February 14 , 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 Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Recycling & Resources Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of December 14, 2005. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 333 vendors in the amount of $965,415.68. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Ole Tapas Bar, 1008 Massachusetts; Jackpot Saloon, 943 Massachusetts; J.B. Stout’s, 721 Wakarusa Ste: 100; Marisco’s, 4821 West 6th Ste: A; Old Chicago, 2329 Iowa; Allstars, 913 North 2nd Ste: C; Free State Brewing Co., 636 Massachusetts; Pachamama’s, 800 New Hampshire (New Establishment); Pachamama’s, 2161 Quail Creek Dr.; the Retail Liquor License for Glass House Liquor, 2301 Wakarusa, Ste: C; and the Cereal Malt Beverage License for El Matador Café, 446 Locust. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for Wastewater Treatment Plant Manhole Replacement Project for the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer’s Estimate $60,000.00
Barge Turley Construction $58,000.00
Meadows Construction $57,975.00
Midwest Environmental Systems Inc. $49,642.42
J&H Construction $55,000.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Midwest Environmental Systems Inc., in the amount of $49,642.42. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for one skid steer loader for the Wastewater Division of the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Deems Farm Equipment $47,205.00
Heritage Tractor $48,229.00
Fries Lawn Leisure $54,708.08
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Deems Farm Equipment, in the amount of $47,205. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was move by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the sidewalk dining license for Mad Greek Restaurant, 907 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was move by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7977, allowing possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages on certain city property pursuant to a Mad Greek Restaurant Sidewalk Dining License. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7964, rezoning (Z-10-75-05A) .146 acre from C-5 (Limited Commercial District) to RO-1A (Residence-Office District), located at 705 Arkansas Street. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7965, rezoning (Z-10-68-05) 2.458 acres from C-5 (Limited Commercial District) to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential District, located between West 6th and West 7th Streets, east of Iowa (north half of 2001 and 2021 West 6th Street). Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7966, rezoning (Z-10-70-05) 1.60 acres from RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential District) to RO-1A (Residence-Office District), located between West 6th and West 7th Streets, east of Wisconsin Street (1618-20-22-24, 1610-12-14-16, 1602-04-06-08, and 1617-19-23-25 West 6th Terrace. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7967, rezoning (Z-10-71-05) 2.27 acres from RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential District) to RO-2 (Residence-Office District), located north of West 7th Street, west of Florida Street (1611-1613, 1603-1605 West 6th Terrace, and 1416 West 7th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7968, rezoning (Z-10-73-05) .58 acre from RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District), located north of the intersection of West 8th Street and Avalon Road (1611 West 8th Street, northwest portion). Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7969, rezoning (Z-10-74-05) .84 acre from C-5 (Limited Commercial District) to RO-1 (Residence-Office District), located at the northeast corner of Florida and West 7th Street (616, 620, & 624 Florida Street). Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7970, rezoning (Z-10-76-05) 3.0 acres from C-5 (Limited Commercial District) to RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential District, located at the southeast corner of West 7th Street and Lynch Court (1407, 1411, 1421, and 1431 West 7th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7971, rezoning (Z-10-77-05) .51 acre from C-5 (Limited Commercial District) to RO-2 (Residential-Office District), located at the southwest corner of Michigan and West 7th Street (701 Michigan Street). Motion carried unanimously. (12)
Ordinance No. 7972, designating as a landmark on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places: Hobbs Park, located at 702 East 11th Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
Ordinance No. 7973, designating as a landmark on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places: Fire Station #2, located at 1839 Massachusetts Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
Ordinance No. 7974, designating as a landmark on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places: Grover Barn, located at 2819 Stone Barn Terrace, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Memorandum of Understanding, contingent upon approval of the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission, with Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) to solicit via a Request for Proposals rideshare software and program to facilitate commuters seeking carpool rides/drivers. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: None
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Conduct a public hearing to consider the vacation of the east 20 feet of right-of-way of Wisconsin Street as requested by Custom Highline, L.L.C.
Mayor Highberger called a public hearing to consider the vacation of the east 20’ of right-of-way of Wisconsin Street.
Mayor Highberger called or public comment.
Mark Andersen, Attorney for the Applicant, said he did not believe this would set a precedent because there was already right of way vacated on the west side of Wisconsin Street. He said the applicant was giving up that curb cut which was all concrete as asphalt. He said they were trading roughly two square feet of asphalt for every one square foot that asphalt would encroach into 20 feet of right-of-way. He also pointed out that the first apartment building immediately to the south was already 20 feet closer to Wisconsin Street than this proposed property would be. He asked the City Commission to support their application and they would like to place 20 feet, which represented approximately 4,400 square feet of land, back on the property tax rolls and they would like to give the applicant the opportunity to generate sales tax revenue by utilizing that 20 feet.
Vice Mayor Amyx said one good thing about that trade was the sidewalk that ran along 6th Street was 30 feet from the center of that curb cut.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the southern most curb on Wisconsin would remain.
Andersen said yes.
Burke Griggs, HOP Area Plan Task Force, said Wisconsin Street was more than a local street for the people who lived around that area. He said they were concerned about precedent and the neighborhood area was concerned generally about how that sort of decision would effect future decisions on rights-of-way because that whole area was going to be redeveloping over the next 20 years as property owners change. He said they were concerned about the threat of piecemeal granting of rights-of-way and of the lack of a coherent plan for those transitional areas. He said Andersen talked about the 10 foot concession that had been granted to the College Motel on the west side of Wisconsin Street. He said they were not being unreasonable or stonewalling, they were just concerned about consistency and setting a precedent. He said if there was an asymmetrical granting of a right-of-way on Wisconsin, he asked how that would affect the value for an asymmetrical problem on either side of 6th Street.
Another concern was the nature of a car dealership because car dealers tended to advertise their products by getting those cars as close to the street as possible and that was a factor he asked the Commission to consider in making a decision.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schauner said concerning the proposed development of a multi-family project at 7th and Wisconsin, he asked if additional right-of-way would be needed to add a turn lane and if the City Commission granted the 20 feet of right-of-way to the applicant, would that leave sufficient room to add that lane.
Soules said he believed there would be sufficient room to add that lane because right now, there was only 10 feet of right-of-way that was vacated on the east side and there was at least 70 feet of right-of-way in which 3 lanes could be added.
Commissioner Schauner asked if those additional 3 lanes would not require the City to purchase any ground to make that improvement, should it be necessary.
Soules said he did not believe so.
Commissioner Rundle said he and the majority of the Commission would like to have codes and standards in place before they made decisions. He said it was with a guarded act that he supported the vacation if they had sufficient right-of-way for street widening all along that street should it ever be improved with curb and gutters.
Commissioner Hack said the improvements to this site would be good in that a sidewalk would be gained and the City would come out ahead by granting the vacation.
Mayor Highberger said he appreciated the concerns of the neighborhood, but he did not think the Commission was setting any precedent. He said this Commission and future Commissions could tell the difference between a commercial area and a residential area.
He said there was sufficient right-of-way and he was willing to approve the vacation.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he agreed. He said one concern that the members of the HOP Area Plan Task Force brought up dealt with the site plan and how vehicles would be displayed along 6th Street and Wisconsin, but looking at the design of the site plan, he thought it addressed most of the concerns of the task force. He said the applicant had met all the site plan requirements. He said concerning the curb cut on the north end of Wisconsin Street it was too close to that intersection and should be addressed, but he did not have any problem with the vacation of right-of-way because the concerns had been addressed by the site plan.
Commissioner Schauner said getting rid of the curb cut was the most positive step for improving that street. He said in the future, he would like to have a set of guidelines against which to measure their decisions. He said he supported the right-of-way with the assurance from Soules that an additional 3rd lane could be added and that there could possibly be some improvement on the land behind College Motel.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Order of Vacation for the east 20 feet of right-of-way of Wisconsin Street; and authorize the Mayor to sign the vacation order. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
Commissioner Schauner had pulled from the consent agenda, the approval of a site plan for an auto sales and service facility until after the discussion of the Order of Vacation for Wisconsin Street.
After discussion of the Order of Vacation for Wisconsin Street, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-12-101-05) for the construction of auto sales and service facility, located at 1527 West 6th Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;
2. Vacation of Right of Way from Wisconsin Street (20’) and notation of Book and Page reference of Vacation Ordinance on the face of the site plan;
3. Photometric plan submitted and approved per Section 20-1431.1 of City Code;
4. Site plan revised to show that the screening fencing will extend to the corner of the south property line;
5. Revised legal description to include the 25’ of vacated Right of Way along Wisconsin Street; and
6. Correction to the square footage listed in the ‘site summary’ to show 9,633 SF for the service building, as shown on the graphic.
