January 17, 2006
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 Highberger presiding and members Amyx, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present. Student Commissioner Frei was present.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of January 3, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to receive the Hospital Board meeting minutes of November 16, 2005; and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of December 13, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 174 vendors in the amount of $1,598,907.21. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Henry’s on Henry Street, 11 East 8th; 8th Street Taproom, 801 New Hampshire; The Limelight Club, 924 Iowa, Ste: Q; West Coast Saloon, 2222 Iowa; the Cereal Malt Beverage License for Alvamar Orchards, 3000 Bob Billings Parkway; and the Taxi Cab License for Safeway Transportation, 301 Maple Ste: B. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to declare that a surplus ambulance vehicle title, 1995 Ford –Unit 682, be transferred to Douglas County. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve the purchase from Shawnee Mission Ford off the MACPP cooperative bid for the following vehicles:
● Four (4) half-ton pickups for $82,108 (Public Works & Finance);
● One (1) Ford Escape for $18,671 (Utilities);
● Two (2) Ford Expeditions for $52,054 (Police & Fire/Medical); and
● Two (2) F-550’s for $61,524 (Utilities).
The total for all vehicles off the cooperative bid was $214,357. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve the purchase of one (1) Ford 500 the Fire/Medical Department from Shawnee Mission Ford for $21,187. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a preliminary design/build services contract with the Burns & McDonnell/Garney LLC joint venture, in the amount of $93,085 for modifications to Pump Station-16 (north of 6th and Kentucky. Pursuant to Charter Ordinance 19, the engineer’s estimate and total project bidding requirements were waived. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
The City Commission reviewed the bid for 6th and Indiana and 17th and Massachusetts/New Hampshire Sanitary Sewer Improvements for the Utilities Department. The bid was:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Nowak Construction $1,362,011.39
Engineer’s Estimate $1,505,424.70
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to award the sole bid to Nowak Construction, in the amount of $1,362,011.39. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Ordinance No. 7961, extending a portion of the HOP Building Permit Moratorium until March 1, 2006 pursuant to Commission direction on December 20, 2005, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance No. 7948, amending Sections 20-1314 and 20-2002.13 of the City Code pertaining to reduction of area or space and nonconformance as a result of governmental taking or acquisition; authorized by the Commission on November 29, 2005, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 7963, establishing an “all way stop” at the intersection of 10th and Vermont Streets, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6624, authorizing the City to convey the Holidome, 200 McDonald Drive, property to Lawrence Hotel Partners LLC. This action was recommended by the City’s bond counsel, Gilmore & Bell and would conclude the City’s obligation under the bond financing agreements and the related foreclosure actions for this property. Motion carried unanimously.
(9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution No. 6625, authorizing an amendment to the performance agreement with Sunshine Properties/Microtech concerning their 1997 Industrial Revenue Bond Issuance and providing for payment of 100% of the property taxes for the property. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-08-30-05) for Fairfield Farms West Addition No. 2, a replat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, of Fairfield Farms West Addition, a proposed three-lot office subdivision containing approximately 4.3122 acres, property generally described as being located south of K-10 Highway, west of O’Connell Road; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Submittal of a downstream analysis for wastewater services and approval of the analysis by the City’s Utilities Department prior to scheduling of the Final Plat on the City Commission’s agenda for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way;
2. Provision and approval of public improvement plans prior to the recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office;
3. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations;
4. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement; and
5. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Provision of a master street tree plan; and
d. Provision of street sign fees.
Motion carried unanimously. (11)
Joshua Montgomery, representing Lawrence Freenet, said they had recently been in discussions with T-Mobile and specifically with their site planning staff about the Harper Street request for a tower. T-Mobile had indicated an interest in helping their community project by making tower space available as well as power and data at that location to the community project in order to better serve the community. He said he was present in support of T-Mobile’s request for a lease at the Harper Street location and thanked T-Mobile publicly for their interest in helping their community project.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, Legal Services Director, said those types of situations involved the City’s role in two different respects. One respect was as a land use regulator in which it was segregated out from the City’s second role which was a property owner. He said the City owned the property, and staff would look at the site to see if it made sense to have a site at that location, from a property owner perspective and provide the City Commission with a recommendation. If the applicant wanted to proceed, they would also then concurrently work with the Planning Department for any land use review as well.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive the request from T-Mobile Communications and refer the request to staff for a report. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said the 2006 Budget was on-line at http://www.lawrenceks.org/Budget2006/adopted/ to provide the community online access to the budget. He said he had sent the City Commission a timeline for the 2005 Audit, and this year staff planned on having a report to the City Commission in May on the City’s portion of the report. He said the document would not be completed because they would still need to receive information from the Housing Authority and the Hospital, but the City’s portion would be available before the City Commission’s budget deliberations.
Also, Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, received another award for the Traffic Calming Project at Harvard Road. (13)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Receive staff report and draft ordinance concerning possible amendments to the City Code provisions concerning disorderly house nuisances.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said back in the fall a number of neighborhood association representatives began discussions with staff concerning possible amendments to the City’s disorderly house ordinance. There had been a series of meetings and the memorandum that he had provided to the City Manager, included a number of different items. One of those items was possible amendments to the disorderly house ordinance that the City Commission would be reviewing and discussing.
There were other items that staff still needed to work on and provide the City Commission with additional information, but he wanted to make sure the City Commission understood that the discussions in regard to this ordinance were in a larger context about what to do with continuing nuisances, misdemeanor crime type activity that a number of neighborhood associations were concerned with. There were a number of items that range from trash and litter to changes to the City’s rental registration ordinance and also, some discussions, at a preliminary level, about some types of incentives that might encourage owner occupancy in certain single-family districts.
