November 16 , 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, Hack, Highberger and Schauner present. Commissioner Dunfield was absent. Student Commissioner Justin Isbell was present.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
Annual Service Awards were given to honor those City employees who were reaching mile markers in years of service for the City.
Mayor Rundle proclaimed the week of November 14 -19th 2004 as “International Education Week”; November 20, 2004 as “Salvation Army Christmas Kettle Kick-off Day”; and the month of November as “National Family Caregivers Month.” Motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 28, 2004; the Public Health Board meeting minutes of September 20, 2004; the Library Board meeting minutes of October 18, 2004; the Mental Health Board meeting minutes of August 31, 2004 and September 28, 2004; the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of September 14, 2004; and the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of October 6, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 343 vendors in the amount of $1,605,795.18 and payroll from October 31, 2004 to November 13, 2004 in the amount of $1,379,442.72. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Wheatfield’s, 904 Vermont; and Pat’s Blue Rib’n, 1618 West 23rd Street. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Kirk Wiesner, to the Grant Review Board for an additional term which will expire December 31, 2007; reappoint JoAnn Garrett, to the Public Transit Advisory Committee for an additional term that will expire December 31, 2007; appoint Jeff Severin to the Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board which will expire December 31, 2007; appoint John Craft to the Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals for a term which will expire November 30 2007 and also, reappoint Mark Stogsdill, Lee Ann Queen and Janet Smalter all to the Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals for additional terms which will expire November 30, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the sale of the Crafco EZ Pour Crack Filler through eBay. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the selection of Cesare Catering for the operation of the concessions at various City sports complexes. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the bid for one GPS Rover for Information Systems/Utility Departments. The bids were:
|
VENDOR |
TOTAL BID |
|
Laser Specialties, Inc. Aerial Services, Inc. Seiler Instrument & Mfg. |
$15,480.20 $17,144.70 $19,994.00 |
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved HIghberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the bid to Seiler Instrument & Mfg, in the amount of $19,994.00 (non bonded construction fund) because Seiler had an advanced communication mode, the brand of equipment was the same; the vendor was nearby; and they were a leader and innovator with GPS technologies. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the donation and transfer of various surplus items from Parks and Recreation to the Ottawa Recreation Commission. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7844, authorizing the issuance of $1,140,000 in Industrial Revenue Bonds for Martin Logan Ltd. This is a refunding of a 1999 issuance and does not alter the tax abatement provided for the project. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Ordinance No. 7836, rezoning (Z-08-41-04) 90 properties in the Western Hills neighborhood from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District) to RS-E (Single-Family Residence Estate District), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance No. 7841, establishing a temporary building permit moratorium for the development of the East Lawrence rail corridor plan, as amended, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6570, authorizing condemnation of property interests for improvement of Folks Road (Wright tract). Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding City acquisition of park land adjacent to Mary’s Lake and direct staff to proceed with negotiation of the proposed purchase agreement. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to execute an Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1596 concerning vacation leave. The amendment follows Commission direction on employee benefits. The IAFF approved the amendment on November 2, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
(10)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: None
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning requests, and authorizing the drafting of ordinances for placement on a future agenda.
Rezoning (Z-09-43-04) – North Forty LC
Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report. She said the request was for a 38 acre rezoning from RS-2 to PRD-1. The subject property was within an area that had been experiencing significant development as well as several plats that had been approved, but not yet recorded in this area to the north and to the immediate west of the property. The subject proper abuts Peterson Road and the Hutton Farms Project which was well under construction immediately to the east. The request was forwarded to staff for review, but did not include a development plan. She said that was not as typical as staff had seen in the past, but it was something that was reviewed periodically and there were conditions for this item that reflect the fact that a development plan would be forthcoming.
She said one of the exhibits that staff prepared for the Planning Commission showed what the road configuration would look like based on the immediate plat, and once the plat was recorded staff knew that they would have at least two, possibly three access points to the subject property to look at with a future development plan. She said staff was not contemplating direct access for this property to Peterson Road. There would also be a traffic impact study that would come forward with the development plan when staff moved forward to that stage.
Commissioner Highberger said he understood that the intent of the applicant was to develop that area as mostly or all single-family residential.
Day said that was the concept that the applicant was currently looking at. She said it was a project that had a mix of public and private streets. She said it was also staff’s understanding that it was single-family, individual lots that would be considered in the future so there might be a subdivision plat to establish those lots. She said those were all concepts that were discussed and there was a graphic that the applicant provided to staff to review how it would all fit together and it was not a formal submittal, but a concept plan to give staff an idea of what type of issues they were looking at.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the request to rezone, coming ahead of anything concrete in terms of a specific development plan, in any way restricts the ability of the City Commission to deal with, approve, or disapprove any development plan that might come forward at a later date.
Day said no. The City Commission would have an opportunity to look at future development such as specific land uses, land arrangement, access, building type, and building massing which were specific elements within both the Planning Commission and City Commissions purview.
Commissioner Schauner asked why historically the development plan and rezoning request tend to come together for discussion and consideration.
Day said there were two specific reasons. The applicant had a good idea of what type of development projects they were looking forward to and they were ready to execute that project in a relatively short timeframe. Therefore, the applicant would come forward with both the zoning and the development or the plat as a package. She said other times the applicant came back with plans when anticipating some type of code change that they might want to go ahead and implement a project and get that project underway before things changed. In this particular case, the applicant was looking at some relative assurance of the scope of the land use limitation would be, before they pursued a more formalized development plan.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, said this was also the way Hutton Farms was developed. He said the zoning was obtained first, subject to preliminary development plan approval.
He said it gave the applicant assurance that they were not wasting a large amount of time on a huge development plan. He said one key point that came out during the Planning Commission meeting was that this would define the density so the applicant would know that whatever was done would be less than 7 units an acre which fell within Horizon 2020.
