March 2, 2004
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:45 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Dunfield presiding and members Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner present.
The approval of the City Commission meeting minutes of February 17, 2004 and February 24, 2004 was deferred for one week.
The site plan (SP-01-08-04) for installation of perimeter fencing and use of the property at 900 East 15th Street for evidence storage for the City of Lawrence Police Department was deferred for further review. (1) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the Sesquicentennial Commission meeting minutes of January 21, 2004; the Convention & Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting minutes of January 27, 2004; and the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of January 21, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve claims to 311 vendors in the amount of $2,070,018.98. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the drinking establishment license for AllStars, 913 North 2nd, Suite C & D. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Moncef Hadiji to the Electrical Examiners & Appeals Board, to a term which will expire March 31, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for mowing Park District No. 1 and the Downtown District for the Parks and Recreation Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
PARK DISTRICT NO. 1
Master Lawns $15,500.88
Crew Cut Lawn Care $19,690.00
Richard Nichols $20,982.50
Eddy Goetz $22,700.00
Smart Building Services $22,746.00
Harrell Mowing Services $25,196.00
First Management $25,580.00
Cut-N-Edge $44,560.00
Dupree Landscape $51,090.00
Molawn Lawncare $60,194.00
DOWNTOWN DISTRICT
Master Lawns $5,712.00
Cut-N-Edge $11,500.00
Lawrence Landscape $14,450.00
Smart Building Services $16,320.00
Dupree Landscape $18,190.00
Elite Landscape $18,360.00
First Management $19,380.00
Molawn Lawncare $22,780.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to award the mowing bids from Master Lawn for Park District No. 1, in the amount of $15,550.88 and the Downtown District, in the amount of $5,712, for at total of $21,212.88. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the anti virus software bids for the Information Systems Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Software House International, Austin TX $24,433.35
EVIGI Corporation, Dallas TX $25,221.98
Global Solutions Group, Fenton, MO $25,404.28
Integrated Information Solutions, Topeka, KS $25,520.50
AOS, Overland Park, KS Bid 1 $25,625.73
AOS, Overland Park, KS Bid 2 $26,006.49
SDF Professionals, Greenville, NC $26,262.02
Hawk & Solutions Group, Chesterfield, MO $26,266.00
Insight, Madison, WI $26,545.57
En Pointe Technologies, El Segundo, CA $26,552.60
FutureCom, N. Richland Hills, TX $26,577.56
Missouri Information Solutions, KC, MO $27,604.66
Missouri Information Solutions, KC, MO, Alternate $5,303.00
OM Office Supply, Mechanicsburg, PA $27,648.18
Global Government/Education Solutions, Fletcher, OH $27,662.00
CIO, Inc., Shawnee Mission, KS $27,891.24
Gulfcoast, Largo, FL $28,135.70
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to award the bid to Software House International, in the amount of $24,433.35. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the purchase from Olathe Ford for two (2) 4x4 extended cab pickups off the MACPP cooperative bid in the amount of $32,241 ($16,323 from Stormwater Utility Fund and $15,918 from Utilities/Quality Control). Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the purchase from Olathe Ford for one (1) ½ ton 4x4 pickup off the MACPP cooperative bid in the amount of $15,432 (Finance/Utility Billing). Motion carried unanimously.
(5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the purchase from Olathe Ford for one (1) compact pickup off the MACPP cooperative bid in the amount of $11,822.00 (Utilities/Distribution). Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7753, establishing the City of Lawrence governing body quorum at four (4) members. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 7749, establishing no parking along the south side of 25th Street between Cedarwood Avenue and Ridge Court and to permit parking along the north side, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
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 Lawrence to include all contiguous land under the same ownership, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(9)
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, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
Ordinance No. 7738, requiring the use of helmets in the City of Lawrence, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the site plan (SP-12-70-03) for driveway access improvements from Haskell Avenue for the East Heights Elementary School – USD 497 Early Childhood Classrooms, located at 15th and Haskell, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;
2. Provision for the parking spaces to be striped;
3. Provision of the following revision to the site plan:
a. Under Parking Summary, change the number of required parking spaces to 20;
b. Under Floodplain Data, change “Lot 1: to Site.
Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the recommendation from the Public Transit Advisory Committee to allow aquatic pass purchasers to purchase a T sticker for $20 that would allow individuals to ride the T from Memorial Day through Labor Day. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an engineering services contract in the amount of $35,000 with Black & Veatch to complete the Emergency Response Plan revisions and update in accordance with the EPA regulations. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, pulled from the consent agenda, The Hold Harmless Agreement with the Masonic Building Company for a brief amendment and explanation. He said there was some interesting history below the ground which included the fact that some portions of the public right-of-way had been used in past years for storage. The Masonic Temple at the southwest corner of 10th and Massachusetts was no exception to that. The kitchen area and boiler room for that facility was located underneath the sidewalk on 10th Street. That property was in the process of changing hands and the title company had indicated a concern about the fact that they were going to insure property that the Masonic Building Company did not own because the City owned the public right-of-way.
