of
bars in neighborhoods and encouraged the City Commission to continue taking a
closer look at that question. She
understood that the Commission was taking a closer look at bars and whether
there was a proper balance of bars and other establishments downtown and also
whether the City’s regulations were up-to-date regarding the bars and the
vicinity of churches. She urged the City
Commission to expand on that issue and consider the impact on residential
neighborhoods. She asked the Commission
to consider whether it was appropriate for bars to be in residential
neighborhoods, or at the very least to consider whether our existing codes and
laws encouraged a thoughtful review of each situation. She said that she was particularly concerned
that if there would be a limit placed on the number of bars placed downtown, would
more bars be pushed into neighborhoods and what would the impact be.
She said it was her
impression that if as long as a place was zoned commercial and was a business
area, a bar could be at that location.
She suggested that bars were a more intense use and therefore should be
considered for more review and public input.
She said from history in
the Oread neighborhood, as the first bar found its way into the middle of the
neighborhood on
She said at a time when the
Commission was looking to stabilize older neighborhoods, she hoped that the
City Commission would keep in mind the potential that bars had to impact the
stability of neighborhoods.
Rick
Younger, owner of Rick’s Place, purchased a house at 801
Vice
Mayor Rundle asked
Finger said the bars that were
in the residential neighborhoods were nonconforming uses right now. She said those bars had a provision that they
were a nonconforming use that was legal at the time that the ordinance was
adopted and those bars remained legal.
The process for expanding that nonconforming use was the same now as it
was previously, there was the provision that the vacation of that use could be
for 12 months rather than 6 months as it was described in current regulations.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if
they were an existing commercial area next to a residential neighborhood and a
new establishment went in, was there anything different in the new regulations.
Finger said there were transitioning,
buffering information, and uses that were permitted in neighborhood commercial
which would exclude a bar in some of the very small neighborhood districts.
Mayor
Dunfield asked if that was as a distance related limitation or was it was it by
the classification of use of the commercial center.
Finger
said the distance relationship on the commercial centers was a mile between
neighborhood and other commercial centers.
She said, however, it had nothing to do with the use specifically.
Mayor Dunfield asked about
the transitions she had spoken of earlier.
Finger said there was
transition as far as landscaping and where parking needed to be for a
commercial use, but there wasn’t any direct language about buffering a bar from
a residential neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Rundle ask if it
wasn’t a use that was allowed in a neighborhood commercial zoning category.
Finger said it was not in
the CN-1, which was the smaller neighborhood commercial category.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he
felt that it was not appropriate to use current regulations that related to
churches to try and bring it over as a tool to protect neighborhoods. He also felt that there may be specific
things that the Commission might want to look at in the future.
Mayor
Dunfield said the points that Goans and Gerstner brought up were valid and they
did tie-in with the discussion last week about locations of bars. He also thought it would be worthwhile for
the Commission to pursue those points.
He said the current distance waiver seemed a bit anachronistic and
awkward, but when they were trying to apply it for purposes other than what it
was intended to do. Maybe there was some
type of distance or other type of restriction that the Commission might want to
look at as they continued to study those issues.
Commissioner
Hack appreciated Gerstner’s comments, because they had talked specifically
about the unintended consequences of capping certain things and forcing
situations into other areas that they didn’t want to have happen either. She also appreciated Rick being there and his
patience working with everyone.
Commission Schauner said the
Mayor was right about the issue that zoning and use groups within zoning were
probably a more effective tool for protecting neighborhoods than a distance
requirement. He said much of the
conversation they previously had about Rick’s Place was focused more on
neighborhood impact than church distance requirements under other city
codes. He would be interested in how the
new commercial chapter might have some ability to restrict the expansion of
bars into neighborhoods. He felt that he
needed more information about how that new zoning code would affect the
possible proliferation of bars into neighborhoods. He thanked Goans and Gerstner and thought
they had very salient points that should be addressed.
Commissioner Highberger
said the decision for Rick’s Place had already been made and the Commission did
not have any basis for denying the site plan.
He also expressed his appreciation for the concerns brought to the
meeting, and he wanted to make sure that those concerns were addressed in the
Commission’s discussion about bars and drinking establishments.
He agreed with the Mayor
that rather than use an indirect rule, that addressed schools and churches, the
code needed to address how the City wanted to deal with bars in relation to
neighborhoods. He was not sure that an
absolute ban was the way to go, but buffers and transitions and making sure
what happened in the Oread did not happen anywhere else.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner,
to approve the site plan (SP-02-11-04) for a minor alteration to existing
development at 846
1. Provision of a revised site plan to the second general not as follows to correct spelling: “The minimum parking space requirement was… The required parking fore ach use is as follows”;
2. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for street and sidewalk improvements;
3. Approval of DR-02-12-04, prior to release of the site plan to Neighborhood Resources for issuance of a building permit; and,
4. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.