He said the City Commission would be able to review the preliminary development plan, but this process gave them direction. A 30 plus acre preliminary development plan was a large amount of work and to go out on a limb with no feedback seemed not the right way to go. He said they were looking for City Commission support. He said he hoped they would submit the preliminary development plan on December 10th, and if not then, in January.
Commissioner Highberger asked why the applicant was choosing to go with the PRD (Planned Residential Development) instead of RS-2 (Single Family Residential District). He asked if it was because of the density.
Werner said density helped somewhat. He said this area was a complicated site with a lot of topography issues and they were hoping to leave some green space and the PRD helped with that issue as opposed to RS-2 zoning. He said the Hutton Farms was being attached which was also a PRD. He said this area was primarily single family, but that was not to say there would not be a few duplexes.
Commissioner Highberger asked if RS-5 was available would that be preferred to the PRD.
Werner said they tried the RS-5 zoning, but he did not know if that type of zoning was preferred. The one advantage of a PRD was that they would know what they were getting into. The RS-5 was a similar concept to Hutton Farms with alleys and a traditional neighborhood design. How all of that would fit in with the RS-5, he was not sure, but at this stage they would rather move ahead with the PRD-1.
Commissioner Highberger said he was basically supportive, but he had some concerns. He said the PRD gave less predictability and he was concerned that if the City Commission approved the PRD zoning, at the next City Commission election, a proposal might come forward that may or may not get approved.
He said he also had some concerns about turning single-family residentially zoned property into something that might be not entirely single-family. He said everything that he had heard was that there was a shortage of single-family developable lots in this City. Although if this area developed like the property to the east, he was not sure that would make much difference for local builders because most of that development was done with out of town crews anyway. He said given those issues, he would support the rezoning request.
Mayor Rundle asked if it was not in the City Commission’s purview to place restrictions on building type restrictions.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the City Commission could place building type restrictions on the zoning and development plans as well as density restrictions.
Commissioner Highberger said he was not particularly interested in those restrictions.
Mayor Rundle said one of the reasons for using PRD’s was to preserve sensitive topography. He said he hoped that was the intent of the applicant to save a substantial amount of green space which was something that was not seen with a lot of PRD’s.
Commissioner Hack said she appreciated those comments about the PRD helping. She said when looking at Hutton Farms, there was a lot of green space.
She also appreciated Werner’s comment concerning not wanting to get into a huge planning process before they knew what they had in terms of zoning. She said having the two processes separated was not a concern because there were conditions that could be placed. She supported the adoption of the findings of fact by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Schauner said he was concerned the more density that was placed in that acreage, the more pressure would be placed on the need for either arterials or collector streets in that area because the east/west access there was not particularly good, the further west on Peterson Road.
He said there was previous discussion about whether Peterson should go all the way through or not, its impact on Martin Park, and other issues. He said he preferred that this area remain RS-2, but he sensed there was not much support by the City Commission.
Commissioner Highberger said he looked at the numbers and the difference between the maximum density under the PRD and the maximum density under the RS-2 was fairly small. He said 30 or 40 more units would be the maximum increase that would be allowed.
Commissioner Schauner said as an expression of conscience, he would like to see RS-2 preserved for many reasons.
Commissioner Highberger said his willingness to approve this issue was conditioned on the expectation that the area would be almost entirely single-family.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-43-04) of approximately 38.423 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development District); and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (11)
Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning requests, and authorizing drafting of ordinances for placement on future agenda:
Rezoning (Z-09-46-04) (Z-09-47-04) (Z-09-48-04) – Bluejacket Ford LC
Paul Patterson, Planner, presented the staff report. He said there were two tracts of land that were 60.7 acres, located 600 feet north of west 6th Street (US 40) which the tracts were immediately behind the St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church. He said there were 3 separate zonings which were adjacent to each other.
The first rezoning was 12.264 acres from A to RM-1 which was a multiple-family residential zoning district. He said this would allow for a future apartment complex through a site plan on the property. The second rezoning was 15.679 acres from A to RS-2 which was a single-family residential district and was located at the northeast corner of the property; and the third zoning request was for 32.391 acres from A to RM-D which was a duplex residential district.
The area was located 600 feet north of west 6th Street. George Williams Way would be on the western border which would be an arterial, the extension of Stoneridge Drive also called Fenceline Road would be on the eastern border which was a collector and Overland Drive would be transecting though the property.
In March 2003, an aerial photograph showed the topography of the area which was basically wooded. He said there was a 4% slope from the south to the north. The City had built an existing sanitary pumping station at the low point so the subdivision would have sanitary sewer which flowed down to that pumping station and pumped back uphill to join the sanitary sewer lines.
He said this particular project was heard by the Planning Commission on October 27th and recommended for approval by a 7-1 vote. There was a subdivision that would be coming forward in conjunction with this issue that had been submitted to the City called Oregon Trails Subdivision.
He said staff recommended approval of the rezoning and the Planning Commissioners recommended approval by a 7-1 vote subject to the condition of approval and filing of a final plat with the Register of Deeds office for that subdivision area.
Commissioner Schauner asked to point out where Overland Drive would be located.
Patterson said Overland would be a collector street would transect the property from east to west.
Commissioner Schauner asked how that stretch of Overland Drive would be paid for.
Patterson said either by the developer or a benefit district. He said that would be part of the subdivision as far as the rules and regulation on who paid for what.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the quarter mile stretch from Queens Road to Fenceline was in the current plans.
Wildgen said that was the location in the Transportation Master Plan.
Patterson presented a map of Transportation 2025 and explained the area to the City Commission.
Commissioner Schauner said this was one piece of a much larger available area for development. He asked if staff had any plans for what that area might look like when it was developed.
Patterson said yes. He said section 28 and 29 of the Northwest Area Plan was approved a number of years ago and provided the basic framework. Further to the west was the Nodal Plan that was approved earlier this year for the corridor of Highway 10 intersection.