He said staff had been working with the current property owners of Lawrence Temple Building Company. He said they had talked about entering into an acknowledgement of that use. He said the City’s primary concern was to be held harmless. He said whatever use was happening underneath the sidewalk was not going to create any liability to the City so he suggested a Hold Harmless Agreement. He said that agreement was not satisfactory to the current property owners, successor property owners and more importantly was not what the Title Company would insure.
He said he recommended that the Mayor execute an easement that would allow for that use underneath the sidewalk. It would also include indemnification provision for the property owners and their successors.
He said he pulled this consent agenda item not only because of the change in the agreement, but because that was an issue where there was a clear policy or practice in approaching that type of issue. He said this was also an issue in other portions of the downtown area.
He said staff did similar agreements when they ran into situations where their encroachment was in the public right-of-way. He said they did not want to vacate the right-of-way or give up the City’s property interest, but acknowledge that interest was there. He said the City’s interest was met where the City was allowing the use, acknowledging the use, but making sure they were not going to be held liable if something unfortunate or negligent should happen.
He said the alternative would be to vacate the use which would be obviously a tremendous hardship. The City could charge rent, but the City did not have precedent for that. He said staff thought the Hold Harmless Agreement was the appropriate way to proceed.
Commissioner Highberger asked for more time to review that issue because of the change in the agreement. He suggested deferring the issue for one week.
Mayor Dunfield said he was trying to imagine scenarios for the future of that property and how that might come into play. He said if the property were to redevelop, they could rebuild something below the street level within that easement. He said the City’s issue was that the City would continue to use the public right-of-way at the surface and above and if the City wanted to continue to use that sidewalk, that easement agreement would guarantee that the sidewalk could be used.
Corliss said correct.
Mayor Dunfield said the City would be held harmless. He said it was not the City’s issue to guarantee that it was done correctly if the development occurred.
Corliss said correct. He said that was an “as is” easement. He said the City was not guaranteeing its inhabitability or its use.
Mayor Dunfield said this was a common type of occurrence, not just in downtown Lawrence, but in downtown areas of cities generally. He asked Corliss if he was aware of precedence for that type of issue.
Corliss said the precedent that he was aware of in the situation that the City last dealt with that issue was Henry’s on 8th Street where the City executed a license agreement with Henry’s to allow them to use that area for storage, the area in the public right-of-way.
He said the Mayor was correct in that other communities might have different arrangements where there might be private utilities in public right-of-way that would be associated with those utilities.
He said again, he was aware of discussion that there were other places in the downtown area where this type of issue existed. He said staff had not done an audit or made inquiry with the property owners where this existed. He said he speculated that property transferred without that being an issue.
He said the City was being asked to acknowledge it for property transfer purposes. He said this issue was not something that staff had sought out.
Commissioner Schauner asked if they were holding the City harmless for advertent or inadvertent activities which could occur outside and fall into their property. He said the City was asking them to hold the City harmless if some negligent act should occur on their property.
Corliss said the City asked them to hold the City harmless for actions that might arise within the use that was allowed by the easement.
Commissioner Schauner said if something should occur on the sidewalk that should fall into the permanent easement below the street level would the City be held harmless by the owner of the permanent easement in that instance.
Corliss said if it was a slip and fall on the sidewalk, the City’s laws require that the property owner maintain that sidewalk. If there was a claim of negligence against the City, then they would look at the City’s safe street practice to see if it was violated. If a person fell through the sidewalk, then the City’s claim would be that they were negligent in the maintenance of their ceiling.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Doug Brown, representing the Masonic Temple, said the issue as far as deferring was basically one of timing. He said the bank that was loaning the money on that property was the one that brought this issue to light. He said they wanted to make sure there was not a cloud on the title. He said their process for paperwork for the loan was the timeframe that they were concerned with. He said if the paperwork pushed it back another week, they might have a problem. He said there were other issues that they did not anticipate and this was one of those issues. He said they thought that easement agreement would solve the problem.
Commissioner Highberger said he did not want to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of business doing what it needed to do, but this was a potential change in policy and was an issue that the public had not had time to review. He suggested placing that issue on next week’s City Commission agenda.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the Commission would be doing both of those agreements.
Corliss said the easement would replace the license and the Hold Harmless Agreement.
Commissioner Schauner suggested that the City Commission proceed. He said if Corliss was comfortable with the language and believed that the City’s interest was protected, he did not see much reason to put that issue off for one week.
He said another issue directly related was some type of audit of those similar places downtown. He said it would be nice to know where those places were located for future use and perhaps in that process develop a policy on how the Commission should deal with that type of issue. He said in this particular case, he favored approving the easement language that was provided by Corliss.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if that easement stood alone or was it tied to any other City regulations governing easements.
Corliss said the language made it clear that the grantee which was the Temple and would eventually be the successors in title was all they had were rights to the subsurface and the City would have the right to use and maintain the surface for sidewalk and utility purposes which were the primary issues. He said the City would be able to continue to allow its use and those rules and laws would still be in place. He said that did not give them any rights to the surface of the sidewalk only to the subterranean area as it existed on the day of the execution of that easement. He said he checked with Utilities and the Public Works Department and the City did not have any current plans to do anything near the subterranean area. He said the City would install a waterline on 10th Street, but it would be on the north side.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if that would give the City powers in the future that related to stormwater and sewers to somehow use that easement. He asked if that stood alone.