Motion carried unanimously. (12)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
During
the City Manager’s Report, Fred DeVictor, Parks and Recreation Director and Jim
Kane, Golf Course Manager reported on the Eagle Bend Golf Course. In 2003, Eagle Bend saw a decrease in
revenue and rounds stemming from poor economic conditions, weather and
competition from new courses in the area.
The Marketing Plan would be a road map to
assist in attaining the goals set by Eagle Bend staff in 2004.
Earlier this month, Eagle Bend staff, the
Director of Parks and Recreation, and the Marketing Supervisor, brainstormed
and discussed ideas to implement in 2004 to achieve the division’s goals. Prior
to the development of a marketing plan it’s important to understand the current
position of the Golf Course in the eyes of those most closely connected to
it. Through a discussion of the positive attributes and the challenges
that are currently being faced or things that are currently being anticipated
for, we identified things to promote as strengths, while at the same time know
what to work toward to make some of those things that are considered to be
weaknesses to become strengths.
Commissioner Hack asked a question about
tournaments. She asked if there was any
more conversation about closing the course one day a week for tournaments.
DeVictor said they did have tournaments. He said they wanted to encourage more
tournaments at Eagle Bend Golf Course. Last
year there were 45 tournaments, which was not as many as some golf
courses. Their policy was that they did
not have tournaments on prime times which were Saturdays and Sundays. Tournaments took place after
Jim
Kane, Golf Course Pro/Manager, Eagle Bend Golf Course, said staff still adheres
to that policy. They had not changed the
direction of the Commission in terms of tournaments on Saturdays and Sundays. He said staff had turned away a dozen
tournaments a year.
Commissioner
Hack said as the Commission went through their budget conversation, she wanted
to look at the alternatives. She knew that
some golf tournaments were turned away and it made some people unhappy. She would like to know what they were losing
or gaining by turning away those individuals.
She thought staff had some very creative ideas for the golf course.
DeVictor said Roger Steinbrock, Recreation
Marketing Supervisor, helped pull their plan together by spending several days
assessing strengths and weaknesses.
Commissioner Highberger appreciated the
efforts of staff in drumming up business, but he had concerns about the long
term effect on the city budget. He asked
about the $152,000 worth of budget reductions for this year.
DeVictor said based on what they did last
year and knowing what the budget was, they had reduced the budget by $152,000.
Commissioner Highberger said he was looking
for more specific information.
DeVictor said that they had reduced their
part time staff which was a line item.
Kane said the majority of that $152,000 was
payroll deduction in part time employees.
He added that unfortunately a lot of it came from the maintenance side
of the golf course, because that was a lot of the bulk expense. He said they came up with $152,000 based on
their budget.
DeVictor
said they might need to do more. He said
that they did plan to monitor the budget on a monthly basis and do a comparison
of last year and try to look at it as often as they could.
Commissioner Schauner said that he very much
wanted the course to be a success and wanted the course to pay its own way. He asked who the City was competing with most
particularly in the rounds that were played in this general area.
Kane said they competed with Alvamar, but
with the way the fee structure was, he thought that most of their competition
came from the Overland Park Municipal Golf Course, and the Topeka Public Golf
Course. He said that there has been a
boom in golf courses in
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City’s course
was at a price disadvantage at even $34 as the recommended adjustment.
Kane said no, that the golf course was
basically at the same cost as
Commissioner Highberger asked if they had an
estimate of how many rounds were played at Eagle Bend based on residents versus
nonresidents.
Kane said they did not have that data, but
that they were going to collect that data this year.
Commissioner Schauner asked if staff asked
for zip codes when people play golf.
Kane said people would sign in. He said the majority of people that play at
Eagle Bend lived in
Commissioner Schauner asked when the debt on
Eagle Bend would be paid off.
Wildgen
said the bonds were 20 year bonds and they were going into the 6th
year, so there were roughly 14 years left.
Commissioner
Schauner said even if the course stopped operation, there would be debt service
for another 14 years.
Wildgen said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the annual
debt service amount.
DeVictor said approximately $320,000, and that it was part of their budget
this year.
Commissioner Schauner said if they were debt
free, they would be plus on the operation of this enterprise fund.
DeVictor said correct. (13)
REGULAR AGENDA
Receive draft ordinance from
John Reese presented
background information from the Lawrence Safe Kids Coalition. The National Safe Kids campaign was a
non-profit organization in
He said one of the National
Safe Kids Campaign had asked them to do as a local coalition was investigate
possible legislative efforts. He said
the State Coalition Coordinator asked him if they would consider trying to pass
some type of helmet legislation in Lawrence because she thought that there was
no way they would get that through the State, but Lawrence could serve as a
model for other communities in the State.
