March 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.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION
With Commission approval Mayor Highberger proclaimed the month of March, as “American Red Cross Month”; and, Friday, March 17, 2006, to be “19th Annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to approve City Commission meeting minutes from February 21, 2006 and February 28, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to approve claims to 393 vendors in the amount of $1,627,463.99. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for La Familia Café and Cantina, 733 New Hampshire; Jazzhaus of Lawrence, 926 ½ Massachusetts; and Club 508, 508 Locust. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to approve the purchase of two used Highway Patrol cars from the State of Kansas for $13,550 and $13,250, totaling $26,800. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for one Hook Lift Refuse Truck for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Roy Conley & Company $54,000.00
Burnup Equipment Co. $76,416.25
Custom Truck & Equipment, LLC $76,688.00
Burnup Equipment Co., Bid 2 $78,535.25
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to award the bid to Roy Conley & Company, in the amount of $54,000 to include options at $1,682, for a total of $55,682. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the purchase of one utility service truck with crane for the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
KCR International Trucks $83,650.00
Westfall GMC Trucks $85,819.00
Topeka Freightliner Sales $86,434.66
Topeka Freightliner Sales, Alternate $87,586.53
Custom Truck & Equipment $88,496.00
KCR International Trucks $89,602.00
KC Freightliner $90,931.00
MHC Kenworth $95,636.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to award the bid to Westfall GMC Trucks, in the amount of $85,819 because the bid from KCR International Trucks did not meet specifications. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the purchase of one Breathing Air Compressor for the Fire/Medical Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Conrad Fire Equipment, Inc. $41,235.80
Bauer Compressors, Inc. $44,405.00
JRL MKT $48,129.00
Weis Fire and Safety No Bid
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to award the bid to Conrad Fire Equipment, Inc., in the amount of $41,235.80. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the purchase of furniture for the Fire/Medical Department for Station No. 4. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
DBI, Inc. (Bid Items) $21,161.58
DBI, Inc. (KS State Contract) $8,240.79
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to award the bid to DBI, Inc., in the amount of $21,161.58, to include DBI, Inc. (KS State Contract) in the amount of $8,240.79, totaling $29,402.37. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Black and Veatch for engineering services to complete final design of Phase II – Clinton Plant expansion. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to negotiate an Engineering Services Agreement with Black & Veatch to design modifications to the anaerobic digester process at the Kaw Wastewater Treatment Plant. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance 7983, establishing the City Commission at four commissioners, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Ordinance 7938, creating a city misdemeanor offense for possession of marijuana, as authorized by the City Commission on February 28, 2006, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
Ordinance 7984, providing an additional exception to the prohibition against the possession of certain weapons (firearms range in Community Building) within or in close proximity to drinking establishments, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was move by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt Resolution No. 6634, establishing a public hearing date for April 4, 2006, for the improvement of Stoneridge Drive south of West 6th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was move by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt Resolution No. 6635, establishing a public hearing date for April 4, 2006, for the improvement of Stoneridge Drive north of West 6th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was move by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt Resolution No. 6633, establishing a public hearing date for April 4, 2006, for sanitary sewer storm sewer and sidewalk improvement for the Delaware Commons Street project. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was move by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to adopt Resolution No. 6636, authorizing the conveyance of real and personal property (Holidome property) to the new purchaser as part of the termination of the industrial revenue bonds. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-01-01-06) for Lake Pointe PCD, containing approximately 4.72 acres for proposed retail and office use, property generally described as being located at the northwest corner of Clinton Parkway and Lake Pointe Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for Lake Pointe View Drive or Clinton Parkway improvements (to be executed by all property owners within the PCD).
2. A provision added on the face of the preliminary development plan that all property owners of all properties waive their right to approve or disapprove any alterations or modifications to the preliminary development plan per Section 20-1011(f) of the City Code, if that is the intent of the applicants.
3. Note added to the phasing schedule on the plan that both detention basins will be constructed with Phase I of the development.
4. Note added to the plan which identifies responsibility for maintaining the open areas.
5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to:
a. Correct required parking citations to reference parking requirements of a PCD.
b. Provide pedestrian access to neighborhood to the west and the walkway along Clinton Parkway to the south.
c. Provide a partially transparent fence along Clinton Parkway and near the west property line of Lot 1, to enhance the aesthetics along Clinton Parkway and to integrate the development with the surrounding area.
d. Relocate the overhead door for the service bay area to the southeast corner of the building to provide adequate and safe circulation pattern for boat traffic into the boat dealer;
e Place a note on the face of the plan that states that the overhead door in the northwest corner of the building is limited to showroom deliveries only and deliveries to this door are restricted to non-business hours.
Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Sharon Green, 225 North Michigan. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Eugene and Alta Wright, 1207 West 5th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
As part of the Consent Agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Order of Vacation for a portion of the right of way of 16th Street pending approval of final construction documents by the Historic Resources Commission. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, authorize the Mayor to sign the separation agreement with Mike Wildgen. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to receive and approve Public Advisory Committee (PAC) recommendation regarding the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Shauner, seconded by Amyx to receive memorandum from the Historic Resources Commission on (DR-01-05-06): 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and Massachusetts Street; Communications Antennas; Certified Local Government Review and Certificate of Appropriateness Review, submitted by Lawrence Freenet for the property owner of record; and refer to staff for review and report findings to City Commission at a future meeting date. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Greg Hickam to the Historic Resources Commission, to a term which will expire March 1, 2009. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
Commissioner Amyx pulled from the consent agenda an agreement with Bert Nash Mental Health center for homeless outreach services in the amount of $160,000.00 because a member of his family would be involved with supervising the persons providing the services.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Bert Nash Mental Health center for homeless outreach services in the amount of $160,000.00. Aye: Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Abstain: Amyx. Motion carried unanimously. (23)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said he wanted to provide an update on the City’s response to the storm damage from last Sunday morning’s storm. He believed that he had provided information that indicated that the City immediately and effectively had deployed significant resources to respond to initially the life safety concerns and the debris clean-up from a number of different departments. The Utility Department had forgone some utility work and was involved in the debris removal along with the Public Works Department. Parks and Recreation was concentrating first on street trees and then on parks. Neighborhood Resources was out actively on Sunday looking at structures for life-safety concerns along with a number of city employees and members of the community that responded Sunday. The Mayor and the Vice Mayor were at the emergency operations center for part of the day.
He said staff was having a debriefing with the Emergency Operations Center later this week where they would look at the good and the bad and improve on the things that they fell short on.
He said that staff was excited for the St. Patrick’s Day Parade and the City would make sure that downtown would look good and clean on Friday.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said there was approximately 200 City staff members working in the community along with County employees who had also had provided several dump trucks.
Staff had notified the public that the City would be accepting debris between 9 A.M. and 3 P.M., Monday through Sunday. He said if citizens left their debris by the street, to not park in front of that debris.
Fred DeVictor, Director, Parks and Recreation, said there had been good teamwork and communication among Public Works, Utilities, and Parks and Recreation. He said there had been a lot of damage to parks, but staff’s efforts, at this time, had been on the safety of streets and sidewalks.
He said staff would start the clean-up of South Park on Thursday, and anticipated that staff would have the park looking decent for the parade on Friday. He said there was still a lot of work to be done and staff would continue working. (24)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider approving condition on the Lawrence Community Shelter UPR concerning loitering on the shelter property.
David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said last Tuesday the Commission granted a one year extension to the Lawrence Community Shelter UPR. The Commission directed staff to come back with a condition that reflected the Commission concerns that reflected loitering type behavior outside of the applicant’s property. Staff prepared a memorandum for the Commission’s review that provided two options for the Commission to consider. Staff was unsure, regarding the issue of no loitering, whether or not the Commission was directing the applicant that that be a requirement or to use reasonable efforts to deter that type of behavior.
He said that the language was similar in all respects except for those two items that the applicant shall require or make all reasonable efforts to have patrons or visitors refrain from standing, sitting, or otherwise having a physical presence on the outside of the premises of the applicant’s front and side yards, unless the patron or visitor was using the public right of way in the sidewalk, making an entrance or exit from the building, or in the designated patio area specified on the plan. He said that this was the understanding of the Commission’s direction, to come back with a further refinement on that condition. He said that the Commission’s direction was needed on that condition. He asked the Commission that once they had determined what that condition language would be, that the Commission reconfirm their approval of the one year UPR extension on that supermajority vote that was required. He said staff did not want the Commission to approve the condition on, for example, 3-2 vote, and being split on whether or not they wanted to reconfirm the extension on a majority vote. He said that the Commission needed to confirm the extension on a supermajority vote.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the selection of either option 1 or option 2 required a supermajority vote.
Corliss said the selection only required a majority vote, but he asked the Commission to confirm the approval of the one year extension of the UPR with this revised condition by a supermajority vote.
Vice Mayor Amyx said the UPR was approved, the only thing left was the issue of loitering.
