April 13, 2004
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Rundle presiding and members Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner present. Student Representative Gage was present.
PROCLAMATIONS
The Mayor and the Lawrence-Douglas County Fire Medical Department presented safety sweatshirts to the Oliver Residence Hall staff.
With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed the week of April 18 – 24 as “Week of the Young Child”; “Crime Victims’ Rights Week”; and “Compeer Friendship Week.”
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, approve the City Commission meeting minutes of April 6, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of February 25, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 333 vendors in the amount of $ 1,333,090.57. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7772, rezoning (Z-11-38-03) a tract of land approximately 12.3 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) to M-1 (Research Industrial District). The property is generally described as being located on the northwest corner of Legends and Research Park Drive (extended). Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7744, levying maximum assessments on lots, pieces, and parcels of land in the City of Lawrence, Kansas to pay for the improvement of Monterey Way (Peterson Road to Stetson Drive), including construction of bike lanes, traffic calming devices, certain drainage and stormwater improvements, and the acquisition of property interests as authorized by Resolution No. 6502. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
Ordinance No. 7748, adopting the 2002 Edition of the National Electrical Code with local amendments as recommended by the Board of Electrical Examiners on February 4, 2004, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
Ordinance No. 7776, establishing procedures for the City/County Economic Development Board, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 7775, designating Harvard Road between Wakarusa and Monterey Way and Goldfield Street from Wakarusa to Monterey Way as a main trafficway; and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Bucher, Willis, and Ratliff for engineering services for the Harvard Road and Goldfield Street Traffic Calming Improvements in an amount not to exceed $53,146.07 to be initially paid for from the Capital Improvement Reserve Fund, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6540, establishing April 27, 2004 as the public sale date for City bonds and temporary notes. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-02-02-04) a tract of land approximately 3.59 acres from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District) to M-2 (General Industrial District). The property is generally described as being located at 601 North Iowa Street, formerly Riverside School; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Airport Development Group for $180,790 for engineering services. This project is eligible for an Airport Improvement Program Grant Funding. The FAA grant will fund $171,750 (95%) and the City will be responsible for $9,040 (5%). Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve an addendum to the performance agreement with Garage Door Group, Inc., d/b/a Amarr Garage Door to add the name RAM Kansas, L.L.C. to the agreement. (9)
Commissioner Hack pulled for separate discussion the site plan (SP-03-19-04) for Lawrence Alternative High School. She recognized the Leadership Lawrence Class of 2004 and their hard work.
Shane Mulch Leadership Lawrence Class of 2004 explained the project.
It was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the site plan (SP-03-19-04) for Lawrence Alternative Highs School, a site plan for the addition of a shelter building to be used as an outdoor classroom and break area located at 2600 West 25th Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement.
Motion carried unanimously. (10)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said Vice Mayor Highberger had asked staff for a report concerning water pressure volumes in North Lawrence. He said those water pressure volumes were comparative with other parts of the City and it met code.
Rich Barr, Fire Marshall, provided information regarding a blast permit that was approved for blasting on the west side of town near Harvard Road and west of Stonecreek.
Barr said there had been some concern about a blasting permit that was issued by the City on March 23, 2004. Typically, when the Fire/Medical Department issues a blasting permit, the contract blaster was required to provide proof of insurance to the City which was forwarded to the City Clerk’s Office as well as provide the City with a blast plan that indicated how contractor would perform their operation. He said the contractor was also required to provide a site map which indicated the areas that the contractor would be performing that blasting.
He said the Fire/Medical Department issued 4 to 5 blasting permits a year depending on the amount of development that was occurring.
He said the concerns from the residents in the area stemmed from the fact that the original blast plan that allowed the contractor to blast a large area on the west end of Harvard Road had one leg of the sanitary sewer that would parallel Stonecreek Drive which that street ran northwest to southeast. He said the contractor was originally going to hammer that rock out by mechanical means, but the contractor had ran into a fairly deep rock shelf. Therefore, the contractor had asked to revise their plan to blast that area. He said there was no violation for the contractor to blast that area.
He said under City code, a person could not blast within 100 feet of a structure and a number of residents seemed to feel that was extremely close.
He said with the swimming pool that was constructed at Free State High School, the contractor was given permission to blast an area for that pool within 25 feet of a structure at the High School. He said that company was the same company that was performing the blasting on the west side of town near Harvard Road and west of Stonecreek and the blasting was done without any adverse effects to that building.
Barr said there was also some concern about the gas line paralleling that most current addition to the blast plan. He said he contacted the Southern Star Gas Company, who owned the gas line, and that company would be preparing an analysis of that area and would report back to the Fire/Medical Department, but he had not received that report at this time.
He said a meeting with area residents would take place to address their concerns as far as City Code was concerned. He said the ordinance was drafted on the heels of a complaint in 1993 by the Fire/Medical Department which was passed by the City Commission at that time. He said the ordinance required that there was no blasting within 100 feet of a structure and that any time blasting occurred within 500 feet of a structure that a pre-blast survey was offered to the occupants of those structures and that pre-blast survey basically consisted of recording the interior of the building to make sure that any change that occurred after the blasting was over could be shown and verified. He said that had been implemented in that particular case because there were a large number of dwellings that would require a pre-blast survey. It was entirely voluntary on the part of the property owner for a pre-blast survey and he encouraged the property owner to have that survey performed.
He said there had been some information out there that indicated that the blast was going to be within 90 feet of the structures. The map that he presented to the City Commission was a scaled drawing and based upon his measurements it was over 200 feet to any structures and over 100 feet to the gas line.
He said this was an on-going project for him and he had been present at the blast site everyday.
Mayor Rundle asked if a new permit would be required of if the additional area would be under the original permit.
Barr said it was under the same permit. As long as the contractor did not blast within 100 feet of structure the contractor would be meeting City Code. He said if the contractor altered that blast plan, as long as the alteration did not throw the contractor into an issue where it was in violation of City Code, then it could be done.
Mayor Rundle said there was a concern about the 15 day notice before blasting occurred.
Barr said the contractor would not be able to blast that sanitation sewer line until April 23, 2004. He said that 15 day window was written into the code so that if that resident was not at home for any reason, and that notice was posted, that there was an ample amount of time for that resident to return so that that resident might get a pre-blast survey performed.
Mayor Rundle said he was hopeful through the meetings with the neighborhood that the concerns and questions would be answered and addressed. He asked that staff come back with a report before April 23rd.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the blasting company provided any written material to homeowners in the vicinity regarding precautionary measures to prevent damage to their property.
Barr said City Code provided that all buildings within 1500 feet radius of the proposed blast site were notified that blasting was going to occur in that area.
He said the blasting contractor had public information to educate people on what would occur. He said he did not routinely provide that information, but the contractor was prepared to provide that information.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the company had a website address that people could access that information about blasting.
Barr said he did not know if the company had a web address, but he would research that idea.
Also, during the City Manager’s Report Wildgen mentioned that Planning staff had prepared a timetable for planning items.
Mayor Rundle asked Finger about working with the County Commission on the Subdivision Regulations that related to the UGA (Urban Growth Area). He said since the UGA was a border area, he asked if the City’s interest, were being represented and was the Planning Commission reviewing those regulations as it related to the UGA.
Finger said the City’s interest was being represented in the sense that it would make that transition easier to occur along with property owners incorporating into the City because staff would know how that property would be divided.
She said the Rural Development Task Force Group would be looking at that issue in a week and would move it forward with the County Commission as soon as staff received some idea of what the County Commission believed was agreeable and those ideas could be incorporated into the draft Subdivision Regulations to distribute to the public.
Mayor Rundle asked if it would first go to that Rural Development Task Force.
Finger said the Rural Development Task Force would review the draft Subdivision Regulations at the tail end of the process. She said the task force had a larger task which dealt with the policies.
Mayor Rundle asked if the Planning Commission would be reviewing the North of North Street Area Plan.
Finger said yes. The Planning Commission would receive the North of North Street Area Plan when the plan resurfaced. At that point, the Planning Commission would give staff direction as to whether they would like that plan placed on the agenda for official adoption or make revisions. She said staff needed to talk to neighbors concerning that issue, but staff needed information from the stormwater study that was being conducted.
Mayor Rundle asked if the Planning Commission would be making recommendations on the Southeast Area Plan before that plan went to the City Commission’s Study Session.
Finger said those recommendations would not be made before May 5, 2004. She said the Planning Commission was looking at the City Commission’s information as input, but the policy decisions that both the City and County Commissions made would have an influence on how that plan was drafted.
Commissioner Schauner asked about staff’s participation in the 2004 Technical Assistance Program and if that program was productive to staff.
Finger said it was always interesting to get another perspective. She said the program was productive especially in the after hours session. She said the opinions that were shared were very open opinions. She said it was beneficial for staff as well as the applicant.
Mayor Rundle asked about the Industrial and Employment Related Land Use Chapter. He said it seemed there were two parallel tracks with the ECO2 Group working on that same issue. He said it seemed important to be working together instead of independently and those groups should be reviewing any industrial criteria and land before the City Commission received a staff report.
Finger said she would be meeting with the ECO2 Group. She said at the last session she attended that involved ECO2 and the Chamber of Commerce concerning economic development was that even that those groups were together, those groups paralleled each other because the standards for industrial sites were opposite the standards for open space.