He said they applied for a
legislative grant from the National Safe Kids and received $2,500 last year to
make that idea go forward. They hosted a
focus group in which they developed a problem list. The focus was to try and come up with a
helmet ordinance for the community.
He explained the
relationship between the Douglas County Safe Kids Coalition and Lawrence
agencies.
Rob Kort, Lawrence/Douglas
County Fire/Medical, presented information on the helmet program. He said the 2004 Helmet Fair would
be
He said they were not only
trying to make
Kort said while
Jim Whittaker, professional
cycling coach, presented youth cycling information. He advocated the need for the helmet
ordinance. He said he was working with
the Safe Kids Coalition to help with making helmet use a bit more cool. He said helmet use was very important in competitive
cycling and even recreational cycling.
He said his goal in
Mayor Dunfield called for
public comment.
Commissioner Highberger said
he was on the committee and he did not have anything to add that had not
already been said. He said he strongly
supported this ordinance.
Commissioner Schauner said
he was surprised that he received emails that opposed the passage of this
ordinance. He said he supported passage
of this ordinance, but asked what was being done to make helmets cool.
Kort said the number
of different color helmets had
increased. In addition, he looked for
helmets that were comfortable for the kids.
Vice Mayor Rundle said if
you look at the styles compared to earlier helmets, they did have more
style. He said at the bike fair there
were racers that talked with those kids as role models.
Commissioner Hack said the
younger that kids start wearing helmet the more likely it would become an accepted
practice.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he
was not surprised that people opposed passage of this ordinance. He said the Commission would not be popular,
but it was a chance for the Commission to engage the public.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading
Ordinance No. 7738, requiring the use of helmets in the City of
Consider extension
of a moratorium of building permits in the area generally bounded by West 6th
Street, Folks Road, Overland Drive and Congressional Drive until May 1,
2004. Consider declaration of emergency
to allow for adoption of first and second reading
David
Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the Commission
adopted Ordinance No. 7728, on
Finger said the Planning Commission had requests
from the owners or representatives of the owners for both the north and east
side of Wakarusa and
She pointed out to the Commission that the next
agenda item included some of the land that Commission would be declaring the
moratorium on which was the PRD portion because taking action on the PRD might
appear confused with placing a moratorium on any type of land use. This was the planned residential for the west
side of Congressional and a then a piece of it was also on the east side of
Congressional.
Corliss said it was important to point out that the
City Commission’s action on that was independent of the moratorium and that the
Commission’s approval of a Preliminary Development Plan would still then
require the applicant to prepare Final Development Plan. He said that Final Development Plan had not
been submitted and was not being considered by the Planning Commission.
Finger said the Final Development Plan was not
being considered tomorrow.
Mayor Dunfield said the development plan could be
approved and continue to move through the process and simply stop when it
reached that point in which the building permit would normally be.
Finger said correct.
Corliss said the other important fact to point out
was that the building moratorium ordinance allowed for any property owner to
seek a waiver from the building permit moratorium.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Bill Newsome, 6 Wak Land Investments, said as a
matter of administrative comment , on item number 3, they had made no decision
as to when that final development plan would be submitted so that was
undetermined at this time.
He said it should not surprise the Commission that
they were present every time the Commission was taking a new action to stop the
development of their property in the manner that they were legally entitled
to. He said they made a multi-million
dollar investment in that property based on legal and binding approvals that
remain in place today. The fact that
their voice had been so relentless to this body and to the court to protect
those property rights which they relied on should not come as a surprise to
anyone.
He said they were there to talk about the building
permit moratorium. He showed the City
Commission a quote from Commissioner Hack at the City Commission meeting from
He said the explanation that the City Commission
would provide for the record was that they needed more time to accomplish what
was set out in the original ordinance in which Corliss referred to that
earlier, that the rezoning had not yet come before the City Commission. That the extension was entirely
administrative in nature to let that other event happen. He said there was nothing administrative
about the willful conduct to complicate and expand a litigation process which
was already started. He said they had
done a good job at crafting that moratorium so it appeared to be applicable to
an “area.” He said they were the only
landowner that had an approved development plan in that area. He said they were the only landowner that was
even zoned, thus they were the only landowner that was even eligible to pull a
building permit. He asked if this was
about them and Wal-mart.
He said the Commission had taken a number of
actions over the past 9 months to block the development of their land and stop
Wal-mart. At best, those actions were
unethical and more accurately stated, illegal.
He said in spite of all the actions that the City
Commission had taken, their efforts to stop Wal-mart were failing and as every
day passed, it was going to become more and more obvious that the City’s
efforts to stop Wal-mart were failing.
He said if the Commission needed evidence of this, he said to look at
how the two sides were handling the situation.