Motion carried unanimously. (18)
Conduct public hearing to consider the vacation of a utility easement located in Lot 1, Block 1, Free State Addition #2 as requested by USD 497 (represented by C.L. Maurer, Landplan Engineering), and to consider the vacation of a utility easement located in Lot 1, Southwest School Addition as requested by Lawrence Public Schools
Mayor Highberger called a public hearing to consider the vacation of a utility easement located in Lot 1, Block 1, Free State Addition No. 2.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said both schools would be expanding their facilities and therefore, existing water mains would need to be relocated. The school district had provided new easements and would pay for the relocation of those mains.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the water line relocation costs were borne by the applicant in both cases.
Soules said yes, 100%.
Mayor Highberger called or public comment.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Order of Vacation of a utility easement located in Lot 1, Block 1, Free State Addition No. 2; and authorize the Mayor to sign the vacation order. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Order of Vacation of a utility easement located in Lot 1, Southwest School Addition; and authorize the Mayor to sign the vacation order. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning request, and authorizing drafting of ordinance for placement on future agenda for Z-12-81-05: 2.19 acres from RM-3 to RM-1; south of W. 7th Street; east of Wisconsin Street (1515 W. 7th Street)
Commissioner Hack stated she would abstain from the rezoning request for south of West 7th, east of Wisconsin Street since the owner of this property was a member of her family.
Michelle Leininger, Planner, presented the staff report. She said initially the rezoning was from RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residence District) to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residence District) in which the Planning and City Commission denied the rezoning.
The request before the City Commission, at this time, was from RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residence District) to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residence District) and the Planning Commission recommended approval. She said staff found that this rezoning was more appropriate for RM-1 as a transition between the high density residential RM-3 and the low density RS-2 which was to the west.
The property owner wished to down zone to RM-2. As an alternate to the RM-2 zoning, he was willing, once the development code was adopted, to rezone to RM-15 instead of the RM-1 which was recommended by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Burke Griggs, HOP Area Plan Task Force, said they strongly supported the rezoning to RM-1. The revision of the zoning regulations had been in process for 6 years and he had been involved in the HOP area plan for approximately 2 ½ years and they needed those areas of the HOP Area Plan rezoned. He said their biggest concern was they did not want this effort to be stalled by the redrafting of the zoning regulations. A lot of people put a lot of effort into the HOP Area Plan and the task force felt they could not afford to lose momentum on this issue.
He said their request was to support the RM-1 zoning, but if the City Commission was entertaining the applicant’s plan to move to RM-15, the task force urged the City Commission to make a decision on that type of rezoning as quickly as possible so if the new zoning regulations were not in effect in three months, then the task force would like this issue to be placed on the agenda to change the area back to RM-1, if there was no decision made.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if his group was asking that if the City Commission did not want to approve the rezoning request, prior to the new development code adoption, to table this matter so that the rezoning would be placed back on the agenda.
Griggs said yes.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked under RM-1, RM-2, and RM-15 zoning, how many maximum units per acre were allowed for each zoning type.
Leininger said RM-1 (12 units per acre), RM-2 (21 units per acre), and RM-15 (15 units per acre).
Mayor Highberger said it would be nice if that area had already been zoned RM-15. He said he would like to complete the work on the HOP Plan and approve the rezoning to RM-1 which was approved by the Planning Commission. He said they could rezone to RM-15, if needed, but he preferred not to leave that area hanging.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the Mayor was entertaining the idea of the applicant, once the new code was in place, to rezone to RM-15.
Highberger said he would be willing to go on the record to give strong consideration to rezoning to RM-15.
Commissioner Schauner asked if RM-1 zoning was the most appropriate use for that area’s transition between current uses. He said he supported moving toward RM-1 at this time. He said getting the HOP Plan completed was a worthy goal and he thought the City Commission should move forward.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he really did not want to delay this issue. In this particular case he hated to see the members of that neighborhood and the owner of that property have to go back through another process. The idea of tabling this item was appealing as long as it was back within a reasonable length of time.
Mayor Highberger said he thought that the new development code would be adopted during his tenure as Mayor, but he thought there would be a backlog of issues like this and he did not want to bet on how soon they could get this issue back on the agenda.
Commissioner Rundle asked if staff had a sense of someone pulling a building permit under this zoning.
Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said there were no pending development requests. The property owner lived in a single-family home on the site. She said it was just the potential for future redevelopment.
Vice Mayor Amyx said if the Mayor believed that the new development code would be implemented in April 2006, he would not mind tabling this issue with the idea of reviewing this same rezoning request if the new code was not adopted by April 15, 2006.
Commissioner Rundle asked if this issue would go back to the Planning Commission under the Code.
Stogsdill said she wondered if it would need to be republished because RM-15 was more than the RM-1 that was published, but it was still between the RM-3 and RM-1.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the Planning Commission would be considering the development code and the rezoning map that was concurrent with that code. He asked Stogsdill what was the new zoning code designation for RM-1.
Stogsdill said RM-12. She said if nothing happened at this time, then it would be converted to RM-32 which was the equivalent of the RM-3.
Commissioner Schauner said that area was zoned RM-3 at this time.
Stogsdill said yes.
Corliss said if the rezoning was approved staff would then come back with an ordinance that rezones it to RM-1 and with the new development code it would then be RM-12.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if they would need to initiate it because of the down zoning with the new development code.
Corliss said no. He said it would be zoned RM-12, but if the applicant or the City Commission wished to consider RM-15 either of those two parties could initiate consideration of RM-15.
Mayor Highberger said what Vice Mayor Amyx was trying to say was that the Commission could not table this zoning until after the new development code was official and then rezone to RM-15.
Corliss said there would be a concern because it was a different item. The key was that the statutory notice and public hearing were not for RM-15.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the appropriate current zoning designation for this ground that was the best transitional zoning code. He said he heard staff said that designation was RM-1. If RM-1 translated to something else in the new code, so be it and if someone wanted to try and chance the zoning thereafter, then there was a process for doing that.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked where the recommendation from the RM-2 came from.
Stogsdill said RM-2 was the original recommendation from the HOP group because the HOP committee was trying very hard not to recommend anything that property owners were not in favor of. She said what was originally initiated was the HOP recommendation and staff had recommended denial again looking broader than this one property and looking at how those RM-2 to RM-3 properties were being rezoned to, to make sure they had equal transitions all around that area.
Commissioner Schauner asked if RM-1 was the most consistent transition.
Stogsdill said that was staff’s determination in both staff reports.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked that the minutes reflect the comments by the Mayor concerning a possible reconsideration of the RM-15 in the future.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-12-81-05) of 2.19 acres from RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential District) to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential District) (the property is south of West 7th Street; east of Wisconsin Street (1515 West 7th Street); and, directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Abstain: Hack. Motion carried. (20)
Consider approving the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan and initiative the first five (5) rezonings (First Tier Rezonings) recommended in the plan.
Michelle Leininger, Planner, presented the staff report. She said staff was recommending approval of the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan and initiation of the first tier of recommended rezonings which were:
Property Current Proposed Current
Address Zoning Zoning Use
824 Garfield St. M-2 RS-2 Single-family home
827 Garfield St. M-2 C-4 Auto Detail Shop
Property abutting SE ½ of 827 Garfield M-2 RS-2 Vacant (Stormwater Project N of property)
800 block of Lynn St. M-2/M-1A O-1 Vacant
2001 Haskell Ave. M-2 O-1 Training Facility for persons with disabilities
Mayor Highberger asked if all of the property owners that Leininger had listed had been notified of the proposed rezonings.
Leininger said she had provided information to Independence Inc, but they had not returned any emails or phone calls, representatives from the Salvation Army were not interested, two of the property owners were in favor of the down zoning, and the City owned the last property.
Commissioner Hack asked when those contacts were made.
Leininger said contacts were made within the last 4 months at various times.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked about when all of the confusion occurred as to whether the Salvation Army needed to go through the permitting process again.
Leininger said the Salvation Army project had a site plan that expired last May and the Salvation Army came before the City Commission and received a one year extension on their site plan with a note that another extension would not be accepted. She said Salvation Army’s site plan would expire in May.
Mayor Highberger said he thought Commissioner Amyx was trying to say that if this recommended down zoning was approved for the Salvation Army property, would the Salvation Army need to go through the other procedures such as the use permitted upon review process.
Leininger said if the recommended down zoning occurred to O-1, the Salvation Army would need to submit another site plan. Under the current code, the Salvation Army would need a UPR.
Commissioner Schauner asked Stogsdill to explain the new code and its impact on the Salvation Army’s current zoning.