She said there was a discussion that occurred at the County Commission concerning industrial development and the County Commission had asked staff to take a look at creating a new zoning district that was more limited in intensity and permitted uses for industry outside the UGA within the rural areas of the County. She said she had communication from the County Administrator that the County Commission would be interested in staff being able to provide some type of generic general map of industrial areas at the May 5th Southeast meeting, but she had not had the opportunity to talk with the City Manager about that issue.
Commissioner Schauner said he was surprised to find in the newspaper that the County was interested in industrial development near the airport. He said he did not know how that report would fit in with ECO2’s work or the acquisition of 1,000 acres of industrial use. He said there were 2 or 3 issues going on simultaneously and he was not certain how those parties were to play together.
Finger said the airport discussion was an extraction of a larger discussion of how close staff was to identifying a 1,000 acres and that it could not be accomplished within the UGA’s of other cities along with other issues. She said the newspaper picked up that there was discussion about the airport. She said ECO2 was not part of that discussion, but she understood how ECO2 should be part of the discussion on the eventual sites. She said what was on staff’s plate was to bring forward to the City and County Commission some idea of general areas where industrial land use could be on a near or far timeframe.
She said staff would be ready to bring forward to both the City and County Commissioners the industrial chapter to give the Commissioners a review of that chapter and what needed to be revised and also what staff had accomplished with site evaluations and comparisons to the Wastewater Master Plan.
Commissioner Schauner said from Planning’s perspective, who was in the locomotive and who was in the caboose on this property acquisition.
Finger said from Planning’s perspective, there were two different trains. She said from Planning’s perspective planning staff was planning the route and someone else would fuel the train with the financing.
Mayor Rundle said when the City Commission had their joint meeting there was concern that there were many different groups. He said the ECO2 Group would be discussing criteria. He said it seemed appropriate to bring those issues together before maps were distributed.
Commissioner Schauner said from Planning’s perspective, did it make more sense to have a single train with allocation of activities on that train rather than two separate trains. He said unless there was good communication between those two groups, he was concerned that those groups were moving separately perhaps to a common goal or perhaps not.
Finger said when that railroad industry sets the standards and laid the tracks, that was what Planning staff would be doing. She said there was going to be a train that moved forward on the economic development side which looked at the industrial sites and criteria. She said there might be another train traveling along the same track that veered off at some point and that train would be looking at the ECO2. The criteria would not be the same. ECO2 was looking at criteria which did not mirror and was not the exact opposite of industrial. The new Economic Development Board brought under their umbrella ECO2 and all the uses so there were not all of those different groups studying the same task. She said the Chamber of Commerce had taken this issue under their role to look at the train schedules and staff was moving ahead laying track.
Commissioner Dunfield said the issue of identifying 1000 acres came up when Commissioner Highberger was involved in a group that established criteria. He said it was important for ECO2 to take a look at those criteria. He said ECO2 was responsible to look at both the economic development side and the environmental side, but he did not see that there was any conflict. He said it seemed that this issue was all part of the process and as long as the discussion was going on and was kept public, along with the different groups being involved, then he thought this issue was moving in the right direction.
Finger said the City and County Commission’s direction had also given staff a game plan by that joint resolution that established the criteria.
Commissioner Hack said with the new Economic Development Board this process was much more streamlined and encompassed those who needed to be at the table. She said things were moving in the right direction.
Mayor Rundle said process and sequence was important. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners or other citizens to come forward with their comments because there were critical areas of discussion.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he had conversations with City and County staff and both understood that when Horizon 2020 was drafted there was an environmental chapter drafted. He suggested directing staff to proceed with drafting an environmental chapter for Horizon 2020 which would not only address open space, but all the different environmental aspects of land use planning.
Finger said that chapter was actually a task force report, but that report could be formatted as a chapter. (11)
REGULAR AGENDA
Receive public comment and provide direction concerning future use of the Carnegie Library, located at 9th and Vermont Streets.
Mayor Rundle reviewed the criteria the Commission used to rate the initial proposals. He said the proposals were rated under the following categories:
1. Maximum community use;
2. Maximum public use;
3. High level of community collaboration;
4. Addresses City Commission goal of community building;
5. Consistent with historic uses of the building;
6. Minimize City cost;
7. Consistent with downtown activities/uses;
8. Appropriate for the physical structure of the building; and
9. Chances of long term success.
He said that initial rating brought 3 different proposals to the top in which the City Commission directed those groups to get together to try and make the Lawrence Carnegie Library and the Parks and Recreation Facility fit under the umbrella of the Langston Hughes proposal. He said the proposal for the Lawrence Children’s Library and Museum was withdrawn.
Elizabeth Schultz, speaking on behalf of the Langston Hughes Center for Community Enrichment, said their mission was to use this opportunity to honor the vision of Langston Hughes and in so doing, create a creative and learning environment for people of all generations and all cultural traditions in the Lawrence community. She said in the mission criteria she wanted to emphasize the inclusive nature of their commitment which was all generations and all cultural traditions.
She said the center also hoped that they could create this environment through a number of specific services to the community. The first service was the development of programs of a wide variety that would encourage literacy of diverse types in particular, verbal, visual, technological, and cultural literacy. She said the center sought to do this program through the development of enrichment and remedial classes and those classes that would be conducted after school as well as in a variety of tutorial situations.
She said the center also hoped that they would be able to encourage that range of literacy through the use of the space in the Carnegie Library for an avant-garde performance area as well as for a gallery space.
In order to develop those programs the center believed that they needed to engage in collaboration with all of the institutions in the Lawrence community which were the library, Arts Center, Van Go Arts Community, as well as the museums and the wide range of educational institutions including Kansas University and Haskell Indian Nations University.
The emphasis throughout the center’s discussions was on collaboration. She said the center realized as a result of diverse meetings that the center increasingly came to realize that though the center was “strongly” committed to collaborating, the center did not see how that would be possible to integrate.
In reviewing the space in the Carnegie Building, the center realized that for two programs, each of which would have considerable space needs it would be impossible to integrate those two programs and to believe that either one of those programs would be able to grow. In the center’s list of services and activities the center also wanted very much to house the National Heritage Area offices, but the center realized that would necessitate additional space for an additional program. She said given the center’s emphasis upon Lawrence’s rich cultural heritage the center thought that to have the National Heritage offices located at that location would be all together appropriate which was confirmed by Judy Billings who was leading the National Heritage Area endeavors.
She said the center was also aware of the fact that additional work needed to be done in the Carnegie Building to make that building all together handicapped accessible and make it accessible to senior citizens which could possibly involve installing an elevator as well as accessible entrances and exits which would take up additional space. She said the more the center began to think about the space that was needed for the Langston Hughes Center, the more it seemed it would be difficult to integrate with the Arts Commons Groups. She the center was eager to collaborate with every arts group in the Lawrence community as well as with all of the other educational groups that enrich the Lawrence community. However, the committee did not feel that it would be to the good health for either or those groups to try to force an integration because it would inhibit the growth of both of the center groups.
Commissioner Dunfield asked about duplication of services. He said clearly literacy and libraries would complement each other in a very strong way, but he was concerned that there might be programs that were currently offered or could be offered by organizations that were already in existence. He wondered how Schultz felt about that concern and how the center would go about making sure there was not a duplication of services.
Schultz said this was a concern of the center’s larger committee from the start. She said the center did not want to duplicate other services or trample on someone else’s turf so the center took that issue into consideration from the beginning of the center’s work on their proposal. In terms of the center’s development of literacy programs in the specifics, the center would be concerned with activities which were not dealt with in the other institutions. She said it was mentioned that the library was concerned with literacy, but the library was not concerned with helping, for example, an adult who never learned how to read, to learn how to read.
Mayor Rundle asked Jan Dicker to comment on the idea of the Literacy Center and the conventional needs in the Lawrence community for reading, writing, and literacy and would that be a duplication of services.
Jan Dicker said she had been in education for approximately 30 years and she felt that Lawrence was a very educated city. She said with the universities in Lawrence, it was not thought about that there were people that did not read. She said she had dealt with a number of adults that felt that they had no place to go. She said it was embarrassing for an adult to say that they did not know how to read.
She said the poverty level in Lawrence and Douglas County was higher than what she thought and people who were illiterate or not reading well were very often at that poverty level. She said when people had the ability to become better readers it would enable those people to get into so much more than what those people dreamed that they could.
Mike Caron, Program Director for the Douglas County Jail, said currently one in every three inmates were involved in working to complete their high school degree which was strictly a volunteer program. He said having a place in the community where adults who did not have a high school degree could be working to completing that degree and would be helpful. He said the people who were implementing the program at the jail would like a place in the community to continue that program.
He said this community had an invisible population that direly needed those types of services and having a place where that population would feel that they belong to the community instead of being outside the community was critical. The way the Carnegie Building was envisioned embraced many different cultures and social classes. He said this was precisely the type of environment needed to make those people feel comfortable and better integrate them into the workforce.
Commissioner Schauner asked Schultz whether her group would commit space to the National Heritage offices.
Schultz said yes and that was in their plan from the beginning.
Commissioner Schauner said with respect to physical, capital improvements in the building, he asked, what were the plans with respect to financing.
Schultz said those were issues that needed to be addressed carefully and thoughtfully. She said her group had in mind the types of funding that their group would seek beginning with application for a 501(C)(3) status, but the group had in mind a number of organizations that their group would apply for in hopes of receiving funding of diverse sorts. She said funding was a major issue and concern, and it was an issue that their committee had been concerned about from the beginning.