Commissioner Schauner asked if section 29 of the Northwest Area Plan contained more detail than the Nodal Plan.
Finger said the plan showed general categories of land use and major roads. The collectors and arterial in the transportation map were brought into the plan and it showed divisions of types of land use, commercial, industrial, residential, low, medium, high density.
Mayor Rundle asked in addition to Overland Drive, what other major arterials or collectors were identified.
Finger said Fenceline Road.
Mayor Rundle asked whether there were any the east/west roads proposed for the area.
Finger said above this property and outside of what was actually annexed was the reverse part of the “U” that came from Overland Drive which connected and went back to the east, but that was outside of City limits and this request.
Commissioner Highberger asked why the preliminary plat was pulled.
Patterson said the preliminary plat was delayed due to the dedication of road right-of-way on George Williams Way. He said the applicant wanted to have the plat come forward first before they appeared before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Highberger asked Patterson to articulate how this proposal would comply with the Northwest Area Plan. He said the way he was reading the map, the Northwest Area Plan called for the bottom portion to be institutional and the rest of the area to be single-family.
Patterson said from US Hwy 40, working back north, there would be a decrease in intensity. There was an existing St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church and a property that the City owned in which there would be City water tower. There would be apartment complexes at a density of RM-1, RMD, and then step down to RS-2 which had 7,000 square foot single-family home lots. He said stepping back from the highway to meet the corridor the intensities would be stepping back. Also, at the northern edge were the City limits. Residential uses within the School District would be provided. He said basically the proposal conformed to the Northwest Area Plan as far as step downing transitions, some buffer, and also conformances with the Transportation 2025 Plan with George Williams Way arterial on the left side and two collectors that would be providing traffic circulation into the subdivision.
Commissioner Highberger said he agreed with Patterson that there were a number of things in the text that this proposal complied with, but the proposal did not comply with the map.
Finger said the map as in most of the plans was pictorial and was not meant to decide what happened. She said they were governed more by policies and goals which was why Horizon 2020 was first received without maps because there was an over reliance on maps and an under reliance on reading. She said the policies would support this proposal.
Tim Herndon, LandPlan Engineering, said there was a long list of the merits of the proposal. He said Commission comments did evoke a lot of responses and thoughts in terms of infrastructure, providing roadway, land use, and how the proposal conformed to the reference documents. He said this project had undergone a lot of review up to this time and that the findings of fact, forwarded by the Planning Commission and the staff report accurately reflected the proposal before the City Commission. He asked for City Commission support on this proposal.
Commissioner Schauner said he could not support this proposal, not because he did not think this particular project was out of compliance with the Northwest Plan or Transportation 2025, but it struck him that this was another example of reacting to a specific plan rather than acting in advance to decide how the City should grow and what direction the City should grow. He would like to see a more proactive stance on the part of the City to make some decisions in advance about where they were willing to extend infrastructure whether it was street, sewer, or water. He said this was another example of how a neighborhood was not being built to have access without the use of an automobile to neighborhood facility. He said this was a neighborhood that was going to take access to a very busy highway on Overland Drive or some other road to Wakarusa Drive up through a mile or so away from any community facilities. He did not think, in the long run, that this type of development and what he suspected would be a number of other developments like this development abutting this proposal served the City well in terms of building connectivity and neighborhoods and the kind of City they had been talking about with new urbanism, smart growth, and connectivity, something other than automobile travel to and from various places. He said for that reason, but not based on the merits of this particular plan as it stood, but as a statement of interest in seeing the City Commission do something differently, he was not in favor of the proposal.
Commissioner Hack asked Finger to comment on whether this plan would comply with Horizon 2020 and whether this was the plan used for the growth of the City.
Finger said Horizon 2020 was looked at along with the smaller area plans which were more detailed such as the Northwest Area Plan and particularly the Nodal Plan which was done at the first of the year which showed connectivity. She said George Williams Way was the eastern boundary of that plan, but it showed commercial and industrial around the SLT, K-10, US 40, and 6th Street Corridor.
She said there were no collector patterns to the level of local streets and that was an issue that had been discussed. She said there was a comprehensive plan that would support the proposal, but staff did not have something that was more detailed which would show how the whole area could be planned out down to the local street network level.
Mayor Rundle said he appreciated Commissioner Schauner’s comments, but there had been discussions surrounding those types of projects. He said there were no vocabulary or models to point to and the City Commission needed to plan a meeting with the Planning Commissioners and interested parties to figure out what could be done differently.
Commissioner Highberger said he shared Commissioner Schauner’s concerns and he would like to be at the point of planning areas before the City Commission approved development plans, but those plans were not on the books now and it would be unfair to ask the applicant to jump through hoops that were not imposed.
He said he was not as convinced that this plan fully complied with the Northwest Area Plan, but it showed some higher densities in some areas than the map indicated. He said the proposal did comply with a lot of the criteria set out in the area plan. He said he was not ready to vote against this plan even though he was not entirely happy with the plan. He said his preference would be to see the preliminary plat also.
Commissioner Schauner said it was not his interest in trying to cause the applicant to comply with rules that had not been written. At some point, he thought the City Commission needed to take a public stand that they would want to do more in terms of being pro-active as a City. He said this plan, though it might meet the rules that were currently in place, did not promote what he thought there was a lot of interest on this City Commission in doing, and that was having the City make some broader decisions about where they wanted the development to go, not simply reacting to a developer request. He said his vote was a statement of conscience about that approach.
Herndon said since Commissioner Schauner had not voted yet, he would certainly like to think that there was a chance to win him over with this plan. He said while it was not his intention to do the janitors tour through this project, he wanted to point a few issues out to rest Commissioner Schauner’s conscience.