Stogsdill said Linda Finger, Former Planning Director, and Leininger had looked at the proposed development code several months ago and the development of the Burroughs Creek Plan. She said they looked ahead to see where uses would fall. Currently, the M zoning had a provision that stated that the type of use for the Salvation Army, which was a rehabilitation center, was exempted from the UPR process when in an industrial or commercial zoning district. If there was no change in the zoning, and the Salvation Army was not able to pull a building permit before this site plan expired, then the Salvation Army would need to go back through that site plan approval process again because the extension that was approved stated one extension only.
She said in looking at the proposed development code, those two M districts converted into two different industrial districts. Churches and transient housing facilities were not permitted in any of those industrial districts in the new code. If the property was rezoned to O-1, that property would convert to the C-O district and the C-O district allowed both churches and the transient housing with a special use permit. If the Salvation Army was unable to begin construction under the existing site plan and no rezoning had taken place, the Salvation Army, when the new code was adopted, would need to seek some sort of rezoning in order to continue to do what they intended to do with that property because of the way the industrial district was written.
Commissioner Schauner said the best path for ultimate construction of the facility the Salvation Army intended to build was best protected by rezoning into O-1.
Stogsdill said O-1 would convert to the C-O which would then allow the Salvation Army to seek the special use permit for that process.
Commissioner Schauner said if the rezoning did not convert to O-1 and they stayed as they were currently, when the new code was adopted, their current zoning would convert to a zoning classification that would not permit their current intended use.
Stogsdill said correct. The Salvation Army would then need to seek rezoning.
Glen Sheridan, Chair, Salvation Army Advisory Board, said he thought they did have some communication with staff, but it had been some time ago. He said he appreciated the explanation and they hoped to have better understanding when they were able to absorb that explanation.
Dick Zinn, Salvation Army Advisory Board Member, said the concern they have was that they had no prior notice of the consequences of this action. He said he received a telephone call in late fall from a member of the Planning Staff who said that a committee was considering downzoning the Salvation Army tract to residential/office and he was asked if the Salvation Army would have any problem with that down zoning. He said his response was yes, they would have a problem because if they were downzoned it might eviscerate their plans and put in jeopardy the ability to provide that badly needed community service.
He said he informed the City Planner that he and the architect met with the Director of Planning in early of 2003. He said he had asked that planner to notify the Salvation Army if any thing further occurred with respect to that issue. He said he received no notice or to the best of their understanding and inquiry, has any member of the Salvation Army received anything further until they were surprised by the article in the newspaper that day. He said as one that dealt in most of his working hours with transactional issues, he was constantly aware of reliability and predictability.
He said when they obtained their approval they relied on the rules that existed at that time. He said the project was approved and therefore, they believed they would be able to build a needed community center at that location. He said they started a campaign helping people changing lives, enlisted the support of hundreds of volunteers, raised over a million dollars, and had commitments from people that not only had pledged to this specific plan, but had actually paid money for this plan based on the predictability and the reliability of the rules that had existed and that they had followed. He said they were now told that the rules might change. He said he just found out that they might have another set of rules to follow when the new development code was adopted. He said they were adrift now as to how they could honor the commitment they had made to the hundreds of volunteers.
He said their basic request was to leave the Salvation Army site alone. The Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan and Rails to Trails project could move forward without changing the zoning of the Salvation Army site, but now they had found out that even if the existing zoning remained as it was, they still would have a new set of rules.
The best they could do was to respectfully request, at least, a two week deferral so they could understand what the rules would be and somehow determine how to deal with the commitments they had made, along with the commitments made by the community as a whole through elected representatives that this project could go forward. He said if the rules were going to change again, they needed to be able to determine the consequences of those rules to this project and how they dealt with the commitments they had made to the Lawrence community for the persons who rely on the Salvation Army services as well as their generous donors. Again, they were respectfully requesting, at least a two week deferral until those issue could be more carefully determined.
K.T. Walsh, Lawrence, said she was present wearing two hats. She said she was on the Board of Independence Inc., and the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association and apologized for Independence Inc., not getting back with staff on this issue. She said they had received their first communication in October and the issue was a non-issue because a down zoning was a happy event, but that was not an official vote from the Board of Independence Inc., because she needed to wait for a vote by the board.
She said from her own personal perspective she had been a long time supporter of the Rails to Trails project, a dream of a river to river rail system that was completely accessible for anyone using a wheel chair, pushing a stroller, using a walker to get outdoor opportunities. She wanted to give her voice for support to the down zoning and she wondered if it was a premature that the advisory task force was being disbanded. She said she thought there needed to be a group to champion this issue through the process.
Patricia Sinclair, Lawrence, resident of the Barker Neighborhood, said she was a firm supporter of the Rails to Trails hopefully with as much natural habitat for wildlife because it was their corridor to the river as well. She said she was also a supporter of as much residential or non-manufacturing use just east of the Santa Fe tract in the area north of 19th Street, between 15th and 19th Streets, because that area was originally designed as a residential neighborhood and they would just be returning that area to its original design which was where the shelter was planned. She said apparently there was a two tier system for acquiring properties for rezoning and there had been talk about acquiring two homes on 19th, for the trail head for the Rails to Trails. She said there had been correspondence from the Woods at 19th Homeowners Association and she thought it would be helpful to have some perspective on that area and some things that occurred before 2003.
She said there had been a lot of activity in 2003 such as promises being made and land given to the City for that area. She urged the Commission, when looking at this plan, to make sure the neighborhood got what they were promised in that development. She said they were promised neighborhood accessibility and originally promised about half of the almost 12 acres that had a lot of old woods would be a park for the City, but that tract was reduced.
She said neighborhood accessibility was considered a big plus and the area was changed from an RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) to a PRD (Planned Residential District) and that rezoning was intended to be a selling point.
She said as a neighbor who had heard all of the disruption, she could not get to the public land which was adjacent to the Rails to Trails and it was relevant to this discussion as they looked at this corridor and some of the view points that had been expressed in writing from the Woods at 19th Homeowners Association.
There were a number of changes to the plans since the plan came to the Commission in June. She said, at that time, she had shown photographs of the storm drainage creek and indicated to the Commission that a path was not feasible because it could not be crossed. She said she was reassured by Planning that they could work that out with engineering.
There was also supposed to be public access points from the east which would be from the Santa Fe railroad from the Rails to Trails Corridor and from the west, from the Johnson Avenue dead end, but apparently that was not going to happen. She said she was confused because some of the correspondence from Planning seemed to indicate something from the north, but she said Sandra Day, Planner, indicated there would be one small entrance to that public tract from the east on the Rails to Trails.
She said she was concerned because there were homes that were listed as having a private park and nature trail. She said she recalled that in 2003, the City had accepted the right-of-way and easements and she did not understand how those things could change after the fact.
Also, she had seen photographs that would be presented to planning of a path that was paved that she thought was floodplain and thought that Chad Voigt, former City Stormwater Engineer, indicated that a paved path could never be placed at that location.
She said her fear was that what had been done was that they had allowed those developers to give this land to the City and as the City’s reward for that land, the City had the job of maintaining and cleaning out the drainage tract, but the public did not have access to that land. She said she was concerned about a process that took them from a plan that was sold to the City and Planning Commissions as one that would give almost half the land to the citizens as a park and citizens had already submitted a plan to the Parks Department to have the whole area kept as wildlife park. Unfortunately, they lost that plan to this loophole and it was also sold on the basis of neighborhood connectivity. She said the City and Planning Commissioners seemed to have responded to this rezoning request based on a public benefit.
Mayor Highberger said Sinclair had raised some legitimate concerns about the implementation of the City Commission’s previous decisions and he suggested that the City Commission would take a look at those previous decisions. He said if Sinclair had concerns about how the site plan was being implemented, they could have staff look into those concerns. He respectfully requested that Sinclair keep her comments directed to whether or not to adopt the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan and the rezonings.
Sinclair said she understood that there was a primary and secondary tier and there had been a concern from Michael Almon, Burroughs Creek Area Plan Committee, in not including the secondary tier and this issue was in the secondary layer. She said if the Commission did not address that issue tonight, she did not know when that issue would come before the Commission again if those were not proposed for rezoning or city acquisition. She was present in response to written comments that were submitted about that area.
Mayor Highberger said those were issues that were related to a plan the City Commission previously adopted and he appreciated Sinclair following up on those plans, but he was not sure those issues were directly relevant to the plan. He said if Sinclair had concerns about implementation of the Woods rezoning or site plan, he asked that Sinclair follow up with him by email or after the meeting and he would have those concerns looked at.
Sinclair said she was specifically commenting in the beginning about her support for Rails to Trails and her support for the residential nature of returning that area to the east to a residential nature. However, not in such a narrow way of disagreeing with the Wood at 19th Neighborhood Association which seemed to have a concern about traffic flowing through their area, but that was her area too. As long as they continued to advertise private park and nature trails for their properties, their not acknowledging the public land would be a valuable part and factored into the consideration of the acquisition of properties and the value of this entire corridor. She said the applicant promised not to protest the conversion of railroad right-of-way to Rails to Trails program.