Commissioner Hack said she understood Schultz’s group was asking for some direction to pursue the various funding options.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Schultz had a chance to think about funding numbers.
Schultz said not in realistic terms. She said the group had in mind the process that the Lawrence Arts Center went through when the Arts Center began as a type of model. Again, she said the first step would be to apply for a 501 (C) (3) status so her group could begin to raise money. The core members of the group had not ceased talking about the types of grant possibilities that were increasingly available for literacy programs.
Mayor Rundle said it was such a challenge to get capital programs. He asked if there was some tentative identification of foundations that actually provided grant programs to help with that type of funding.
Schultz said she thought so. She said if their group received the green light, their group would begin to think about the funding needs.
Diana Dunkley, speaking on behalf of the Lawrence Committee for the Advancement of the Visual Arts along with the Lawrence Arts Commons, said one of the issues she had focused on from the beginning was the beautiful benefit and overlap of their two different programs. She said their committee did have some separate interest, but the combining of their efforts and the combining of the Arts Commons with the Langston Hughes group was what moved her.
She said one issue she needed to clear up was what their committee proposed. She said what the committee proposed initially was an area of studios that would be supported by the thousand plus professional visual artist in the area in a type of credit union format and provide an area for clustering those artists to grow their creativity.
She said the way their committee pared it down was to identify four artist residencies in the building which would be three local, a one non-local artist’s that would have public interface required, interaction with the Langston Hughes programs including the oral history and writing and also provide a place for mentoring for the visual arts community and others where there could be some creative growth. She said one of the issues that came out of their discussion was the idea of collaboration between the oral history, verbal, and visual.
She said because of the paring down of their request for the Arts Commons and looking at the building, she asked if there was room for their proposal to happen and have the benefits and overlaps still occur. She asked the City Commission to gather information about what their specific space and activity needs were before the Commission made a decision.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked how much space in the building did their committee plan to use.
Dunkley said their group would like to get input from others more experienced in estimating those needs, but their thought was no more than 25% of that building.
Bill Carswell spoke in support of the Arts Commons group. He said artists needed nourishment and the type of activity that was called “enrichment” and the best way that would occur would be clustering where people gather and exchange ideas.
He said both groups had presented only conceptual proposals at this point and he asked the Commission to look into those spatial allocation needs before making a final decision.
Commissioner Dunfield asked Carswell the same duplication of services question. He said some of the studio plans mentioned sounded like some of the things that go on at the Arts Center everyday.
Carswell said the difference was that their group was identifying four studios and residents. He said there would be people working in those four studios and those people would perform the core in which other artist in this town would join them for that type of co-education. He said this was not a time delineated issue, but the fact that those studio residents would be constantly at that location. He said they had a vision much like the Art Commons, that there would be like a common coffee pot and there would be people dropping in.
He said his group envisioned that some of those artists would have the artist selected and the artist in residence, three of whom would be local, would have some type of special agenda such as oral history.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked about the residency studios. He asked if Carswell’s group was proposing to establish a group that would fund residencies for those studios and bring new people through the building.
Carswell said the residencies were allocated spaces, but at the heart of this issue was that it would be an artist supported group. The umbrella organization was the Lawrence Committee for the Advancement of the Visual Arts. He said this group had approximately 1,000 artists on their mailing list and that was why that group thought in terms of “credit union” which would be a small amount for everyone as a way of funding that endeavor.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he was trying to delineate whether the group was looking at establishing studio space for four artists who were already in Lawrence or was the group working on a new program where there was a funded residency that attracted people outside.
Carswell said in the group’s model, one of the residencies would be an external person and the other three residencies would be local, but those residencies would not be permanent and would rotate. He said their group envisioned a nine month period that those artists would be selected by a process of application.
Mayor Rundle said there was not a lot to quibble in terms of what was presented. He said there was a process and one group rose to the top. He said there was a lot more the Langston Hughes group needed to accomplish before the City Commission had a full proposal to react to. The expectation that that group come back to the Commission on January 1 with a report and the request that that group explore merging three groups together kept the center from the rest of their work. He said the Commission had not heard anything specifically about how the Heritage Area would be integrated and the whole issue of how the building would need to be renovated was something that might or might not have a major impact on which groups could inhabit the building together.
He said the Langston Hughes group was identified as the lead group and certainly there was compatibility with the Arts Commons idea of literacy and many other aspects. He said one of the groups in the community that the Commission heard a lot from was the Americana Music Academy and that group would be compatible with the ideas, broadly speaking, that the Langston Hughes group generated. He said if there were a poll taken in this community there would be any number of other groups who would come forward to say their group could dovetail their organization with the goals of the Langston Hughes group. He said he did not think it was simply compatibility that the Commission should be basing their decision on. He said those ideas were conceptual and they did not have an inkling of all of the different issues the committee talked about.
He said this would be something that would have a small beginning and grow. If looking at the library of the Carnegie Building when it was first opened, it would appear quaint if compared to all of the resources in the library.
He said he liked this proposal because it gave the City a strong leg in the humanities, but he would like the Langston Hughes group to go further along and come back to the City Commission before a final decision was made. He said there was a tremendous need in the community for the Arts and he believed it was important to be noted and responded to. He said it was obvious the Arts and tourism could be important to economic development. The committee could take the groups that felt like they were being left behind and try to come together and strategize about what further the community could do to support the Arts.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he was afraid a shotgun marriage had been created and those marriages did not work out well. He said he understood that the City Commission had selected Langston Hughes as the lead agency on this project. He said he was not convinced that Langston Hughes needed all that space in that building, at least initially. He suggested that the Langston Hughes group come back with a more detailed proposal about specific uses of space along with the realistic funding projections and if there was space that Langston Hughes did not need immediately, that the City Commission deal with a subsidiary tenant with the understanding from the subsidiary tenant that Langston Hughes was the lead group in the building and if they expand, the subsidiary tenant would have a shorter term arrangement and might need to find other quarters as time progressed. He said he would like to see that idea happen on a fairly quick framework as long as that would work for Langston Hughes. He encouraged Langston Hughes group to start applying for 501(C)(3) status as soon as possible. He said if Langston Hughes did not need all that space, at this time, then that group should be talking with the Art Commons group.
He said as far as the Americana Music Academy, he thought it was a great proposal and he wished it was in the original mix of proposals, but there was a process and the City Commission made a commitment to groups that worked hard.
Commissioner Hack said the City Commission did not want to create a turf war when the Commission first discussed how best to use this facility. She said the Langston Hughes group was the lead agency and the group that would be in charge. She said that did not preclude integrating those artist and residence issues, she said if the Langston Hughes Center was going to have visual, cultural, and technological types of literacy then certainly artist residency would fit in. She said music had been an incredibly important part of this community as well as this country.
She concurred with Vice Mayor Highberger in that the City Commission needed more information from the Langston Hughes group. She also agreed that the Langston Hughes group was the lead group in this process.
Commission Schauner said he agreed with almost everything the previous Commissioners said, but he was somewhat disappointed that after a few months of discussion between the two groups that there had not been some agreement concerning the 12,000 square feet. He encouraged both parties to double their efforts at trying to find some way to make this “shotgun marriage” work. He said that was not placing blame on either party and he did not know why there had not been an ability to reach an agreement, but he would like to see as the lead group for this unique facility, that the Langston Hughes group had an obligation to work with the Lawrence Committee for the Advancement of the Visual Arts to find some place for that group in that facility. He said if at some point, the Enrichment Center outgrew their current allocation of space, the matter could be revisited.
Commissioner Dunfield said the difficulty he had seen with all of the proposals except for the Americana Music Academy proposal was that he did not see a business plan. He said clearly it was conceptual and there was a lot of work to be done. He said it was important from this City Commission’s point of view that the Commission was not talking about subsidizing another outside agency with a lot of City funds because that did not appear to be in the cards based on the budget discussion in the past.
He agreed that the City Commission could not simply say that the Commission would take a new proposal and jump out of the process, but the fact was that the Americana Music Academy has a program that collected fees for services and had a business plan. He said it concerned him that the Commission was committing to an idea that still did not have any visible means of support. Before the City made a firm and final commitment, the Commission would need to see that kind of support. He said one way to see that support happen was that if talking about a performance space in that main room on the upper level that the Commission would want to see that performance space used by as many different groups on as many nights of the week as possible. The needs of the Arts Commons sounded like generic space needs and not terribly specialized. If after programming the Langston Hughes project and it turned out that there was space in the building then it would make perfect sense for a part of that space to be leased out to the Arts Commons for their program.
He said the City Commission had a long way to go before the Commission understood what the future of the Carnegie Library Building was going to be and it still might involve all of the groups that the Commission was involved in discussion with.
He said there needed to be a group that was in the lead which was the Langston Hughes Cultural Center.
Mayor Rundle said while Americana Music Academy had a business plan, the Commission had nine proposals and none of them had a plan for addressing funding for the renovations.
He said the library was uncomfortable moving ahead with their planning for a children’s library and the library would need to split their services. He said the City Commission should not necessarily expect a specific group to be included in Langston Hughes program. Once the Langston Hughes group had their program there would be opportunities to bring other groups into the program.
Wildgen said if the City Commission made a designation tonight, the Commission would need to give specific direction to the lead group such as a business plan. He said the Langston Hughes group’s interest was the programming of the space because that would help them in that goal of achieving what could be done in that facility. He said staff needed direction on funding, some type of additional design, programming, and building space analysis by the architectural firm.