He pointed out in terms of directing development and where the City wanted development to go, this proposal was in Service Area 1. He also pointed out where the City’s lift station was and that a forcemain was placed there to serve that development several years ago. The low point that gathered all of the wastewater that would be generated by this neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods was this detention area that Patterson had alluded to which exceeded the City’s requirements in terms of stormwater management because not only was adjacent development detained, managed, and water metered out with a pre-developed rate, but this served the entire surrounding area on that plat and it was ideal from the standpoint of not having spot maintenance issues.
In terms of the roadway structure, George William Way, Overland Drive, and Fenceline Road, absolutely fulfilled the City’s future major transportation network plan for the entire area in that picture.
The reason why the plat was not with the zoning was because they had withheld the plat in order to have the right-of-way dedicated, not conjectured and not hoped for, but the right-of-way would be dedicated and in place by the time they would be rowing ahead with the platting.
He said all of those issues should add up to a development that fulfilled the prescription that the City had assigned to this property that was being looked at.
Commission Schauner said he was interested in what Herndon had to say. He said part of his concern was that area immediately north of that particular proposal was in the County. He said what he believed would happen was that once this project was built out there would be an interest in having the City annex land north of that area to build another project. He said it would be harder for this City Commission or its successors to say no to those projects because someone would make an argument, not unlike the one Herndon made, when in fact maybe where they might want to press the City’s growth would be in the urban growth area where there would be a Wastewater Plant built that would not require the use of lift stations and other artificial means to move that material around. He said there were other issues which go beyond the quality of the plan. He said he did not have a quarrel with the quality of the Herndon’s work. He said it was a bigger picture in terms of where the City wanted to build its infrastructure and cause the growth to go and there had been a lot of time spent on the urban growth area, for an example, rather than this northwest corner where it seemed reasonable that there would be a lot more pressure to develop whatever remaining agricultural acreage there was in that quadrant of the City.
Herndon asked Commissioner Schauner if he was aware that this particular tract was deeply embedded far within the urban growth boundary.
Commissioner Schauner said he understood that it was embedded far within the urban growth boundary, but at some point, for example, this use of lift station was an expensive proposition both for the developer to build and ultimately for the City to maintain, repair, and replace over time. There were other infrastructure issues than just getting this proposal up and running that he would very much like for the City Commission to think of in a bigger picture kind of way.
Herndon said when Commissioner Schauner changed his mind and voted in favor of this project, he asked Commissioner Schauner to bear in mind that lift station was already there and there was power to that lift station.
Commissioner Schauner said he understood.
Mayor Rundle said if looking at Lenexa to see how they develop, this certainly fit into the way this City had been addressing issues. He said what Commissioner Schauner was saying along with everyone else, was to try and make some shift with help from staff.
Commissioner Hack asked how Overland Drive would be paid for.
Herndon said that was a private drive and privately funded probably funded by developers.
Wildgen said it was a public street, but they had the option of installing that street to City Code standards.
Commissioner Hack said there needed to be someone willing to pay for that street.
Mayor Rundle said there was no street to connect to east and that was the piecemeal type of issue that was being discussed.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-46-04) of approximately 12.264 acres from A (Agricultural) to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential District); and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (12)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-47-04) of approximately 15.679 acres from A (Agricultural) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District); and to direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (13)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-48-04) of approximately 32.391 acres from A (Agricultural) to RM-D (Duplex Residential District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (14)
Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning requests, and authorizing drafting of ordinances for placement on future agenda:
Rezoning (Z-08-38-04) – Parnell Park
Consider approving, subject to conditions and use restrictions, the following:
Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-08-10-04) – Parnell Park
Sandra Day, Planner presented the staff report. She said this request included both the zoning and the preliminary development plan. The rezoning request was the first step in the development process and established the change in zoning to allow for clustered type of housing, infill development for treatment of special conditions within properties. Preliminary development was applicable to both large projects as well as smaller project such as this plan.
The Planned Unit Development included single-family residential development which included several pedestrian connections back over to the future rail to trails and an area park in which there had been quite a bit of discussion thoroughout the development process between staff, property owners, neighborhood, and the applicant. She said there had been several different versions of this plan that had came forward. Staff had looked at trying to achieve a mixed single-family and multi-family project, setbacks, and street configuration throughout this design process and with each iteration of that what ultimately went to the Planning and City Commissions was one of the better versions that staff had continued to work through.
The Planning Commission recommended approval and added two specific conditions. One condition was to include sidewalks on both sides of the street and also to provide another pedestrian connection in the northern end of the development that would take the cul-de-sac and provide pedestrian connection to Haskell. She said the applicant had questions about those issues and there had been much discussion about the appropriateness of those issues, but that was the recommendation that was forwarded to the City Commission regarding this project.
The proposed development was very much in line with residential development that was seen in other areas of the community. Staff looked at neighborhood densities for all three of the abutting neighborhoods and those neighborhoods would range from 5 to 7 dwelling units per acre characterized by smaller lots, smaller homes, and narrower setbacks. She said what staff also found in that area was quite a lot of green space and open space both in the public areas through lots that had the double lot situation for different homes. The proposed density was very much in line with what the surrounding area was, if not less than, what would be typically found in other blocks surrounding the subject property.
The rails to trails easement would give the City the opportunity to achieve that improvement through the dedication of easements. There were also easements proposed through this plan that covered the existing sanitary sewer lines. There was proposed right-of-way dedication along both 15th Street and Haskell to meet minimum City standards and there was additional right-of-way provided at the corner intersection for a future roundabout if that was the decision for that public improvement.
There had been a recent conversation with Patricia Sinclair and her concern was whether or not the City would pursue a roundabout at that location. Regardless of the type of intersection that was placed there, the minimum required right-of-way was provided through the subdivision regulations and this plan was in compliance.
Commissioner Highberger said he understood that the 3 votes opposing the preliminary development plan at the Planning Commission were primarily tied to the pedestrian access to Haskell.
Day said the Planning Commissioners who opposed that plan did not feel that that connection was necessary, but the majority of that Commission did.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the Planning Commissioners that voted against the plan expressed other concerns about the plan.