He said their property rights were established in
late 2001 and early 2002 when their zoning and final development plan were put
into place. He said on the other hand
the City Commission starting with papering the files with a findings of fact in
April and continuing with a myriad of actions in May, June, and continued today
with trying to re-write events which have already occurred.
He said obviously the City’s strategy was delay,
delay, delay in hopes that
He talked about what had happened in the last nine months since that dispute started.
1.
He said the City refused to issue
building permits and the City failed to follow its own written code in doing
so. He said the District Court had to order the City to follow its
code. He said there was a willful
strategy not to follow City code;
2.
The City passed a building permit moratorium;
3.
The City passed a text amendment to change zoning
definitions;
4.
The City passed a change to the area plan;
5.
The City initiated a down zoning; and
6.
The City had taken extraordinary actions to block
discovery in this case.
He said all they were trying to do was to ask City
staff member, public servants, to tell the truth about what the City’s reasons
for refusing their building permits. He
said instead they had to go to court spending their money and taxpayer money on
legal fees to get the court to order the City to produce its own officials to
tell the who, what, where, when, and why of this issue. He said even after all that and the court
order, there were still games being played with the depositions. The result of all those tactics was that the
City was breaching its fiduciary duties to the citizens of
He said all that mattered was that in early 2002,
this property was properly zoned with a site plan and Wal-mart had a legal
right to build a store when they filed for a building permit on
He said it was clear that the City did not want
Wal-mart on their site, but the City also seemed reluctant to allow the court
to review the facts. Instead the City
was relying on game playing and had engaged in stall tactics the last nine
months. If, as the City said, it was
clear that Wal-mart should not be able to go on their site, he asked why the
City didn’t follow their own written procedures. He asked why did the City issue a building
permit moratorium; why did was there a text amendment, why did they change the
area plan; why did they initiate a down zoning; why was the City trying to
block the depositions; and what was the City trying to hide. He said all they wanted to do was to get the
facts out in the open, complete the fact finding and get that matter into court
as quickly as possible and the City’s objective should be the same, but the
City’s actions were the opposite. He
said regardless of the City’s motives, the City had fiduciary duties to the citizens
of
He said if the City extended that moratorium, it
would continue to damage like the last nine month. He said if the City stopped the game playing,
this City Commission had an opportunity to be known as the City Commission that
put 6th and Wakarusa to bed, but if the Commission continued down
that path, then this City Commission would be known as the Commission that
lacked integrity, ethics, and laid the largest financial burden at the feet of
the citizens in Lawrence’s history.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Gwen Klingenberg, representing the West Lawrence
Neighborhood Association, Quail Run Neighborhood Citizens for saving 6th
and Wakarusa, and the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said they were
asking that an extension of the present moratorium continue at 6th
and Wakarusa.
She said when Newsome said the words “delay, delay,
delay”, she said she had a copy of his deferment and they had been “delaying,
delaying, delaying.” She said every
time that they request rezoning to the Planning Commission, the applicant had
asked for a deferment.
She said there were two documents that were being
considered and had already been developed and were on the reworking stages
which were Horizon 2020, Chapter 6, and the new zoning subdivisions
regulations. She said the pending
litigations at that corner, until those litigations had been decided there was
nothing else that could be done. The
Nodal Plan could not truly be looked at or finished until they knew exactly the
City’s rights and what they were going to be allowed to have. She said if Wal-mart loses then there were
other issue.
She said based on the need to see that 6th &
Wakarusa was developed with consideration of the surrounding neighborhoods, the
high school, and the future commercial developments at that corner, they were
asking that the moratorium be extended.
She said she did not know that the applicant had
asked for another deferment and also the northeast corner had asked for
deferment. Since the applicant had
gotten their deferment all two times and the applicant was working on the third
time, they asked that the moratorium be extended for one year, June 6th.
Alan Cowles, West Lawrence Neighborhood
Association, said Newsome had been talking about property rights, but he
pointed out that one of the other issues was the right of the people to
determine the planning of their own community.
He said this right was a right which at times might need to equal
property rights and he was leaving it up to the Commission to judge what the
balance was.
He said since Hack made that statement concerning 6
months being enough, he said the City has had a lot of law suits. He said it seemed one of the worst ways to
complicate this issue was to have more building permit applications from which
they could generate more law suits. One
of the best ways to avoid additional law suits perhaps was to keep the building
permit moratorium so that they did not have those types of issues complicating
the already terribly complicated picture.
Commissioner Schauner asked Corliss if that
proposed ordinance was drafted before the deferral request.
Corliss said he had just found out about the deferral
request.
Commissioner Schauner said in light of the deferral
request, was May 1st, sufficient time to extend that date.