Mayor Highberger said Sinclair had raised some questions about implementation of The Woods site plans and asked that staff draft a report by next week or the week after because the City Commission needed to know that what they approved was getting implemented.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said none of the second tier requests were on the west side of the trail, but were all on the east side including the first tier and did not have anything to do with The Woods.
Janet Good, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said by now the Commission should know that their Association supports the Rails to Trails. She said looking back, she thought the Advisory Committee that she was part of should have explicitly brought the Woods Homeowners Association into the fold early in the process, but the final plan for that trail was still a long way off and apparently the Salvation Army’s plans were slightly up in the air at the moment as well.
She said the advisory committee idea was good to get people on board and to get the planning process back on track to work with people who were affected by this plan. She said their Association supported the down rezonings which was part of the reason they wanted that plan to be examined with City staff all along. She said that area was not an industrial corridor anymore and the reason it was an industrial corridor was the railroad which was now gone. She said she would like to extend a hand to anyone who was affected by this trail to be part of the process. It would add a lot to the City as a whole.
Commissioner Schauner said in Almon’s letter, Almon made a comment about the fact that there was a 1st and 2nd Tier of rezoning. He asked Good if the advisory group took up that issue and did they have an opinion as a group.
Good said she was not part of the Advisory Committee at the point when that issue was discussed. She said second hand there were advantages to the Neighborhood Association’s bringing the second tier of zoning forward, but there were also disadvantages because it was a lot to put on the neighborhood association and she was not sure why it was broken off that way because she was not a member of the Advisory Committee at that time.
Dayna Carlton, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said she worked on the Advisory Committee. She said to answer Commissioner Schauner’s question, a majority on the Advisory Committee preferred to let the Neighborhood Association deal with the rezoning. She said she respected Almon’s difference of opinion, but that was the Association’s decision that they would not be dealing with that second tier rezoning.
She said she wanted to respond to the comments that the people from The Woods pointed out. She said the members on the Advisory Committee were all private property owners and it was important what the quality of life was like.
She said taking off her East Lawrence Neighborhood Association’s hat, she said she lived close to the Salvation Army and she was comfortable with the location of the Salvation Army and with the people that frequent that space. She said she felt safe to walk in that area because many of those people she considered acquaintances or friends. She said people needed to stop and remember that people that live in fancy homes also struggled with substance abuse, alcoholism, and mental illness and it was not just people who were unfortunate enough to not have a home. She said they needed to be careful about making stigmatizing comments.
Commissioner Schauner asked Carlton if the Advisory Committee took a vote on separating the two tiers of rezoning.
Carlton said yes. She said the majority of the committee’s vote was to have two tiers.
Sauny Scott, Lawrence, said she was concerned about the idea of changing the zoning and messing up the plans of the Salvation Army. She said once people went through the process, the process should stay that way. She said the Salvation Army already started getting that money together to get that land ready for their building and changing the picture was unfair.
She said personally, she thought it would be safe to have a park in that area, but if it was not safe, the park should go, not the Salvation Army project.
Erik Struckhoff, Chair Bicycle Advisory Committee and a member of the Burroughs Creek Area Plan Study Group, said he implored the City Commission to keep perspective on the various concerns about the proximity of the Salvation Army and the appearance and aesthetic concerns about the trail head across the street from The Woods. He said he wished they had reached out to the Homeowners Association and involved them in this process. Going forward, the design phase was still going to be an opportunity for them to work very closely with everyone involved in those neighborhoods. He said one issue from their committee was access points for that facility and the 19th Street facility seemed to be appropriate and that was why it came up as proposed access for that trail. He said it was important that that remain separate from the legitimate concerns about the Salvation Army facility. He said the Salvation Army provided an important and valuable community service. He said the concerns of The Woods Homeowners Association were shared by East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, particularly those people who were members of the study committee. He asked the Commission to consider this issue on its merits and not on what type of facility was nearby because they were not related.
Commissioner Rundle asked staff to reiterate that under that zoning change, the plans for Salvation Army could still be implemented.
Stogsdill said what was before the Commission was the initiating of the rezonings and nothing was being rezoned at this time. Under the proposal, if this property would go through the rezoning process and be rezoned to O-1, the uses would still be allowed with a special use permit which was based on an assumption that a building permit was not pulled before the site plan expired. If a building permit was pulled and progress occurred then once the property was rezoned it was allowed to continue. In the new code, if you were rezoned and you now needed a special use permit, you would be automatically granted a special use permit with the adoption of the new code and you would not need to go back through that public process until you wanted to expand that use at some point in the future.
Commissioner Schauner said if he understood correctly, the safest course for the Salvation Army would be to pull a building permit and begin activities related to that permit, before their current site plan expired in May or June.
Stogsdill said correct.
Commissioner Schauner said that pulling that building permit would give the Salvation Army the least heartburn, in terms of accomplishing their ultimate goal of constructing and operating.
Stogsdill said yes.
Commissioner Rundle asked if this plan was initiated, what would be the timeframe that it would go before the Planning Commission.
Stogsdill said it would not be on the Planning Commission’s agenda until the third week in April and back to the City Commission the first or second week in May.
Commissioner Hack asked if this issue was tabled for two weeks, would it still be on the April Planning Commission agenda.
Stogsdill said yes.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked Walsh if Independence Inc., had discussed that issue.
Walsh said this issue would be discussed that week at their Board meeting. She said this issue had been discussed by staff, but they did not realize the issue was pressing. She said she had been on the Board for 6 years and as long as she had been on that Board there had been no discussion of moving to an industrial use on their part.
Commissioner Schauner said Commissioner Hack’s question led to a logical next step. He said he did not see any problem in deferring that particular rezoning for two weeks. He said he had not remembered that the Commission had said there would not be any more extensions on that site plan. He said that presented another issue that the Commission would need to deal with at some point in the future. He said he would like to go forward with the other tier one rezonings, approve the plan, and defer the rezoning request on the Salvation Army’s property.
Commissioner Hack said she agreed with Commissioner Schauner’s comments. She agreed that the plan was a fabulous opportunity for connectivity for the entire community. However, she disagreed with the comment that the Salvation Army’s plans were up in the air.
She said she also appreciated the comment about including The Woods neighborhood into this plan. She said she agreed that deferring the property that would revert to O-1, for the Salvation Army was appropriate, unless it made sense to defer Independence Inc. too, but she would leave that up to Walsh.
Walsh said it might be a good idea to defer the rezoning for Independence Inc., too.
Commissioner Hack said absent those two properties, she supported the rezonings of the first tier remaining properties.
Commissioner Schauner said he had a concern whether the neighborhood would bear any financial expense in carrying forth the tier two rezonings. He said even if there was no financial expense, he would like staff to provide assistance to the neighborhood on the tier two rezonings.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he always thought this was a good plan for the City of Lawrence. He said he liked the idea of giving both the Salvation Army and Independence Inc., the opportunity to discuss this issue with City staff and those boards to make sure they understood the process and procedures. He said the continuation of the Advisory Committee would be a great help because people had questions about the future development of that entire corridor. He said the Burroughs Creek Area Plan would be a wonderful project for the City.
Commissioner Rundle said he acknowledged the comments about being taken by surprise by the zoning ordinance change. He said he wanted the public to know that this change was coming and people needed to be informed about what the impact was on their zoning and any plans that were still in the works such as this plan.
Commissioner Highberger thanked the committee for all their work. He said he wanted to see the Rail to Trails corridor happen. He said he had some concerns about some of the recommended property acquisitions, but not necessarily for the same reasons that had been stated. He said he understood the need for a trail head, but he was concerned about the City taking out a couple of affordable housing units in order to do that. He said he did not have the concerns about people congregating on that spot, and he shared Carlson’s sentiments that getting people active on that corridor would likely make the area safer rather than less safe. He said the trail could be an asset to the neighborhood including The Woods and the trail needed access to all the City’s properties along the route and he wanted to make sure that was done.
He said he would like to add the minutes to this meeting to the plan when the plan was adopted so that his concerns about that particular property acquisition would go on record. He said he also liked the concept of acquiring the Sale Barn property, but he did not want to make an absolute commitment to that by approving the plan because there might be financial considerations that they had not anticipated.
Wildgen said the public needed to understand, for the record, that the Mayor was not directing staff to acquire any property and adoption of the plan did not mean acquisition of the property.
Commissioner Schauner said it would be worth putting in the minutes that accessibility, whether it was the 19th Street location or some other location or locations, did seem a critical component in making the corridor usable and accessible. Where that place or places would be located would be left up to final design discussions, but he thought without access, there was not much point in having a trail.