Day said the staff and the Planning Commissioners did talk about the density, and whether or not the plan met or complied with several specific issues that had been addressed through various communications. A lot of the communication that staff had received was based on an earlier version of the plan than what ultimately was before the Planning Commission. It was tweaked towards the end, but the overall issues were addressed.
Commissioner Rundle said the staff report pointed out what was unique about the project that made the planned unit development appropriate, but he asked what was gained in terms of from the public side.
Day presented a drawing of the project. She said one of the things that was unique about the project was that public streets were used rather than private streets and that was a tremendous benefit for the neighborhood and for the property owners. There was a small lot in this project so there were some focused places of gathering as an infill project, but there was also connectivity back to the rest of the neighborhood through other pedestrian ways. Ultimately there was right-of-way that was stubbed to a property line that if two of those properties were redeveloped in the future that those properties could be somehow incorporated. She said staff could look at whether or not a street intersection with Haskell would be appropriate at that time providing additional connectivity. It was a relatively small piece of ground and there was development on all sides and it was unique property to work with.
Mayor Rundle said he was trying to tie it to those things that were spelled out in the statement of objectives for planned unit developments.
Alan Belot, a partner in Parnell Investors who was one of the contract purchasers for this property, said one of the biggest benefits was the acquisition of the railroad right-of-way. He said coupling that right-of-way with the site plan for Morton Block that added another 600 or 700 feet and that was a big portion of the rails to trails project that was taken care of with those two developments that were side by side. He said one of the major values seen with this project was that in having that rails to trails running across the western edge of their property, coupled with the fact that boundary to the west was also Parnell Park, and by giving and creating some access easements down through their development, this proposed neighborhood would be connected to two miles of neighborhoods once that trail was developed. Plus, there was direct access to Parnell Park which was across the street. He said it was a small City park, but they were proposing a small development. He said that was one of the major virtues of the development of that project.
Commissioner Schauner asked where the pedestrian access would be located along Haskell.
Belot pointed out on a map where that pedestrian access would be. He said in listening to Planning Commissioner Riordan’s comments in supporting their position, they were resisting that because they did not want to bring people into the neighborhood because there were already sidewalks around the outside. Commissioner Riordan had concerns after having lived in a neighborhood that had that type of access between houses because of liability and damage issues. Each step along the way, the more input that was received the better the project had become. He said they would probably dedicate an out lot 10 or 15 feet wide that would be managed by the Homeowners Association along with the pocket park and the access to the rails to trails and place that sidewalk in that location so that the adjoining property owners did not have the liability of that sidewalk and that was their greatest concern. He said in the Planning Commission meeting minutes it was noted that they would run it with the utility easement. He said that would give people who were coming from Haskell access directly down to the pocket park which then, across the street, connected directly with the rails to trails.
Commissioner Hack said she appreciated the clarification on the Haskell connection because that was the point of contention.
Belot said in the Planning Commission minutes there was an indication that after his last meeting with the neighbors certain issues were not addressed. He said there was a misunderstanding whether they would address those issues, but he thought they all arrived at the same conclusion and that was evidenced by the fact that there was no one from the neighborhoods at the meeting this evening to discuss any of those issues. He said it was agreed that neither side received everything they wanted, but it was a win/win situation for both sides.
Commissioner Highberger said he appreciated the willingness to work with the neighborhood. He said he agreed that the plan that resulted from discussions was a win/win situation and he thought it would be a desirable place to live.
Hack said infill development was always the most difficult and yet the most appropriate type of development. She thanked everyone for their interest in this issue and she supported both the rezoning and preliminary development plan.
Belot said if they were going to place sidewalks on both sides of the street which was not required by the present subdivision regulations, he asked if they could sign an agreement not-to-protest to place the sidewalks in on Haskell and 15th Street until such time that all that development along those rights-of-way were taken care of as a compromise.
Mayor Rundle said that approach was commonly exercised in the past. He asked if the sidewalk would continue on the west side further south.
Wildgen said in either case, there were no sidewalks to the west of the tracks or through the park and no sidewalks to the south on the west side of Haskell Avenue at this time.
Mayor Rundle said to ask for that type of agreement at this late date, might be problematic. He said that issue could be revisited when considering the rezoning ordinance.
Finger said that issue could also be considered at the final plat stage.
Belot said the condition for the sidewalks on both sides of the street did not come up until just before the Planning Commission meeting. He said now they had a chance to estimate the cost of those sidewalks and it would add a significant amount to the cost of the lots. He said when dividing all the sidewalks out over the lots, there would be a significant change.
Mayor Rundle suggested meeting with the neighbors in the area. He said the neighbors would know the patterns that people walked and if they saw that there was not much purpose in adding those sidewalks at this time. He said that issue could be readdressed at the plat stage or the two readings of the ordinance.
Finger suggested addressing those sidewalks at the final plat stage.
Day said staff would request that if part of the City Commission’s motion for approval included all of the conditions listed for the Preliminary Development Plan, Condition No. 8, “A pedestrian access shall be created from Parnell Court to Haskell Avenue along the exiting utility easement”, that the last words in that condition “along the existing utility easement” be stricken which would allow for the flexibility of where to place that rather than requirement that in that access easement.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-08-38-04) of approximately 5.57 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential Development District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-08-10-04) for Parnell Park Affordable Single-Family Homes, a proposed planned residential development containing 35 single-family homes and is approximately 5.57 acres, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Consider approving the following:
Use Permitted Upon Review (UPR-09-04-04)- The Fountains
Consider accepting dedicated of easements and rights-of-way on the following:
Final Plan (PF-09-29-04) – Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 5.
Jeff Tulley, Planner, present the staff report. He said both the UPR for The Fountains and the Final Plan for Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 5, went before the Planning Commission during its October 27th meeting. The Final Plat was approved unanimously and the UPR was approved by a 6-2 vote.