Corliss said it was his hope that the Planning
Commission would deliberate and provide a recommendation to the City Commission
that would end their consideration and get it to the City Commission as soon as
possible. He said that was what staff
asked last year and it has not happened.
Primarily, in his opinion, the property owners had asked for deferrals
either in court or before the Planning Commission. He said there had also been Planning
Commission deliberation in an attempt to honor the deferral request as well.
He pointed out that the City Commission had been
advised by the City’s legal counsel and himself not to speak about the merits
of the litigation in public so that the Commissioners silence was not
acquiescence in the comments that they had heard this evening.
Commissioner Schauner asked Finger if the Planning
Commission was asking a question of the City Commission with respect to the
deferral or was it just a comment that Finger was relaying.
Finger said the Planning Commission was asking the
City Commission, as the applicant, because they only respond to applicants on
deferral requests unless a Commissioner asked for a deferral.
Commissioner Schauner said so the City Commission
could say that they did not want this matter deferred.
Finger said if this body was not interested in
deferral, then she would take that message back to the Planning
Commission. She said the length of the
January Planning Commission meeting was the impetus for one Planning
Commissioner to say in light of the fact that there was a large agenda, that
that issue be deferred because it was a significant issue.
Mayor Dunfield said the moratorium was a temporary
device and it was always intended to be that.
He said if they were going to get any forward motion on that issue, it
would come by the Planning Commission considering the rezoning application. He said he would not want to continue to
extend the moratorium indefinitely. He
said they need to resolve the zoning question at that intersection. He said his inclination was both to continue
the moratorium until May 1st, and to indicate to the Planning
Commission that it would be the City Commission’s desire that the Planning
Commission act on the zoning issue.
Commissioner Schauner and Commissioner Highberger
concurred.
Moved
by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to declare an emergency
and adopt on first and second reading, Ordinance No. 7750, amending Ordinance
No. 7651 and Ordinance No. 7728, extending the temporary moratorium area until
Consider approving
PDP-04-08-03, a Preliminary Development Plan for 6 Wak Apartments, subject to conditions
and use restrictions. The applicant
proposes a multiple-family residential development containing 236 apartments on
17.57 acres. The property is generally
located north of
He said the 6th and Wakarusa project was
zoned PRD-2 subject to an approved development plan for the property. The particular project included 13 apartment
buildings, 12 building on the west side and one building on east side of Congressional
Drive, a club house and a swimming pool.
He said there would be a total of 428 bedrooms as part of this
project.
He said staff reviewed this plan against the nine
criteria for a Preliminary Development Plan. He said this item was heard before
the Planning Commissioner’s on
He said the recommendation was for approval,
subject to the four conditions.
Mayor Dunfield asked if the Planning Commissioner
that opposed that plan indicated a reason for his opposition.
Patterson said he did not indicate that at the
meeting or by the Planning Commission minutes.
Commissioner Schauner asked how far to the west
from the 6th and Wakarusa intersection, that the median would
extend.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said it would
extend to K-10 and it would break at those intersections.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the current plan
would call for the Congressional and
Soules said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there were any
specific discussions about what type of traffic calming might bring the south
bound Congressional traffic to an acceptable service level.
Patterson said there was no discussion at the
meeting. The requirement was that if the
service level was not at “C” or better, then there would be some traffic
calming plan devised.
Commissioner Schauner said in reading the report
from the Planning Commission, that the traffic impact study requirements at the
time the Planning Commission heard this report, did not include performing a
traffic impact study to the next major intersection beyond 6th and
Wakarusa.
Finger said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked what area would be encompassed
in the traffic impact study for this particular development as one of the
condition imposed on that proposal. He
asked what area would be studied for traffic impact purposes.
Finger said the next major intersection would be
the next intersection of a collector or collector and arterial streets. She said in this case it would have required
a study of the next major intersection which was Folks to the east and to the
south would have been
Commissioner Schauner asked of those were the
intersections that would be included in a traffic impact study for the current
proposal. He asked what traffic impact
study area would be included as part of that particular proposal.
Finger said what staff was asked to do was to get
additional traffic information. It was
studied to the major intersection which was 6th and Wakarusa. She said they were asked to get additional
information to look at the impact on Congressional and from Congressional to
Harvard, and from Harvard to Wakarusa.
If seen from that traffic that would be generated, a need for traffic
calming, then they would need to propose different methods of traffic calming
to control that traffic.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the requirement
wouldn’t be that the proposal might not be approved in Service level “C” or
better weren’t achievable on Congressional, only the traffic would be required on Congressional if
the impact study so indicated.
Finger said correct.
Commissioner Highberger asked where the open space
was.
Patterson said the plan depicted the open space
between the buildings though out the project.
He said there was a clubhouse with a swimming pool and a number of open
spaces throughout the entire facility.