Corliss said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked Corliss if he was comfortable with the specific description of that property as just the north 15th feet of the right-of-way.
Corliss said it was sufficient for him as well as the title company.
Commissioner Hack said it seemed that easement would protect the City and would allow the property owner to maximize their use of their facility and would also help move that process forward. She said she was comfortable in moving ahead with this issue.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign an agreement conveying and delivering to The Lawrence Temple Building Company, a Kansas non-profit corporation, a permanent and perpetual easement for sub-surface improvements, and the right to use such improvements. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Highberger. Motion carried. (15)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen presented to the City Commission updates on City projects that were underway in February.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked that Wildgen keep the City Commission apprised of the details on the Performance Measurement/Management meeting. (16)
REGULAR AGENDA
Consider adoption of Resolution No. 6528 to not annex the former Farmland property prior to appropriate response to environmental concerns.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director said the City Commission had been in discussion with the County Commission for the past several months about the Farmland property that was located on the eastern side of the City. He said the company was in bankruptcy and the property was for sale. The Commission had dealt with some of the land use issues on the south side of 23rd Street that was on property formerly owned by Farmland. The property on the north side of 23rd Street was also under various environmental regulations that the Commission had became familiar with over the past few months.
He said the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency, both had briefed the City on the property and the environmental requirements that existed on that property and would exist on that property into the future.
He said because the property was on the market there was a concern that was expressed at one of the study sessions that the City and County had about whether or not it would be appropriate for that area to develop if the entire environmental issues were not dealt with. He said the idea being that some of the property that was sold might be clean leaving the dirty property for the bankruptcy court to deal with or no one to deal with in regards to environmental concerns.
He said he had been in discussions with the County Counselor and a bankruptcy attorney that the County had consulted with and had prepared pleadings on behalf of the County in the bankruptcy proceedings indicating that very interest. He said there was additional concern expressed that it would be appropriate for the City to speak to the issue of whether or not the property should be annexed unless the environmental concerns were dealt with.
He said the City did not have any annexation request pending or with prospective purchaser of property on the north side of 23rd Street as far as development plans for all portions of that property.
The City’s authority to annex was discretionary with the governing body and it was not an issue of applying facts to the law so that it was a rezoning decision where you could not simply choose not to rezone property. He said the Commission could deny annexation simply because you did not want to extend services to a property and in this case the suggested criteria would be was that annexation would not be appropriate unless all of the environmental concerns were responded to.
The property did receive City water service which was connected in 1960. He said that property did not receive any other City service. He said it was staff’s thought that property would need additional City services if they were to try and redevelop that property. He said if the prospective purchaser knew that the City did not want the property to be encumbered with environmental liabilities that were stranded then there might be a better dialogue and genuine attempts to respond to those environmental concerns in the coming months.
Mayor Dunfield asked if the County Commission had seen that language and they agreed that language was okay.
Corliss said correct.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6528, to not annex the former Farmland property prior to appropriate response to environmental concerns. Motion carried unanimously (17)
Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning and annexation request, and authorize drafting of ordinances for placement on a future agenda:
A-12-15-03: Annexation request for approximately 29.7261 acres of land, located north of Clinton Parkway and east 926’ from K-10 Highway (SLT).
Z-12-49-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 18.9332 acres from B-3 (Limited Business District) to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential District). The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and approximately 508’ east of K-10 Highway (SLT) right-of-way.
Z-12-50-03: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 20.1626 acres from B-3 (Limited Business District) to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential District). The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and approximately 508’ east of K-10 Highway (SLT) right-of-way.
Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report. She said before the City Commission was an annexation for the entire acreage as well as a request for 18 acres from B-3 to RM-2 as well as 20 acres from B-3 to RM-1. The RM-1 and RM-2 were both multi-family residential districts. Multi-family districts were permitted in the City’s zoning district within commercial properties.
She said protest petitions were submitted for the proposed rezonings. Staff received notice from the County Clerk’s Office that there were two protest petitions that were received on both the RM-1 and RM-2 zoning districts and the memo provided from the County was that the valid petition was found for the RM-2. This item was deferred from the City Commission meeting last week to give everyone an opportunity to look at it in more detail and staff was asked to provide a map. As staff was preparing that map they found that in a memorandum from the County Clerk’s office the information was actually reversed. The RM-2 district did not have a valid protest petition, but the RM-1 request did have a valid protest petition. What that meant was that a super majority vote was required to approve the request.
She said the one item that was not before the City Commission was the preliminary plat. She said the final plat would come to the governing body for the acceptance of easements and rights-of-way. The preliminary plat had a proposed street that separated the RM-1 from the other two zoning requests providing a clear division.
She said there was a need for a collector street of which that plat would provide a portion of that connection and that was consistent with the adopted Transportation 2025 as well as the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Highberger asked the status of the other zoning requests.