He discussed the two dissenting votes on the approval of the UPR. He said this project provided a variety of housing types and options for Lawrence Senior Citizens. This project would be completed in several phases as identified in the staff report.
He said the first phase would result in independent living units with underground parking for the people that would live at that location; phase two was assisted living, skilled nursing and a dementia wing as well; phase three was two unit villas which would be completely independent and some limited medical assistance as well; and phase four would be a continuation of the same villas proposed for phase three.
He said there were two dissenting votes to the 6-2 recommendation and those were because of sidewalks on both sides of the internal streets. He said subdivision regulations did not require sidewalks on both sides of City streets and as a result, they were hard pressed to recommend that approval for sidewalks on both sides of those internal streets. He said staff worked with the applicant to come up with an interior circulation for seniors that liked to walk through the site. He pointed out a fire access road that provided a northern portion of the site a circular walkway throughout the entire complex. He said it was possible to get through the entire complex either through the street which would have minimal amount of traffic or on sidewalks on one side of the internal streets as opposed to both sides.
The applicant would address two other issues that came about as a result of post Planning Commission’s discussion with Planning Staff. One of those issues was the location of a bus shelter along 24th Place. The fact that there would be a number of senior citizens living in this development and some of those citizens might want to take a bus to various part of the City.
He said in summary, the Transit System staff felt that because of the fact that phases 3 and 4 were much later phases in the development, it might be premature at this time to locate a bus shelter along 24th Place. He said the fact that those phases were anticipated for completion in 2011 the shelter seemed to be premature at this time.
The other issue that the Planning Department asked the applicant to research was also tied to the fact that some of the people who would be occupying those villas might want to have immediate access to 24th Place and connectivity up to Clinton Parkway, further north.
As part of the development the applicant was providing a sidewalk on the north side of 24th Place, but the question by Planning Staff concerned an internal connection between those two unit villas and 24th Place. He said he thought it was a question of security for the applicant and developer of trying to maintain one access point for the entire project which was through a finished grand entrance off of 24th Place.
Tim Herndon, LandPlan Engineering, said with regard to the internal sidewalks, he discussed a loop sidewalk around that entire ribbon of interior streets. He said there were sidewalks that existed all around other parking areas. He said the site was fully served with a pedestrian way. One of the Planning Commissioners stated that his preference was that there would be sidewalks on both sides of the street. He said on behalf of their client who had extensive experience in continuum retirement facilities such as this facility, he said they felt that this would be an exorbitant use of concrete in that area where the sidewalk would be no further than 35 or 45 feet from the farthest front door at any place. He said they preferred that the plan as submitted be allowed to proceed with a sidewalk on one side and the project provided full accessibility in that area.
He made two comments with regard to an internal sidewalk that connected the interior of those garden villas to 24th Place. First it should be recognized that the applicant should be lauded for being willing to build 1,850 feet of sidewalk outside of their property within the public right-of-way where a sidewalk already existed on the south side of the street on a street classification that expressly only required sidewalk on one side of the street which was a quarter mile of sidewalk.
He said security was certainly a primary concern in a development like this and they had worked with staff using other models of continuum living facilities to determine that a single access with a divided entry was the type of access that was most attractive to the people who moved into those places. He said the prospect of bringing in another sidewalk was not a good idea because that would breach security. He said when a development like this had provided an opportunity to walk around the grounds and access in and out as well and provided contracted transportation services for the residents, to breach that wall would create a 24 hour, 7 day a week open avenue for the general public to walk in between a couple of retirees valued properties in an unlit area between houses and that was not a good idea.
Mayor Rundle said it was his suggestion during the agenda review that that issue of the sidewalk access be brought back in case this issue was of interest to the people who would be living in that area if they wanted convenient sidewalk access. He said he did not want to impose that idea, but it was more of a suggestion. He said the sidewalk that would be built would certainly be used. He said those were amenities that lend a lot to a neighborhood.
Commissioner Schauner asked how soon the dementia units would be available.
Herndon said that component of the project would be 2006 to 2007.
Commissioner Highberger appreciated addressing those concerns. He said Herndon pointed out some valid reasons for not requiring the pedestrian connection to 24th Place and the sidewalks. He said he was comfortable approving the project.
Mayor Rundle asked if a UPR could be brought back to the City Commission.
Finger said yes. There was a specific process in the existing and proposed code for reviewing a UPR.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-09-04-04) for The Fountains Retirement Center, subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried unanimously. (17)
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-09-29-04) for Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 5, a replat of Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block One, Inverness Park Plaza Addition No. 1, and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Revise final plat to provide lot configuration to meet dwelling unit density requirement for RO-1B zoning for the independent living portion of the development;
2. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Submittal and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan.
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
4. Submittal of public improvement plans to Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat;
5. Revise final plat to show existing rights-of-way on 24th Place and Inverness Drive;
6. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2;
7. As per UPR Layout and Landscape Plan, add note, “Revised 100 Year Floodplain Line – LOMR (2003)” to final plat;
8. Provide Minimum Exterior Building Opening (MEBO) information; and
9. Add the following notes to the final plat:
a. No fences or obstructions shall be constructed within dedicated drainage easements;
b. Any additional easements determined to be required during the engineering of public improvements for each phase shall be dedicated through separate instrument;
c. The existing tree line in the Clinton Parkway right-of-way shall be preserved; and
d. All designated collector streets to have 6’ width concrete walks on both sides per City of Lawrence standards.
Motion carried unanimously. (18)
During public comment, Phil Bradley, representing the Kansas Licensed Beverage Association, submitted a proposed ordinance. He said, “The businesses affected by the current smoking ban, ask you to consider this ordinance that is currently in effect in St. Louis Park, MN. It, with a threshold minimum, would address the concerns for all Lawrence air quality and assure that we have a standard and anyone wishing to allow tobacco use would be required to meet the standard and post an air quality number as well.”
He went on to comment, “We ask you take this under advisement and put it on the agenda for the November 30th meeting for discussion and possible action.”