Mayor Rundle asked Schultz if she had an outline of their next steps.
Schultz said in their meetings with the City Manager, Mike Wildgen, they understood that they could not ascertain the space use without the assistance of an architectural planner. She said the group had an idea of how they would allocate the space for the different programs, but their group needed professional help if they were going to be asked to present a spatial plan as well as a business plan.
Mayor Rundle asked if the initial assessment of the building included the minimum requirements for making the building in ADA compliance.
Commissioner Dunfield said the report talked about the requirement for accessibility and for upgrades to meet current codes.
Mayor Rundle asked if that included restrooms and elevator access.
Commissioner Dunfield said yes.
Mayor Rundle asked if the City Commission needed to give guidance.
Commissioner Dunfield said he was in an awkward position, but he would say yes. He said this would be the point at which the Langston Hughes group needed to get together with design consultants and start talking about those programming issues.
Commission Schauner raised the question of who would pay for that professional assistance. He said he did not know if the Langston Hughes group had any funds with which to do that. He said if the group needed some professional assistance without some funding mechanism, getting that professional assistance might be difficult, if not impossible unless the group could find a volunteer.
Commissioner Hack said the City Commission toured the building and Commission knew the various phases and agreed to do the preliminary stabilization, she asked if there was anything that could help the Langston Hughes group.
Commissioner Dunfield said he believed the City Commission’s assumption and direction all along was that this was a City owned building and the City was going to have a primary role in bringing the building up to current codes. As far as tailoring the spaces to a particular program, he did not know if that was discussed.
Commissioner Schauner said there was a certain level of infrastructure improvement that would need to take place without regard to who occupied the building. He said the City undertaking that sort of activity at this point was a legitimate exercise of preserving that asset for future City use.
Commissioner Hack asked about funds for this project.
Wildgen said that was part of the Capital Improvement Plan and there were no funds.
Mayor Rundle suggested that the City Manager, Commissioner Hack, along with the Langston Hughes group meet to identify issues, questions and areas of responsibility and come back with a timetable and additional questions for the City Commission to address. (12)
Consider the rezoning, Preliminary Development Plan, and annexation of O’Connell area land use items
Sandra Day, Planner presented the staff report. She said one of the challenges that staff had during this project was maintaining the difference between Farmland northwest and Farmland northeast. The subject property for those items dealt with the zoning and the development plan for the balance of the 55 acres on the west side of O’Connell Road. There was a development plan and zoning that was related to the final plat that the City Commission considered last week. The development plan would set out the scope of the land uses as it related to that final plat and how the specific 17 acres would be used.
She said staff discussed at length with the applicant how to go about dealing with transition questions of the proposed multi-family which consisted of a series of triplex type structures on the far west side and more conventional apartment buildings to the interior. The orientation of the project was to the north, but there was a secondary access that would take you back to 25th Street.
Day said the annexation was 419 acres on the east side of O’Connell Road and that would be a necessary step to do some of the preliminary planning work that needed to happen before staff proceeded with more land use discussions relating to sanitary sewer, traffic, and specific zoning request that staff had in their office, but had been deferred at this time until staff had discussions with the City Commission about the sanitary sewer question.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if there was a traffic study and if so, what that traffic study indicated about the impact on 25th Street.
Day said there was a traffic study done for the original 55 acres and then there was a second traffic study done for the east side that also considered that area. She said part of that discussion had been the timing of O’Connell Road and some improvements that went in. She said staff had discovered that the improvement to O’Connell Road was a planned project and was important to the neighborhood and to that surrounding area. She said it accommodated or accounts for the balance of the development of the neighborhood which was the 55 acres. She said 25th Street was a designated collector street throughout that neighborhood and it would intersect with O’Connell Road. Some of the discussion had been what kind of intersection improvement was needed at 25th Street and O’Connell. The specific improvement became extremely important as staff moved through the actual land use approvals on the east side. She said for the short-term life of the development plan and the Farmland Northwest Project, that 55 acres, would look like a “T” intersection until some point in the future when the land was ready to develop on the east side which was dependent on the timing of the infrastructure that went in on the east side.
Mayor Rundle asked Day to elaborate more on the sewer issue.
Day said there was lot of discussion about sanitary sewers as it related to specifically the overall 55 acres, specifically how that 17 acres worked and then sanitary sewer service on the east side. She said what was determined was that the 55 acres on the west side of O’Connell Road was sewerable and sanitary sewer could be provided.
There was a proposed temporary lift station in the far southeast corner of the area that was being platted to serve the two office lots as well as a small portion of the proposed residential. There was a downstream analysis that was performed and that was determined to be acceptable. The proposed multi-family was something that would need to go to the east side. What went forward with the approval of zoning and the development plan was setting into motion what the land use expectation was for the property because this would be the very last phase of that area being developed. She said staff needed to make sure future homeowners in the single-family and duplex had an expectation of what type of housing the homeowners would be abutting with the development plan.
She said the 55 acres was accounted for in the Master Plan and there would be a small temporary lift station that when the system to the east was on-line the lift station would be retired and removed.
Commissioner Schauner asked at whose expense would that temporary lift station be removed.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said he expected that when the sewers to the east side of O’Connell Road were planned, one of the engineering elements would be the abandonment of that lift station and then that cost would then be paid for by those that paid the costs for the sewers on the east side of O’Connell Road which was typical in this type of situation.
He said Day could not speak definitively because the benefit district had not been established. He said when abandoning pump stations that were off-site to an improvement, usually those costs were associated with the general improvements.
Mayor Rundle asked if the existing temporary lift station would serve single-family residential lots.
Day said that lift station would serve single-family and duplex lots that had been approved. She said there were approximately 20 single-family and 30 duplex lots.
Mayor Rundle said in terms of sewer capacity, he asked if that would push that capacity to upper limits. He asked if there was still other excess capacity after that would be on-line.
Day said yes, there was still excess capacity.
Mayor Rundle said the Commission had said that there would not be temporary lift stations in other areas of town and asked if staff was being consistent by allowing that temporary lift station.
Corliss said there was a proposal concerning the Northfield Estates sanitary sewer where the Northfield Estates wanted to pump to a line where in the Master Plan it stated that they could not pump to and they wanted to create a temporary lift station as well and staff advised them that staff would not recommend that temporary lift station and staff thought the Northfield Estates needed to go ahead and construct sanitary sewers all the way to the north to the Riverside Pump Station. He said staff was being consistent in that staff wanted people to follow the Master Plan. In this situation the Master Plan stated that sewers on the east side needed to be built, but it would be some time before those sewers would be built. He said the Riverside Pump Station was now under construction and was something that Northfield Estates could build to directly.
He said staff had told property owners and developers that staff did not like temporary pump stations because of some of the problems that could be associated with those types of pump stations.
He said in this situation, you needed to weigh the various choices. The cost to decommission that temporary lift station would be associated with sanitary sewers to the east. He said the current property owner would be a major contributor to those east side sanitary sewer improvements.
Commissioner Schauner asked if this temporary lift station was consistent with the Master Plan.
Wildgen said that temporary lift station was not in opposition to the Master Plan.
Commissioner Schauner said if Northfield Estates Lift Station was going to be recommended against because it did not comply with the Master Plan, he asked if the temporary lift station in the area of O’Connell Road complied with the City’s Master Plan.
Corliss said that temporary lift station was not part of the Master Plan. He said the Master Plan for the Northfield area was that everything was going to go to the north to the Riverside Pump Station and the argument was that the Northfield area wanted to go to the sewer line immediately across the street, but staff said they would not recommend that idea.
Commissioner Dunfield said once the Master Plan was ultimately implemented that temporary lift station would no longer be needed.
Commissioner Schauner asked if this project was consistent with the Southeast Area Plan. He said it seemed like those projects were being addressed a chunk at a time and he wondered if it was consistent with the Master Planning for that quadrant.
Finger said that area was outside the Master Plan for the southeast area because the Master Plan started at O’Connell Road and that area was on the west side of O’Connell Road. She said that area was already planned as part of the City’s overall future long-range plan. She said years ago that area was part of the Indian Neighborhood Plan and that area was incorporated into Horizon 2020 Long Range Plans. She said staff looked at this area as undeveloped land when staff did estimations that were provided to Black & Veatch, Wastewater Master Plan consultants, when the consultants were looking at the sewer upgrades, but that area was not part of the southeast area plan.
Mayor Rundle asked what plan was that area a part of.
Finger said that area was part of Horizon 2020 Long-Range Master Plan.
Mayor Rundle said the people on the east side of the area were told that they could not pump over to the west side. He asked if that was consistent with allowing someone from the west side to pump to the east side.
Wildgen said staff had done work on the lift station at 27th Street which at that time that lift station was not ready. He said that was the reason staff told that person on the east side of the area that pumping to the west side was not allowed. He said a great deal of work had been performed along 27th Street and that project was completed.
Commissioner Schauner asked to what extent did the approval of those items of discussion impact what could be built in the foreseeable future on the east side of O’Connell. He said since those were contiguous properties it seemed there was some impact on the east side of the road.
Finger said what Black & Veatch had indicated to staff was that area did not have a significant impact. The larger area of development that was proposed between O’Connell and Franklin Roads was significant and that was why it was being discussed with policy decisions. She said that piece of area was so small that its impact in the southeast area and what could be sewer and could not be sewer was negligible.
