May 9, 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 Amyx presiding and members Highberger, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION
With Commission approval, Mayor Amyx proclaimed the week of May 7-13, 2006, as “Building Safety Week”; May 9-15, 2006, as “Police Week”; Monday, May 15, 2006, as “Peace Officers’ Memorial Day”; Saturday, May 13 to be the “Sertoma Bar-B-Q Cook-Off Day”; and April 29th-November 11th as “Downtown Lawrence Farmers’ Market Season.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve City Commission meeting minutes from April 25, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority meeting minutes of March 27, 2006; and the Building Code Board of Appeals meetings minutes of January 19, 2006, and March 30, 2006. Motion carried unanimously..As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 319 vendors in the amount of $3,138,720.52. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses to J’s Sushi Station, 1730 West 23rd Street. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Chris Burger to Lawrence Public Library Board, to a term that will expire on April 30, 2010; and appoint Gary Mohr to the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals, to a term that will expire on March 31, 2009. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of May 23, 2006 at 5:00 p.m., for the 2006 Overlay and Curb Repair Program, Phase 3. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of May 16, 2006 at 5:00 p.m., runway improvements at the Lawrence Municipal airport. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to renew the contract with Duke’s Root Control, Inc., in the amount of $64,667.00. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the Housing Rehabilitation for 1514 Wedgewood Drive. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Penny Construction, Inc. $22,300.00
T & J Holdings, Inc. No Bid
Brett Groene Remodeling No Bid
Staff Estimate $24,423.90
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Penny Construction, Inc., in the amount of $22,300. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the Kasold Drive and Peterson Road, Traffic Signal Improvements for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer’s Estimate $220,000
Wildcat Concrete Services, Inc. $112,800
Torgeson Electric $119,130
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid Wildcat Concrete Services, Inc., in the amount of $112,800. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7998, approving the annexation (A-02-01-05) of approximately 97 acres of land south of K-10 Highway and east of East 900 Road, also known as Sesquicentennial Park. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7988, amending Chapter 5, Articles 4, 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, pertaining to the contractor licensing program. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 7996, allowing possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages on certain city property pursuant to Ole’ Tapas Sidewalk Dining License, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Ordinance No. 7997, authorizing the sale, consumption, and possession of alcoholic beverages at Broken Arrow Park on Friday, May 12th and Saturday, May 13th of the Lawrence Sertoma BBQ Cook-off Fundraiser, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6651, establishing a public hearing date of June 13, 2006, for the improvement of Overland Drive from Queens Road, west to Stoneridge Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-02-03-06) of approximately .26 acres from M-2 (General Industrial District) to C-4 (General Commercial District) (the property is generally described as being located east of Delaware Street, south of Garfield Street, commonly known as 827 Garfield Street); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-02-04-06) of approximately .34 acres, from M-2 (General Commercial) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) (the property is generally described as being located along Garfield Street, east of Delaware Street, commonly known as 824 Garfield and property abutting 827 Garfield Street to the southeast); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Alice Vantuyl, 325 Clayton Court. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Joshua and Heather Stein, 2825 Fenwick Road. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Elizabeth Dumortier, 1229 Laura Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Springsted, for on-going services as a Financial Advisor. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a license agreement with Phillip and Rachel Rademacher, 515 Rockledge Road, for the use of City street right-of-way. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into contract with ADG for $177,100 for engineering services for runway improvements at the Lawrence Municipal Airport. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a design/build services contract with the Burns & McDonnell/Garney LLC joint venture in the amount of $1,846,680 for modifications to PS-16 in accordance with recommendations in the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Utilities Department 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. (20)
The consent agenda item authorizing the Director of Administrative Services to execute an agreement with an executive search firm to assist with the City Manager recruitment was deferred one week to allow for additional time to complete the review process. (21)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said a meeting was scheduled tomorrow evening at City Hall, 7:00 p.m., regarding the potential sites for the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility. Mike Orth with Black & Veatch would provide an update for work-to-date. Staff had made contact with all affected property owners of those two sites and was proceeding forward with the site evaluation process.