He said staff continued to believe they were making progress regarding the noise ordinance enforcement and provided the City Commission with some statistics on the enforcement and staff would continue to monitor the enforcement.
He said there was also dialogue with some of the neighborhood representatives and he hoped to continue that dialogue about possible measurements of success or lack of success so staff could know whether or not staff’s efforts were appropriate or whether staff should change tactics.
Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, said at the start of this process the biggest frustration that staff heard from members of the public was that the City’s current disorderly house nuisance ordinance wasn’t functioning quickly enough in order for it to be a deterrent.
The main changes were focused on two categories. The first was aimed to streamline the process in making it quicker for the ordinance to be enforced and secondly to bolster the ordinance against certain legal attacks.
The main methods for streamlining the process were to allow for the prosecution, under the nuisance house ordinance to occur contemporaneously with the prosecution for the underlying offenses in certain circumstances. That would not be an available option in every circumstance because of compulsory joinder issues and other related legal issues, but in many circumstances it might be possible for the process to be started under the disorderly house nuisance ordinance prior to the ultimate resolution of a charge against somebody else. For example, if a tenant was charged, they might be able to start the process regarding a property owner immediately as opposed to waiting. This would allow several months to be taken off the time it would take to get one of those cases identified and acquire some remedial efforts taken.
The other thing staff was doing to speed up the process was to count diversions as a violation under the ordinance as opposed to just convictions which was a hole in the City’s current ordinance because many times people who were first offenders would be diverted. The way both the current ordinance and the proposed amendment were setup, in order for there to be any sort of finding of disorderly house nuisance, there needed to be two or more criminal activities that took place within a 365 day period and staff also added another criteria with the amended ordinance. The problem with the old ordinance was that certain circumstances people were being granted diversion for first offense. Instead of two offenses within a 365 day period, was three offenses within a 365 day period and that was a lot more difficult to accumulate to trigger the provisions of the ordinance.
In addition, the amended ordinance also was triggered by three or more violations occurring in one incident that were committed by different individuals which would be aimed at circumstances where there would be a major blow out incident of some sort. Numerous people would be charged and that would allow staff, based upon that one incident, designate that property as a nuisance property or disorderly house property.
Beyond the efforts that staff had made to speed up the enforcement of the ordinance, staff had also taken some steps to try to make certain there were no double jeopardy or multiplicity claims raised against the ordinance. Those were legal doctrines that prohibit the prosecution of an individual twice on one set of events or another that substantially share its elements. He said staff had taken some steps to make certain that the ordinance was not subject to attack on that basis.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
James Dunn, speaking on behalf of the Landlord Association, said his association had some concerns. He said one item he specifically wanted to comment on, was possibly in violation of the Kansas Landlord Tenant Act, and would create some problems. He said under the proposed penalties section (14-1110, item b) it stated: “Requirement of a written lease for occupants which includes provisions requiring eviction for criminal activity.” He said at this time, tenants did not need to have a written contract with a landlord in order to rent a property because it could be done on an oral basis. He said this would make the City in the position of requiring landlords to have a written contract which could be construed as being in violation of the Kansas Landlord and Tenant Act.
He also discussed unintended consequences. For example, a few years back he had a tenant who refused to take down a political sign in violation of City Code which required political signs to be removed after a certain date. He said he received a notice from the City that this political sign was still visible. He said his tenant absolutely refused to take that sign down and at one point, someone from the Community Development Department took the sign down. He said as a landlord he did not want to deal with this issue for the next election cycle, so he proceeded to terminate the contract at the end of its coming term. The tenant chose not to leave so he went for an eviction situation to terminate that contract in which he received a court order from district court. The tenant appealed the eviction to the Court of Appeals and they ruled that he had the right to terminate that rental contract. Then the tenant appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court in which that court chose not to hear the matter in which the tenant then had to leave the property. He said that was an unintended and unexpected consequence that involved the sign ordinance.
He said the Community Coalition for Homelessness Concerns hosted their town meeting with discussion about case management and homeless situations and he could see that this ordinance creating a situation where somebody could end up being homeless.
He said the City Commission had designated a committee, The Community Commission on Homelessness” to look at issues relative to homeless situations. He said he did not think the Homelessness Commission had lodged in on this particular ordinance and how it might impact housing and homelessness. He said he realized City staff focused on potential large crowds and large parties, but there were many ordinances in Lawrence that could fall into becoming a nuisance house. He said he would like to have some of those other bodies weigh in on this ordinance as to whether there might be some unexpected consequences if this ordinance was passed.
Jerry Shultz, Centennial Neighborhood Association, said his association supported this draft ordinance. He said they had been actively engaged in trying to work with the City to craft the language that was currently being proposed. One of the events that stimulated their interest was a loss of a neighbor due to party houses and other types of issues. He said generally speaking, most of the folks in their neighborhood were wonderful people and great neighbors, but periodically there were cases that were out of hand. He said for example, when the police had been called, in the past, the officers would often treat every noise violation as a first incident because they were not necessarily familiar with what was going on and there might have been a history of a nuisance at a particular place. He said when the neighbors complained those cases were often not given a citation or handled in a way that would have a consequence on the behavior that their neighborhood was concerned about. That was one issue that had been recently dealt with by a new Police Department policy where the police were giving out more citations for noise and other issues.