Corliss said correct.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked whether there needed to be some discussion to decide how the Community Commission on Homelessness was to be used. He said for example, if loitering type items needed to go through the Homeless Commission for recommendation.
Commissioner Rundle said he would be inclined to send this type of issue through the Homelessness Commission especially if the issue was controversial. He said he thought this issue was out of the routine and would be appropriate for the Community Commission on Homelessness to hear.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he agreed and stood ready to debate either one of those options and select one that would be best for the UPR and the Lawrence Community Shelter. He said he thought there had been a misunderstanding among some people as to how this committee would be used.
Commissioner Rundle suggested placing this issue on a future agenda for discussion.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he was not a fan of study sessions, but he thought the City Commission needed to define their expectations for the future of this committee. He said the Community Commission needed to understand that there were processes that had to be followed.
Mayor Highberger asked if Vice Mayor Amyx was asking that this issue be deferred until such time as there was a study session.
Vice Mayor Amyx suggested having a study session with the Community Commission on Homelessness to discuss specifically those types of issues and how they would be handled.
Commissioner Schauner said that this particular item, whether it was appropriate for the Homelessness Commission to consider or not, seemed that if he was the LCS, he would want to move forward and make some plans, and not have this issue further delayed. He said he would like this Commission to make a decision about either option 1 or option 2, or some modification. He thought it would be worthwhile for this body to discuss what they saw as the future role of the Community Commission on Homelessness, but with respect to this item tonight, he said he would hate to see it delayed.
Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to clarify that he was not requesting a study session, but to place this item on a future agenda for discussion.
Mayor Highberger said his preference would be to make a decision on this issue and then have the discussion that Commissioner Amyx had recommended.
Commissioner Hack agreed. She said she did not look at the Commission as an advisory board, but as someone who would move the recommendations of the task force forward in terms of implementation. She said that she agreed that the City Commission needed to move forward with this decision on the UPR.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Sara Taliaferro, speaking on behalf of Community Commission on Homelessness, said one of their recommendations was to develop a mechanism for communication with neighbors and the neighborhood association which entailed working with the Community Cooperation Committee, appointed by the CCH; and, develop a Good Neighbor Agreement describing responsibilities for both LCS and neighbors. She said it might have been confusing since it did not specifically use the word loitering. She said that this was the mechanism that they were suggesting to handle not only that problem, but those general issues in the neighborhood. She said that morning she was appointed as the Interim Director of the Community Cooperation Committee. She said it would be a 15 member committee and had 13 members selected. She said they wanted a mechanism to resolve those issues that did not discriminate against a particular group of people standing outside a particular building downtown, when in fact, when she walked downtown, she saw many people standing in front of many buildings downtown for various reasons. She said she thought they needed to be cautious about this issue, but they also wanted to promote responsibility toward each other, but in a way that was community based and would get everybody solving the problem in a different way than putting a statement in a UPR.
Brandy Sutton, Lawrence, said after reviewing the language she had a couple of concerns. She said both options referred to a designated patio area specified on the plans. She said she reviewed the plans and did not see a designation, so that either option would need to make sure that was designated on the plan as to which patio was being referred to. She requested that the Commission approve Option 1. She said that she had been promised by the LCS and in all the original UPR’s that the activities would be contained within the building and loitering would not be permitted. They had an opportunity to use reasonable efforts, but had failed to do so. She said that there would be strong language in this UPR so that it was clear as to what was to be done. .
As far as the CCH recommendation that there be a communication and a committee to review this, she thought they had five plus years to do that and it had not happened. She said she appreciated the CCH and hoped that other issues that surround this could be worked on, but there needed to be rules and guidelines in the UPR’s, or any UPR to address those issues.
Carol Pilant, Lawrence, said this was an emotional issue and an issue of heart. She said she never had seen an articulate and intelligent group of City Commissioners trip over their tongues like they did at the last meeting. She said she heard a Commissioner say they were “corralling people”, but surely the Mayor was not talking about corralling. She said when she thought about having the homeless people, at the shelter, be placed into a patio area, which was not an inner courtyard open to the sky and adapted to outdoor dining. A corral was defined as a pen or enclosure for confining or capturing livestock. She said there needed to be limitations about what happened at the shelter. She said that people needed to be told to behave in an appropriate fashion and she thought that could be done. She said when trying to decide if something felt good or not, to hold up what might be a source of God, to the light, and if it was pure and good, a person would know and that was what she asked the Commission to vote for tonight, because she believed they would know what that was.
Loring Henderson, Director Lawrence Community Shelter, said he did not want to refer too much or rehash last week’s City Commission meeting, but he admitted he made a basic fundamental mistake in politics or in organizing. He did not respond, at the time, when he should have responded to remarks that were being made last week. He wanted the Commission to know that the Community Shelter had several programs and several successes. He said just using their 2005 figures, 23 people had found jobs through the Lawrence Community Shelter; 41 people moved into housing; and, 21 people entered into detoxification and rehabilitation. He said those programs were on-going with people that the Shelter worked with through case managers, night monitors, counselors, AA, and through other people who came to the Shelter through Bert Nash, through DECCA, and outreach people who work at the shelter.
He said as it was mentioned last week, a man who was drinking without a coat in freezing temperatures was causing trouble outside a neighbor’s house recently. Somehow, without an explanation, the connection was made to the Shelter and a statement was made that LCS put that person out in the cold where he could have frozen had it not been for the good services of the police. He said LCS did not put someone out in 37 degree weather without a coat, blankets, or referral to another appropriate agency, without a police or ambulance call, or transporting the person themselves to the hospital or another facility. He said he was there to reassure the City Commission that every individual was handled with care, with programs in mind, with goals for the individual, and certainly as humanely as possible.
He said he wanted to draw the City Commission’s attention to the CCH’s recommendation to the City Commission that concerned this condition that was on the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He thought the loitering warning was too specific. He said he had extreme difficulty with the concept of loitering when people were where they were supposed to be. He said he agreed that it was not attractive sometimes, but there were issues that needed to be worked out, but those people were not loitering and should be allowed to be at that location.
He said he had agreed to a patio in the back, but this issue was problematic because the building was one story and the back side had small windows at the top and had one regular size back door which was solid metal and no one could see from the inside out to the back. He said it was a problem of staff monitoring that area. He said if that was going to be “the area,” then that was an issue in terms of staffing and monitoring the activity.
He said he wording that the Community Commission on Homelessness developed for this recommendation was appealing to the neighbors, to the business community, to the homeless people, which was another factor that was really disturbing to him last week. He said there was no conscious consideration that the homeless people were at the meeting and that they were part of the community with equal standing.
He said regarding the mechanism for communication with neighbors and the Neighborhood Association was an idea that gave them an on-going way of dealing with all agencies. He said that the Salvation Army had people sitting on benches in front of their building. He said when wording something like this then it was more on-going, not explicit, or singling out one particular group or agency.
He said regarding the idea of working with the Community Cooperation Committee appointed by the CCH and developing a Good Neighbor Agreement describing responsibilities of both the LCS and neighbors was a good idea because a Good Neighbor Agreement was something that had been used in other cities and there were models.
Again, this would give them a general umbrella that was applicable in many situations and for the community was something that was on-going. He urged the Commission to use the wording that was recommended by the CCH.
Jane Faubion, Co-Chair, Community Commission on the Homelessness, asked the City Commission to give them time to do their job. She said she was appointed to the Community Commission in October, along with several other individuals who had not had the benefit of being as involved in the task force as some of the other individuals. She said they had had a long learning curve in a very short time. In those very few months, they had been hit with numerous “alligators.” She said the task force put together a fantastic body of recommendations that they were appointed to implement. She said the implementation was their job, but in the 6 months that the Community Commission has been there, it has been one emergency after another. In particular, the UPR has taken a tremendous amount of additional time. She said it was hard to schedule a large body together to do their work.
She said some of the most important things that were in that implementation task force body of recommendations, as she heard from numerous homeless individuals, was working on establishing ways to provide homes. She said that the Community Commission has not been able to provide homes because they had been busy with emergencies.
She said that they needed to appoint individuals to look at contracts and accept contracts for caseworkers. She said that had been done, but now they were again hashing the UPR issues that they believed they were appointed to take care of. She asked the City Commission that the Community Commission be allowed to do their job that they were appointed to do to get on with looking at the implementation and recommendations.
Barbara Hogue, Lawrence, said three years ago she was homeless on the streets of Lawrence. She had been diagnosed as being Schizoaffective Bipolar Disorder. She said she worked with Bert Nash to get her back to where she was level. Now she was a member of Commission on Homelessness Concerns. She said as a person who had experienced homelessness and mental illness; she was deeply offended at being asked to use the back door of a facility or property that was for the specific use for herself in order to get assistance in this community. She thought that this was insulting and prejudiced and as a homeless person it reflected things that were going on in the 1940’s and 1950’s and she suggested that soon the homeless would need to have separate bathrooms. She said they could not even use their own front door on a property that was set up for the homeless. She said if this was her home and she was having a BBQ, it most likely would not be a problem. She said that if she was shopping and standing outside talking to friends, she would not be loitering.