Bill Newsome, Eastside Acquisitions, said the lift station was separate from any of those three items that were presently being considered. He said on the east side they were asking for approval of the annexation because that was the tool that was used for planning. He encouraged the City Commission to approve the annexation as a first step in a multi step process of planning the area.
Lance Johnson, Peridian Group, spoke about the temporary lift station on that northwest area (55 acres) and what it was going to sewer. He said it was set to sewer 21 single-family lots and two office lots. He said it would not sewer the apartment project. In fact, concerning the apartment project, one of the conditions was that apartment project could not be constructed until there were sewers to the east and the benefit district could be formed.
He said another point of clarification was that the intent of the benefit district when it would be created for the downstream improvements to the east was part of that improvement was to remove that temporary lift station and naturally the cost of that removal would go into that benefit district.
Commissioner Schauner asked Johnson if the rezoning and preliminary development plan for O’Connell stand independently of the annexation.
Johnson said yes.
Danny Drungilas, a resident in the area, had two concerns about this project. He said one concern was the temporary lift station which could be at that location from one to five years. He said that temporary lift station would be in his backyard. The other neighbors in the area would like to find some other way to have that temporary lift station relocated.
He said his second concern was traffic. He said there was only three roads that serve Prairie Park from 27th Street to Haskell. He said Harper to 23rd Street was a two lane road and someone traveling north on Harper would like to turn west onto 23rd Street then traffic was blocked up for blocks. He said concerning O’Connell Road onto K-10, he had seen four and five cars in the median wanting to turn west toward Lawrence which was dangerous.
He said those three routes were dangerous and when O’Connell Road was closed to be repaved, it would be even more dangerous. He said he was on the Traffic Safety Commission and had not heard of any plans to address that issue.
Commissioner Schauner asked staff to address those traffic concerns.
Finger said staff worked with the traffic consultants several times to revise that study. She said staff’s initial concern was the impact on O’Connell Road because that was where the majority of traffic was. She said staff had a joint meeting with Kansas Department of Transportation because of staff’s initial concerns of what the impacts would be from traffic. She said based on that meeting the traffic analysis was revised and the amount of development that would occur was reconsidered. She said last week, what the City Commission did in their approval of the plat was to remove the infiltration of traffic that would go through Anderson Acres so that traffic would go down 25th Street and intersect to Harper.
She said whenever traffic improvements were done in this City, the short-term was always more painful. She said the traffic situation would not be easy while O’Connell was being developed.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there were traffic warrants on O’Connell and 23rd Street currently.
Finger said there was not a warrant at O’Connell Road for a traffic light at this time, but the traffic study showed that there would be warrants for a traffic light at O’Connell if the land uses were all approved. The majority of traffic was generated east of O’Connell Road and primarily from the commercial areas. She said staff had discussions with Eastside Acquisitions to try and refocus that traffic to the arterial street in that area which should be Franklin Road rather than O’Connell Road. She said O’Connell was a collector and did not go north and that road ability to handle large amounts of traffic was contained between 23rd and 31st.
Day presented a map of the area and the overall traffic pattern. She said O’Connell was a designated collector street and 25th Street would connect through a property and connect and ultimately there would be other street connections to the east side. She said Franklin Road would be the future arterial street. Part of the discussions with KDOT and staff had to do with what intersection improvement would be at O’Connell Road and was significantly related to land use decisions to get made over on the east side.
She said staff had also talked with KDOT and Public Works to see if there was any ability to phase some of the O’Connell Road improvements to have the least amount of impact on the neighborhood. She said in the short-term, while that project was under construction, there would be some disruption, but ultimately that area would be an improvement and a better way for the traffic in the area to get out of their neighborhood.
Commissioner Highberger said before O’Connell Road was signalized and if those apartments were built, that area would funnel an incredible amount of traffic on 25th Street down to Harper Street.
Day said there was a question based on the traffic study whether or not the signal was warranted even with the apartments with just the development at that location.
Finger said the apartments were not scheduled to be built until after O’Connell Road was completed. Staff was only addressing single-family and duplex lots.
Newsome said there were 21 lots tied to the lift station, but there were a total of 90 lots which was part of the final plat. He said what was being discussed at this time was a preliminary development plan for the apartments and obviously a final development plan would be needed. He said the apartments could not be built or sewered until the sanitary sewer benefit district to serve the east side was completed and in place. He said they did not have a timetable right now to develop those apartments because they did not feel there was a market at this time for those apartments.
Commissioner Schauner asked when O’Connell was improved, did the improvements include a signalized intersection.
Finger said no, but staff hoped it would include a roundabout at 25th Street at some point.
Commissioner Schauner said the westbound traffic exiting O’Connell onto 23rd Street, when O’Connell Road was improved, would not have the benefit of a signal.
Finger said that intersection would not have the benefit of a traffic signal or any improvements on K-10 such as the extension of turn lanes.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said O’Connell Road would be improved with three lanes, but the roundabout that was going to be constructed would be at 28th Street. The roundabout at 25th Street would come into play when the east side developed and that was when staff talked to KDOT about the signal and the warrants. He said typically KDOT was not convinced until after they received the warrants and staff needed to have more discussions with KDOT because that was an issue.
Commissioner Hack said the development on the west side did not merit warrants for a signal.
Finger said that additional traffic from the study that was done did not bring that up to the warrants that were necessary.
Commissioner Hack said when development occurred on the east side, the warrants might exist depending upon the study for a signal at that intersection.
Finger said correct. She said that idea was coordinated with KDOT and they were in agreement. She said once annexation occurred that much more land was added and there would not be a boundary line road. She said more of K-10 would be incorporated until the urban context of Lawrence which might or might not give validity to ask for reduction of speed limits and additional signals.
Drungilas said he didn’t know how they missed the approval of the lift station last week. He reiterated his disapproval for the temporary lift station.
Commissioner Schauner said he was concerned about people leaving that area now as well as when the area was further developed, attempting to make a left hand turn onto 23rd Street because he thought it was a very dangerous situation. He was afraid that the City would see warrants when the first fatality occurred along that stretch of the road. He did not offer a suggestion, but he was very concerned about the lack of signalization and speed control along that stretch of road. He said he did not drive that stretch of road frequently, but when he did he continued to be amazed at the speed of traffic, and he could not imagine trying to enter that 23rd Street area and trying to make a left turn to go west, especially early morning or late afternoon when people were either going to or coming home from work. He encouraged staff to press KDOT to attempt to make some changes in what KDOT was willing to do to improve the safety of that stretch of the road.
Commissioner Dunfield said that he thought this issue was an annual discussion since he had been on the Commission in talking with KDOT about lowering that speed limit or signalizing the entrance to East Hill Business Park. He agreed that area was a real concern and traffic was far too fast at that location. The Commission had tried to get that issue worked out in the past.
Commissioner Schauner suggested that the police department could set up radar on a regular basis to give people financial incentive to slow down. If KDOT would not help, then this City should be in a position to help itself and enforce the traffic speed limit that was posted.
Wildgen said that area was in the County.
Commissioner Schauner said that it did not matter which law enforcement agency it was and there should be a way that this City could help itself if KDOT would not be of assistance.
Mayor Rundle said that the preliminary development plan had comments from KDOT saying that improvements to K10 would be needed with that development which would be deferred until the east side developed. He asked Soules if he knew exactly what KDOT meant and would those improvements be paid for by the development or by a benefit district.
Soules said in discussions with KDOT when the east side was going to develop, the lane reductions, the south bound turn lane coming into town, and the signalization was how the area on the east side of O’Connell would develop.
Mayor Rundle said those improvements were needed with the development density of that plan.
Soules said that was referring to that right turn lane which would pull people off of K10 as those people were going east out of town so they could have that free right onto O’Connell Road.
Finger clarified those improvements were to move the decelerating traffic out of the lane of the accelerating traffic because that was where the line changed. She said once the City received more urban property on either side of the City’s incorporated limits it would become more of a jurisdictional issue for the City. She was sure that the County would be willing to let the City do the policing and monitoring, but it would also give the City more status in asking if the City could reduce the speed limit as you would on Iowa Street or 6th Street, where it was within the City.
Commissioner Dunfield said KDOT did recognize a distinction between rural and an urban highway and this annexation might give the City more arguing power.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-12-52-03) of approximately 17.95 acres plus right-of-way from A (Agricultural District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District); (the property is generally described as being located on the south side of K-10 Highway, west of O’Connell Road); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (13)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-12-12-03) for Farmland Northwest Addition. The applicant proposes a multiple-family residential subdivision containing 260-units on 17.342 acres, property is generally described as being located south of K-10 Highway, west of O’Connell Road, subject to the following conditions:
Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (14)
Commissioner Schauner commented that he did not have a problem with the annexation of that area, but it seemed that area east of O’Connell Road should be part of the discussion about the Southeast Plan and he would like for the Commission to not approve the annexation until the City Commission had a chance to look at the Southeast Area Plan at the May 5th planning session. That seemed to be a more consistent big picture look at that area rather than annexing this area now.
Mayor Rundle said that area should be annexed so that area could legitimately be planned and it did not obligate the Commission to any zoning approvals.
Commissioner Hack said the City Commission could not plan an area if that area was not part of the City.
Motion moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the annexation (A-12-14-03) request of approximately 119.9 acres located south of K-10 Highway, between O’Connell Road and Franklin Road; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (15)
Mayor Rundle called for a 3 minute break.