He said the neighborhood also felt that the nuisance ordinance had not been enforced and had no teeth. He said if that ordinance was not enforceable that ordinance needed more teeth. The goal was to increase the number of citations that were given directly by the Police Department on a more regular basis and they were seeing that happen, but also to shorten the trigger for putting the nuisance house ordinance into effect so that in fact, there would be that kind of consequence in a more immediate fashion. The closer the consequences were to the problem the more likely there would be an impact.
He said in closing, their neighborhood thought this ordinance was a good move and it was intended for instances where there were major problems. On the other hand, there had been cases in the past where it was not a party, just someone playing an electric guitar at 2:00 a.m. He said the ordinance should have an effect on that type of behavior as well. He said they thoroughly supported the proposed ordinance.
Ted Boyle, President, North Lawrence Association, said he supported the other neighborhoods in modifying this nuisance house ordinance. He said their neighborhood had a few problems in North Lawrence, over the past years, but he wished that a business nuisance ordinance could be drafted.
Dietrich Earnhart, University Place Neighborhood, said he currently chaired an ad hoc committee as part of the University Place Neighborhood Association and one of their primary tasks was to actually help facilitate use of this new ordinance. He said speaking as an individual he strongly supported the new ordinance.
Caleb Morse, Lawrence, said he supported this proposed ordinance. He seconded Dunn’s suggestion to review the ordinance for possible conflict with the Landlord Tenant Act. Even on his block which was one of the quietest blocks around the University, they have increasing problems with disorderly houses. He said they really needed something that affected a change faster than the existing ordinance. The proposed changes to the existing ordinance would have that affect and would be a great benefit to their neighborhood.
Mayor Highberger asked staff to comment on Dunn’s comment concerning the proposed changes and the potential conflict with the Landlord Tenant Act.
Miller said the provisions Dunn spoke about were in the penalty provision which was a term of probation that a judge could impose after a landlord or someone similarly situated had been convicted. He said first of all, the term of probation was a contract and probation never had to be accepted. Probation was a circumstance that allowed individuals to avoid punishment that they would otherwise face by doing certain conditions, but it was not something, if someone felt strongly that it conflicted with the law that that person would need to accept, they could just pay the penalty for the violation and essentially be done with the case.
He said secondly, he thought it did not violate the Landlord Tenant Act because essentially what the City would be doing was imposing a condition that was more stringent than the Landlord Tenant Act, but it did not conflict directly with that act. In fact, he thought the law would support the idea that landlords could put a condition in their leases that would allow the landlords to evict people for criminal activity. He said he thought that was the case because K.S.A. 58-2545, allowed any provisions to be included in the lease that were not otherwise illegal and this would not otherwise be illegal based upon his reading of the Kansas Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Therefore, he thought there was not a conflict because he thought the law would allow for eviction based upon criminal activity and if a landlord felt strongly about this issue, the only time would face this sort of prohibition was after they had previously been convicted of a violation based upon this act on the property and they could elect to face their punishment without probation.
He said lastly, the provision that was being complained about was in the existing law and had been during the entire time it had been in effect.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked procedurally how a person would file a complaint.
Miller said because this ordinance was triggered by an accumulation of violations, probably the primary internal challenge that the City faced was how to identify a property that was out of compliance and hopefully, that process would be automatic. In other words, staff would use their existing computer resources to track properties and to identify whether one property had enough accumulation of violations. He said staff was using existing computer resources to some extent now, through the Police Department, on a limited subset of the crimes that could trigger this ordinance. For example, noise violations, right now, were being addressed by the Police Department in a way that would allow them to place landlords on notice when a landlord was about to run afoul of this act. If an individual wanted to bring to the Police Departments attention, the fact that they believed that the house or a property in question had accumulated violations enough to trigger this act, he was certain that they could call the Police Department and at that point the Police Department could check their internal database to see whether that was the case and then proceed further with the informal notification and eventually prosecution if necessary.
Commissioner Schauner asked if tracking complaints towards building an entry to the nuisance house status could be done with the current software at the Police Department. He said as he recalled there was discussion on the 2006 Budget hearings about some additional software the Police Department had been asking for to more easily manipulate, manage, control, or build that database.
Miller said the internal procedures were a work in progress. Staff was attempting to capture all of the violations they could. Staff recently received from Municipal Court tracking, some violations that looked promising. There were some indications that an existing CAD system could be utilized better to track those violations, but he did not think staff was at the end of the development process yet to where he could definitively say one way or another that what staff had now, as far as technologies, was going to track 100% of those violations.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the software that the Police Department had asked for would be something necessary so they did not have accumulative first offenses.
Miller said that issue should be addressed in the current CAD software. The Police Department had placed a lot of emphasis on data entry and was something that was discussed as a yearly goal for the next year which was to improve the data entry into the CAD system by individual officers who were in the field so things like this could be identified. He said the indications that he had received about the current software were that that software should be somewhat sufficient for that purpose.
Commissioner Schauner said if the landlords had a provision in their lease that said “upon conviction of a crime” or some similar language, he asked if that would provide a more efficient tool for landlords to use if they were trying to avoid some culpability under this statute. In other words, the same tenant was behaving so badly that the house became subject to the nuisance house ordinance. He asked if the landlord would be better protected in dealing with their tenant.
Miller said the only way a landlord could evict was if there was a substantial non-compliance on health or safety issues and if it was a violation of something in the lease agreement. In this circumstance, if he was placed in the position to advise landlords, he would suggest that every landlord include a provision in their lease that stated that at the landlords discretion they might evict a tenant for criminal activities. It made sense, if facing liability under this ordinance, that the landlords give themselves the tools that they would need in order to address those problems.