Don Huggins, Chair, Board of Directors of the Lawrence Community Shelter, said he was concerned about the action the City Commission was about to take. He said as a volunteer, he averaged 20-25 hours a week per evening of shelter volunteer work. He said that during that time, he was privy to what went on in that building and it was not the Community Shelter’s policy to turn anyone out into the cold without some kind of blanket or proper clothing. He said that some of the things that have been said were hard for him to figure out where they came from. He said that there was miscommunication or no communication between the Shelter and the surrounding community. He said that having spent a part time job at the shelter for the past two years, he never received or heard a call from the neighborhood to the Shelter, during that time, to address any issues on the shelter’s property or off the property. He said the only person that had brought a situation to their attention was their landlord. He said that being the Chairman of the Lawrence Community Shelter, he assured the City Commission that the shelter was committed to a better and stronger community program and he encouraged a free and more open dialogue between the Community Shelter and its neighbors to address concerns to embrace and resolve.
Kent Hayes, Homeless Outreach Specialist, Bert Nash, said he wanted to speak specifically to the issues of whether or not the back door should or should not be used and the loitering issue. He said his problem was when he stood up to speak to the City Commission about homeless people he was always a little embarrassed. He said he was embarrassed because his job as a homeless outreach person at Bert Nash was mostly an unlicensed cab driver. He said he takes the homeless back and forth to appointments, transports them to the housing authority, and in the process of this, the homeless become his friends. He said he did not think of them as homeless people, but rather friends without homes and that was a big difference. He said that if people label them as homeless, then they think they had the right to tell them which door to use and whether or not they had the right to loiter on the front stoop. He said that he loitered on his front stoop at home and he did not receive any complaints. He said that this was an issue the City Commission had to seriously consider.
He said he thought the staff of the Lawrence Community Shelter was the most dedicated staff he had experienced in a long time because they were dealing with issues that the City Commission could not even imagine such as, addictions, mental health, and all kinds of things. He said the shelter is dealing with people that were trying hard to become a part of this community and maintain the dignity they felt they should have in this community. He said the thought that they should be put in the back yard of this building and not allowed to be able to use the front door was something beyond his comprehension.
Robert Mosely, Community Commission on Homelessness, said anytime you ask someone to go through a back door it was because you were hiding something. He said his question for the City would be would you be hiding the fact that there were homeless people in Lawrence, or would they be hiding how the City treated those people. He said he did not think Lawrence had anything to hide.
Commissioner Rundle suggested that they drop that language. He said he heard the resolve of a huge group of people committed to solving the real problems that they were facing and the language had become counterproductive. As it had been stated several times, they needed to let the individuals who were in most part volunteers, get on about their business of doing their job and implement the recommendations of the task force.
Commissioner Schauner said in looking at both options, he did not see any mention of requiring anyone to use only one entrance to the facility. He said in his view it was perfectly clear that any door that was open to the outside was perfectly usable. He said it stated making an entrance or exit from the building to the public right-of-way and the sidewalk and it used that same language in both options. He said he did not want those who were watching or listening that either of these two options suggested, implied, or in any way conditioned the use of this building through the back door. He said that was not what the language of either option said. He said that the language might still be unacceptable, but it did not require anyone to use only the back door.
Mayor Highberger said he continued to hear concerns about people being harassed when they walk by the Lawrence Community Shelter. He said he has heard this for three years now and something had to be changed. He said he was willing to use the language proposed by the CCH provided that they see some change.
Commissioner Hack said this was a difficult situation because there were rights issues on all sides. She said this was not an easy decision because the people that lived and worked in that area deserved to have that in peace and to enjoy their environments. She was concerned about the language in both options because she thought it would be an enforcement issue where folks could spend their time shoving individuals into a certain area rather than spending time working with them and trying to get them to move into another spot in their lives.
She concurred with the Mayor to support the language the CCH proposed, but she would like to see a plan or some concrete evidence of some activity in this direction within 30 to 45 days.
Vice Mayor Amyx said in looking at both options, he agreed with Commissioner Schauner that he did not see anything that stated that a back door had to be used. He said that the language in Option 1 could not be enforced while the language in Option 2 was probably no different than the language from the CCH. He thought the enforcement issue in the language in Option 1 was going to be hard and impossible to take care of. He said if it was the intent of the City Commission to proceed with that language as long as there was some type of reasonable timeframe to get something back to see some improvement because all of the City Commissioners were receiving calls from time to time about situations around this center.
He said they were trying to make this a good situation all the way around and it was the intent of the CCH, the City Commission and everyone that was involved in this issue. He said he had no problem with looking at the language presented by the CCH to see if a plan could be put in place. He said he did have questions about the requirement language and it seemed like the reasonable effort was some type of language that would be the medium ground in this situation.
Commissioner Schauner suggested what Commissioner Hack said made a lot of sense. He said he would prefer to see the Community Shelter bring forward a good neighbor plan and bring it back to the City Commission as an additional condition to the one year extension to the UPR. He said he would rather see the LCS come up with a plan that it believed that it could enforce and would work. He also agreed with the Mayor that they had heard those concerns for at least three years now. He said he would like the LCS to bring back a good neighbor plan back to the Commission in 45 days that the LCS believed that it could enforce and had some input from the neighbors.
Herman Leon, Lawrence, suggested that they should get a report back in 45 days about how strict they were going to be in stopping people from going to sleep on the deck and other issues. He said that if one would spend some time across the street from the church where he spent some time, they would see a personal and psychological challenge for people walking down the street that see those homeless people acting inappropriately. He said that even though there have been three ordinances passed, but no solution. He suggested that the city issue a proclamation inviting all the neighborhood associations surrounding the area where the people were afraid to walk through. He suggested making a “block party” to where the community and the homeless could take some of their differences and smooth them out with good spirits.
Henderson asked Commissioner Schauner to clarify what he wanted to see back in 45 days.
Commissioner Schauner said that it would make more sense if the Community Commission would make a Good Neighbor Agreement and that being the agreement especially with the extended period of the UPR about to expire.
Henderson said he had not had direct experience with the Good Neighborhood Agreement, but six weeks to two months should be sufficient time.
Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to place a sense of urgency in the air about having an agreement. He understood that it was difficult to get people together, but from his position it would be better sooner than later, but if it impossible to accomplish this in 45 days, they should take longer, but 6 months was unreasonable.
Henderson said 60 days was more reasonable.
Commissioner Rundle said the language in 4(b) placed some language in place that they did expect them to working toward a Good Neighbor Agreement.
Mayor Highberger asked if this would be a condition on the UPR.
Corliss asked if the City Commission wanted to include 4(b) as recommended by the CCH as a condition and not using the language that was provided by staff. He said he understood that the City Commission did not want to use the language concerning reporting, but a development mechanism for communication with neighbors and the neighborhood association.
Commissioner Rundle added the Good Neighborhood Agreement within 60 days to what Corliss mentioned.
Commissioner Schauner said he was wanting to see a plan from the LCS about how they would intend to deal with the concerns that had been raised over the past two or three years and that the language in both options had attempted to address this evening without using Options 1 or 2 as the mechanism. He believed that they did not need to see an actual contract with LCS and neighbors, but an action plan from LCS about how they would propose that those issues would be addressed for the balance of the one year UPR extension.
Commissioner Hack agreed with Commissioner Schauner. She said if a Good Neighbor Agreement was additional beyond the action plan, it would be better. She said that it would address Leon’s discussion about getting people together. She said maybe that would be unreachable, but it might be a possibility that people in this community would engage in some conversation about. She said she did not think that anyone wanted Options 1 or 2 be the fall back of the situation, but she did not know if the City Commission had any choice if they could not come up with another plan. She said that they needed to protect everyone’s rights in this situation and that was the awkward position they found themselves. She said she hoped that in at least 60 days they could come up with an action plan.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to add as a condition to the Lawrence Community Shelter the language in item 4b (1 and 2) as requested by the Community Commission on Homelessness and as outlined in the March 7th, staff memo and as amended by the Commission to require an action plan from the Lawrence Community Shelter within 60 days to address the issues identified in Options 1 and 2 of the March 9th Memo from David Corliss. Motion carried unanimously. (25)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to reconfirm the approval of the one year extension of the Lawrence Community Shelter UPR with the conditions as amended by separate vote earlier this evening. Motion carried unanimously. (26)
Receive Lawrence Public Library Expansion Project memorandum. Consider adoption of consultant’s report and adoption of the summary statements. Consider authorization of dissemination of Request for Proposals for private redevelopment associated with library expansion.
Steven Clark said that there were two items for the City Commission to consider. He suggested that he would quickly run through a couple of things that might have been slightly altered since they had last talked; otherwise everything else was the same as when they had their study session on the 22nd. He said as the City Commissioners read down the list of items that they would approve after formally receiving the reports that were presented. The critical success factors were the same with one exception: They changed the wording in the parking to state 260 cars minimum and 400 cars desirable. He said the idea was that in this location, the city did not require any parking to be provided and the code would require that 260 would be required if this was built in a more suburban location. He said that the consultant’s report suggested that if they needed to maximize their chances for success and accessibility for patrons of the library that would be 400 cars. He felt that establishing a minimum and giving a desirable number was more appropriate.