Consider adopting on second and final reading Ordinance No. 7755, rezoning of approximately 19.199 acres at the northwest corner of W. 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District (with restrictions) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District (with restrictions)
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the City Commission asked staff to get some clarification on the Planning Commission’s discussion regarding “department store use.” In a memo, she included the responses from six Planning Commissioners, and they were aware that “department store” was the use that was being put back in to the permitted uses with this change from PCD–2 with restricted uses to a different PCD-2 with a different set of restricted uses. She said the Planning Commission rationalized permitted uses in that it made sense to allow in the new PCD-2, a “department store” because there was a size limitation of 80,000 square feet and there was consistency with Horizon 2020 as that was what a community commercial center would allow to be used as a small department store which was used specifically in the text.
The confusion in her memo was in trying to explain why the Planning Commission’s action was based on one version of Horizon 2020 while what was in place at this time was a different version of Horizon 2020 with regard to Chapter 6. Nothing needed to be changed, but it was only to point out that no longer in Chapter 6 was a reference to a “department store.” The terminology used was “general merchandizing” a discount and/or apparel replaced the reference to a small department store in the older Chapter 6. She said the terminology itself was whatever value was placed upon it and if that was not a good land use decision then the use needed to be restricted, but if it was consistent with Horizon 2020, then the use did not need to be restricted.
Commissioner Schauner asked Finger for clarification that under the revised Chapter 6 the phrase “department store” was not used, but was replaced by the phrase “general merchandise.”
Finger clarified that the phrase was now “general merchandise, discount and/or apparel.”
Commissioner Schauner then asked Finger if this ordinance was adopted would the term “department store” automatically become “general merchandise.”
Finger said no it would still be “department store.”
Commissioner Schauner asked how a person would reconcile the new Chapter 6 versus the language that was in that ordinance.
Finger said that one of the tools to implement the Comprehensive Plan was the zoning code. The new zoning code made reference to “department store” in the definitional section and how that would fit into the “general merchandising” categories. So, there was that ability to reconcile the new Chapter 6 when it was implemented, when there was a use proposed. The City’s umbrella policy was Horizon 2020 so it was not really necessary that language term was there as long as it was in the new code.
Commissioner Schauner said to be consistent, shouldn’t the term “department store use” be permitted on the northeast and northwest corners of that intersection. He said “department store” was stricken from the northeast corners permitted uses, but not from the northwest.
Finger said to be consistent, based upon it being a community commercial center it could be under the old Chapter 6, but not under the new Chapter 6.
Bryan Dyer, Planner, explained the 6th & Wakarusa Area Plan that was adopted by the City and County Commission’s, that specifically set some guidelines and recommended uses in that the northwest corner should have more intensive uses, such as smaller “department stores” and “general merchandise stores” while the northeast corner should be used for more neighborhood type uses and community recreational uses and those uses were in the 6th and Wakarusa Nodal Plan that the City Commission adopted. He said when staff reviewed the staff report, that plan had been adopted and staff used that plan in their review.
Commissioner Schauner said in looking at the memo from Finger, and Tom Jennings the memo stated: “I remember Bryan’s explanation that a department store would be acceptable so long as it fell within the size restrictions”, but somewhere else in that memo it said that initially “department store” had been stricken from the permitted uses on the northwest corner.
Dyer said that question was immediately posed at the very beginning of the proceedings and he reacted too quickly in saying that “yes” that was incorrect on the staff’s part and should have been stricken. However, as the proceedings went on, he remembered that terminology was there because of Horizon 2020. Before the City Commission acted upon the plan there was further discussion about the plan and staff pointed out that because of the building size limit the Horizon 2020 stated that a smaller department store was appropriate. So therefore, that was why staff did not recommend that wording be removed.
Bill Newsome, 6Wak Land Investments, said that zoning was a mechanism for determining land use and zoning was not a mechanism to be used to stop a development. He said the City Commission was using zoning in an inappropriate manner which was to stop a development. Market conditions did not drive this forced down zoning. The application of building permits by 6Wak and Walmart did and this was proven and the correlation was evident by the events of last May.
Newsome said there had been discussion about the prior Commission’s involvement in this issue, but the prior Commission had nothing to do with this down zoning. It was this Commission’s issue and the Commission was using a planning mechanism to support a belief without regard for the approved plan. He said the Commission was using a planning mechanism to accommodate some neighbor’s wishes long after the process had been completed, and long after binding approvals were in place. Apparently there was going to be discussion tonight regarding the element of this down zoning and how it fit with the Comprehensive Plan. Concern over being consistent with existing approval and planning guides would be a deviation from all of the actions that this Commission had taken over the last eleven months in which he sited two examples.
He said in the Chapter 6 revision to the Comprehensive Plan, the City Commission removed the Planning Commission’s acknowledgement of the approved square footage at the intersection expressly to make the Comprehensive Plan contradict the zoning. The down zoning that was intended on their land was in contradiction to the area plan and so the City Commission voted to change the area plan. With its appearance on the regular agenda, the City Commission had an opportunity to step back and look at the action which to date the City Commission seemed to be intent on taking. This action did not meet the definition of planning and it was using zoning in a way that it was not intended. It was wrong and it was wrong for them given the reliance on approvals which still existed today. It was wrong for the citizens of Lawrence who had the expectation that planning mechanisms would be used in the appropriate manner. Because of the pending litigation this action served no purpose. It was in no one’s best interest. The passage of it would only expand the scope of the litigation and they had no choice in that matter but to protect their property rights. It would also add to the cost of the taxpayers of Lawrence. By not passing the down zoning at the February meeting the Planning Commission gave direction to the City Commission to either not pass that item or at a minimum to set it aside until the litigation was resolved.
The City Commission had an opportunity tonight to reverse course and not use zoning inappropriately. The City Commission had an opportunity tonight to follow the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Mayor Rundle called for further comment.
Gwen Klingenberg, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said that she would like to see “department store” be removed from the permitted use group 12 for the rezoning of the northwest corner of 6th and Wakarusa. Until rezoning (Z-06-18-03) had been read and voted on a second time and it had been published in the paper, the rezoning was not official and therefore nothing had been taken away from the property owners. At present, “department store” was not allowed as a permitted use and removal of the “department store” from this rezoning would not change the permitted uses that the property owner had at this time. If “department store” remained, she was aware that the property owners would actually have to submit a new preliminary plan and final plan, this time, for approval. But the potential for a “department store” or a Walmart to be built on the northwest corner was significant and conceivable. The Planning Department would need to ask for approval if the property owners followed all the zoning rules and developed a preliminary plan for a “department store” or a Walmart of 80,000 square feet. An 80,000 square foot “department store” would infringe on downtown Lawrence and was not in compliance with community commercial centers. According to the staff report, page 4 of Horizon 2020, stated that the community commercial center provided goods and services to several different neighborhoods and development areas, but not to a larger regional area. A “department store” draws from a larger regional area. She said Target, Dillards and so forth would also not comply. She asked was there a small department store or merchandise store including discount and apparel that only services the adjacent residential area? Would that department store infringe on downtown Lawrence? Did a small regional store constitute inclusion in the C-2 zoning district, if size was the only defining limit? She asked if Abercrombie and Fitch, The GAP, be considered as infringing on downtown Lawrence if they were built at the corner of 6th and Wakarusa? Aren’t there regional stores that could build an 80,000 square foot store and already did – Walmart included?
She said the property owners had not started building and the road to the property owners once claimed was their significant building, the City now had Ordinances No. 7759 and Ordinances No. 7760 to pay for those improvements. Therefore, any decision you make would not decrease the actual value of the subject property. She said in a staff report it stated: “since the property is undeveloped additional restrictions will not decrease the actual value of the property.”
She said from the minutes of October 23rd, 2001, Commissioner Dunfield said, “Lawrence did not have a great track record as a community of drawing lines and not allowing development beyond those lines.” Commissioner Rundle had the same concerns. She asked if the size of the store in this Ordinance No. 7755 was really able to protect the surrounding adjacent resident area? Was there some verbiage that would never allow larger development of a store that was present at this corner?
She asked the City Commission to remove “department store” from the use groups Z-06-18-03, whether referring to it as “department store” or “general merchandise” to protect the convenience of the adjacent surrounding area. She also stated that in the Kansas zoning rules it stated: “a governing body from time to time may supplement, change or generally revise the boundaries or regulations contained in zoning regulations by amendment.” At this time, the property owners had not built anything.
Commissioner Dunfield said he was willing to adopt Ordinance 7755. He said that the distinction between community centers and regional centers had a lot to do with the size of the stores that were permitted. His original objection to the development plan that predated the currently disputed development plan, had to do with primarily if there should be a big box store in a community center. He did not think it was appropriate then or now. He said with the limitation on size, with the language corresponding to the current commercial chapter, that allowing that department store use made sense. He agreed with the comments from the Planning Commissioners who reviewed the same question.
Commissioner Schauner said that he did support removing “department store” from the permitted use group in this case. He said if this was a CC200, the City Commission had already approved something in excess of 400,000 square feet on this intersection. He said that he thought that Lawrence was already well beyond the acknowledged limits of a community commercial center, certainly a CC200, which the City Commission passed some time ago.
He said in looking at the notes from the Planning Commission, he noticed that the maximum size for a “general merchandise” store, including discount and apparel, was generally 65,000 square feet in a community commercial center. So even the 80,000 limit would exceed what was acknowledged as the revised Chapter 6 as an appropriate size for a “general merchandise store”, including discount and apparel. He would prefer to see the City Commission adopt the down zoning with a removal of “department stores” of permitted use.