Jo Scannell, Lawrence, said she was a landlord in several different areas of Lawrence and one of the conditions in her lease was that there be no illegal or criminal behavior. She said she did not recall if the question was answered about a landlord who did not have written leases. The only time a landlord would not have a lease would be if it was a month to month rental.
Concerning the amendments to the disorderly house nuisance, one of the proposed changes was that it would allow a landlord to evict someone. She said to evict someone took a long time, was very expensive, and a landlord lost out in the process, financially. She said she was not happy with eviction as a considered option.
She said she was trying to think of a creative solution to party houses and she was trying to figure out of there was a way to limit the number of people at a party between the landlord and the tenant or if it would be a student matter where they would agree to limit sizes of parties, but she did not think that idea was feasible.
Commissioner Schauner suggested that it might be helpful to have staff reiterate the answer about the lack of a lease.
Corliss said in order for a landlord to fully protect themselves from prosecution, under this law, the landlord should have a written lease that would allow them to evict a tenant if they were in violation of the law. He said it was not a requirement, per se under this ordinance, but if the property owner would work themselves into a situation where that would be a condition under the probation, under the ordinance, then that would be something that would fall through.
He said he hoped the City Commission and the public understood that staff did not go cavalierly go into this situation indicating that staff wanted to interject themselves into all landlord tenant situations, but there was a balance between the landlords’ very important responsibilities and rights to rent their property in that the tenants could do things within their domicile as their renting, but also the neighborhoods had concerns as well. In those types of situations it was because the tenant was disabusing the neighborhood and was becoming a habitual nuisance or on the road to being a nuisance and staff needed some tool to stop that from occurring and it was not just giving that tenant a noise ordinance citation because that might be the cost of having a party. He said staff had struggled with this ordinance as it had been on the books to try and respond.
He said again, staff was not trying to interject into that eviction situation too quickly, but staff thought there was a role for the City to play regarding those situations.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the Landlord Tenant Act did not require a written lease would staff require a lease in this ordinance.
Corliss said the ordinance would not indicate the requirement of a lease. He said staff did not have a means of enforcing that as a code requirement. He said he was always hesitant to add things to the City’s code book that staff did not have the ability to enforce. He said when getting to that situation in discussions with the landlord, it was after the landlord had been unable to persuade the tenant to change their ways and that it appeared it was a continuing problem and the property owner would essentially be prosecuted for allowing a nuisance to continue. He said it was generally good advice for landlords to have written leases.
He said the organizations that the City sponsored counsel landlords to have written agreements. He said he was sure there were situations where a written lease would not make sense, but in a situation where a landlord was concerned about liability, under this ordinance, it would be staff’s recommendation that the landlord have a written lease and that the lease would provide a provision where the landlord could evict someone if that person was going to run afoul of the law.
Commissioner Schauner said he supported the ordinance. He said what he thought the City and neighbors were looking for was an active partner in trying to police negative behavior by certain renters. Unfortunately, the City’s “tool box” was not overflowing with a lot of tools to deal with those issues and they were struggling to find an active and influential partner in that balancing of interests. He said those amendments were a good attempt to try and improve the ordinance. It was not perfect, but time would tell about how well it worked. He hoped the Police Department was able to find a system that could create and track from officer to officer a database that would permit the new office coming to the scene to access prior history at that address and make this ordinance work. He said there had been increased enforcement by the Police Department and this was a step in the right direction.
Vice Mayor Amyx said moving ahead with this ordinance was a good idea. He said he had discussed infrastructure of neighborhoods and he looked at this issue as another way to help infrastructure improvements. He said it might not be pipes or concrete, but things that were necessary that neighborhoods were allowed to act as neighborhoods.
Commissioner Rundle said the stability and health of inner city neighborhoods was critical to the overall health of the community, economically and many other aspects. He said those amendments were just one more step to make sure they were on the side of stability instead of continual decline. He supported the ordinance.
Commissioner Hack said the ordinance had positive implications, not just for inner city neighborhoods, but all neighborhoods. She said she was a great proponent of local bands and music, but she had opportunity to live across the street from bands twice and while she appreciated their creativity at 2:00 a.m., one’s patience wears thin so having the opportunity to take care of issues like that was helpful.
Commissioner Rundle said this would not preclude the Homelessness Commission from reviewing this ordinance and reporting back to the City Commission if they saw problems and the City Commission could always make adjustments later on.
Mayor Highberger said he wanted staff to review a couple of technical issues before second reading of the ordinance. He suggested that staff review Section 14-1101(e) the “except” clause to see if an “or” was needed. Also, 14-1107, he suggested an “or” after section (b). He said he thought there was a problem that the current ordinance was not addressing and staff should take another attempt at making it work. He said it was not an anti-student ordinance because most students were good neighbors and the few that were not, the City needed a tool to deal with those students.
He said it was certainly not the City Commission’s intent to place any inappropriate burden on landlords and staff would monitor the progress to make sure that was not happening. He supported the ordinance.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to place on a future agenda for first reading, amendments to the City Code provisions concerning disorderly house nuisances. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
Consider approving recommendations from the Traffic Safety Commission for the following items:
a) Construct a MID-BLOCK PEDESTRIAN CROSSING on New Hampshire Street between 6th Street and 7th Street.
b) Construct a MID-BLOCK PEDESTRIAN CROSSING on New Hampshire Street between 8th Street and 9th Street.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said a request from The World Company to place a mid-block pedestrian crossing on New Hampshire between 6th and 7th Streets was presented to the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC). The TSC voted unanimously to approve the request.