He said the St. Louis Park ordinance was based on an ordinance from Vancouver, British Columbia, which established air quality standards. He said any business, not just a hospitality business but including law offices, would be allowed to apply for a special tobacco permit and pay a special fee. He said all of those monies would go to the City for the specific use of the hours, manpower and equipment it would need to test the air quality and would be self-funding over a period of time. He said this would be an annual inspection.
He said St. Louis Park used two machines anytime there was any testing done. These machines were taken to the establishment 3 different times and made 3 different tests at each time so there were 9 measurements. They would require the business to post the measured air quality number at every entrance and exit. They would also put that number in publications that listed all non-smoking establishments and those establishment that allowed smoking with an air quality number which was renewed annually.
He said ever since they appeared before the City Commission at the time the smoking ban was initiated, he had been aware of the Commission’s concerns. He said he tried very diligently to find a compromise that would meet everyone’s needs. He said there were many compromises that were in effect around the country. In the last November election, there were several compromises that were adopted. All of those compromises took hours of operation, size of establishment, number of seats, or whether or not they served food.
He said he realized the City Commission had considered, or at least had been offered, all of those choices, but decided none of those ideas were an option. He was aware that the City Commission was concerned about the quality of air and this idea was what he had found.
He said when talking to St. Louis Park staff he was under the impression that the establishments had a floor minimum or they had to meet that certain air quality or else the establishment would need to change the way they did business with or without smoking. He said St. Louis Park staff informed him that this minimum was not in their ordinance. He suggested that having a floor minimum was acceptable and right. He said if the City Commission wanted to accept a national air quality for safety and health it was set at 0.5 milligrams per cubic yard of air.
Mayor Rundle said some City Commissioners might have questions, but this was a public comment time and the request was for the Commission to consider this issue at a future agenda. He suggested that the City Commission not engage in a discussion about this issue during this public comment period.
Bradley said they set the suggested date for discussion about the smoking ban on November 30th, because the current petition that had been circulated to force a ballot election to repeal the current ordinance had a timeline of 180 days and that timeline would end December 4th and they were trying to get something done before that date. He said it was in the best interest of the community if there was a possibility to have some type of joining of the minds to figure out something because it was better than trying to force a winner and loser.
Peach Madl, owner of the Sandbar, was excited to see the proposed ordinance. She said the proposed ordinance seemed to address everything that was discussed in the Task Force meetings. She said they would be happy to participate in enforcing, measuring, and complying with clear air standards.
She said her business had suffered losses and therefore had eliminated one staff position. She said she was also an operator in two surrounding communities which had increased in sales due to Lawrence residents coming to their out of town establishments.
Nick Carroll, owner of Replay Lounge and Jackpot Saloon, said recently a magazine called Lawrence.com voted Replay Lounge as the second best bar in town which was ironic because sales were down 16% since the smoking ban.
He said Jackpot Saloon was opened right before the smoking ban and since that time, their expectation had been down about 50%.
He said the reason he brought up those issues was because there had been talk about bar owners exaggerating their current state. He said the Commission could look at 10 years of his sales records and in the 10th year when the smoking ban was in place, sales went down. To survive they would need to cut costs and sometimes that meant cutting jobs.
Cheryl Bowman, owner of Astro’s, said her business had suffered since the smoking ban. She said they had been in business for 15 years and her business was well managed and they were enjoying a great deal of success prior to the smoking ban. She said in 2000 their sales were up 86%, 2001 up 58%, 2002 up 42%, and 2003 up 13%. Since the smoking ban, their sales were down 26%.
She said because of the smoking ban she faced impacts such as eliminating staff At the end of December she would need to renew the health insurance policies that she paid in full for her employees and 401k, which was a simplified employee pension plan for her employees and that would require that she come up with $10,000 in the next six weeks which she did not have and that was $10,000 that would not help fund their health insurance or their 401k.
She said there was some reference in one of the newspaper articles that suggested that after two years things would level out. She said after two years she would no longer be at that location because she could not withstand two years of decreased sales.
She said the newspaper indicated that Hereford House was talking about a $400,000 decrease in sales. She said they were a much smaller business, but she anticipated almost to the penny that her business would decrease $120,000 a year and in two years would be $240,000, almost a quarter million dollars for a small family owned business. She respectfully requested that the City Commission consider the alternative that had been presented.
Curt Melzer, speaking on behalf of owners of Harbour Lites, said his bar had been downtown on Massachusetts for 70 years and survived the Great Depression, rations during World War II, and instability of the 60’s, but the smoking ban was creating one of the most trying times that the Harbour had been through.
He said he could echo those other business owners concerns about a drop in sales because it had been seen at the Harbour also and with it, a drop in tax revenue, employment opportunities, employee benefits, and money coming in from outside of Lawrence into this community.
He said the City Commission banned smoking based on an unsafe environment, but he did not feel they had the fair opportunity to show they could create a safe environment and what this proposed ordinance would do was to at least give the business owners the opportunity that they had the ability to reduce or eliminate the harmful effects of second hand smoke.
He said all types of employees made decisions to be in harms way such as, police officers, steel workers, firemen, and soldiers and there was not the opportunity for their employees to have the right to make that decision with this ban.
He said it was not shown that an establishment would absolutely have an unsafe environment. He said if you spend time and money the harmful effects of smoke could be reduced. He said they were asking to create a safe environment for their employees while not seriously jeopardizing the economy of Lawrence.
Patrick Conroy, owner of Crown Amusements, and brother of Tom Conroy owner of Kaspars and Peach Madl, owner of the Sandbar, said his brother and sister were tremendous assets to this community. He said 16 years ago he started Crown Amusement and he worked hard to achieve what he had. He said he had spent his money in Lawrence and raised his daughter in this community.