Mayor Highberger said at this point, the plan recommended a 19th Street rail head and he wanted to get his concerns on record.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan with the addition to the Plan, the February 14th City Commission meeting minutes, and initiate three of the five recommended rezonings, excluding the Salvation Army and Independence, Inc. properties. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
Receive draft Ordinance No. 7976 and staff memorandum concerning an ordinance regarding firearm possession near drinking establishments.
Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, presented the staff report. He said for over 20 years, the City Code of the City of Lawrence has had provisions that prohibited the possession of firearms, knives greater than 3 inches in length, and other deadly weapons from being in close proximity to drinking establishments or places where cereal malt beverages were sold. This provision had become increasingly important to the Police Department because of what they had detected in proliferation of hand guns in the downtown area.
Recently, in the middle of January of this year, the Police Department asked that he review the ordinance and to potentially draft improvements in which he believed the ordinance did need improvements because currently it specified that those weapons could not be possessed in close proximity to drinking establishments, but it did not define what close proximity meant. The ordinance before the Commission attempted to define with some specificity what close proximity meant in conjunction with the ordinance. He said what it meant was essentially any area within 200 feet of a drinking establishment except when talking about parking lot or parking garage or some area that was contiguous. If any part of that was within the 200 feet, then the whole area was considered to be in close proximity because that made enforcement a little bit more common sense which allowed people to understand the areas that would be covered by the ordinance.
The only other major change to the ordinance was the inclusion of several exceptions to the ordinance that would allow the possession of fire arms within those covered areas. Those exceptions applied to people like law enforcement officers, national guardsmen, or members of the armed forces if they were ever called to serve in Lawrence and were on duty and anyone who was allowed to carry concealed weapons under the law which would include the people who would be authorized if Senate Bill 418 passed. It also authorized people to transport firearms within their vehicles as long as they were enclosed in a container and unloaded which complied with state law and it also allowed people to possess firearms that were unloaded as long as they did not possess any sort of clip or speed loader that allowed them to immediately load the firearm and as long as they were not in a bar even if it wasn’t enclosed in a container. He said it exempted individuals who were transporting firearms from one location to another, but happened to incidentally pass through one of the areas that would be regulated.
He said this ordinance also applied to knives, however the 200 feet limitation of close proximity limitations no longer would be extended to knives. Knives under the ordinance would be regulated only when knives were within drinking establishments and there were obviously exceptions that needed to be made for ordinary pocket knives which were made under carrying concealed weapons statute in the State of Kansas as well as items used in eating or for the preparation of food or some other lawful purpose.
He said a change to the penalty provision was made to bring in line with the other state statutes dealing with the possession of weapons illegally.
Mayor Highberger asked Miller if he had seen any conflict with the proposed ordinance and existing state law.
Miller said no.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked what would happen outside of 200 feet.
Miller said outside of 200 feet was not regulated which meant that the other state statutes and city ordinances that applied to weapons would still apply.
Commissioner Schauner asked how this would make enforcement of the City’s current proximity rule more easily accomplished by the Police Department.
Miller said for one thing it drew limits for both the Police Department and for citizens to tell them what was covered by the ordinance because close proximity obviously was something that could be debated. At this point, there had been no court that had ruled that it was an illegal phrase to include from a vagueness standpoint, but always looking toward the future it was important to make sure everyone understood what was regulated. The only time the Police were likely to come into contact with people and immediately detect that they had firearms was when they saw the firearms lying out in the open in a parking lot or parked on the street or if they happened to contact an individual for anther purpose and during that contact they detected a firearm. Right now, over the past couple of month, the Police had seized 6 guns in the downtown area and detected more than those 6 guns. He said when they see the weapons they would like the ability to investigate whether they were lawfully possessed and would be an investigative tool for the Police Officer.
Commissioner Schauner said if the Police detected a weapon that was in violation of this ordinance, he asked what happened to the weapon.
Miller said ordinarily weapons that were seized because the person possessing the weapon in violation of the statute ordinarily what happened to those weapons fell back to the discretion of the court. The court could order those weapons destroyed. If it was something that was not otherwise illegal to possess sometimes the court ordered those weapons returned.
Mayor Highberger said to clarify for people listening he understood that this change was initiated prior to the events of last week.
Miller said yes.
Lisa Day, Lawrence, said at one time she lived in a mobile home park on the east side of town and in the three years that she lived at that location, they had three shooting just outside the mobile home park, not related to the residents. All those shootings originated as bar fights and migrated to her area. She and other Lawrence residents had complained about this concern to the City Commission regarding the amount of time it took for police to respond to calls from residents due to those bar fights. Now a man was dead, due to those bar fights. She said Lawrence had those problems because Lawrence was well known to be a party town because of those bars. She said it was not Lawrence residents, K.U. or Haskell University students causing those problems, but people coming in from Shawnee, Kansas City, and Topeka.
She said now Scott Miller, Legal Assistant, had drafted changes to the current law making it illegal to possess a firearm or other weapons within 200 feet of any drinking establishment. With all do respect to Miller, the original law had accomplished little in her opinion over the last 9 to 10 years. She asked what good it would do to enhance a law that did not work. In addition, if the concealed weapons bill was enacted into law, it could potentially reduce Lawrence’s law and Miller’s changes to a moot piece of paper. Only one person came forward with a viable solution which was Mike Elwell, owner of Abe & Jakes Landing. In Tuesday’s, February 7th, Lawrence Journal World, an article by Mark Fagan stated: “On Friday nights, Abe & Jake’s often requires that customers have two forms of ID to get in: One establishing age, and another establishing enrollment at Kansas University or Haskell Indian Nations University.” Quoting Mike Elwell: “We’ve done it before: If you’re from Kansas City or Topeka, and you don’t have a KU ID, then you have to go home,” Elwell said. “I’m not saying it’s very fair, most of the time, but when so many problems always come from certain locations, it becomes necessary.” She said Elwell saw the problem very clearly and she was sure that Elwell would not want to close his bar at midnight on the weekends and neither would the other bar owners, although it was a viable option since virtually all the knifings and shootings occur after midnight.
Another option would be to have some research done to find out what bars were having the greatest problems in instigating the shootings and knifings and draft a bill to enforce restrictions on those bars that continued have such problems thereby not punishing all the bar owners, but only those that seemed to attract the criminal element and/or giving their customers too much to drink.
LaTonia Coleman, Lawrence, said she was the wife of Robert Williams who was shot last week. She said something needed to be done in Lawrence. Not only did she lose her husband, but her 7 year old son lost his father. To watch her husband be shot and killed was devastating. She had been with her husband for 14 years, now his life was gone. She said a person would not expect this type if situation to happen, but after something like that happened, you would be looking for answers to comfort the pain. She said she and her husband looked at Lawrence as a City where they would raise their son because they felt safe in Lawrence, in the beginning. She said protection had to be upgraded to protect Lawrence citizens that looked at this community as a place to raise their children.
Commissioner Amyx said he was also born and raised in Lawrence. He said he wanted to convey the City Commissions deepest sympathy to Coleman and her son. He said the Commission needed to understand that it was going to take more than an amendment to a City ordinance to take care of this type of problem. The City needed to rely on the Police Department and what it would take to have more Police Officers on the street. He said the comments from Coleman and Day needed to be taken into consideration to help take the necessary steps to make people feel safe and comfortable in this community.
Mayor Highberger said he appreciated Coleman taking the time to come address the City Commission about this problem and expressed his deepest sympathy. He said as Commissioner Amyx said this ordinance would not solve the problem, but the Commission had a commitment in making sure that all of the Lawrence citizens were safe and the Commission would do all they could. He said he had a number of concerns about the ordinance based on a number of phone calls and emails he received, but most of those concerns were answered by reading the ordinance closely. He said if someone wanted to commit a violent act with a concealed weapon, this ordinance would not stop that act from happening, but it would provide some additional enforcement capability before things went to that level. He supported the draft ordinance.
Commissioner Hack thanked Coleman for addressing the public because it took great courage. She said Miller had cleaned up an ordinance that needed tightening up and allowed the City’s Police Department to do their job that they wanted to do and continued to do in an effective manner. She said it was just the beginning of working with law enforcement and owners of businesses downtown to make sure Lawrence’s downtown continued to be vibrant and a fun and safe place to go. She said the Police Department did a great job of community policing and they were in touch with citizens and that was one of the issues that would be discussed as the City Commission discussed the budget regarding additional law enforcement and a greater presence downtown.
Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to add his personal appreciation for addressing the City Commission and his commitment as a City Commissioner to keep this issue at the top of their list on work that needed to be done.
Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to offer his condolences to Coleman’s loss. He said it was going to take more than a few additional words of clarification of the City’s ordinance to make a difference either downtown or anywhere else. He said what he would be looking for from the Police Department or City Management was a specific plan of action regarding how they would address this issue. He said this was a feel good ordinance, but his fear was that it did not give the police a much better tool than they currently had. He said he had discussion with some local businesses that were in the music scene and he thought those businesses were very interested in working with the City to develop a plan about how things could be better. Again, he would like to see a plan sooner than later about how they would address this issue in more concrete terms. He supported the ordinance.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7976, making illegal the possession of certain weapons within or in close proximity to drinking establishments. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
Commissioner Hack said she thought the City was blessed with a great downtown. The intent for any of the safety of downtown was not to eliminate any specific individuals from downtown. She said they had a strong working relationship with Topeka and Kansas City and she did not think it was right to single individual groups as being the people they did not want downtown.
The City Commission recessed for 10 minutes.
Receive a request from Oregon Trail Addition developers for City financial participation in the extension of Stoneridge north of West 6th Street to Overland Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. He said the request was to improve Stoneridge, north of 6th Street to a collector street status. The Development Policy indicated that the Commission would not financially participate in collector streets until the width exceeded 31 feet. He said there would be some additional width at the intersection of Stoneridge and 6th Street and also the City owned property on the west side of Stoneridge extended which was the current planned site for a new water tower. The new memorandum indicated that there would probably be some design work on that facility next year with the water tower possibly proceeding to construction afterwards.
Mayor Highberger asked if this item was in either the Capital Improvement Plan or the budget.
Corliss said that item was in the Capital Improvement Plan, but the budget that was enacted this year did not include any special assessment benefit requests.
Commissioner Schauner asked where the proposed roundabout would be located.
Soules said the proposed roundabout would be constructed at the intersection of Stoneridge and Overland,
Commissioner Schauner asked why the costs of a signal were not included in the benefit district.
Soules said those signals along 6th Street, Stoneridge, George Williams Way, and Queens, needed to be approved by the Kansas Department of Transportation and that approval was based on warrants. He said initially, upon construction, that area would not have the type of traffic to warrant a signal.
Commissioner Schauner said if the City Commission were to approve that request and participate in some budget year’s Capital Improvement Program and did not include the signal in that benefit district, he asked who would pay for the signal.
Corliss said the Commission would have the option of creating another benefit district that would include property north and south of 6th Street to pay for that signal. The signal could also be paid for at-large or the Commission could make it an exaction requirement of any of the developments that had occurred. As a general rule as those developments had come through, the City Commission had been requiring generally through the Planning Process that the property owners execute agreements not-to-protest benefit districts for traffic signal improvements.
Commissioner Schauner said if the City had a practice it was requiring them to essentially pay for the cost of the signal.
Corliss said the City’s practice in this area, as staff anticipated signalization of intersections, was to require them to agree to participate in future benefit districts and then on a case by case basis, establish benefit districts for traffic signals or in some cases pay for those signals at large. He said they had multiple tools for paying for traffic signals.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that was another way of saying that the City did not have a specific policy.
Corliss said the City had a policy of using all of those different tools. In some cases the City had required traffic signals to be paid entirely by a development. He said at 31st and Nieder a special assessment benefit district had been established. Other places in the community, the cost had been borne completely by the City-at-large.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be helpful to the developer to know in advance what the City’s expectation would be concerning signalization and their share of or total responsibility for the cost of installing signals as going west including George Williams Way, out to the South Lawrence Trafficway. He said he suspected that there would be 3 or 4 lights in that one mile stretch before they were finished.
Corliss said the Public Works Department and others had indicated as properties had come through the development process, immediately at the intersection of 6th Street, staff had been requiring them to sign agreements not-to-protest for future signalization. Northgate at the southwest corner of 6th and George Williams Way was a project that was currently before the Planning Commission and that was one of the requirements.
Commissioner Schauner said at this particular intersection a benefit district even for signalization would require the City’s participation because of the water tower ground.
Corliss said correct because he believed that would be appropriate.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Phil Struble, LandPlan Engineering, said the Oregon Trail Project was approved about 14 months ago and had a condition that they needed access to 6th Street. At that time, they thought the George Williams Way issues were worked out, but George Williams Way went from 80 feet of right-of-way to 120 feet of right-of-way which sprawled some really good planning on their part and they were still tying to construct that area.
In the interim, they had talked to the Turner family about their Stoneridge property and they recognized it would be one of their main accesses for the successes of their project. He said he was not coming in with a preliminary plat or right-of-way on their behalf, but just verbal conversations, which was appropriate at this point in time.
The Oregon Trail project wanted to proceed and they had a traffic study that showed the level that they could develop before they had gotten to the traffic signals. If they constructed any one of those two streets, they had an understanding of how that could happen.
He said they agreed not-to-protest benefit district for traffic signals and recognized just as well everyone else that there was going to be traffic signals up and down West 6th Street just as KDOT had planned. He said they anticipated playing their part and anticipated paying their fair share. He said they would like this project to proceed.
Commissioner Schauner said if the City chose not to participate in this project, he asked if the project would not go forward.
Struble said if the City elected to create the benefit district, but not pay a share of the improvements, then he would need to discuss that decision with the developers. Obviously, the dollar amount was not huge enough and it could be a fairly short conversation, especially once they got the Turner property on board. He said the City had a development policy and the City had in the budget last year money to pay for those things, but that as taken out and now they had to deal with the ramifications of that. He said he received information from City staff asking for information regarding future budget items for 2007 and on and they were going to work very diligently to get that information so there were actual projects and project costs that the Commission could tie to. He said the deadline for the budget was February 25 and the City Commission would receive that information before February 25th.
He said whether that project went forward, if the City Commission elected not to create the benefit district then the project would probably not go forward because there were properties that would not be able to carry their share if there was no benefit district. If the Commission elected to create the benefit district, but not fund what they traditionally had expected the City fund, then he would need to have conversations with three of those property owners to figure out what could be done.
Mayor Highberger said he was encouraged to hear staff would receive advance notice about when some of those projects were going to be showing up in the City’s Capital Improvement Budget to the extent they could work together it would help the City’s financial planning. He said he understood this was different than the way things worked in the past and this project was falling in the middle between the old way of doing things and hopefully a new way of doing things.
He said it was a lot of money for the City to spend without allocating that money in the Capital Improvement Plan. He said he had met with the property owners to try and work out the access situation which had been a long process. He said he was leaning toward going ahead and approving financial participation for 2006, but his preference would be 2007 if there was any way that could work with what the applicant was trying to do.
Commissioner Schauner said he could not support the project. He said it would accomplish this project getting in line in front of other projects that had been on that list for a lot longer. He said those other projects had a reasonable expectation of being funded at some point as this project did. He said he could not support $300,000 of capital expenditure under those circumstances. He said he would be happy to vote in favor of a benefit district, but the City would not pay a share. He said he did not have anything against the development, but he did not think it was appropriate under those circumstances for the City to participate. He said he did not think the water tower would create much traffic.
Vice Mayor Amyx said they were discussing access to this property and beyond, but that did not answer the question to the water tower, but they could always go back to George Williams Way, shrink down the right-of-way from 120 feet to 80 feet and require them to pay every dime.
Commissioner Schauner said there must have been a reason for the 120 feet of right-of-way.
Vice Mayor Amyx said that would be one way to not pay for participation. He said this was one of those cases where a project was in the pipeline and they were at a point of approval. He said the developer was trying to work out ways of access into that property, but there were only two ways into that property which were Stoneridge or George Williams Way. He said the City was a property owner of record along that street and it was reasonable to say, as a property owner, that the City had some responsibility of participation in that access. He said if Commissioner Schauner could give a reason why the City should not participate in the benefit district as being a property owner, then he asked why the City required other property owners to participate.
Commissioner Schauner said one reason was because the City wasn’t necessarily prepared to do anything with that property at the moment and the other reason was that people who owned property contest the creation of benefit districts all the time. He said there was no reason why the City could not exercise the same authority. If the property owners wanted to develop this property that was fine, but that did not mean the City had to participate. He said as the City looked at their capital demands for 2007, those demands were significant. He said it was a bonded obligation that would inhibit or restrain the City’s ability to do a lot of other things that would be seen as important when they begin the 2007 budget preparations.
He said he knew this issue might be considered a change in procedure, but until they made a change, they won’t have a change. At some point, some things needed to be done differently. He said he thought this was a legitimate place to say that $300,000 was too much and it could not be done in 2007 and should not do it in 2006. He said he thought it was fair for those developers, like everybody else to stand in line like other people have had to stand in line and many of them were still standing in line. He said this issue was not personal, he said he was just trying to be a good steward those increasingly under demand resources.