A mid-block crossing was feasible under the following conditions:
He said this improvement was not anticipated in the 2006 budget and might need to be bond financed. He said a request from the Farmers Market for a mid-block pedestrian crossing on New Hampshire between 8th and 9th Streets was also presented to the Traffic Safety Commission. The TSC voted unanimously to recommend construction.
A mid-block crossing is feasible (however, several parking spaces will be lost) under the following conditions:
He said those improvements were also not anticipated in the 2006 budge and would also need to be bond financed.
Commissioner Schauner said with regard to the Farmers Market crosswalk, he asked if it was possible to install, on a weekly basis, some temporary protection from pedestrians crossing that street. He said hopefully there would be a lot of traffic crossing that street during the Farmers Market season and rather than waiting until fall, it would be nice if staff could do something temporary.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, asked if Commissioner Schauner meant everyday.
Commissioner Schauner suggested only Saturday’s.
Wildgen said schools had always wanted those temporary stop signs in the middle of streets. Those temporary stop signs would not meet guidelines, but staff could take a look at that. He said he wanted to make sure the Commission understood that there would be a loss of parking at both locations.
Commissioner Schauner asked how much parking would be lost.
Wildgen said in the 800 block at least for parking spaces and several in the 600 block.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to hear from staff what could be done temporarily. He said with revenue running above projections, he said he would prefer to pay with cash and not bond those projects. He said this was a quickly deteriorating asset and he would rather pay with cash.
Wildgen said staff would look at that possibility. He said that money was budgeted in as part of the balance forward for next year. He said he hoped staff would receive good bids out of all those other projects that were coming forward. He said one of the items in the 600 block was storm drainage work and staff might be able to tap that fund for related storm water issues. He said there were a number of options that could be looked at before those projects had to be bonded. He did not want to bond those projects either. He said design engineering was also needed and they tried to do that engineering in-house.
Mayor Highberger said the cost estimate for the crossing between 6th and 7th was approximately $65,000 and the project would be done at the same time as the mill and overlay work. He asked if staff had a cost estimate if that crossing was not done at the same time as the mill and overlay.
Soules said additionally they would have another $37,000 to re-stripe and mil and overlay.
Mayor Amyx asked if staff was considering using the same type of design as in front of the Arts Center.
Soules said that was staff’s anticipation.
Vice Mayor Amyx said one of the reasons he brought up that issue was that as he looked at other crosswalks downtown some of those brick pavers were coming up.
Soules said the crosswalk in front of the Art Center was stamped concrete. He said as the waterline project progressed, as those crosswalks were torn out, staff would use stamped concrete on those crosswalks.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Ralph Gage, World Company, spoke in support of the crosswalk between 6th and 7th Streets.
Commissioner Hack said both of those crosswalks were necessary. She also supported Schauner’s request to pay cash for the projects.
Commissioner Schauner said he was always amazed at the costs of crosswalks. He was in support of moving forward with both crosswalks.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he agreed that the costs of those projects were amazing. He said one concern he had was with the raised crosswalk in front of the Arts Center.
He said losing 4 parking spaces was a concern, but he supported those projects.
Mayor Highberger said he shared all of the concerns that had been expressed. He supported the requests.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to construct a “mid-block pedestrian crossing” on New Hampshire Street between 6th Street and 7th Street; direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to construct a “mid-block pedestrian crossing” on New Hampshire Street between 8th Street and 9th Street; direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Receive recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission and Staff Memo on establishing a “train horn quiet zone” in North Lawrence.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said the Traffic Safety Commission heard a request to implement a “train horn quiet zone” in North Lawrence and the TSC unanimously approved the request, subject to the following conditions:
He said review of the proposed Quiet Zone with the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) was necessary to ensure that if those improvements were made, the City would qualify for the Quiet Zone Designation.
Mayor Highberger asked what action staff was requesting.
Soules said the City Commission could concur with the TSC recommendation, but staff would need to inform the City Commission whether they could establish that Quiet Zone.
Jonathan Douglass, City Manager’s Intern, said even if the FRA did not interpret the other line as being an intersection, the FRA might come back and tell staff that this median was 70% as effective as the full sized median, in which case, the FRA would need to recalculate the overall risk factor. He said there would be a change that the FRA would say it was not an intersection, but the intersection could still be safe enough.
Vice Mayor Amyx said with those calculations from the FRA, he said something seemed wrong. He asked if the City had to meet their safety standards.
Douglass said correct. He said the FRA wanted to make sure the intersection was as safe with those improvements and no horn as it would be with the horn. He said the FRA had ways to calculate with traffic counts, traffic speeds, train speeds, and train count. He said the FRA had performed all kinds of research.
Mayor Highberger asked if staff provided accident data.
Douglass said he thought the railroad and the City did inventories for each crossing that involved accident data and all those other traffic counts and safety measures. FRA kept all of that data and that data had to be updated periodically. He said one of the other problems the City might face was that FRA had older data on those crossings. He said staff had updated those inventories, but that was not reflected in the data available from the FRA on line. He said staff needed to double check that the FRA processed those updates that staff had sent in.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked about how old the Quiet Zone regulation was.
Wildgen said the final rulings were passed last June.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if staff had some background to tell staff if their safety estimates worked.
Douglass said the FRA had passed an interim rule approximately a year prior and localities were able to create Quiet Zones under that interim rule. He said the FRA took comments and made a few adjustments to the statute and passed the final rule last June.
Larry Lawrence, Lawrence, said train whistles were a tough policy issue. When the whistles were sounding a lot of people were inconvenienced. A couple of people whose lives were saved did not realize their lives were saved.
The Federal Railroad Administration might believe that it had some calculations, but those calculations were not proven. He said he worked with the FRA on a regular basis.