Day said the commercial piece was tabled or deferred by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission initiated a rezoning to take the B-3 to PCD and that was something that the Planning Commission would consider as part of their April agenda. She said the City Commission would see that third component following the April Planning Commission meeting actions. She presented a map of the road connections to the City Commission.
Mayor Dunfield said the annexation was about 30 acres and the 3 rezonings together add up to about 50 aces. He asked if that meant that some of that land was currently in the City.
Day said no. The zoning boundaries were usually written to the center line to also bring in that right-of-way so that was the discrepancy in the total area. The annexation was the request of only the parcel that the property owner owns, but typically when those annexation and zoning ordinances they went to the center lines of the streets and roads.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Lake Point Road access was to K-10 to Clinton Parkway.
Day said yes, to Clinton Parkway.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that was sufficient distance from the ramp entrances to satisfy State and Federal authorities.
Day said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was the minimum distance that they would approve.
Day said she did not have the exact distance, but it did exceed it.
Commissioner Highberger asked if staff initially recommended denial of the rezoning to RM-2.
Day said staff’s recommendation that was forwarded to the Planning Commission was that the property remained in a commercial zoning district. It would be converted from County commercial to City commercial district.
Commissioner Hack asked why that recommendation was made because that third component was 4.13 acres and then the RM-2 possibility was 6.11 acres.
Day said this went back to looking at the big picture. There were two elements. One element was the discussion that staff had quite frequently on how much commercial property should be zoned. She said this was an existing commercial property and was long identified as a commercial property. She said it was a very bitter pill to swallow to try and step back and say that they recommended reduction of commercial in that area.
Commissioner Highberger said other than the tabled part of the request that was going to be PCD, he asked where was the nearest commercial property to that location.
Day said there was some existing commercially zoned property on the north side of 15th Street and also commercial properties back toward Wakarusa out to the east.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Lake Point Road was an additional access into Clinton Parkway.
Day said no. That project actually reduced the total number of access points over what was initially approved. There were three access points to Clinton Parkway. One access point was shifted back to the west because of site distance problems and it was not a safe location and staff had to go back and revisit the plat to accommodate that issue. The second access point was still within the overall approved state location and the third access point was voluntarily removed by the applicant through their development proposal. She said staff had identified it early on that it would be a problem, but it was an existing curb cut in that right-of-way.
Commissioner Schauner said essentially the persons who would live in those two areas that were being asked to rezone would need to go back to Clinton Parkway.
Day said in the short-term yes, their only access point was back to Clinton Parkway.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that area was looked at to see if there was an issue with traffic.
Day said yes. There was a traffic study performed and it was also part of the plat review. There would be intersection improvement that were required through that platting process when that came to the City Commission and that was something that staff was actively reviewing. She said addressing how that intersection functions was part of the plat review process.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that would include signalization of that intersection.
Day said it could, but she would need to review what the Transportation Study said about that issue. She thought it was a roundabout at that location.
Commissioner Schauner said if it was not rezoned to RM-2 would there be intersection improvement required to fulfill its current commercial zoning.
Day said that was too broad of a question.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it would depend on what when in at that location commercially.
Day said yes.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Mike Bronoski, 1428 East 902 Road, said he was not that concerned with the RM-1 zoning request, but more concerned with the RM-2 zoning request. He said he was not against development and he knew some type of commercial development would be located there. He said they just wanted some control or say about what went in at that location. He said he was speaking more to the RM-2 zoning the most western piece.
He did not think condominiums would blend in with the existing residences. He said he did not know what was going to be in the RM-1, but it was a lower density residential so that might blend better with their location to the west of the RM-2.
He said the other issue he had was access along with the road that would connect to the frontage road.
He said if you look at the Planning Staff report it talked about blending issues and what was the impact on RM-2 on the residences to the west and the access problem. She said there were comments from the Planning staff, Planning Commission, and a letter from the League of Women’s Voters that addressed the access issues.
He said he would like to see something other than RM-2 which was high density multi-family zoning. He did not see condominiums abutting their residences as blending. He asked the City Commission to vote against the RM-2 zoning.
Phil Coffman, 1439 East 920, said the problem was density. They had a nice plan with the annexation with the low density new housing, but the smallest lot was one acre and some of them were substantially larger. He said 1500 north needed major improvements because it was a tough intersection.
Commissioner Highberger asked what Coffman’s preference would be.
Coffman was confused why the RM-2 failed. He said they were hoping for lower density.
Jennie Bronoski, Lawrence, asked the City Commission to consider when they were looking at that plan was the amount of traffic that was going to be dumped on to K10. She said K10 was still a two lane road and there were many apartment complexes that fed onto Clinton Parkway along with K10. She said now they were proposing another huge complex which would also feed onto K10. That corner narrowed down into a two lane road from a traffic way of four lanes, when it gets in front of that property it narrows down to two lanes. Even if there would be an access, drivers would need to cross in front of major traffic if they want to go to town. She said they lived there for over 30 years and hated to think about all the accidents which had occurred there before the trafficway was built and even after it had been built there had been numerous accidents. There was visible evidence of accidents on that ramp, due to the way it was built.