He said they also made a slight change in the concurrence on the other library’s specifically requirements that was a category the City Commission did not have. He said that this might be the last main library project to occur in downtown Lawrence except for potentially renovations in 50 to 60 years, but they had added a provision of 15,000 square feet as a future expansion if it could be provided.
He said that they have also been specific about the square feet for open space and they have gotten more specific on requests for certification for LEAD, which was the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design criteria, and they decided they would establish a minimum certification. They have also added a few other things relative like floor to floor height and many of those more specific criteria were developed by the library programmer consultant.
He said concerning the suggested RFP for seeking proposals from prospective developers, the spirit of this RFP was that it was cut very simple. He said working on this with David Corliss, they had expanded and had added a few other things. He said the basic idea was that they would send it out. He said there were a few bits of language for example, proposals might utilize tax increment financing, but this RFP did not. He said they did have a set of criteria, A through F, requesting qualifications and other simple items. He said the date would be May 5, 2006 for the submittals.
He said that the main topic of sending out the RFP was the City Commission’s sense of schedule. He said they noted that there was some urgency expressed from the City Commission and it was possible that the proposals they received back and it was very probable that the option they had developed on the current side would require a public vote. He said that they were not assuming that all proposals would require that, but they do know that some, if not all, would. He said that they had written this assuming either way. He said that they could send this RFP out and get the proposals back or they could set a schedule, depending what the City Commission’s opinion was.
David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said the City Commission might want to talk among themselves about the level of commitment and direction that everyone understood.
Vice Mayor Amyx said if there were three or four proposals, he asked how long it would take staff and Clark to make sure they had all the criteria that was listed.
Clark said there were two phases. One was to receive the proposals and based on how the RFP was written, the City Commission would decide if desired to either select the public based option on the current side or select to enter into negotiation with a private partner. Once that was done there was some time spent in negotiating some of the details that would have been in the 100 page RFP. He said they would evaluate the discussion and have some question and answer sessions with the potential developers or private partners. He said once they receive the RFP, if they kept that date of May 4th, one question would be in terms of how fast he thought the city staff and potentially the partners if they wanted to review the RFP in that way, they would need to issue a report. He said their involvement in terms of working with the library they could do that within two to three weeks.
Commissioner Schauner said certainly an option was that they did this as a public project, but he asked how they would judge that option against the various RFP’s that had a private developer component. He asked how they would know the difference in costs, timetable, and any of the other features of public versus partner project.
Clark said the City Commission would have very specific criteria that were fairly easy. He said there was a list of requirements and the City Commission would go down the list checking off if they had met those requirements. He said they would prepare with the library’s help, an evaluation of each of those proposals, including the public one and the City Commission would be able to say whether or not that worked as a library operationally. There would be other intangible qualities that the project would have when looking at downtown redevelopment or some version of development of the downtown.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Clark or his firm would be the City’s agent in evaluation and providing the City with an objective comparison of a public costs project versus the public/private partnership costs project. He said he was using that word specifically because he was assuming a level of 100% objectivity with respect to their agency relationship.
Clark said the contract language was written in that they were to provide for the City an apples to apples evaluation of each of the proposals including the public proposals. He said they would need a lot of help financially given the City’s experience with those types of projects in terms of evaluating some of those things, but they were currently under contract to give the City that evaluation.
Corliss said staff’s understanding was that they were going to be able cost out the public only project and also to be able to give the City general cost estimates on the various RFP’s so they could compare those projects. A lot of the details would have to be worked out later if the City Commission decided to go down either one of those tracks. He said they were still very much at the conceptual design stage and not at the bidding stage where there was an architect estimate on construction, but ranges of estimates and not that level of detail when comparing those projects.
Commissioner Schauner said he had a concern about when they were able to make an accurate judgment in comparing conceptual projects on whether it was public or public/private. He said he would be looking for that sufficient analytical tool with which to make those comparisons in an objective a way as possible.
Clark said they would do all the background work to make sure the requirements were met and they would do as much work as possible to make sure that the financial numbers that were being used were as apples to apples as possible. He said they would ask questions of those folks to gain an assurance that they understood what they had priced and what was in those proposals. He said the library might want to weigh in on some of those intangibles, but that was going to be the third piece that the Commission would weigh in on.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be an O&M component to the comparison.
Clark said at the moment there was a component to that, but it was a broad brush component. In other words, they knew for example if someone proposed a 5 story library, the staffing model of that would be challenged. He said right now he did not think anyone had been charged with the task of developing a more detailed operations and maintenance budget proposal for the City for this size of a library.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he shared Commissioner Schauner’s same concern in that if they just built a library, he could see their public participation and what that hard cost would be. He said his main concern was to make sure they were able to divide that out to see if the City’s participation was just the City’s participation and how much of a bigger project was the City buying into and could the City talk about their library specifically and the responsibilities for parking.
Clark said a number per capita was pegged for an operating budget as one target to shoot for. He said there was something in there in terms of a gross number for what the need would be to operate the building, it was specific in the number, but the way they got to that number was not very detailed.
Vice Mayor Amyx said if they expanded at the current site, he knew that was the City’s library. He said if they were going into the RFP that was going to be a public/private partnership. He wanted it understood that he wanted to see what the City’s responsibilities were and the way those contracts would be structured.
Clark said that concern could happen, but it was not a base charge at the moment.
Commissioner Schauner said it would be his belief that a public/private partnership would cause the public component to be less than if they were building their own facility. If in fact a private developer had an opportunity to create a cash flow for him or herself he would expect that would not be a free opportunity.
Clark said concerning intangibles, one example was that it might be wash between the cost, but for example, the private partners proposals included 600 cars and there might be some pieces to that puzzle.
Commissioner Rundle said in terms of that number crunching whether it was rough estimates or not, it was helpful to know simultaneously what the increment was over what they were currently spending.
Commissioner Schauner said one of things he would like to see was some discussion about due diligence with respect to the public’s interest in the expense of public funds whether was voted up or down. He asked what issues should the City Commission be looking at to make sure they were doing their best to protect the public’s interest in this issue.
Mayor Highberger said he was not sure what Commissioner Schauner was asking for.
Commissioner Schauner said obviously the City Commission’s decisions became subjective at some point, but he would like some sense of a reasonable measure into guiding decision makers to what value was going into a public/private partnership where they might or might not have long term control. He said that the easiest would be the current location because they knew the parameters instead of building it at a different location.
Commissioner Hack said that she understood that they needed to compare them, but would it be appropriate for that type of analysis as a result of the RFP’s. She wanted to know if they had something to compare.
Commissioner Schauner said it might be easier to compare, but in the meantime he would like legal staff to be thinking about if there were any guide post that they might consider in making that decision such as additional tax revenue from private development downtown, additional parking available, additional people living downtown that had an intangible effect in terms of additional sales tax generated. He said he was trying to wrap his arms around how to do that apples to oranges type of comparing.
Corliss said that would be the challenge for Clark and staff to give the City Commission meaningful comparisons and meaningful information as the City Commission tried to weigh the costs and benefits. He wanted to make sure that they understood that the main goal was the goals of the new public library, like the location issue and the need for parking. The issues were going to be land use, economics of the parking, additional benefits to downtown, additional cost that were associated to the public, and the compatibility with other goals that the City Commission might have for this project. He said there needed to be a good articulation of all those items. He said there was a policy issue on downtown development or redevelopment and what the City Commission’s goals were and how they were going to accomplish that. By looking at private proposals that would possibly enhance their ability to get the library they wanted and then they needed to determine at what additional cost or additional benefit that would be achieved.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he just wanted to remind everyone that we were building a library.
Mayor Highberger agreed with Commissioner Hack that when the proposals came in would be the best time to weigh the plusses and minuses to the City.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not looking for a specific report, but to forecast what those questions might be when they do get some specific proposals.
Commissioner Rundle said he did not want to complicate or delay this issue, but it seemed rather than simply talking about the back end of the proposal to process, it would be good to have some statement of some general planning principles that would come to bear on the private component whether those were zoning, planning, and traffic studies. He said he thought they would be agreeing on something that did not make good planning sense to downtown as well.