In 1978, City Commissioner Don Binns voted against a left turn onto 23rd Street coming out of what was now Hastings. He said if the left turn was permitted someday, someone would die. Commissioner Bins lost that vote 4-1. He remembered the day that a young man died making that turn about 20 years later.
The members of the current City Commission might find one day that they wake up and read in the paper that someone had stumbled across the track because the horn did not sound. He said Quiet Zones were particularly dangerous if there was a bar within a mile of the track. If the City Commission ended up in that situation, the Commission should remember tonight’s conversation.
Ted Boyle, President, North Lawrence Improvement Association, said this issue of a Quiet Zone had been in discussion of the North Lawrence Improvement Association for approximately two years. He said he lived in North Lawrence all his life and could remember three accidents on the tracks. Two of those accidents were people who were stuck on the tracks trying to drive around the bars and across the tracks. He said the trains had whistles which did not do any good because those people were killed. The other accident was a car load of Haskell youth coming back from a party whose vehicle flipped on the tracks killing 5 youth.
He said with the safety measures in place, medians, and the cross bars that were going to come down, a person would need to crash through the barrier to get out in front of that train.
He said they would like to see the Quiet Zone exercised between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. He said the North Lawrence Improvement Association had worked with Laidlaw because they wanted a 24 hours Quiet Zone. Again, he said they believed the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., would enhance and better the quality of life for the residents of North Lawrence and would promote development according to a new stormwater study that was going to be discussed.
Commissioner Amyx asked Boyle if the arms ever failed.
Boyle said the arms had not ever failed as far as he knew.
He said the train engineers still had the ability of sounding those whistles, but it did not make a difference whether the engineer came down that track and the whistle automatically sounded and there was someone on the tracks, the engineer would not be able to stop that train on time. He said it was a persons responsibility, whether a pedestrian or in a vehicle to get out of the way. He said they would still have the bells, lights, medians, and arms at those crossings.
Commissioner Amyx asked about the amount of time it took between the arm coming down and the train coming by.
Boyle said from experience, 7½ minutes.
Commissioner Amyx said from the time the bell sounded and the arm came down, how much time was there between that moment, and when that train passes in front of that vehicle.
Boyle said the arms come down when the train was a little over a quarter mile up the track. He said the lights start flashing and the bells start ringing and the arms came down. He said it would take a train going 45 miles an hour, the time it took to go a quarter of a mile.
Commissioner Amyx said there would not be a lot of time.
Boyle concurred, but the lights start flashing and the bells start ringing before the bars came down.
Commissioner Rundle said in the event of a power failure, he asked if there was backup power for those crossings.
Boyle said he understood the railroad had backup power.
Commissioner Amyx suggested that staff look into the backup power situation. He said he knew it was possible to get caught on those tracks between those bars. He said if he was going to err he was going to err on the side of safety.
Caleb Morse, Lawrence, said he was a member of the Traffic Safety Commission, but was speaking on his own behalf. He said he cast his vote under the impression that the calculation that was generated based on the factors for the individual crossings and the improvements that would be made, would meet that safety threshold that transportation association set.
He said he would be concerned if the shortened median would raise that value above that safety threshold that David Woosley, City’s Traffic Engineer, advised them. He said the TSC cast their votes based on what they perceived to be the safe option, not the convenience factor. He said he did not want to prejudice anyone’s vote by saying that, but that was how he cast his vote. He said he would be curious to know what the change in the median length did to that threshold value.
He pointed out that the TSC made two separate recommendations. One recommendation was to make the safety improvements and the other was to put in place the Quiet Zone. The safety improvements could still go forward without the Quiet Zone and he was supportive of that idea as a Traffic Safety Commissioner.
Lawrence sought to offer a clarification, not to engage in a debate. He said one of the reasons for a heightened safety standard in a City was pedestrian traffic. Pedestrians wander around at night as he noted particularly if it was in the proximity of a bar. Unless the entire track was fenced off which was done in some cases, there would be problems with people wandering across that track.
He said he was at that meeting for a different purpose. However, he was a senior executive at a major railroad in the United States. He said their trains did not run on that track and he had no vested interest other than as a human being seeing each morning in their morning reports, the incidents and casualties across their system as people try to either go across the tracks or simply were not aware of those tracks. He said again, his primary purpose was to offer clarification so that the City Commission would consider pedestrians as well because safety for the cars was not enough.
Commissioner Hack said the City Commission was only receiving a report and the Commission wanted to make sure they were not doing anything that created a situation that was less safe than the situation they had already and at the same time recognizing the concerns of the neighbors and their desire for the Quiet Zone. She suggested waiting for the further analysis.
Wildgen said he wanted to make sure staff knew what questions they needed to address. He said one question was backup power, when the bars go down how far was the train away from coming across the intersection.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he would like to know that timing in seconds according to speed.
Commissioner Rundle said he assumed that distance and timing were established by federal regulations. He said if the bells could ring a half mile away, it would be safer, but staff could confirm if that idea was completely out of the City’s control.
Wildgen said staff would address those issues and report back to the Commission.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was possible to create a school type zone for trains that cross through that part of town and also asked if that would require FRA approval.
Corliss said he was familiar with some of the law in that area and it was clear that the Federal Government had preempted the City’s ability to regulate the speed of trains. He said that issue had been litigated in Kansas. He said the City did not have the ability to enact an ordinance that would impact the speed of trains within this community.
Commissioner Schauner said as part of the FRA calculations he asked if there was an inventory of drinking establishments within proximity to the tracks.
Douglass said no.
Commissioner Schauner suggested that might be something worth inquiring about.