Commissioner Hack said she voted against this issue the first time this issue came up and she would vote against the issue again. She said she would be glad to discuss those reasons following the litigation.
She said that Commissioner Schauner’s comments about the CC200 versus what had already been approved, related to an issue of fairness and that there had been approvals made and that was the discussion that the City Commission had at the time that that was adopted.
Commissioner Highberger said that he thought that there had been a lot of bad decisions made at this intersection. He said he voted for this down zoning with the understanding that the “department store” was still left in. He said he concurred with the Planning Commission that reduction of the maximum size to 80,000 square feet reduced a lot of his concerns about traffic impacts in the neighborhood. Although, no matter what was built at that location, there was going to be negative traffic impacts on the neighborhood. There was way too much commercial space approved at that intersection. It was at the absolute maximum of what even the prior plan allowed for commercial zoning at the intersection. Given the past history and given his last vote, he would vote to approve the down zoning with inclusion of “department store” as an approved use.
Mayor Rundle said he was comfortable with the recommendations made by the Planning Commission. He asked Finger if nonconforming use regulations govern this since it exceeded the CC200.
Finger said no, nonconforming was not applicable. The Nodal Plan was what took precedent and that plan would give the formulas for working with that intersection as a unique retro, to what was done with the Chapter revisions.
Commissioner Hack asked if there was a comment that addressed 6th and Wakarusa that indicated that it would leave what had been currently approved at that intersection.
Finger said that was the Planning Commission’s recommendation to give that threshold and then that was revised by this body. She said when that nodal plan went through to the Planning Commission that incorporated the approved zoning categories and square footages, and how that changed when it came forward.
Dyer said this body added those additional square footages into the Nodal Plan, to recognize what had already occurred and what could possibly occur on both corners.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if this issue was not passed by the Planning Commission.
Finger said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said he strongly supported removing the term “department store”, but he would vote for acceptance of this ordinance to get the needed 4 votes to rezone that property.
Ordinance No. 7755, rezoning (Z-06-18-03) of approximately 190.199 acres at the northwest corner of West 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District – with restrictions) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District – with restrictions), was read a second time. It was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Hack. Motion carried. (16)
Conduct the following public hearings and direct staff to prepare appropriate ordinances for placement on a future agenda:
On the proposed maximum assessments to pay a portion of the costs for the construction of Monterey Way from the intersection of Peterson Road north to Grand Vista Drive, including property acquisition, traffic calming devices, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, water main and other necessary and appropriate improvements, as authorized by Resolution No. 6518.
On the proposed maximum assessments to pay a portion of the costs for construction of Peterson Road from Kasold Drive to approximately 900 feet west of Monterey Way, including property acquisition, traffic calming devices, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, water main, and other necessary and appropriate improvements, as authorized by Resolution No. 6519.
On the proposed maximum assessments to pay a portion of the costs for construction of the intersection of Kasold Drive and Peterson Road including property acquisition, traffic calming/control devices, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, and other necessary and appropriate improvements, as authorized by Resolution No. 6520.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said staff had provided, pursuant to State law, a notice in the newspaper and a notice to the property owners for the hearings on the three pending public improvements. The City Commission would be directing staff to come back with maximum assessment ordinances based on the maximum assessments that were set out for the properties that benefit from those improvements.
He said Soules could advise the City Commission on any questions on the design of those improvements. Plans were made to bid those improvements in coordination with one another and also with coordination with the improvement of Monterey Way, south of Peterson which was a related project.
Mayor Rundle asked for public comment.
Mark Anderson said that the Monterey maximum assessments affects two parcels of land and on behalf of the owners of both those parcels, he asked that the City Commission approve that ordinance. He said on Peterson Road, of the eight parcels of land that were affected, he was there on behalf of seven of those parcels and the only one he did not represent was the owners of Parcel 4, Spring Hill.
He said concerning the intersection for Kasold and Peterson Road that benefit districted affects three property owners. He said those three property owners would encourage the City Commission to approve that benefit district as well.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinances to be placed on a future agenda for the proposed maximum assessment for Monterey Way from the intersection of Peterson Road, north to Grand Vista Drive; Peterson Road from Kasold Drive to approximately 900 feet west of Monterey Way; and Kasold Drive and Peterson Road. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
Receive staff report on City participation for W. 6th Street project from Folks Road to the SLT.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the City Commission adopted earlier a resolution authorizing over $3,000,000 for this project in 2002. The City Commission adopted Resolution 6374, authorizing approximately $3.3 million dollars for the project. That resolution would be an additional $1.5 million dollars for the project.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. The project scheduled for KDOT bid letting for May 17th. He said within thirty days after bid the State would be asking the City for their share of that project. He presented to the City Commission a copy of the incremental billings that were received from KDOT and a listing of the right-of-way acquisition that was completed, and a track map.
He said this information was included to show how much the City had already paid for right-of-way. He said typically right-of-way was about twenty to thirty feet across the front of those tracks.
Corliss said that the City had executed an agreement with KDOT where the City was obligated for those costs. Those debt obligations would be part of the spring bond issue, because KDOT would be asking for the money in late spring.
Soules said staff anticipated construction starting in July or the 1st of August. There was a lot of equipment to move and material to order and this was a big project.
Commissioner Schauner asked about length of time of construction.
Soules said staff estimated approximately 15-18 months.
Commissioner Schauner asked how the traffic east and west would be routed. He asked if traffic would continue to use part of that road.
Soules said that the plan was to build the north side and push people over to the south side. A temporary road would be built as well, so there were two lanes of traffic. There might be times when utilities needed to cross, but those would be temporary in nature.
Commissioner Shauner asked if the square footage costs for property and right-of-way acquisition were consistent with what had been budgeted.
Wildgen the amounts were unknown at the time the budget was prepared. It had been four years since this project was first approved. KDOT did the acquisition and staff had no idea what it was going to cost at the time. It had all changed over that period of time.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City had a budgeted figure for that improvement or the City’s cost for the construction as well as the property acquisition.
Wildgen said he thought staff had an estimate on the construction, but not on the land costs.
Commissioner Schauner asked if staff would not know if those numbers were accurate until May 17th.
Wildgen said if staff received good bids that would be a chance that the construction cost would help even things out, but there was no guarantee because of the cost of asphalt and gas going up.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that road be a concrete roadway or asphalt.
Soules said the road would be an asphalt roadway.
Corliss said on the property acquisition, he recalled that when staff was filling out the necessary forms to send to KDOT, he and Therese Gorman, City Engineer, used the comparables that they had from when the City bought the property at 6th and Wakarusa to build Wakarusa going north for Free State High School. He said at the time that project was setting the high dollar amount for property acquisition in the community and staff thought that estimate would be high. He said staff was interested in looking at those numbers because those numbers were higher, but that was some time back.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6539, authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Bonds in the additional amount of $1,505,000 for the construction of 6th Street from Folks Road to the SLT. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
Receive staff report on 2004 Street Maintenance Program
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director presented the staff report. He presented a map to the City Commission showing the streets that staff was proposing to mill and overlay, curb repair, chip and seal, a KLINK project, which was on 6th Street from Arizona to Arkansas, alleyway construction, and storm water improvements. He asked for the City Commission’s concurrence to proceed with those projects.
He said one issue of concern was the University Place neighborhood traffic calming plan. He said last year, the City Commission was presented with a traffic calming plan for University Place neighborhood. He said Louisiana and 17th Streets were both within staff’s plan to mill and overlay and curb repair. However, because of the size of these streets and where the curbing was, staff felt that they needed to adjust those curbs if the Commission wanted to continue with those traffic calming devices. He said those devices were approved by the City Commission on Louisiana Street as permanent devices, but on 17th Street devices, those traffic calming circles were only approved temporarily. He said University Place neighborhood was currently surveying its residents to see if those residents wanted to continue. He suggested waiting to find out if that was what that neighborhood wanted to do before staff proceeded with that particular project.
He said the issue with the University Place traffic calming plan was the funding issue. Again, until staff found out what that neighborhood wanted to do, staff would hold off on that project.
Commissioner Dunfield said he appreciated Soules question of the curbs in relation to the street repair, street maintenance program. He said until the University Place came back to the City Commission with some type of definitive request, he did not see staff needing to go any further.
Soules said hopefully, those neighbors would get back with staff so staff would be able to put that project out for bid.
Commissioner Schauner thanked Soules for following-up with the Bourgeois Pig’s water issue in that alleyway which was brought to the City Commission’s attention a few months ago. He said that he assumed that this reconstruction project would address that issue.
Soules said yes. He said staff had developed a separate set of plans and that drainage issue would be addressed.
Commissioner Schauner asked Soules with the curb repairs, no matter where those repairs took place, would staff be using a different quality of aggregate.
Soules said staff had put together a durable aggregate for any of those concrete mixes.
Commissioner Hack said she also appreciated Soules’ comments on why there was not much overlay projects in East Lawrence, because that was an important point to make.
Soules said next year, two of the main projects were Haskell and 19th Street.
Commissioner Hack whether the plan from University Place would go to the Traffic Safety Commission.
Soules said yes, the plan would go to Traffic Safety Commission and then come back to the City Commission.