Corliss said they could embellish or articulate a detailed description of planned compliance with the city land use requirements including the City’s downtown design guidelines.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt the report and summary statements and to authorize the dissemination of the RFP. Motion carried unanimously. (27)
Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning requests, and authorizing drafting of ordinances for placement on future agenda for:
a) Z-09-58-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 19.5234 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-D (Duplex-Residential District). The property is generally described as being located ¼ mile north of W. 6th Street and west of Queens Road. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Michael D. Stultz, property owner of record. (PC Item No. 5A: approved on 6-3 on 2/16/06)
b) Z-09-59-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 21.233 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District). The property is generally described as being located ¼ mile north of W. 6th Street and West of Queens Road. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects for Michael D. Stultz, property owner of record. (PC Item No. 5B: approved 9-0 on 2/16/06)
Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director said the City Commission would be considering two rezoning request. The southern portion of those zoning boundaries were approximately 19 ½ acres had been proposed to be rezoned to RMD (Residential Duplex District) and the northern half which was approximately 21 acres to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District). The phase line was proposed to address the sewage area sewer capacity issues. The proposal was that only Phase 1 which was the interior would be accommodated by the existing capacity in the pump station that represented 19% of the total flow which equated to 19% of how much assessment this property owner paid into the cost of that pump station. The City Commission had a recommendation for approval on the RMD with a split vote from the Planning Commission 6-3, and after she reviewed the minutes, it appeared that the opposition was really concerned about how wide the duplex area was in terms of how much duplex there was in relation to other re-zonings that had been approved in this general area north of 6th Street. There had been a lot of discussion of the purpose statement being a transition buffer district, which was the main concern. There was also discussion about if the new code were in place that might be a nice place for RS-3 or RS-5 zoning where there were smaller lot detached dwellings. However, the discussion with the Planning Commission was that the applicant had submitted this and the code that was in place today did not provide that option. She said that the City Commission had a unanimous recommendation for the rezoning on the single-family portion to the north.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Tim Herndon, LandPlan Engineering, stood for questions.
Commissioner Hack said concerning the sewer capacity that would be used in Phase 1 of those projects, she asked if those would not exceed the percentage of the MGD that they had paid for in the benefit district.
Herndon said that was correct.
Commissioner Schauner said when this was built, would they be able transmit the wastewater created by this project with the City’s existing structure.
Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager, said keeping within the capacity restrictions for Phase 1, yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the plans were for expanding their transmission system in order to accommodate Phase 2.
Van Saun said that anything from this development or other developments within this benefit district would be in excess of the capacity allocation and would need to follow whatever recommendations coming from the update to the Northwest Area Master Plan and whichever recommendations the City Commission would approve. She said that would be the guidance they would have, and they should have that guidance in May or early June from Black & Veatch.
Vice Mayor Amyx said right now they could rest assured that the pump station that was in place now had the capacity to take care of those proposed developments for rezoning.
Van Saun said that particular pump station was not being used now and it was available for this particular development within the limitation that had been described.
Herndon said it might be helpful information to know that, not just this preliminary plat, but the preliminary plat west, Oregon Trail Addition, which had been approved for approximately one year and a proposed preliminary plat west of that known as Mercado which had significant commercial and other mixed use zonings in it had all been re-phased to address the recently identified sanitary sewer limitations. He said that previous projects that were thought to be a single phased or fully serviceable, had been scaled back to accommodate the pressing concerns of the day.
Korb Maxwell, Polsinelli, Shalton, representing the Turner family, said that family owned an 80 acre parcel which was directly north of the Stultz land property on Queens Road and also owned a 40 acre parcel that was at the northwest corner of Queens and 6th Street. They had the properties that were adjacent to the piece under consideration on both the north and south. He said the family that he represented was in complete support of the Stultz Land Development Proposal. The Turners were happy to sell their property to Stultz and that sale contemplated the fact that Stultz would develop the land into a manner that was duplex and single-family which would bring value to Stulz development.
He said issue he would like to discuss was the issue of sewer capacity. The property was served by the Baldwin Creek No. 1 Benefit District. The property that was served by that benefit district was Mercado, Oregon Trail, Stulz, a portion of the Turner south 40 tract, and a small piece that belongs to Mr. Graham. This piece had begun in 1998 and had approximately 215 acres total and at this time it could pump 815 gallons per minute.
He said this area that they were discussing was ground zero for the sewer controversy that had arisen in this area of Lawrence. He said that they had been in meetings for several months with staff and this controversy had delayed the ability for this family to be able to close on another piece of property to sell to another developer that would like to propose a church development for that area of Lawrence. He said that it had been clear in those meetings about what the sewer capacity was for the City of Lawrence. He believed that there was no sewer capacity for that area until the Black & Veatch study was received to find out where the sewer capacity stood. He said the one issue that was clear was the Baldwin Creek No. 1 Benefit District did have the sewer capacity and was the benefit of the bargain that they had struck. He said when they developed that benefit district, paid for the pump station to be constructed, and now, assessments were being charged on those land owners and they would get the capacity that was the benefit of their bargain.
He said the Turner’s own 12.15 acres that would be within that benefit district and had approximately 7.42%. In those meetings, they learned the fact that landowners and developers in that area were working on a private letter agreement between them to divvy up the land area and the sewer capacity in that land area. He said they thought that agreement was an excellent idea and approached the engineers on the status of that agreement. He said he was able to receive a copy of that letter agreement which provided a good starting point for making sure that the sewer capacity of that benefit district area was provided for and that agreement between those landowners. He said he took that a step further to draft that in to a formal sewer sharing agreement that could be recordable in the chain of title that would state that the benefit and the burden of this benefit district and sewer capacity of that benefit district ran between all the land owners and all the landowners would respect their allotted flows in accordance with the percentages.
He said he learned from representatives of Stultz and the landowners that they did not see any wisdom in that binding agreement and believed that would be an agreement that would only benefit the Turner property, which was why he was appearing before the City Commission at this time.
He asked that the City intervene and for the City to watch and regulate to make sure that the capacity of this benefit district was not used by other members of that benefit district. Again, he said that they supported the land use application, supported the rezoning, but asked that the rezoning be conditioned on the approval and that the development would stay within its allotted flow until such time as the sewer issues were solved for that area and directed the City Staff to closely monitor this allotted flow through both the zoning, platting, and building permit process as moving forward.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if that was being done.
Van Saun said a memo was distributed to the City Commission giving the exact same information that staff had been discussing verbally with those landowners and developers, but it had not been put into memo format. She said they were waiting for that agreement to have something in writing, but it had not occurred.
Commissioner Schauner said that he supposed from Maxwell’s view it would be nice if the City were to make such a guarantee. He said that their policy in terms of how that whole area was developed was pretty much first come, first serve, simply with respect to developable square footage at the intersection of 6th Street and Wakarusa Street. He said he was wondering if what was proposed would take them down a different path as it related to the sewer capacity.
David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said that one distinction was that, in this case, there was a County sanitary sewer benefit district that had been established on the property that was shown in Korb’s map. He said those property owner’s, consented to the establishment of that sanitary sewer benefit district and they were now being assessed by the County, the costs for that pump station. That pump station had a certain capacity. He said that they had allocated that capacity based on the square footage. He said what Maxwell had discussed and what staff had indicated was the position of the City in indicating how that sewer capacity would be allocated in the absence of an agreement of all the property owners in the benefit district was something to the contrary. It was indicated that was not likely to proceed, but it might very well proceed in the future. He said at this point, unless the City Commission gave direction otherwise, this was how they would allocate that sanitary sewer based on the acreage and square footage of the participating properties. He said it was different than land uses because they were paying for that sewer capacity based on that square footage.
Commissioner Schauner said but there was a difference between square footage and how the square footage was used in terms of the capacity of sewer required to transmit wastewater from that location. He questioned if that percentage chart accurately reflected how much flow those various parcels would require. He asked how could that be known unless they knew what the build out would be and the platting would be for those areas.
Corliss said as those zonings and plats come through, staff was indicating that for those parcels their initial phases must comply on a square footage bases with what had been allocated to that property.
Commissioner Schauner said if that meant the RMD rezoning request for that part of the property was not going to use more per square foot than had been contemplated in the assessment for the benefit district based on its square footage allocation. He said he was concerned about a lawsuit from somebody because somebody was not going to get the building permits that they wanted for how they would ultimately want to develop some of this ground in a denser way that what was contemplated today. He said they would argue that if the City gave the approval then they would sue the City because they had been paying their fair share on the square footage basis for that benefit district. He said he wanted to make sure that they were not approving in a piecemeal way, the ground work for some future litigation.
Corliss said what staff would indicate that they could sewer up to the capacity for which they had paid. He thought that would be an adequate defense to any claim against the city. He said that they had paid for that sewage capacity and they would be able to use that much sewage capacity.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if this was a way to define exactly what they had bought and paid for.
Corliss said correct. He said what he did not want anyone to think was that the City was satisfied with that answer nor was the City satisfied with the situations that got the City to this point. He said the City would work diligently to come up with solutions that could respond to the situation, to be able to provide the sewer capacity for the land uses that the City Commission approved. The land use decisions should drive sewers, not the other way around and staff would find solution so that if there was additional sewer capacity that could be provided, then the City would find a mechanism for finance it so they could buy additional sewer capacity to pump additional sewage if that was the land uses the City Commission approved for that area.