Mayor Highberger said he wanted to clarify Commission Schauner’s statement. He said he understood Commissioner Schauner was saying that there were other projects waiting to develop who were standing in line because of the City’s refusal to participate in benefit districts.
Commissioner Schauner said that was not what he meant. He said he meant that there were other capital improvement projects on the City’s lists that had not been funded.
Commissioner Hack said when talking about City participation, she said in a sense, the City had participated by asking for right-of-way. She said in prior discussions the Commission had discussed drawing a line in the sand and she did not disagree that there had to be a cut off point, but this project had been in the chute for 14 months and she did not think this was the time to draw the line. She said the City’s financial portion for the benefit district was a lot of money, but she knew the developer would participate or sign an agreement not-to-protest the signalization. She said there would not be any warrants until development occurred in that area. She said the City was one of the property owners in that area and whether they created traffic or not, that placed the City in the mix. She supported the project.
Commissioner Rundle asked if this project was contiguous where property was already participating in a benefit district for streets to the south or was this project going to be an isolated parcel.
Struble said the project was an extension of Stoneridge Drive to the north.
Corliss said there was a small piece of property that needed to be improved from Stoneridge, south of 6th Street. The Oregon Trail Addition was not immediately contiguous to 6th Street, it was tract 4 on the map.
Commissioner Schauner said if Oregon Trail did not go in, he asked what the City’s plans were for building a water tower.
Wildgen said in the design phase was going to take place in 2007.
Commissioner Schauner asked what development would that water tower service.
Wildgen said it would include the area west of Stoneridge extended north.
Corliss said the water tower would serve the area south of 6th Street as well.
Commissioner Rundle said he would support this project, but anytime the City Commission discussed the Capital Improvement Plan at this point, did not make any sense because it was not a state of the art CIP process or plan. He said there was no real budget because there were things listed but they did not really know at the beginning of the year what they were going to do and where the funds were coming from.
He said he shared Commissioner Schauner’s concern about the impact, but this was kind of eclipsed by the public facilities that they would be facing. He said the Pavement Management System brought to light a huge bill that the City would be grappling with for who knows how long. He supported this project, but the Commission needed to have a major discussion on infrastructure for the rest of their terms.
Commissioner Schauner said Struble made a comment that during the 2006 budget consideration, that project was in to be considered and then withdrawn.
Struble said what he understood and what had typically been in the City’s budget was a dollar amount which he believed was a million dollars for City participation in projects.
Commissioner Schauner asked Struble’s recollection about what happened to those funds.
Struble said he recalled that money was eliminated when paring down the budget.
Commissioner Schauner said that recollection was inconsistent with staff’s recollection.
Corliss said eliminating that money was discussed as a contingency in the Capital Improvement Budget.
Struble said he might have misunderstood that whole process, but annually there had been money available to participate in those projects.
Commissioner Schauner said in the 2006 budget consideration, he assumed staff knew about the Oregon plan and the need to build the water tower. He said he did not remember any conversation about the need for $300,000 worth of Capital Improvement Expenditure in 2006.
Wildgen said that conversation did not take place.
Commissioner Schauner asked about why there was no discussion about that need for $300,000.
Vice Mayor Amyx said when the City Commission was discussing budget considerations, the City Commission was told by staff that the Commission needed to remember that they would have requests throughout this year and the following year about those types of projects and that it should be considered as part of the Capital Improvement Program. He said why the Commission chose not to, was part of that process of paring that budget down.
Commissioner Schauner said paring the budget down did not produce much net result when they received those request for participation in independent projects during the budget year. He said as they discuss the 2007 budget, what would be helpful was information that Struble and others could provide about what was expected to come on line and the Commission should be able to say during those discussions, “yes” or “no” so Struble or his clients would not have an expectation about coming before the Commission with a project and expecting an approval.
Mayor Highberger said staff had initiated that process, but staff’s ability to predict would not be perfect.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to direct staff to proceed with City financial participation in the extension of Stoneridge north of West 6th Street to Overland Drive. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (23)
Consider City financial participation in the proposed competitive fields feasibility study (PLAY)
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the memo to the City Commission concerning the feasibility study for competitive athletic fields outlined the other agencies proposed funding for their portion of the study. Further, he recommended that Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks and Recreation, become the project manager for that feasibly study if the Commission approved participation.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Bonnie Lowe, Partners for Lawrence Athletics & Youth (PLAY), encouraged the City Commission to support up to 40% up to a maximum of $25,000 for the Needs Assessment Feasibility Study.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the study included any type of market analysis in terms of things such as tournaments or was the study oriented more toward use needs.
Lowe said the study included a market analysis as well as needs in terms of uses. The RFP for that study had not been established and those ideas were important. She said the Chamber of Commerce Executive Board agreed to help fund part of the study and those ideas were of interest because of the economic development efforts the complex would bring.
Mayor Highberger said he was starting to get cold feet on this project. He said the City was looking at so many potential Capital Improvement projects over the next 5 years or longer and he was reluctant to spend City money without being sure that the City would follow through with this project. He said he would like to know what the needs were and what the community’s desires were for this project and he did not want to commit to multi-million dollar City expenditure.
Commissioner Hack said when the City Commission had their goal setting session they did have a lot on their plate regarding the capital expenditures. She said the City was on the edge of major projects, but without the needs assessment, the City Commission would not know the full potential that that particular facility could provide and they would not be able to engage the private side of the project to the extent that they had other projects. She said she did not think the $25,000 was a waste. Even if they were able to see that some of those needs were met already with some of the City’s existing facilities but perhaps they needed some new facilities in other areas. She said the best part of this project would be that it would provide economic development dollars in this community with a multitude of events that the City turned down. She said she would hate to see the City turn down the opportunity to partner with the School District, County, Chamber of Commerce, and private entities to accomplish this project.
Commissioner Rundle said he supported the study. He said he had more and more reservations everyday about the overall infrastructure needs facing this community, but he thought the needs assessment would give the City a clearer picture of how far behind the City was. He said he could not make any type of commitment to this project because he shared the Mayor and Vice Mayor’s concerns. He said it should be clear to people that just because they did the study, did not mean the Commission would commit to any project, but he thought it was critical that the City Commission had that information.
Commissioner Schauner said his concern was that if they spent $25,000 to perform a needs assessment it would be reasonable to predict the outcome which was that the City needed more facilities, but the difficult position this Commission or future Commissions would find was prioritizing what they could reasonably expect taxpayers to pay for. He the City currently had a stellar Parks and Recreation program. The school district had stated that they could provide for the needs of their students, but he was not willing to help create a false promise to PLAY that even if the assessment came back that the City needed those facilities that this City could, at this point in time, place a high enough priority on that activity to fund it. If the City Commission participated in this study, that was the message they would be sending which was unfair to the people who worked hard on this proposal. He said he was not willing to support the proposal for those reasons.
Commissioner Rundle said he thought staff had sent a clear message on the total chronology of the current development of the centers. He said they built two ball diamonds when the City was involved with Y.S.I. and in the mid 1990’s they added a gym to the East Lawrence Recreation Center. He said a person could count on one hand the facilities that had been added in the last 25 years and this City was getting behind. He said he did not think they were sending any type of signal that something was going to be built as a result of that study. He said the study would tell them how far behind the City was and they needed to figure out how to program additional facilities.
Commissioner Schauner said as he had been told there had been a similar assessment study before Eagle Bend was built and there was a conclusion that there was a need for the facility and once that train left the station, this body had a difficult time drawing lines. He said the political process did not lend itself well for un-stoking the engine once it left the station.
Commissioner Rundle suggested starting with a study session on that assessment and figure out if it provided the information that they needed.
Commissioner Hack said what would be found was that the City was behind and she asked what the community would do to address some of those needs. She said she agreed that this was not a promise to do anything, but they would not know until that issue was assessed.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the hardest part of this job was to look friends in the eye and ask them to wait. He said he had asked the Mayor to prioritize this project against all the other projects in the City. He said when the request came before the City Commission to fund the needs assessment he mentioned that they might need to wait on that needs assessment because of the number of projects on their plates. He said he could not place this issue on their priority list. If the City Commission wanted to consider this issue as part of the 2007 Capital Improvement Budget, he thought that was fine, but at this point he could not approve the request for the needs assessment.
Commissioner Rundle said reviewing that much more recent needs assessment that was related to Clinton Lake might be somewhere the Commission could start.
Commissioner Hack asked if there was ever a needs assessment for the Clinton Lake area.
Wildgen said the assessment was for the Y.S.I. facility, but there was a master plan associated with that facility too.
Commissioner Hack asked if it included things like the economic development component because that was an important component.
Wildgen said there had been a number of projects completed over the last 25 years. He said there might not have been complexes built other than the Y.S.I. complex, but in terms of recreation facilities, a lot of those facilities had been built.