Commissioner Schauner said he had a number of calls from people in the North Michigan area expressing a concern about cars not making that turn and ending up in their back yard. He asked Soules if that had been addressed by his department.
Soules said that he had not heard that comment, but staff would look into that concern. He said a street light had been installed because someone had that same concern early on.
Mayor Rundle asked about cracked sealing and if the street crews did that maintenance.
Soules said street maintenance did all of the cracked sealing.
Mayor Rundle said Soules mentioned at one time that staff did not do as much crack sealing as staff would like to. He said a staff report that was received some years ago compared Lawrence to other communities and Lawrence did about half of what other communities did. He said he continued to wonder if that was like having a leak in the roof where if the leak wasn’t patched then stuff down below gets damaged. He said what he had read recently on KDOT’s site was that it not only served a useful purpose prior to the road improvement that staff was deferring, but once that street was milled out any deeper sealing continued to protect that sub-base. He said there seemed to be a lot of cracks in the streets and he would like to see staff step up and address those problems concerning those cracks in the streets.
Soules said there were two options. He said staff could do the work or that work could be contracted. The street division tried to go in and at least tried to get all those streets that were milled and overlaid within the last three years. That way staff would be maintaining that new surface.
He said all of those other existing streets that staff was behind on would take some time.
Mayor Rundle asked staff to provide information on those other streets.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if that concern was a matter of not having sufficient resources.
Wildgen said staff could provide a list of those streets. He said the price of oil was up as well as asphalt. He said staff hoped to receive good bids that would allow repair on additional streets.
Mayor Rundle asked if filling those cracks in those streets would be an investment that would save the City money by not having all of those subsurfaces going down the tubes.
Soules said yes. He said staff agreed that crack filling helped.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
After receiving no public comments, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to extend the meeting to 10:15. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Receive staff memo providing projects for addition to the City’s 5-Year Plan with the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT).
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He presented a map depicting the 5-Year Plan with KDOT. He listed the project for the next five years which were: O’Connell Road, 23rd to 31st; Kasold Drive Bridge over the KTA; Wakarusa Drive, Clinton Parkway to the SLT; and 31st Street Ousdahl Road to Louisiana.
Listed below are staff suggestions for projects to consider for FY 2009 in priority order.
1. 23rd Street and Iowa. Construct geometric and traffic signal improvements including construction of double left turn lanes with a median and right turn lanes on all four legs of the intersection per the study completed by TranSystems Corporation in 1999.
Estimated construction cost = $1,600,000.
2. Kasold Drive, Peterson Road to the KTA Bridge. Reconstruct the existing chip and seal road to a major arterial with four lanes, a median with left turn lanes at appropriate intersections, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and underground storm sewers.
Estimated construction cost = $2,925,000.
3. North 2nd Street and Locust Street. Construct geometric and traffic signal improvements to improve the profile of the roadway and install new traffic signal equipment.
Estimated construction cost = $1,500,000.
4. 31st Street, Haskell Avenue to O’Connell Road. Reconstruct the existing gravel road to a four-lane divided arterial with a 10’ recreational path on one side per the recently adopted 31st Street Corridor Study.
Estimated construction cost = $4,500,000.
5. Folks Road, Trail Road around the curve to the intersection of Martin Park and Peterson Road. Reconstruct the existing gravel road to a 36-foot wide collector street with bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides.
Estimated construction cost = $1,600,000.
He recommended that the City Commission remove the Wakarusa project and replace that project with the Kasold project. He said that would leverage the most dollars for the City. He said there was still that 20% cost to the City along with engineering cost that the City or benefit district would need to come up with, but that was substantially less than the whole project.
He said staff would also recommend the 23rd and Iowa project because that project leverages the most money and affected the most people.
Mayor Rundle asked if staff was asking for direction on two of those projects.
Soules said typically KDOT asked for one project and they assumed that all the other projects would be proceeding.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if there had been at least one fatality at North 2nd and Locust.
Soules said yes.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if there had been any fatal accidents at 23rd and Iowa recently.
Soules said he did not think so.
Vice Mayor Highberger suggested moving up the North 2nd and Locust Streets projects.
Commissioner Hack agreed on that North 2nd Street project. She said while 23rd and Iowa was not anyone’s favorite place to go, at least the intersection was configured to allow left and right turns safely. She said with that North 2nd Street and Locust project being an entrance into this community along with the problem of flooding, she thought that was a good suggestion.
Mayor Rundle said that project was a long time coming.
Wildgen said it was 1993 when there were storm drainage problems.
Commissioner Schauner concurred. He said that intersection was particularly troublesome and needed to be improved. He supported moving that project to the top of staff’s list.
Soules said staff had already received bids for O’Connell Road and Kasold Road was under the design phase.
Soules said the O’Connell project was under contract at this time. He said staff would replace Wakarusa with Kasold Drive from Peterson to KTA, North 2nd Street project and then 31st Street to follow.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to proceed with the following projects in the following order:
1. O’Connell Road, 23rd to 31st;
2. Kasold Drive Bridge over the KTA; and
3. North 2nd Street and Locust Street.
Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Receive Staff report on CIP Project, Kasold Avenue, 15th Street to 23rd Street
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said Kasold was built with seven inches of concrete and was overlaid three times. He said that street has caused staff many problems in keeping those potholes filled and the road serviceable and opened. He said this last winter and spring when there was a lot of rain and potholes popped up, Kasold was closed for a period of time because of a big pothole.
He said there were not only base problems, but also ground water problems as well. He said the street department spent numerous hours every season trying to keep that street together. He said staff was proposing to the City Commission that staff receive authorization to proceed with looking at rebuilding that entire road which could be in one or two phases. He said staff would like to recommend the process of selecting an engineer and the contract would be brought back to the City Commission for their approval.
He said there was discussion from staff to construct sidewalks on one side of the street, but right now Kasold was four lanes with a median. He said the median might need to be removed and there was not much right-of-way available. He said staff was proposing to rebuild the street from the subgrade up, but would work with the consultant on the consultant’s recommendation. He said the estimate for the entire project was approximately 2.5 million dollars if that project was constructed in one phase.
Wildgen said over the next 12 years the mill levy impact would be at a range of .2 to .3.
Soules said there were new products available for bases that had water problems. He said staff could build a good street, but there was no money for that type of project and it would need to be a bonded project.
Commissioner Schauner said the water appeared to be a major negative influence on the stability of that road. He asked if that project would do what was necessary to move the water in a way that did not destabilize that road bed.
Soules said yes. He said the drainable bases and edge drains would take the water away from underneath that road. He said that process was being followed as on O’Connell Road.
Commissioner Hack said the cost benefit analysis in the amount of staff time to maintain a sub par situation was throwing good money away. She suggested that the City Commission proceed and giving staff the authorization to work through that engineering portion of the project and come back to the City Commission for a decision on the timeframe of the project.
Soules said staff’s recommendation was to get an engineer on board as soon as possible, have the project bid in February so that project would be completed and reopened. He said the project would be constructed in two phases. He said staff would shift that road weekly leaving one side opened.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the staff report on CIP Project, Kasold Avenue, 15th Street to 23rd Street and direct staff to proceed with selecting a design engineer. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
PUBLIC COMMENT – None.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Hack reminded the City Commission that the Leadership Lawrence class was flying from the airport at 7:30 on the April, 20th.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Ordinance No. 7772 – 1st Reading, rezone (Z-11-38-03) 12.3 acres, PCD-2 to M-1, NW corner of Legends & Research Pk Dr.
2. Ordinance No. 7744 – 1st Reading, Levy Assess for Monterey Way (Peterson Rd to Stetson Dr.
3. Ordinance No. 7748 – 2nd Reading, 2002 Edition of National Electrical Code with amendments.
4. Ordinance No. 7776 – 2nd Reading, City/County Economic Development Board procedures.
5. Ordinance No. 7775 – 2nd Reading, Main Trafficway, Harvard between Wakarusa & Monterey Way & Goldfield from Wakarusa to Monterey Way.
6. Resolution No. 6540 – Bond & Temp Note Sale – April 27.
7. Rezone – (Z-02-02-04) 3.59 acres from RS-1 to M-2, 601 N Iowa.
8. Contract – Airport Development Group for $180,790 for engineering svcs.
9. Performance Agreement – Garage Door Group (Amarr) add name RAM to agreement.
10. Site Plan – (SP-03-19-04) Lawrence Alternative H.S. add shelter bldg.
11. City Manager’s Report – Blasting permits.
12. Carnegie Library - 9th & Vermont future use.
13. Rezone – (Z-12-52-03) 17.95 acres from A to PRD-2, S side of K-10 W of O’Connell.
14. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-12-12-03) Farmland NW Add., 17.342 acres, S of K-10, W of O’Connell.
15. Annex – (A-12-14-03) 119.9 acres, S of K-10, between O’Connell & Franklin.
16. Ordinance No. 7755 – 2nd Reading, rezone (Z-06-18-03) 190.199 aces, NW corner of W 6th & Wakarusa from PCD-2 to PCD-2.
17. Public Hearing – Benefit Districts, Monterey Way from intersection of Peterson N to Grand Vista Dr; Peterson Rd from Kasold approx 900’ W of Monterey Way; and Kasold & Peterson.
18. Resolution No. 6539 – GOB for $1,505,00 for 6th from Folks to SLT.
19. 2004 Street Maintenance Program.
20. City’s 5 year plan with KDOT.
21. CIP Project, Kasold, 15th to 23rd.