He said based on their computations, the open space was 22% of the
project and they were required to have a minimum of 20%.
Commissioner asked if there were any concentrated
areas.
Patterson said no.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that project took
its access to any street other than Congressional.
Patterson said there were three access points. He said for the area to the east, on the east
side of Congressional Drive there was an access to Congressional. To the area on the west side, there was one
access to Congressional Drive and another access to
He said as part of that project there was a
proposed office area further to the south.
He said there would be a drive along the south part of that project to
provide access to that office zoned area.
Commissioner Schauner asked if all of those would
take access from Congressional.
Patterson said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was access
point to
Patterson said there was one access point at this
point. He said Congressional Drive came
up a traffic roundabout.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Michael Keeney, Peridian, representing
He said the nuts and bolts of that project were not
discussed. The plan was clean as far as
conditions of approval. The real issue
centered on the impacted traffic south of
He said in response to Mayor Dunfield’s question
about that Planning Commissioner’s vote of opposition, he said that Planning
Commissioner stated that his negative vote was in response to that additional
condition (Condition No. 4) even though they had agreed to it.
He said that property was located 300‘, north of a
State highway along a collector road. He
said the plan that they prepared was appropriate. The landowner had agreed to participate in a
benefit district to install the traffic light at
Gwen Klingenberg presented a map of the City and
noted that most of the City was south and east of the proposed area. She said 6th and Wakarusa was
going to be so large that Chris Huffman, KDOT, who was the project coordinator
for the 6th Street Improvements stated that it was not likely, even
if traffic projections and assignments in this study proved somewhat conservative,
the intersection would experience significant operational challenges and under
future developed condition, if arterial flow was not preserved.
She said the apartments would produce 1586 trips a
day according to a KDOT report. Across
the street was the northwest corner of 6th and Wakarusa in which
they were looking at 154,000 square feet of commercial business which produced
8,629 trips a day from that corner. She
said there were already two curb cuts on Congressional just to leave the
commercial district and now there was a third curb cut plus another across the
street. The curb cut on
She said if only half of the traffic left by
Congressional you would be looking at 5,873 trips a day down
Congressional. She asked how many of
those trips would take 6th and Wakarusa to get to or from the corner
of Congressional and 6th.
Most of the apartment traffic would consider Congressional the best way
to get “to” or “from” anywhere in
She said
She said there had been a lot of concern that 6th
Street might look like
Alan Cowles said the concept of placing apartments
in that area was reasonable. He said his
concern was that situation on the northwest corner of 6th and
Wakarusa was very unsettled and he did not know if those people would force
them to have a 130,000 square foot Wal-mart at that area. He said the situation on the northeast corner
was unsettled and the southeast corner was still approved for another 600,000
square feet. He said they did not know
at this time what was going to happen to that corner, the area closest to 6th
and Wakarusa and he did not see how it was appropriate to place a big
development in that area at this time.
He reinforced what Klingenberg’s suggestion about
not making
Newsome reminded the City Commission that this was
a Preliminary Development Plan. He said
there was no justification to defer or wait on this item because of
uncertainties elsewhere. He said their
traffic study, when all of that zoning was approved encompassed the entire
development and met all of the conditions in terms of the scope of the traffic
study. He said KDOT and the City’s
Traffic Engineering approved that traffic study. He cautioned the City Commission to rely on
that and the process which was met and not put credence in individual comments alluding
to individuals at KDOT that could be taken out of context.
Mayor Dunfield said one issue that Keeney raised
might need more discussion from staff which had to do with the benefit district
as it involved that piece of property and the surrounding properties.
Wildgen said Congressional and Overland were put in
with a benefit district which was in litigation at this time. He said the question was would the City
Commission want some condition on that Preliminary Plan that the arrangement be
made for proper payment for those two benefit districts. He said clearly, those roads would serve that
property and some statement to that affect should be noted.
Mayor Dunfield said he was confused at what form
that statement might take as a condition of a Preliminary Development Plan.
Corliss said he did not know what form that would
take. He said the Commission might want
to ask the applicant whether or not they benefit from
He said the ordinances that the City Commission
adopted placing the special assessments on those properties, in his estimation,
totaled over $300,000. He said he did not know the answer and it was a
complicated area of the law. He was concerned
about the City taxpayers’ liability, not as it regarded the site to the east,
but to the site in question this evening.
He said staff needed to research and find out whether they had any
options. He said if they did not have
any option, then they needed to proceed with voting on the merits.
Commissioner Schauner asked Corliss if he was
uncertain about whether they had ability to condition approval of that
development on their participation in the benefit district.
Corliss said they were already in the benefit
district, but they had also filed a law suit challenging those two
ordinances. He said he did not know what
that meant for that property.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Commission was
to approve that preliminary plat, they would be doing so without knowing what
the possible judicial consequences on the west side of Congressional
participation in the benefit district might be.