He said when the ordinance was enacted he thought that a couple of months of hard times would alleviate the smoking ban, but in the first week his sales were down 44%. He said the smoker that came into the bars would go outside to smoke and the non-smokers hung out with the people outside therefore, no one was playing the juke box, video games, or pool tables.
He said after 16 years in his business he was done. He said he was down $31,000 in payments. He said another company from out of town would be taking over his business. He asked that he not be called a liar by people who say that his business was not hurt that bad. He said he was hurt and it was over.
Dave Leff, Free State Brewery employee, said he felt comfortable in speaking on behalf of the owner Chuck Magerl, that Magerl supported some type of compromise concerning the smoking ban.
Rick Renfro, Johnny’s Tavern, said compromise was what life was all about and they had tried to address the concern of the health of employees. He said this proposal was a first step in finding a way to have a win/win situation.
Commissioner Highberger said he could not support the proposal that was presented at this time, but he would like this issue placed on the agenda for discussion. He said he deeply regretted the negative impact that this smoking ban had on local businesses. He said he could not find anything that could protect the public health that wouldn’t also have a negative effect on some businesses. He said if this issue was going to even get consideration there needed to be some threshold that the proposed ordinance did not have. He said he regretted the impact that the smoking ban had on Conroy and his business, but at this point, he was sticking by his decision to support the smoking ban in the best interest of the community.
Commissioner Hack asked if this issue could be placed on the November 23rd Commission agenda, knowing that perhaps the complete information would not be posted on the website until Friday. She asked that a full City Commission be present when this issue was discussed. She said that should happen if the Commission could get as much information as possible and continue to update the website with information on this issue.
Mayor Rundle said he was willing to discuss the issue, but he said they cancelled their Homeless Task Force today because they did not have the materials far enough ahead of time for everyone to review. He said the City Commission needed to discuss this issue and make a decision by the time the City Commission packets went out on Thursday.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that referendum could be withdrawn if the petition was filed and contained a sufficient number of signatures to place this matter on the ballot for an election sometime after the first of the year.
Wildgen said he understood that there would be a choice when the referendum came in to either reverse the current ordinance or put it on the ballot.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the timeline.
Wildgen said it was sometime early December.
Mayor Rundle said the petitions would need to be in that early part of December, but he asked if there was a threshold with the County Clerk.
Wildgen said there was a 20 day period where the City Commission would need to make a decision.
Mayor Rundle asked if there was a timeframe if the City Commission decided to go to a ballot.
Bradley said, while he was not an attorney, he had been advised by the County Clerk, City Staff, and an attorney that from the first date of a signature on that petition there were 180 days to turn those signatures in. He said on the petition the first date would expire the first week of December. He said once the petition was turned in, the City staff would send the petition to the County Clerk. He said he was unclear, but during that checking or immediately after that checking of signatures, there was 20 days to accomplish what the petition requested which was to repeal the current ordinance. If the City Commission chose not to do that during that 20 day period then the City Commission would be required to place it on the ballot. He said there was a 90 day period to put it on a ballot. He said he intentionally tried to make sure that there would not need to be a special election. That 90 day period would include what would be a primary election for the City Commission if necessary.
Mayor Rundle said he was offering the same caveats in that he was not certain, but he thought that it was after the checking it would certify that a petition was valid by having the required number of signatures then the City Commission would be required to take that action within that 20 days.
Commissioner Schauner said given all that it seemed that the urgency of November 30th might not be as urgent. He said he would like to see from legal staff an explanation of the timelines that would be operative with respect to when the filing would need to occur by, and when could the Commission expect some verification of signatures from the County. In the meantime while all that was taking place, they could have a full City Commission discussion and perhaps with more and more complete information about that proposal.
Commissioner Hack agreed that she wanted a full Commission and a full set of information. She said she was concerned about the drop dead date on the petitions. She said there seemed to be some leeway.
Mayor Rundle said there was no City Commission meeting scheduled the first Tuesday in December so this issue would be on the agenda the second Tuesday in December.
Patricia Sinclair said she would prefer a full Commission to consider the police evidence item.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2004
1. eBay Sale – Crafco EZ Pour Crack Filler.
2. Parks & Rec Sports Complexes – Cesare Catering.
3. Bid – GPS Rover for Info Systems Dept to Seiler for $19,994.
4. Surplus Items – from Parks & Rec to Ottawa Rec Commission.
5. Ordinance No. 7844 – 1st Read, IRB for Martin Logan for $1,140,000.
6. Ordinance No. 7836 – 2nd Read, rezone (Z-08-41-04) Western Hills from RS-1 to RS-E.
7. Ordinance No. 7841 – 2nd Read, temp bldg moratorium for E Lawrence rail corridor plan.
8. Resolution No. 6570 – Condemnation of property interest, Folks Rd.
9. Park Land Acquisition – Mary’s Lake.
10. Memo of Understanding – Amendment to Int’l Assoc. of Firefighters Local 1596, vacation leave.
11. Rezone – (Z-09-43-04) 38.423 acres, RS-2 to PRD-1, E of Monterey Way (extended) & N of Peterson.
12. Rezone – (Z-09-46-04) 12.264 acres from A to RM-1, N of W 6th & E of GWW.
13. Rezone – (Z-09-47-04) 15.679 acres from A to RS-2, N of W 6th & E of GWW.
14. Rezone – (Z-09-48-04) 32.391 acres from A to RM-D, N of W 6th & E of GWW.
15. Rezone – (Z-08-38-04) 5.57 acres from RS-2 to PRD-1, 1503 Haskell.
16. PDP – (PDP-08-10-04) Parnell Park Affordable Single-Family Homes, 5.57 acres, 1503 Haskell.
17. Use Permitted Upon Review – (UPR-09-04-04) for The Fountains Retirement Ctr., SE corner of Clinton Pkwy & Inverness.
18. Final Plat – (PF-09-29-04) Inverness Park Plaza Add No. 5, retirement development, 25.976 acres, SE corner of Inverness & Clinton Pkwy.