She said currently in order for the neighbors in her neighborhood to get on K10 they went north on County Road 13 to 15th Street. She said she talked with Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, and he informed her that 15th Street would not have an interchange at that location any time soon. She said approving a development like this at this time, when there was no access to 15th Street and placing a roundabout at Clinton Parkway would be a nightmare. School buses and fire trucks seemed to have a difficult time dealing with roundabouts. She said the Lawrence Fire Department did not favor it. She said they would like to see that area maintained as lower density housing. Currently, it looked like the new frontage road would go through most of their houses.
Michael Keeney, applicant, said that the intent of what they would like to do involved down zoning on all three of those areas. The staff report recommended the RM-2 area to say commercial because the comprehensive plan called for that area to be commercial. It had been commercial for 20 or 30 years.
He said his client came to this town and bought a piece of property in the area that was being discussed. One of those three areas was unique in that it was the only piece of property in the City of Lawrence that had a view at Clinton Lake. He said they did not want to place commercial in that area because you could not take advantage of that view if you built a strip mall.
He said they planned the 4.73 acres as commercial for part of that area and thought that was more than enough because there was a lack of roof tops in the area to support commercial development. Since K-10 was built the traffic on Clinton Parkway had substantially reduced and there was not enough traffic that would support a large commercial development in that area.
He said what they had planned at that location now, they felt was adequate. They would bring in a development plan that showed a branch bank, 10,000 square foot shopping center and another store in that area.
He talked about the traffic study in that area and they had concluded that a roundabout would serve the area as well as act as an entry point to the City of Lawrence.
He reminded the City Commission that there was a 9-0 vote from the Planning Commission on the annexation, preliminary plat, and the 2 rezonings.
Commissioner Schauner asked Keeney if the area where they were proposing the RM-2 was occupied.
Keeney said it was occupied by the Breithaupt family.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the property owners that backed up immediately to Lot 2 supported the proposal.
Keeney said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if one of the Breithaupt properties would be taken or used if there were to be an extension of that collector to the current frontage road.
Keeney said they would eventually like to combine some of those properties.
Commissioner Hack asked if Keeney had talked to the Breihaupt’s.
Keeney said yes.
Commissioner Hack asked how many condominiums was Keeney thinking about?
Keeney said 22 units per acre. He said it was about 13 ½ units per acre. He said there was a separation from RM-1 at 12 ½ units per acre to RM-2. The project that they were proposing was approximately 12 to 14 units per acre which was medium density.
George Paley, property owner in the area, said no one in his area was against development. He asked about the consideration of a cul-de-sac and greenspace. He agreed that traffic should be studied in that area.
Commissioner Hack asked if there was any thought to the idea of a cul-de-sac.
Day said the subdivision plat was now before the City Commission and that was part of the difficulty in the discussion, but the plat would need to have a temporary turnaround at least in the interim period. What staff had said was that through the public improvement design period when they started to look at those streets, it was staff’s intent to de-emphasize that connection to the north. The collector street traffic should be flowing back to the northwest along the frontage road. She said when they looked at the subdivision plat because they were only looking at one piece of the puzzle, staff did tend to look more broadly and provide more options rather than trying to limit those options. The design itself actually worked either way, but staff’s recommendation was to provide more connections rather than fewer connections. She said this was a very limited area. If you look at the overall surrounding area it was essentially surrounded by the City limits and it was in the urban growth area long-term. She said it was the expectation that it would have an urban character and staff had talked with one property owner and possibly other property owners that might be interested in further subdividing those larger lots. She said they were trying to have some balance in terms of what access that they were providing to that property and the overall concept of a neighborhood. She said that was something that the Commission would look at specifically when the plat came because the City Commission’s action would be for the acceptance of easements and rights-of-way.
Commissioner Schauner said the frontage road that the Breithaupt’s and others currently used to access to 1500 north onto SLT, he asked if that was in the County. He said if that road was to be improved under current circumstances in order to satisfy the traffic demand from those developments would be a County expense, but if and when the City annexed that area, that would be a cost to some governmental agency or taxpayers to improve that current frontage road.
Wildgen said typically it was a cost to the property that was being developed. He said there could possibly be some combination of general at-large costs, but it would not necessarily be city at-large cost.
Commissioner Schauner said the property that was being discussed would already be developed and he asked if it would be subject to a benefit district if that frontage road was to be improved in the future.
Wildgen said that was a difficult question. He said not that a benefit district could be devised to include that.
Commissioner Schauner said that road had not been designed for a heavy volume of traffic. If that RM-2 was built, it struck him that it would make it necessary sooner than later to improve the quality of that frontage road and if just the people who currently front onto the frontage road were only the people to pay for that improvement, they would see a substantial tax bill.
Commissioner Highberger said this was one of those situations where any answer was going to feel good because it impacted people who had been living in that area for a long time. He said this would happen again as this City expanded.
He said people did not come in to ask for down zoning often.
He said the argument of the piece of property being rezoned to RM-2 was too unique and valuable to waste it on a strip mall was a good argument. If a property had a view of the lake then a residential use was probably a good use. He said although that area was RM-2 it sounded like the proposed area was on the low end of what was allowed in the RM-2 district.