Corliss said that was one way to articulate
that. He said this was the Commission’s
only time to approve the development plan for that project. He said he did not know whether it was
reasonable to condition the development plan on some type of an agreement that
would otherwise provide that that property paid for those improvements. He said staff needed to research that issue
expeditiously, but they did not want to try and come up with language at this
time that might not be appropriate.
Commissioner Schauner said without that information
to act at this time would not be in the best interest in honoring their
fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of the City. He believed that the Commission should not
take any action so that they could honor that fiduciary responsibility.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked when staff could answer
those questions.
Corliss said he was very busy this week. He said in discussion with the City’s bond
counsel, the notes that financed those two projects were up for our Spring Bond
Sale. Because of the pending litigation,
they had additional requirements for that bond sale and trying to carry it
through a different authority until the assessment ordinance was appropriately
resolved. He said he was sure he would
be accused of delaying a project, but he did not know the answer.
He said in his estimation there was $300,000 that
those properties were responsible for.
He wanted to make sure that before they proceed, they had some
indication as to whether or not that issue could be separately considered. He said it might not be and staff might need
to proceed with the consideration of the development plan, irrespective of that
issue, but he did not know the answer.
Commissioner Highberger asked if that was something
that could be negotiated with the other party.
Corliss said he did not want to respond to that
question because that might be interpreted as a threat or condition against the
property owner and he was not trying to do that. He said what he was trying to do was to
understand what the City’s legal rights were, if any, in regards to the
assessment ordinances that the City Commission had adopted and were now under
litigation that impacted that development plan.
He said the City Commission already talked about Congressional and
Overland, but it was hard to argue that they did not benefit from that road.
Mayor Dunfield asked Newsome if he believed that
this project that they were considering at this time, benefited from improvements
on Overland and Congressional.
Newsome said this matter was under litigation and
he thought the City Commission could appreciate that he was not there to try
legal issues. He said they had gone on
record before this governing body that said that they signed agreements not-to-protest
tied to the development plan and they acknowledged those obligations in
conjunction with honoring their development plan.
Commissioner Schauner said they had information in
the past about KDOT since of 6th and Wakarusa has improved. He asked Finger if she could remind him of
those findings.
Finger said they hoped
Soules agreed with Finger. He said when they look at the intersections
and on
Commissioner Schauner asked if the use in that
proposed plan was consistent with the anticipated development use of the
corridor going west from 6th and Wakarusa.
Finger said the density that was being proposed in
that residential area was consistent with the Northwest Area Plan which was as
documented that they used at the time they gave projections to the Department
of Transportation.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that plan included
similar density development to the west as the street progressed west toward
the SLT.
Finger said no because it did not show a whole row
of higher or medium intensity residential on the north side to the west of
Mayor Dunfield said this was clearly seen as a
transitional use between the commercial and a lesser density residential. He said the staff report made clear that that
proposal met the expectations, met the planning documents and he would like to
pass that proposal and move it along, but he was in a thorough state of
confusion about the benefit district issue and was not sure that he would be
able to pass that approval. Again, the
fiduciary responsibility of the Commission would suggest if they did not know
what the status of their ability to collect the special assessment, he did not
see how they could approve the proposal and go forward.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he heard the Assistant City
Manager say that he would attempt to resolve those legal issues expeditiously
and Keeney said that area was not going to be developed immediately, but
soon. He hoped those two were equivalent
and staff could get those questions answered and bring it back to the City
Commission as soon as possible.
Commissioner Highberger concurred with the
Mayor. He was ready to move forward with
that proposal, but he did not see any way that could do that without resolving
the benefit district issue.
Corliss said staff would have a report to the City
Commission by March 9th City Commission meeting. He said the City Commission might need to
talk about this issue in Executive Session if it was going to be a point of
litigation.
Moved
by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to defer the Preliminary
Development Plan for 6 Wak Apartments until March 9th. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Mayor Dunfield asked if the Commission wanted to
indicate their preference for moving forward or deferring.
Commissioner Highberger said he was not clear about
the other party’s basis for asking for a deferral.
Commissioner Schauner asked when the meeting with
the neighbor’s took place.
Cowles said the meeting took place Thursday; there
was also a separate meeting on Saturday.
Commissioner Schauner asked how well attended was
that meeting.
Cowles said approximately 30 or 40 people
attended. He said they wanted to try and
get the people who live next to that area to take the lead and after some delay
they did.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the property owner would
have a chance to make their case. He
said if there was a compelling reason, the Planning Commission was not bound to
follow the Commission direction. He said
the record from the Planning Commission would register the concerns that were
raised on all sides.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the Commission had been
asked not to request a deferral that was requested on item number 10 that was
to be discussed tomorrow.