Commissioner Hack said they also had to remember what Herndon stated in his introductory comments which was there were four or five projects and each one had to be phased from its original design of where it was going to go. She said the phasing would mark the amount (MGD) for which that particular benefit or that particular parcel had paid for in that benefit district. She said the City was not going to let anybody have more than what they paid for. She said it would not be a first come, first serve in this situation. She said she thought there were some equity issues that had been expressed to the City Commission that this was a very positive way of approaching this issue for those property owners in that area.
Mayor Highberger asked if the procedure was policy and if there was a way to memorialize this policy.
Corliss said staff had worked with what had been built and how it was being paid for. He said that the document was something that more concisely stated that information. Unless the City Commission directed staff otherwise, that was how staff would proceed, to allocate the existing sewage capacity.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a way to memorialize this policy in a way that gave greater notice to all prospective parties that this was what the City was going to be doing.
Corliss said staff could memorialize it in a resolution so everyone could see the City Commission had formally adopted it. He said as the City was getting the land use requests for property within this benefit district, staff would indicate this was how, to date, that property was paid for, a certain sewage capacity, based on the property owner’s square footage and that would be the sewage capacity those property owners had. There was also a process in place to tell someone how they could get additional sewage capacity. He said that the City needed to think in terms of phasing because those later improvements were not immediately available.
Commissioner Rundle asked if there were guidelines for receiving additional sewer capacity.
Corliss said the Northwest Sewer Study which would be available in May and hopefully not any later than that would give the City recommendations on how they could provide any options on how they could provide additional sewage capacity in the entire northwest area, including the area that was served by this County sanitary sewer benefit district. At that time, the City Commission would be able to review and critique that study along with the property owners and the City would find their way to a good solution.
Commissioner Schauner said if providing additional sewer capacity for the northwest part of town required more than just a pump station upgrade, he asked that if the fact that those plans that were already in some process, inhibit the ability to have a different cost share arrangement with developers to change that downstream capacity in some fashion.
Corliss said if those property owners wanted additional sewage capacity, then one of the issues in May and perhaps into June would be how to finance that additional sewage capacity. The Development Policy indicated that if someone one wanted sewage capacity that person would pay 100% of the cost of that sewage capacity. He said the City would build relief lines for watershed type improvements. In this case, there would be an important policy issue because some of the solution might involve constructing improvements downstream to provide additional wastewater capacity. He said but the additional desire for wastewater capacity, he asked would those improvements need to be made now. He said that was an important consideration for the City Commission to look at.
Commissioner Schauner said under the City’s current policy, if the answer was “no”; then the 100% of that cost for improvement downstream would be at the cost of the developer.
Corliss said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Amyx said if there was a request for upgrade of sewer capacity in that area, he asked if the division of the sewer benefit district was still going to be those certain percentages.
Corliss said if he understood Vice Mayor Amyx’s question, the answer was “yes.” The sewage capacity was finite at that location, it was built. He said they had allocated the benefit district for what had been built based on square footage which seemed to be the fairest way. He said that if the property owners wanted additional capacity beyond that, they would pay for how much more capacity they needed for development, based on square footage and additional capacity.
Commissioner Schauner said if the City had an interest in less density, based on traffic concerns along the West 6th Street area, he asked if the City could alter their policy to provide some city financing relief for some sewer improvements in exchange for less density. He said that if the City had a public policy goal of less density, fewer cars to relieve the ultimate congestion on West 6th Street, he asked if the City, as a matter of policy, could make a change.
Corliss said that they did not have that policy and the best way to control density was zoning. He said that they were establishing the density of this area for this tract by zoning. He said that if the City Commission thought there were density concerns for any tract, the City Commission needed to ask planning staff about the impact and vote accordingly. He said it would be a significant change to say that the City was not going to zone someone to what they had requested, and pay them for taking something less.
Commissioner Schauner asked if they could sell development rights in some fashion.
Corliss said that could be done, but traditionally where development right exchanges had been discussed which was where an authority was transferred to have a higher density and were willing to accept a lesser density in exchange for something else. He said that in this case, the City Commission had the ultimate authority, within the law, to establish the appropriate density and uses on property where there was not an existing use.
Commissioner Schauner said that one concern was that the City’s current code did not give them a lot of variety in density and zoning options. For example, in the new code, they had different options for density at this location than what the current code provided. He said he had a personal concern about too much density in that northwest area.
Commissioner Rundle said regarding Commissioner Amyx’s question, Corliss had said “yes”, but it sounded like the answer was “no.” He said any additional capacity was going to involve additional facilities.
Corliss said correct.
Commissioner Rundle said and those additional facilities would not be given by this allocation formula because that would be another matter.
Corliss said correct.
Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to weigh in to say it was reasonable to expect some assurance that this allocation of capacity was going to follow the benefit district and it seemed like the memorandum should be in a form of a resolution or something that could be more enforceable. He said he was also curious about such resolution impacted what they had already approved in the other proposals. He said their rephrasing was a very cooperative gesture. He asked if the allocation was going to be enforceable.
Corliss said that they were already using those conditions, but having it in a resolution was a good document. He said that the Oregon Trail property had been zoned, but not platted and not all the property was within the County sanitary sewer benefit district, which was another issue. He said that the property on the west side, George Williams Way extended, went into the Mercado planned unit development and that zoning had been before the Planning Commission a couple of times and had not proceeded with a recommendation for the City Commission’s consideration. He said that any of their discussions about the sewer issues had been timely it was certainly timely to modify this so they knew exactly where they were for this particular benefit district.
Herndon said that he hoped he could cut staff’s verbal corroboration of what he believed was fact so that the zoning before the City Commission would not be in peril of being delayed. He asked if this should be codified or made more enforceable, via resolution, that specifically delineated percentages and capacities for the individual properties, that the phase lines and the number of units and the waste water output that were associated with Stultz’s land that would be reflected exactly as proposed in any subsequent formal legal document or resolution. He said he would like to hear staff confirm his avowed statement that they did not exceed their available capacity as it related to their 40 acre project.
Van Saun said that staff was in concurrence.
Commissioner Rundle said that he would want to make sure of that assurance. He said he meant to acknowledge the need to somehow make reference to how those calculations were made in terms of capacity, which was probably related to dwelling units or some other standard, so it was clear on the table, those capacity limitations how they would arrive at some determination that they had met, exceeded or still had capacity.
Corliss said he thought the resolution that he envisioned would have a number of those details so that it would be very clear on how they got from one place to another.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the findings of fact, approve the rezoning request, and authorize the drafting of an ordinance for placement on future agenda for Z-09-58-05, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 19.5234 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-D (Duplex-Residential District). Aye: Highberger, Amyx, Hack, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (28)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to adopt the findings of fact, approve the rezoning request, and authorize the drafting of an ordinance for placement on future agenda for Z-09-59-05, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 21.233 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District). Motion carried unanimously. (29)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Amyx, to direct staff to prepare a resolution memorializing the allotted flow of sanitary sewer capacity as provided in the staff memo dated March 14, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (30)
Consider approving text amendment TA-01-01-06: Consideration of repeal or amendment of the 50’ setback along W. 6th Street/US 40 between Monterey Way and Wakarusa Drive (Chapter 21, Article 12) –(PC Item No. 7; PC voted to deny 7-2 on 2/22/06)
Dan Warner, Planner, said Article 12 of the Subdivision Regulations was adopted by the City of Lawrence and Douglas County in 1990 with the recommendation of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission. Article 12 is rooted in the Western Development Plan which addressed the visual quality of the corridor. Policy 6 of the Western Development Plan states: “A 50 foot easement, in addition to right-of-way required for street and utility purposes, will be required for property being platted adjacent to and on each side of West Sixth Street. This easement will be used as greenspace easement to be landscaped and maintained by the developer or owner of the property”. The 50 foot setback establishes a buffer area that helps protect the visual integrity of the 6th Street corridor while also providing a buffer to properties that adjoin the 5-lane arterial road.
The distance between Wakarusa Drive and Monterey Way is approximately 1 mile. The property along this section of 6th Street is predominantly developed. There are 18 subdivisions, of which only one small parcel is undeveloped. There are 6 properties that are not platted, of which Bauer Farms remains the last to be developed. Of the subdivisions, 13 have a platted 50-foot setback.
He said it appeared that Article 12 has been an effective tool for properly planning the development along 6th Street. There generally is a consistent 50 foot buffer area within this section of 6th Street. The buffer area helps this section retain a visual character that stands in contrast to that portion of 6th Street east of Monterey Way. The setbacks of parking and buildings east of Monterey Way typically fall well short of 50 feet and have no consistency of distance.
Warner said the benefit of this text amendment is providing those property owners yet to develop on 6th Street between Wakarusa and Monterey Way more flexibility in developing their properties. Redeveloping properties also could enjoy that benefit in the future. The effect, over the long-term, is that this portion of the corridor could lose its visual integrity and evolve into something more like 6th Street east of Monterey Way.