Wildgen said that information could be mapped.
Mayor Highberger said he appreciated Lawrence presenting his concerns, but nonetheless, he supported both sections of the TSC recommendation. He said even if this City was not able to get the Quiet Zone, safety improvements should be addressed. He said he would prefer to wait until the Quiet Zone application was accepted.
Commissioner Rundle said he supported this initiative effort. He said in this day and age it seemed that there should be some technology that did not cost $240,000 to add some feature to inform people that a train was coming. He said the people who were close to the track were the people who needed the warning and not the entire community. He said if staff could look forward to some type of refinement for the warning system so that it was localized rather than broadcasted so widely.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive recommendations and memo and directed staff to proceed with continuing to establishing a train horn quiet zone. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Consider initiation of a text amendment repealing the 50 foot setback requirement along West 6th Street from Monterey Way to K-10; pursuant to City Commission direction at the January 10th, 2006 meeting.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. He said last week the City Commission indicated that they wanted this issue placed on the regular agenda for consideration as to whether or not to initiate a text amendment to the subdivision regulations that would repeal the extraordinary 50 foot setback requirement that was in those regulations along west 6th Street between Monterey Way and K-10.
He said staff was proceeding with establishing a date to have the public hearing to make the changes in regard to the governmental taking issue. The City Commission resolved one of those issues on the peripheral setback requirements that were in the zoning code.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the right-of-way was the same width from Monterey Way to Wakarusa Drive as it was from Wakarusa Drive to County Route 13 on either side.
Corliss said he did not believe it was, but he did not want to speak definitively on that issue without having those maps in front of him. He said he recalled that there was a little bit of difference in the right-of-way along Monterey Way to Folks Road. There was a difference between Folks Road and Wakarusa and it was fairly straight along Wakarusa to the west.
He said staff could delay initiating this text amendment if the City Commission wanted additional information.
Vice Mayor Amyx said one of the reasons he brought that issue up was that he wanted that setback and right-of-way to be the same throughout.
Corliss said he understood the question, but he was unable to give factual information at this time.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the concern was that the extraordinary setback be extended all the way west to K-10.
Corliss said the extraordinary setback was in Article 12 of the Subdivision Regulations. He said from West 6th Street from County Route 13, which was essentially where the SLT was located, to Monterey Way was established in 1991.
Vice Mayor Amyx said there were two options. He said one option dealt with Monterey Way to Wakarusa Drive until they had discussions west of Wakarusa Drive onto the SLT which might make more sense at this point then going west. He said if they were going to go from Wakarusa Drive, west of the K-10, then he would like to have those maps and know what the information was as far as that right-of-way and where that 50 foot setback was going to be designated.
Commissioner Hack asked if the City Commission should delay item no. 4 until next week and do the whole thing together.
Vice Mayor Amyx said at this point, they should do Monterey Way to Folks Road because they know where that right-of-way existed, but they did not have the information that showed where the line up was.
Commissioner Rundle said the language of initiating implied being in favor of that action. He asked if it could be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation.
Corliss said that could be made very clear that it was not one way or the other in favor of the text amendment where they would be asking the Planning Commission to consider a particular item. He said it is usually helpful to have some indication as to what to consider.
Commissioner Rundle asked if there was any historical information about the goals, context, and rationale for putting this in place.
Corliss said it was part of the Western Development Plan that was adopted by the Planning Commission, City Commission, and County Commission in 1988 or 1989. He said the document he looked at regarding the setback takings text amendment issue and it was one of the recommendations in some form in that document.
Commissioner Rundle said he would like to see that information to have all the background.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Caleb Morse asked what the setback would be if this were removed from Monterey Way to Wakarusa.
Corliss said this was an extraordinary setback which would revert back to the zoning ordinance and the setback requirements along that road.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the discussion last week, 30 feet for commercial and 35 feet for residential.
Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said in a Planned Unit Development.
Morse said the City Commission had two principle obligations with regard to this setback. One obligation was to protect the transportation corridor and he would be very leery of removing that extraordinary setback for fear of creating another 23rd Street, on west 6th Street which was a highway, and right now a 5 lane street. He said that was something that should be done only under really extraordinary circumstances. He said they were all in favor of new urbanism, but he did not want to see new urbanism projects that bring in the negative consequences of old urbanism, putting a highway to a residential housing tract. He said they might want to be careful about how far they would go to foster new urbanism projects.
The other obligation was to protect the people who had to live at that location. He said those people would be living next to a highway and they really needed as much distance as they could get. He said the extraordinary setback would provide the future residents of this particular subdivision that was in question, a little extra protection from the traffic noise, speeding traffic, and the danger that brought.
Mayor Highberger said he disagreed with Morse. He said everything he read showed the only way that a highway could be controlled through urban areas was by making them narrower and building closer up to those roads. He said there were things that could be done to control speeds on roads like that and that could not be done if the road was 200 feet wide.
He said with the 50 foot setback it might have been good to preserve the corridor, but he thought they should look at ways to do things differently. He said even with the current right-of-way and with the setbacks that would be along that corridor they were still looking at 50 feet or more from curb to building which was a lot and it was hard to create a pleasing streetscape with that width and low buildings on either side. He said he would be happy to break this into two parts and look at doing Monterey Way to Wakarusa now and considering the rest later.
He said the purpose was to preserve the corridor for future transportation needs, but he was not sure the extraordinary setback was the way to do that. He said the extraordinary setback just gave them the opportunity to pay high prices for new right-of-way. He said if they really wanted to preserve the corridor, they should be getting the right-of-way rather than the setback. He said he would hate to see the City get into a situation again where they spend a lot of public money improving a street that eventually would need to be widened. In the process, the City would pay a million dollars an acre for new right-of-way to build a street that would benefit property owners and they still come back and want more money from the City. He supported initiating the text amendment.