Finger said that was not talked about at the
Planning Commission Study Session. She
said Cowles stated that the applicant was also the City on this item, but the
property owner had requested deferral.
She said the property owner wanted to work with the neighborhood. She said if the City Commission wanted to
give staff direction, they would take that back to the Planning Commission.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there was any concern
about moving ahead.
Finger said she had no concern moving ahead.
Commissioner Schauner said he would assume that
they moved ahead with that rather than defer the matter if the neighbors had
met with the landowners.
Mayor Dunfield agreed. He said the Planning Commission would be able
to hear the property owner’s argument for deferral and they would be able to
take that into consideration. He said
based on what information that the City Commission had tonight; he did not see
any reason for deferring.
Consider motion to
recess into executive session to discuss the possible acquisition of real
estate. The justification for the
executive session is to keep possible terms and conditions confidential at this
time. The regular session of the City
Commission will resume in the City Commission meeting room in 30 minutes.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Rundle, to recess
into executive session to discuss the possible acquisition of real estate with
the justification for the executive session to keep possible terms and
conditions confidential at this time. Motion
Carried unanimously. (19)
The City Commission reconvened in regular session
at
COMMISSION
ITEMS:
Mayor Dunfield said he met with the
Finger said the changes were that two had to do
with the size that a commercial center within the County that was either
existing or wanted to expand or redevelop.
She said 10,000 had been in the draft that the City Commission had seen,
but the
She said there was a policy statement regarding
commercial development within the UGA and staff reworded that to be more in sync
for their purposes to say that no new commercial community centers or no new
commercial within the urban growth area could occur within the planning
period. Chapter 6 said it allowed
expansion of existing or redevelopment and one new center, but it was on 56
Highway well outside the City of
Another area was when looking at commercial
development whether it adversely impacted a neighborhood or minimize the impact
on a neighborhood. The compromise was to
come up with minimizing the adverse impact on the neighborhood.
One other area of concern was the one center that
was proposed at the end of the planning period at U.S. 59 and 1000 Road as
going out of the City Limits. The City
Commission had discussed that and Commissioner Highberger indicated that this
be CC200 Center.
She said they had discussed what had gone on
evolution wise with this document since the Planning Commission had seen it and
what had gone on was that there was a market study and an inventory analysis
required at the 125,000 gross square foot development level. Whether it was a
CC200 or CC400 it had to be supported by the market study and the
information. She said since it was
beyond the period of the planning document it forecasted what was going to be
there. She said the
Commissioner Highberger asked if that would not
occur until that area was incorporated into the City.
Finger said correct.
Mayor Dunfield said the issue of putting a limit on
the size of the rural centers was the critical issue. The question of the CC200 versus CC400 was
one that would be revisited at least 3 times before there was any possibility
that center could be developed. He said
for the Commission to put too much on the line was misdirected. He said he hoped that with all those changes
they could all have the commercial chapter amended.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to
adjourn at
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Agreement – Engineering Services with Landplan, Monterey Way from Stetson to Grand Vista, Peterson; Monterey Way to Kasold & intersection of Kasold & Peterson.
2. Bid – Hillcrest Wrecker, 1 year contract for $265,455 (Police/Patrol).
3. Ordinance No. 7749 – 1st Reading, no parking, S side of 25th between Cedarwood Ave & Ridge Ct. & permit parking N side.
4.
Ordinance No. 7604 – 1st
5.
Ordinance No. 7745 – 1st
6.
Ordinance No. 7740 – 2nd
7.
Resolution No. 6527 – KDOT agreement (18-04) for
6th,
8. Annex – (A-12-15-03) 29.7261 acres, N of Clinton Pkwy & E 926’ from K-10.
9. Rezone – (Z-12-49-03) 18.9332 acres from B-3 to RM-2, N of Clinton Pkwy approx 508’ E of K-10.
10. Rezone – (Z-12-50-03) 20.1626 acres from B-3 to RM-1, N of Clinton Pkwy approx 508 E of K-10.
11. Revised Site Plan – (SP-01-03-04) 141,653 sq. ft. bldg add for manufacturer of garage doors, 3820 Greenway Cir in E Hill Business Park.
12.
Site Plan – (SP-02-11-04) minor alteration to
existing development, 846
13.
Dedication of R-O-W – Utility Easement,
14.
Federal Aid Safety Program – Years 2006-2007, 9th
&
15. City Manager’s Report –
16.
17.
Moratorium – Bldg Permit, W 6th,
18. Prelim Dev Plan – 6 Wak Apts, multiple-family resident development, 236 apts. On 17.57 acres, N of W 6th & W of Congressional
19. Executive Session – Real Estate