Consistency along the roadway is one of the keys to properly planning and maintaining the visual character of the roadway. Reducing the setback requirement from Wakarusa Drive to Monterey Way removes an important element in the consistency of planning and developing the visual character of the roadway and provides certain property owners along the roadway a benefit not previously enjoyed by others.
The text amendment, as presented, provides relief from the extraordinary 50 foot setback requirement by allowing the controlling zoning district setback to guide future development. The general zoning setback requirements for buildings along this corridor range from 25 to 30 feet. Planned development zoning districts have a 30 foot perimeter setback requirement. However, the Planning Commission is allowed to reduce the perimeter setback requirement to something less than 30 feet for planned developments.
It does not appear the benefits of the proposed text amendment outweigh the possible negative outcomes that may occur if this text amendment is adopted.
Warner said the Planning Commission heard this item on February 22, 2006, and voted 7 to 2 for a recommendation of denial of the text amendment. He said the 7 Commissioners that voted to deny the text amendment, commented that they needed to protect the greenspace along the corridor, and protecting the visual integrity of the corridor. He said three of the members on the Planning Commission were members on of the Gateway Community that sent the City Commission a letter a month or two ago which expressed their feelings about how the 50 foot rule should not be removed. He said that the two that voted for the repeal had issues with repealing the 50 foot setback.
Commissioner Rundle asked about the Planning Commission’s recommendation on Bauer Farm’s with regard to setbacks.
Stogsdill said the Planning Commission recommended the reduced setbacks as shown on the plan which varied from 10 to 15 feet at the closest locations because it affected the parking. She said some of the buildings might be setback 30 feet, but there was a drive lane around the south side of the buildings which puts those parking lots as close as 10 feet in some locations. She said she knew that Mr. Watkins had indicated that at the Planning Commission there was conversation about a revision to the development plan that would push those setbacks further back, but the staff has not been part of that discussion, so all staff had to report was what the Planning Commission looked at was what the City Commission has looked at.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Bauer Farm project could proceed, as long as its proposal with the variance that had been granted to it.
Stogsdill said no. The Planning Commission approved the waivers from the planned unit development requirements, but the 50 foot setback was in the subdivision regulations and required the Board of Zoning Appeals approval. The issue had been that the argument to receive it would be extremely difficult because complete deprivation of use had to be shown. She said this was why the request had come to the City Commission to repeal it.
Commissioner Schauner said in order to accommodate the Bauer Farm Project they had asked that this text amendment be made.
Stogsdill said yes.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked if the text amendment would require a supermajority vote from the City Commission.
Stogsdill said yes, to overrule the Planning Commission. She said the City Commission had three choices for action: 1) Deny the recommendation by a supermajority; 2) approve the recommendation by a supermajority; or, 3) Refer it back to the Planning Commission and ask for additional discussion, but when it came back to the City Commission next time, the request could be overridden by a supermajority vote.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the approval on a supermajority would be similar to what occurred in a zoning, that that was considered a denial.
Stogsdill said to override the Planning Commission’s recommendation would require a supermajority. She said doing something opposite of the Planning Commission’s recommendation needed a supermajority vote.
Commissioner Rundle said if there was a supermajority vote, would it be treated as a denial or did there need to be specific direction to send it back to the Planning Commission.
Corliss said the recommendation was for denial and to sustain that recommendation required a majority vote, to override it, required a supermajority vote. He said that if the City Commission wanted to amend it, they would need to send it back or have a supermajority to make the area smaller, but not enlarge the area. He said in this case, when there was an application for a zoning, and the City Commission failed to approve that zoning, that zoning would die. In this case the status quo would rule so it would go back to the Planning Commission as denying the text amendment.
Vice Mayor Amyx said in order for this project to happen, the text amendment must be added because the BZA did not have the authority to make a variance.
Stogsdill said staff thought it would be very difficult for the BZA to grant that variance based on the criteria that was in the subdivision regulations which was extraordinary to a normal variance.
Commissioner Hack asked who was driving this issue.
Stogsdill said the impetus for this specific text amendment certainly did come from the Bauer Farm proposal although she believed Watkins’ was making an argument that there was a reason to change because of the right-of-way acquisitions that had occurred for the highway project, west of Folks Road.
Mayor Highberger called for public comment.
Dan Watkins, Attorney, on behalf of Bauer Farms, requested the City Commission approve the proposed text amendment. He said that it would allow some more flexibility for setback for Bauer Farm, particularly between Folks and Wakarusa.
Matthew Gough, Barber Emerson L.C., on behalf of Westgate LC, Northland LC, and Domino LC, each of whom own property south of 6th Street between Monterey and Wakarusa. He asked the City Commission to impose equal setback requirements to the north and south sides of 6th Street. He said equal setback requirements promoted efficient, aesthetically pleasing street configurations. He said if the City did not treat both of the sides of the street equally, it would create precedence for other portions of 6th Street to be treated differently on the north and south sides of the street. He said that the visual appearance of the future development and redevelopment along 6th Street would suffer as a result.
Gough said with respect to recent acquisitions by the City to the south, that it was their opinion that they should be disregarded for the purposes of this setback and not considered in terms of expanding or subtracting from the setback requirements.
Commissioner Rundle asked that Gough further explain his last comment.
Gough said there was some discussion earlier about the fact recent acquisition by the City, south of 6th Street had obviated the need for this current existing setback and it was their position that this recent acquisition to the south should not effect on the current setback requirements and was not a relevant factor.
Vice Mayor Amyx asked what Gough’s recommendations would be for setback on the south side.
Gough said they had no position on where the setback line should be, they were only asking the City Commission that they be the same setbacks to the north.
Commissioner Schauner said as part of the widening for West 6th Street, the City had acquired in conjunction with KDOT some property that Gough was referring to. He asked if that matter had been resolved.
Corliss said as part of the 6th Street project between Folks Road and K-10, KDOT acquired right away for the project and approximately 3 million dollars worth of property interest were acquired. The City’s participation in those costs was 20%. He said that it was his understanding that some of the condemnation actions were still pending, either on trial or were on appeal. He said that the public owns the property interests that they were using or benefiting from for the project. He said that the item in dispute was the compensation.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the proposed text amendment would change the super setback on both sides of the streets or just on the north.
Corliss said the proposed text amendment repealed the extraordinary setback on both sides of the street.
Commissioner Schauner said since the City, in conjunction with KDOT purchased that property on the south side of the street what was the effective setback for that Westgate property.
Corliss said what had been done, but not yet codified was a statement in the subdivision regulation that indicated that when government took or acquired property, the government would not create a legal non-conforming use regarding the setback. The other item of some discussion with this litigation was that it had been his understanding of the eminent domain law that the issue for compensation was the taking of the amount due, on the date of taking which was at a 2 or 3 year date. He said there was a really good question as to whether or not that impacted any of the compensation issues.
Vice Mayor Amyx said he liked the Bauer Farm Project. He said when looking at the setback on the north or south and the entire additional setback requirements, he said when he looked at Douglas County to the east side of Folks Road, this setback was further back to the north than it would be when it lined up. He said at that time, when looking at the setback requirements and the super setback that was necessary, they did not know how West 6th Street was going to be developed. It was the City Commission’s desire at the time, along with development plans that were put in place, that the extraordinary setback would be put in until development started to occur. He said unfortunately if this was the only way they had to accommodate a good looking plan, he would support this between Folks and Wakarusa Drive. He said he believed it accommodated a good plan.
Commissioner Hack said she appreciated that at this point in time Bauer Farms might be the driver, but she thought when looking at what they were trying to do with streets and had seen some neat presentations of some major thoroughfares that had been created in a way that did not emphasize the speed of a car and allowed for pedestrian traffic and connectivity, that if the extraordinary setbacks were there, they were working in opposite directions. She hoped that the City Commission would look at this plan, not just for the plan that was before the Commission, but for what they wanted to create of that corridor. She said corridors could be created that were car and pedestrian friendly and were not big, wide thoroughfares.
Commissioner Rundle said he did not see any convincing evidence that not having this change killed the project. He said he did not like making a large policy decision based on a single plan. He said he had an e-mail saying that if they did move in this direction of new urbanism, this kind of corridor vision might be incompatible. He said they might want to have new standards for the corridor that were more in line with new urbanism properties. He said that they had not officially taken any action or consideration of a new urbanism and he did not see how they could explain approving something on the basis of new urbanism when it was not official. He said there was no guidance for people to argue on this basis for future projects or this project until they made that an official action.
He said with the Planning Commission corridor and the Gateway Community not behind this at this time, it did not preclude the future recommendations coming from them to also make changes such as might be done under a new urbanism approach. He said until they had that broader discussion and broader reason to make those changes, he would prefer to stay with the Planning Commission recommendation for denial.