He said he understood staff’s concern about removing commercial zoning. He thought it was good that the other parcel would have some commercial space to serve that area.
He said he had talked about trying to control the City’s sprawl by increasing density of the City’s new construction. He said for that reason and other reasons outlined by the Planning Commission, he reluctantly supported the annexation and both rezoning proposals.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked staff to explain that rezoning that had the valid protest petition and the required super majority vote for approving that rezoning. He also asked if that rezoning failed, then what would happen.
Day said the RM-1 was the parcel on the eastern end of the property that did have the valid protest petition. If it failed, she said the applicant would need to wait one full year before they could reapply for the same district or they could come back with a substantially different request to the City Commission.
Corliss said that was correct and it was also not uncommon in those situations for the applicant to request that the City Commission send it back to the Planning Commission if it looked like it would not pass.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if that rezoning did go back to the Planning Commission how integrally related were those properties. He said if the applicant came back with a substantially different request, the request should be compatible with whatever was approved in the other area.
Day said one of the benefits that the Planning Commission had that the City Commission did not have was having seen that preliminary plat. The collector street that went through the middle of the property provided a clear separation between the low density and the commercial and higher density area. She said the way the zoning map would look would be from the center of the property, there would be a collector street, some other type of presumably residential moderate density residential, planned unit development which was single family- detached, and conventional single-family which was larger lots. She said the plan allowed for the segmentation of it between the east and west half.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was nothing in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan which would currently suggest that they had any intention of improving that road, annexing that frontage road, or improving that intersection where the ramps enter onto the SLT off of Clinton Parkway.
Wildgen said no. He said there might be something in the Long-Range Plan 2025.
Commissioner Hack said this was a difficult situation. She agreed with the issue of single-family, but putting it along an arterial, collector, and state highway did not make a lot of sense. She said the medium density was better than what she thought it was going to be. She agreed to support the annexation and the two rezonings.
Commissioner Schauner said they were asking the wrong question. He said clearly people had known for a long time that this would be developed and clearly greater density was hopefully a way to slow sprawl although it did not stop sprawl. The fact that by approving the annexation and those two rezoning request, they would facilitate a need for rather substantial capital improvements in that area. Essentially rather than their plan for development being controlled by the City, the Commission was being asked to abandon any long-term transportation planning and approve two rezoning requests and an annexation which would cause the City to put that improvement on the City’s Capital Improvement Plan at the expense of the City’s existing needs. He said rather than the Commission determining where they wanted to put their Capital Improvement money, the Commission was simply reacting to a request from a developer who wanted to put in what appeared to be a nice project, but was inconsistent with the City’s long-term best interest in terms of its ability to plan its own future. He said this was not a zoning question, but a plan where they spend their money type question. He did not support the annexation or the two rezoning requests.
Mayor Dunfield said Commissioner Schauner’s point about the way the City determined how to spend their money. He said in terms of the some of the street planning issues, he said there were roundabouts of that type in the East Topeka area coming off of major highways and those seemed to work really well. Certainly if one of the concerns that people had was the speed of traffic, a signalized intersection did not help deal with that issue, but a roundabout did. He said he would not second guess the transportation planning. He said connection within neighborhoods were generally good things and giving people alternatives was a good idea and he was a proponent of cul-de-sacing lots of streets rather than allowing those streets to continue through.
He said Commissioner Schauner’s point about the sequence of spending the taxpayer’s money on Capital Improvements was a good point. He asked staff about that issue with respect to those particular approvals if the City Commission was to approve the annexation and rezonings. He asked, what was the anticipated impact on the City’s capital improvement process?
Wildgen said what he had seen so far was mostly developer driven costs. He said when getting into some of the frontage roads that were off that site, it was so off into the future, it was not in the Capital Improvement Plan which was a 5 year plan. He said they were doing the Capital Improvement Plan for the next five year segment now, so that issue needed to be looked at to see if that needed to be added to that plan.
Mayor Dunfield said approval of that annexation and rezonings would not necessitate moving up the frontage road issues.
Wildgen said he did not believe so. Some of those connections that were discussed would not happen immediately.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the entire cost of a roundabout on Clinton Parkway would be borne by the developer.
Wildgen said that was his position.
Commissioner Schauner said if the frontage road were to be improved in the future that would be in part a capital expenditure of the City’s.
Wildgen said assuming it was in the City, it would be a capital improvement of the City in some manner. He said where development paralleled that would trigger whether there might be a City at-large cost.
Commissioner Schauner said looking at Lenexa when they put streets in, they say how they wanted development to go and they control their own future growth pattern and location. He said this City was doing the opposite in that the City was not saying where they wanted the growth to go. He said this City was saying that they would rezone first and then deal with capital improvement costs in the future. He said it would get thrown into the City’s Capital Improvement Plan which did not have much of a priority.
Mayor Dunfield said he did not want to turn this issue into a debate, but the fact was that the City built Clinton Parkway specifically for that purpose, just as Lenexa had built a lot of its streets.