Commissioner Hack said she did not have a problem splitting it up until we had a clearer picture. She said this was not in response to any specific development request it was just making it more consistent with what was already there. She said the extraordinary setback seemed to be a little much.
Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with part of what the Mayor said. Acquiring right-of-way made sense for long-term protection of the corridor.
Although he was going to vote against it either way he hoped that the City Commission would look at the first segment and deal with west of Wakarusa if and when that becomes an issue.
He said the thing that concerns him was that they were making decisions without nearly the consideration that was given in 1988 and 1989 to this corridor approach. There was a lot of work done and a lot of hours devoted to producing that product and in fact, the subcommittee of the Planning Commissions recommended against removing the extraordinary setback. He said he would hate to see all that historically appropriate work thrown away and to remember that when 23rd Street was developed a little at a time, nobody ever believed that 23rd Street would look like it did. He said they were at a bit of a tipping point in that decisions they made about how that corridor developed further to the west, they would either learn to love or learn to hate.
He asked the City Commission to move very cautiously before removing the extraordinary setback. He said he was also asking that the City Commission not even consider a west of Wakarusa change in the setback requirement until such time as they had a much better idea about how that area was going to be planned. He said that decision did not need to be made now, even if they had both maps with them tonight.
Commissioner Rundle said he continued to be troubled by the fact that all of this was based on New Urbanism. He said they did not have any resolution in place that stated that they were pursuing new urbanism. He said that was why he was asking the Planning Commission to review this in the broader context and not that the City Commission was requesting this.
Vice Mayor Amyx said there was a lot of concern for the area west of Wakarusa Drive on how development might occur in the future. He said he did not have any problem with the initiation of how the language should be handled. He said there should be consideration given to the first section which was from Monterey Way to Wakarusa Drive and then let the Planning Commission make further recommendations for Wakarusa Drive to K-10.
Again, his biggest concern was the consistency of the setback along with the right-of-way being the same throughout that entire corridor.
Historically in 1988 when all the discussion was taking place with the Western Development Plan concerning the need for an extraordinary setback was because they did not know how development was going to occur. He said they had seen some of that development and now they were at the point of making a decision as going from Wakarusa Drive, west and whether they would have consistency in that corridor as far as the setbacks and right-of-way.
Commissioner Rundle said he thought Vice Mayor Amyx’s idea of splitting those areas up was a wise idea.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Hack, to initiate a text amendment to consider repealing the extraordinary 50 foot setback provisions from Monterey Way to Wakarusa Drive. Aye: Amyx, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: Rundle and Schauner. Motion carried. (17)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Betty Alderson, Lawrence, spoke about the nuisance ordinance. She said she was glad Commissioner Hack brought up that this was an issue all over town and not just one particular area. She said she was glad to see that they were moving forward with the nuisance ordinance.
Jo Scannell, Lawrence, said she owned one duplex close to 23rd and Kasold on the north side. She said she received a certified letter notifying her that she had to license her duplex by January 13th.
The beginning paragraph in the letter stated that a courtesy letter was mailed asking that the duplex be licensed or that the property owner contacted the City if the property owner believed the City’s records were in error and the dwellings were not required to be licensed. The problem was she thought she had contacted City staff many times. She said she did not receive the answers that she wanted to hear. She said City staff was saying this zoning was RS-1 and RS-2, but when they built that duplex on that lot they were told it was zoned for a duplex, but now the City was saying it was single-family zoning.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said he received a copy of that letter and he did not know the result of that work, but staff would make sure that any enforcement action was stayed until staff could communicate further with Scannell.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Surplus Ambulance Vehicle – to Douglas County (1995 Ford-Unit 682).
2. MACPP Cooperative Bid – 9 vehicles from Shawnee Mission Ford totaling $214,357.
3. Purchase Ford 500 – Fire/Med from Shawnee Mission Ford for $21,187.
4. Design/Build Contract – Burns & McDonnell/Garney LLC joint venture for $93,085 – Pump Station 16. (N of 6th & Kentucky)
5. Bid – 6th & Indiana & 17th & Mass/New Hamp Sanitary Sewer to Nowak Construction for $1,362.011.39.
6. Ordinance No. 7961 – 2nd Read, HOP Bldg Permit Moratorium, March 1, 2006.
7. Ordinance No. 7948 – 2nd Read, Amend 20-1314 & 20-2002.13, governmental taking or acquisition.
8. Ordinance No. 7963 – 2nd Read, “all way stop” 10th & Vermont.
9. Resolution No. 6624 – Convey Holidome, 200 McDonald Dr to Lawrence Hotel Partners.
10. Resolution No. 6625 – Amend Performance Agreement with Sunshine Properties/Microtech, 1997 IRB, provide payment of 100% of property taxes.
11. Final Plat – (PF-08-30-05) Fairfield Farms W Add No. 2, Lots, 1 & 2, Blk 1, 4.3122 acres, located S of K-10, W of O’Connell.
12. City Manager’s Report.
13. Disorderly House Nuisance provisions.
14. TSC – “Mid-block pedestrian crossing” New Hamp between 6th & 7th.
15. TSC – “Mid-block pedestrian crossing” New Hamp between 8th & 9th.
16. TSC – “Train horn quiet zone” N Lawrence.
17. Text Amendment – 50 Ft. Setback requirements W 6th from Monterey Way to K-10.