Mayor Highberger said he respectfully disagreed. He said he thought the broader reasons were there. He said he did not think the question was about whether this was new urbanism or not, but a question of whether it was good planning. He thought that it directly affected Bauer Farms immediately, but it affected new development in this corridor for the rest of 6th Street in a way that was good for the City. He said that if they look at 6th Street as it went through Old West Lawrence there was a dramatic change from setbacks. He said that they needed to control the right-of-way and this was the first step in that direction. He felt that he was elected to fix this problem. He said he thought this was a great opportunity to take a step forward in the right direction. He thought that they could do it more systematically in the future. He said he would vote to overturn the Planning Commission recommendation and repeal the extraordinary setback.
Commissioner Schauner said the Mayor’s comments were both enlightening and rational. He said his concern went back to the old adage that bad facts made bad law, and he would hate to see them change the entire super setback on West 6th Street to accommodate a single project. He said that other people on this corridor had developed and given up ground in order to satisfy the super setback, and it seemed to sort of change the rules now and that did not send a reasonable message to the folks who built their properties in accordance with that super setback. He said he was concerned about the Mayor’s comment about the ability to make certain changes down the line in terms to zoning, but he was not that confident, from a political perspective, that they made systematic decisions. He said they tended to respond to individual requests, but the tyranny of incremental decision making was real and this was an example of a single decision that might on its own and on its face be a fine project, and deserved to be closer to the street, but if in fact they remove the super setback with this text amendment, what they would have done was to say to everyone else on that street that wanted time to redevelop, that they could build their parking lot right next to the street. He said that consequence was significant. He said in all good conscience, he could not approve going down that path without some greater predictive notion of what the long term effect would be of removing the setback. He said he would second the comments made by Commissioner Rundle.
Commissioner Rundle said he would agree with Commissioner Schauner on matters of moving in the direction of smart growth and smart corridors. He said that they should adopt the policy and the resolution if that was the Commission’s direction. He said his problem would be how they would extrapolate from this decision to another. He said that if an idea lines up well with smart growth or new urbanism that generally had the unofficial blessing of the City Commission, then maybe they could argue to support that project. He said until they went through that process, the process was unpredictable. He said he had been waiting longer for predictability, clarity of policy, and uniform enforcement of the same so that they did proceed with their development in a manner that was quick for developers, quick for the community, and that their expectations could be depended upon.
Commissioner Hack said her support of the approval of the text amendment was more for what they wanted 6th Street to look like than the Bauer Farms project. She said she thought that there was a complete difference in the way that people drive once they reach Old West Lawrence going on 6th Street than when they were by Free State High School and out west. She said that there was a different feel to it and people drove differently. She said when pulling those buildings up toward the street, there was a different feeling that slowed traffic down. If they had not made a firm commitment to proceed with parallel codes for new urbanism was what stopped some of those things and she suggested that they put in a future agenda, some summary of the work that Warner had been working with so hard with the group that she had been a part of since they came back from Pasadena. She said that it seemed to her that they had made a commitment to move forward. She said that they were moving in the direction of a parallel code and they had the opportunity to put some of those things in place that would be part of the code. She said she thought it was unfortunate that they did not take that opportunity.
Commissioner Schauner said his vote was not based on the Bauer Farm project, but his vote tonight was based on a way to get this to happen for this project. He said he did not want to change the entire super setback area to accommodate a specific project. If staff could come up with a way to accommodate the Bauer Farm Project with less setback then they should find a way to do it.
Commissioner Rundle said that they kept pointing to the new development code, which adoption is imminent, but they could not apply those standards to a project until the code had been adopted. He said that he thought it would be very persuasive when they said what they wanted the corridor to look like. If that was codified somewhere in planning guidelines and retaining that policy was in conflict with that, then he thought that was the kind of information the Planning Commission needed if they had not formalized what they wanted the corridor to look like in a way that supported this, then they needed to adopt new corridor policies. He thought it was a matter of procedure and process.
Vice Mayor Amyx said if the text amendment did not pass then it had to go to the BZA with a recommendation of denial for the setbacks. He asked staff to confirm if this was going to happen.
Stogsdill said that was a fair summary. She said staff could not predict the BZA’s action, but Commissioner Schauner had indicated if there was some other way, she wanted to remind the Commission that this was proposing a repeal of the setback from Monterey Way to Wakarusa Drive. She said it was not proposing anything from Wakarusa Drive west. One other option they could look at would be between Folks Road and Wakarusa Drive, which the south side was developed, and if this were repealed, the south side would potentially be able to redevelop a little closer to 6th Street and would accommodate the Bauer Farm Project because it was contained between Folks Road and Wakarusa Drive. She said she knew that was still incremental.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to refer this issue back to the Planning Commission for staff of the Planning Commission to provide the City Commission with an alternative to what had been proposed. He said if there was a way to accomplish Bauer Farm’s needs for a less setback without doing the whole thing, he would be more inclined to give it a more favorable consideration.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to approve the text amendment TA-01-01-06. Aye: Highberger, Hack, and Amyx. Nay: Rundle and Schauner. Motion carried. (31)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to refer the text amendment back to the Planning Commission for alternative consideration and for specific consideration to allow the Bauer Farms project to proceed. Motion carried unanimously. (32)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
REGULAR AGENDA (cont’d):
Consider a motion to recess into executive session for 45 minutes for the purposes of: 1) consultation with attorneys for the City for matters privileged under the attorney-client relationship, 2) discussion of possible acquisition of real estate, and 3) discussion of non-elected personnel matters. The justification for the executive session is keep confidential matters privileged under the attorney-client relationship and to keep possible terms of real estate acquisition confidential.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to recess into executive session for one hour for the purposes of 1) consultation with attorneys for the City for matters privileged under the attorney-client relationship, 2) discussion of possible acquisition of real estate, and 3) discussion of non-elected personnel matters and to extend the meeting to 10:15 pm. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission returned to regular session at 10:15 at which time it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to extend the executive session 30 minutes and to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission returned to regular session at 10:45 p.m.
It was moved by Schauner, seconded by Amyx, to recess regular session until 10:30 am Wednesday, March 15th at the County Courthouse. Motion carried unanimously. (33)
The City Commission reconvened at the Douglas County Courthouse at 10:50 a.m. at which time it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to recess into executive session for 30 minutes to discussion non-elected personnel matters. Motion carried unanimously.
It was moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 11:20 a.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED _____________________________
Dennis Highberger, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Purchase – 2 used Hwy Patrol Cars – State of KS for $26,800.
2. Bid – Hook lift refuse truck to Roy Conley for $55,682.
3. Bid – Utility Service Truck with crane to Westfall GMC Trucks for $85,819.
4. Bid – Breathing Air Compressor to Conrad Fire Equipment for $41,235.80.
5. Bid – Furniture for Fire/Med to Design Business Interiors for $29,402.37.
6. Agreement – Black & Veatch for Clinton Plant Expansion.
7. Agreement – Black & Veatch anaerobic digester process, Kaw Wastewater Plant.
8. Ordinance No. 7983 – 2nd Read, establishing the City Commission quorum at four commissioners.
9. Ordinance No. 7938 – 2nd Read, creating a city misdemeanor offense for possession of marijuana.
10. Ordinance No. 7954 – 2nd Read, providing an additional exception to the prohibition against the possession of certain weapons within a proximity of drinking establishments.
11. Resolution No. 6634- Establishing a public hearing for April 4, 2006 for the improvement of Stoneridge Drive south of West 6th Street.
12. Resolution No. 6635- Establishing a public hearing date for April 4, 2006, for the improvement of Stoneridge Drive north of West 6th Street.
13. Resolution No. 6633- Establishing public hearing for April 4, 2006, for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and sidewalk improvement for the Delaware Commons Street project.
14. Resolution No. 6636- Authorizing the conveyance of real and personal property (Holidome property) to the new purchaser
15. Prelim Dev Plan – PDP-01-01-06: Lake Pointe PCD, 4.72 acres, NW corner of Clinton Pkwy & Lake Pointe Dr.
16. Authorize Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Sharon Green, 255 N. Michigan.
17. Authorize Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Eugene and Alta Wright, 1206 W. 5th
18. Order of Vacation for a portion of the right of way of 16th Street.
19. Separation agreement with Mike Wildgen.
20. Receive and approve Public Advisory Committee (PAC) recommendation regarding the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility.
21. Receive memorandum from the Historic Resources Commission on DR-01-05-06.
22. Execute agreement with Bert Nash Mental Health Center for homeless outreach services in the amount of $160,000.
23. Mayor Appointments
24. City Manager’s Report
25. Lawrence Community Shelter UPR concerning loitering on the shelter property.
26. Lawrence Community Shelter approval of 1 year extension of UPR
27. Receive Lawrence Public Library Expansion Project Memorandum.
28. Rezone – Z-09-58-05, 19.5234 acres from A to RM-D, ¼ mile N of W 6h & W of Queens.
29. Rezone – Z-09-59-05, 21.233 acres from A to RS-2, ¼ mile N of W 6th & W of Queens.
30. Resolution preparation for allotting sanitary sewer capacity
31. Consider approving text amendment TA-01-01-06.
32. Refer back to Planning Commission to allow Bauer Farm to proceed.
33. Consider a motion to recess into executive session for 45 minutes.