Vice Mayor Rundle said it was hard to be enthusiastic when the Planning Commission cited the phrase, “Making the best of a bad situation” and Commissioner Highberger’s statement of reluctantly agreeing to this issue. He said he kept hoping to see the day that Commissioner Schauner was describing when the City was out there leading development. He said the City had the facilities in place and development follows eventually. He said he did not know if that was going to be when they finally have something to implement under Adequate Public Facilities. He had hoped that part of that was going to be supported by the City’s new zoning and subdivision regulations and other policies in the works.
He said he was thinking of citing Lenexa somewhat hesitatingly because people think of growth in the Johnson County area as not being very well planned, but Lenexa did seem to have not just one Clinton Parkway. He said when that example was cited it was the only example. He said he would like to see all of the major streets rather than, as the Commission was doing tonight, which was putting a roundabout in and a parcel leg of a street that they hoped connected somewhere else. He could not base a decision on reluctant and “Making the best of a bad situation.” He said he did not support those three items.
Commissioner Hack said with the Public Improvement Task Force and the Adequate Public Facilities, as they looked at the urban growth area particularly in the vast area to the south, she said that was exactly what they were hoping it would do, but she also thought that they needed to remember the amount of money it would take for the City to initiate those types of improvements. She said those streets were not going to pay for themselves, she said the Commission could make the decision that they drive growth and they put roads in where they wanted those roads to be then someone would need to pay for those roads. She said that was upfront City costs and the City would determine how that was recouped. She said she did not look at those roads that they were discussing in that way. She agreed with the Mayor in that there were connections.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the annexation (A-12-15-03) request of approximately 29.7261 acres, located north of Clinton Parkway and east 926’ from K-10 Highway (SLT); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: Rundle and Schauner. Motion carried. (18)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger , to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-12-49-03) approximately 18.9332 acres from B-3 (Limited Business District) to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential District). The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and approximately 508’ east of K-10 Highway (SLT) right-of-way; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: Rundle and Schauner. Motion carried. (19)
Commissioner Hack said concerning this particular rezoning (Z-12-50-03) was it the City Commission’s procedure to ask that this issue go back to the Planning Commission.
Day said the City Commission’s action, if that issue went back to the Planning Commission, would be to ask the Planning Commission to either revisit that rezoning or affirm their actions.
Keeney said he was confused. He said the RM-1 had no opposition and it had the lowest density. He said he could take that rezoning back to the Planning Commission and he could receive another 9-0 vote from the Planning Commission and spend a few months at that task. The fact was that he had people that were trying to make a living waiting for that project to go through. He said there were several nervous property owners and people who wanted to close on that property. He said it was important to keep that train on the track. He said he needed 4 votes on that RM-1 piece and he asked the City Commission to reconsider.
Mayor Dunfield asked Day to explain the protest petition situation.
Day said the RM-1 was the lower density of the two rezonings. It was on the eastern edge of that property. She said what staff did with the protest petition was to identify the subject property and then to draw a boundary around that property. Anything that was adjacent or within the City limits, the protest area were within 200 feet. If the subject property was abutting unincorporated property, the district then was 1,000 feet. She said staff then drew a ring around the subject property. The total acreage came to be 98.91 acres less right-of-way. She said they would take that whole area and subtract out the subject property and subtract out public rights-of-way that would give staff a particular area.
Mayor Dunfield asked if there were two separate petitions circulated.
Day said yes.
Mayor Dunfield said the signatories to the petitions signed specifically to protest the RM-2 and RM-1 separately.
Day said correct. The property owners were the same, what was different was the circumference around those properties.
Commissioner Schauner tried to make two points. One point was that he was not happy with the traffic considerations on that high density development. Secondly, he said there was theory and practice and at some point they need to put the theory into practice. At some point the Commission needed to say that they were not going to make a decision on rezoning, but where development needed to go.
He said he was willing to support the (Z-12-50-03) rezoning request having made the two points he made and in fact the truth was the greatest density was going to be the RM-2. He remained concerned about those two issues, but at the same time he was not trying to put people out of work or stop the train of progress. He asked Vice Mayor Rundle to consider those issues.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if he would be overstating it to say that they were basically changing the City’s Comprehensive Plan because of the way that was proposed to be commercial.
Day said no the Commission was not changing the Comprehensive Plan. There were still commercial opportunities available for that property and the Commission would be looking at the commercial chapter.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there would have been a way that this could have been done more as looking at the Comprehensive Plan first and accept those modifications where there was less commercial.
Day said staff evaluated those requests based on the way the Comprehensive Plan was written today. Even if the RM-2 piece had came forward with the recommendation for C-5 and that as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and that was the action that this body took, that would not necessarily prevent the applicant from coming back with a multi-family request because multi-family was a permitted use in that district. She said they would still keep the door open in terms of trying to encourage a mixed type of development. She said staff would be looking at those things when they come to the site planning stage. She said at this point they were only setting out the framework which was the scope of allowable uses of the subject property and they were not yet looking into the exact detail. She said they were still working within the scope of the Comprehensive Plan in the terms of the base land use question.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he reluctantly approved that rezoning.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-12-50-03) of approximately 20.1626 acres from B-3 (Limited Business District) to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential District). The property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and approximately 508’ east of K-10 Highway (SLT) right-of-way; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Vice Mayor Rundle said there were some points made in the League of Women’s letter about platting one of those lots. He asked if that would be resolved by the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations. He said there was one large lot that would have multiple structures and it should be platted to show public access ways and where the building was going to be placed.