Commissioner Hack said they did know that those facilities were being utilized and they were busy all the time.
Mayor Highberger said he shared Commissioner Schauner’s concerns that a study would produce a need and it was almost a given, but he would like to receive the information that he needed to help prioritize with the City’s other pending capital improvement projects. He said he was willing to support City participation, given that the School Board, County, and Chamber, were willing to contribute their fair share, but he was willing to support those efforts with the caveat that he was not committing himself to a multi-million dollar project. He supported 40% City financial participation up to a maximum of $25,000.
Commissioner Rundle approved but he asked that the group lean as heavily on other people to contribute funding.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to authorize City financial participation in the needs assessment at 40% of the study, not to exceed $25,000. Aye: Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Amyx and Schauner. Motion carried. (24)
Mayor Highberger requested consideration of the retention of consulting services to further the finalization and adoption of the Southeast Area Plan. (The Southeast Area Plan generally involves property south of East 23rd Street, and east of O’Connell Road.)
Mayor Highberger said the Southeast Area Plan had been discussed for some time and the City and County Commission had not been able to agree on that plan. He said both Commissions had placed their concerns on record and referred the plan back to the Planning Commission where it had stabilized and they needed to move forward on the plan.
He said the City Commission’s plan called for quite a bit of industrial development in that area and the County plan leaned more with the Planning Commission’s plan which had a more substantially residential component. He said the majority of the City Commission had concerns about traffic and large scale residential development of that area. He said he had a suspicion that a mixed use approach might be able to address both the concerns from the City and County.
He said he was suggesting that the City Commission hire a consultant to go over the two plans, discuss with the governing bodies their concerns and try and bring back at least one, but perhaps several other suggestions for moving forward with attention paid to traffic concerns and possible consideration of allocating some of the area to mixed use development.
Commissioner Hack said she appreciated the Mayor bringing this plan forward because there had been a lot of conversation of this complex plan and to have some other voice in this plan was a good idea.
Commissioner Rundle said this was a good move, but they needed to make sure they covered all of the bases of the point of controversy such as how much industrial land did they need and he thought they needed expertise from more than one consultant. He said it would be good to touch base with the Planning Commission and find out all the things they needed to resolve.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to retain consulting services to further the finalization and adoption of the Southeast Area Plan. Motion carried unanimously. (25)
Receive staff memorandum concerning possible West of K-10 Area Plan
Mike Wildgen said City staff had met with the property owner west of K-10 and his consultants to discuss possible annexation/land use/extension of City service issues in that area. He said the west side of the SLT was one of the service areas for Horizon 2020 and staff felt that discussion of an area plan would be appropriate. There were obvious issues of municipal services and the needs of that area.
Mayor Highberger said it was his understanding that what they projected as proper timing for development would be addressed as part of the plan.
Wildgen said there was already the church development along 6th Street on the north east corner of that particular planning area so there was interest and activity. He said before more development came in, it was important to get started.
Commissioner Amyx said as the Commission looked at the area west of the SLT they needed to discus the south side of the Wakarusa River and make a determination on the direction of the development. He said one issue the Commission should discuss was west of the K-10 area plan and how they wished to get there. He said in discussions with the County Commission and School District there was obviously a lot of concern as to the addition of the new Water Reclamation Facility and where they would be placing sewer needs for USD 497 which would be their main concern.
Commissioner Hack asked if this particular area had been in the Master Plan for sewer lines.
Wildgen said yes, sewer and water, but he did not know if it went all the way to Kanawaka.
Commissioner Hack said the comments in the staff memo were good because those comments were about the process for a planned development. She said the City Commission could respond to lead development rather than respond to it.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Rundle said he concurred with Vice Mayor Amyx about the need to discuss where development needed to go. He said the area of discussion might not be the priority area to plan and he was hesitant for the reason that people were discussing earlier about sending a signal that this might be the next place that the City was expecting to develop. He said he would like to clarify that that area was the next place to develop before they did area planning.
Commissioner Highberger said he agreed that they needed to decide where the City needed to grow next and he thought the Commission had initiated that process with the 2006 Commission goals with the process by which they would move ahead and make determinations. He said part of the planning process was to make sure of the appropriate timing. He said if they were going to get ahead they might need a south of the Wakarusa plan too. He said he supported moving ahead with the plan. He said they made a decision about the interim growth area and if they did some planning it would give them grounds for saying “no” if they received development proposals ahead of when they could provide infrastructure.
Commissioner Rundle asked if there were any areas between this area and other areas that did not have an area plan.
Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said the Lake Estates area, east of the traffic way that was included in that generalized map was such an area and staff would certainly include that in the area so that they would be going from the developed portions of the City west.
Commissioner Schauner said his concern was that the Commission demonstrated regularly that they on purpose, or by accident, send messages to people about what their plans and expectations were and what their willingness for support was. He said he would support the plan because he thought they needed some long rang planning. He said a critical element of the plan was the timing feature. Unless they had a specific announcement as to when they were prepared to extend infrastructure, they would have sent a wrong message, on purpose, or by accident.
Commissioner Hack said it would be a difficult call to say whether they would develop west or south and discussion needed to take place and needed to include transportation issues. She said absent some kind of planning, the signal the Commission was sending was that they did not know what they were doing and bring us a plan and they would see if they liked it.
Commissioner Schauner said someday they would receive the Tischler Bise feasibility report and that was information that should be part and parcel of that discussion of an area plan. He said this was a complicated piece of business and he would like it to be done by people who were objective.
Commissioner Hack said this issue would take a while and perhaps they might want to put money on the Development Code or Tischler Bise to see which came in first.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to direct staff to prepare an outline for the area plan process for consideration by the City Commission. Motion carried unanimously. (26)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to extend the meeting for 15 minutes to 10:15 and to adjourn into executive session for 15 minutes for the purpose of keeping matters confidential under attorney client privilege. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission reconvened in regular session at 10:15 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
It was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2006
1. Bid – Wastewater Treatment Plant Manhole Replacement Project to Midwest Environmental Systems Inc. for $49,642.42
2. Bid – Skid steer loader for Utilities to Deems Farm Equipment for $47,205.
3. Sidewalk Dining License – Mad Greek, 907 Mass.
4. Ordinance No. 7977 – 1st read, allow alcoholic beverages for Mad Greek sidewalk dining.
5. --Rezone – (Z-10-75-05A) .146 acre, C-5 to RO-1A, 705 Arkansas.
6. --Rezone – (Z-10-68-05) 2.458 acres, C-5 to RM-2, between W 6th & W 7th, E of Iowa.
7. --Rezone – (Z-10-70-05) 1.60 acres from RM-2 to RO-1A, W 6th & W 7th, E of Wisconsin.
8. Rezone – (Z-10-71-05) 2.27 acres RM-2 to RO-1, N of W 7th, W of Florida.
9. Rezone – (Z-10-73-05) .58 acre from RM-3 to RS-2, N or intersection of W 8th & Avalon.
10. Rezone – (Z-10-74-05) .84 acre from C-5 to RO-1, NE corner of Florida & W 7th.
11. Rezone – (Z-10-76-05) 3.0 acres from C-5 to RM-3, SE corner of W 7th & Lynch Ct.
12. Rezone – (Z-10-77-05) .51 acre from C-5 to RO-2, SW corner of Michigan & W 7th.
13. Ordinance No. 7972 – 2nd Read, Historic Register, Hobbs Park, 702 E 11th.
14. Ordinance No. 7973 – 2nd Read, Historic Register, Fire Station No. 2, 1839 Mass.
15. Ordinance No. 7974 – 2nd Read, Historic Register, Grover Barn, 2819 Stone Barn Terr.
16. Site Plan – (SP-12-101-05) Auto Sales services, 1527 W 6th.
17. Memo of Understanding – Lawrence/DG County Planning Comm & Mid-America Regional Council, RFP for rideshare software, carpool rides/drivers.
18. Public Hearing -Vacation Order, 20’ of R-O-W of Wisconsin St.
19. Public Hearing - Vacation Order, Utility Easement, lt 1, blk 1, Free State Add No. 2.
20. Vacation Order, SW School Addition, Lot 1.
21. Rezone – (Z-12-81-05) 2.19 acres, RM-3 to RM-1, S of W 7th, E of Wisconsin.
22. Rezonings – Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan, 5 rezonings.
23. Ordinance No. 7976 – 1st Read, making illegal certain weapons in close proximity to drinking establishments.
24. Financial participation from Oregon Trail Add for Stoneridge N of W 6th to Overland Dr.
25. Financial participation from PLAY for Competitive Fields Feasibility Study.
26. Consulting Services – SE Area Plan.
27. W of K-10 Area Plan memo.