Day said something was being reviewed in terms of the new codes. It was not something that was in the City’s current regulations.
Vice Mayor Rundle said if it was not completely addressed in the new codes, he wanted to make sure that they catch up and bring that issue along.
Consider an amendment revising Chapter Six-Commercial Land Use Chapter of the City/County Comprehensive Land Use Plan- Horizon 2020.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the County approved that amendment unanimously without any changes.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7754, a joint ordinance/resolution of the City of Lawrence and Douglas County to amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan “Horizon 2020” by adopting text amendments revising the Chapter 6 Commercial Land Use contained in Horizon 2020. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Joel Smith asked the City Commission to consider an addition to the skateboard park.
Mayor Dunfield said he would be willing to ask the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to take a look at that idea and give the City Commission a recommendation.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Mayor Dunfield said an email was sent to the Commissioners to ask for City participation in a study that would be conducted by PRI to gauge the economic impact of the bio-science development in the community. He said this was a request that came from the Bio-Science Task Force and the idea was to split the cost of that study four ways with the County, City, Chamber of Commerce, and the University of Kansas. He said it was his understanding that the Chamber and the University had both already committed their share of approximately $6,000 each. He asked that the City Commission agree to fund its share.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the status was of the bio-sciences legislative effort.
Corliss said it was moved out of the House. He said it was meeting with favorable legislative consideration.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to donate $6,030 to the study that would be conducted by PRI to gauge the economic impact of the bio-science development in the community. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
Commissioner Highberger suggested that the City Commission find a way for the City to get out in front of the development process.
Commissioner Schauner said that was a great idea and the urban growth area to the south was the next big opportunity that could apply to.
Mayor Dunfield said at the last joint City/County meeting they directed Planning Staff to start working on that idea.
Commissioner Hack said the school district was also interested because the vast majority of the geographic boundary of the district was in the southern part of that urban growth area.
Mayor Dunfield suggested taking that issue up at the Commission’s Goal Setting Session in May and whether they would like to take on a visioning element.
Commissioner Schauner suggested bringing in someone who had some practical experience on how that actually worked.
Corliss said the work of the Public Improvement Task Force had narrowed and focused a lot on the street development issue in its recent meetings. Maybe one goal would be to figure out when they would report back to the full Commission because it related to some of that discussion.
Commissioner Schauner said Commissioner Hack’s comment about the school district struck him as a critical component of building neighborhoods. He said unless they had some concurrent City, Planning and School location planning, it probably won’t be very successful in developing that area as a neighborhood/friendly area south of town. He said he would like to involve the school district officials in those discussions.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 8:39 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Site Plan – (SP-01-08-04) deferred fencing at 900 E 15th for evidence storage for Police Dept.
2. Bid – Mowing, Park District 1 & Downtown District to Master Lawn for a total of $21,212.88.
3. Bid – Anti-virus software to Software International for $24,433.35.
4. MACPP Cooperative Bid – Two 4x4 cab pickups from Olathe Ford for a total of $32,241.
5. MACPP Cooperative Bid – One 4x4 pickup from Olathe Ford for a total of $15,432.
6. MACPP Cooperative Bid – One pickup from Olathe Ford for $11,822.
7. Ordinance No. 7753 – 1st Reading, City Commission Quorum at 4 members.
8. Ordinance No. 7749 – 2nd Reading, no parking, S side of 25th between Cedarwood Ave & Ridge Ct. & permit parking N side.
9. Ordinance No. 7604 – 2nd Reading, Text Amendment (TA-05-02A-02) Section 21-104(a), subdivisions plats to include all contiguous land under same ownership.
10. Ordinance No. 7745 – 2nd Reading, Levy Special Assessment, Folks Rd from 6th, S approx 1500’ to Mulberry, Old Oak & part of Larissa from Folks approx 200’ W.
11. Ordinance No. 7738 – 2nd Reading, Lawrence Safe Kids Coalition – Helmet Use.
12. Site Plan – (SP-12-70-03) driveway access, Haskell Ave for E Heights Elementary, 15th & Haskell.
13. Public Transit Advisory Committee – T sticker $20 ride from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
14. Engineering Service Contract – Black & Veatch for $35,000 for Emergency Response Plan.
15. Masonic Temple – Easement
16. City Managers Report – Public Works Projects.
17. Resolution No. 6528 – Farmland property not to annex land until environmental concerns were addressed.
18. Annex – (A-12-15-03) 29.7261 acres, N of Clinton Pkwy & E 926’ from K-10 (SLT).
19. Rezone (Z-12-49-03) 18.9332 from B-3 to RM-2, N of Clinton Pkwy 508’ E of k-10 (SLT).
20. Rezone (Z-12-50-03) 20.1626 acres, from B-3 to RM-1, N of Clinton Pkwy 508’ E of K-10 Hwy (SLT)
21. Land Use Chapter City/County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
22. Bio-science – Donate $6,030 for study by PRI.