He informed the City Commission that staff had received the 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) from the auditors and there were a limited number of copies available in the City Manager’s Office. City staff was working on making the document available electronically.
Finally, he informed the Commission that the four proposals regarding the downtown library project along with information from Gould Evans regarding possible expansion of the library on site, located at 7th and Vermont, was posted on the City’s website. He said Commissioners Hack and Schauner were participating in the evaluation team. Staff was advising the public and the four responders to the Request for Proposals about the June 8th study session. Gary Anderson, Gilmore and Bell, the City’s Bond Counsel, was going to be at Monday’s meeting and would also be present on the June 8th to help answer questions about financing mechanisms that were included in some of the proposals. (22)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Receive City staff reports concerning the use of the Harper Street water tower site for support of telecommunications equipment.
Toni Wheeler, Staff Attorney, presented the staff report. She said the City had been contacted by three separate companies that had expressed an interest in that site for locating their wireless communication facilities. 1) Sprint PCS proposed to install antennas on the existing water tower and had received Planning Department approval. If the City Commission authorized Sprint’s proposal, staff would ask that the Commission authorize the City Manager to execute that lease agreement; 2) T-Mobile expressed an interest in constructing a monopole at that location. The City Commission forwarded T-Mobile’s proposal to staff for review and feedback; and, 3) Lawrence Free Net would like to install equipment so that they could provide wireless internet to the community.
As property owner of that site, the City Commission could decide which companies were authorized to install equipment on that premises as well as the terms of those approvals. The City Manager’s Office was contacted by a private individual who owned a wireless communication tower located at 1548 East 23rd Street, who believed that communication companies should be directed to privately owned communication.
Sprint PCS proposed to install antennas on the existing water tower and lease space to install a building at the base of the tower which was administratively approved by the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Department. Key provisions in the lease agreement included:
· Term: A five-year term, with the opportunity to extend the Agreement for two additional successive five (5) year option periods.
· Rent: $1,700.00 per month during the first five-year term, with the monthly rent during any option periods increasing by 3% of the preceding term.
· Governmental Use Supersedes Sprint’s Use: The Site Agreement states that Sprint’s use of the property is in all matters subordinate to the City’s, and/or any governmental entity’s use of the property for any public purposes.
· Property Taxes: Property taxes assessed against the Property as a result of Sprint’s use of the property will be paid by Sprint.
· Access to the Water Tower: Access by Sprint and its contractors for installation and maintenance will be coordinated through the Utility Department.
· Removal of Communications Facility at End of Lease: Sprint will provide a $5,000.00 payment to the City that will be held in escrow until the facility is removed to the City’s satisfaction upon the termination of the lease. The carrier does not remove the equipment, the City will have it removed using the funds in the escrow account.
· Standard Lease Provisions: The agreement also contains provisions concerning mutual indemnification, insurance, and default, among other standard provisions.
Additionally, Sprint also agreed to pay for the fenced area at the base of the tower for future carriers so there was a consistent appearance in the fencing of equipment.
T-Mobile proposed to construct a 120-foot wireless communications facility, but had not provided specific drawings and had only given staff a general proposal with general terms. They would like to find out the Commission’s interest before they go through the expense of receiving specific engineering drawings.
Utilities, Fire/Medical, Planning, and Legal Department staff discussed T-Mobile’s proposal and staff preferred that T-Mobile install communications equipment on the City’s property which would be mounted on the existing water tank rather than constructing a new tower for the following reasons:
1. The City’s zoning code encouraged the placement of that type of equipment on existing tall structures;
2. The loss of flexibility if a monopole was allowed to be constructed at that site;
3. Interfering with the City’s ability to construct a future water tower if a tower was needed and to provide appropriate maintenance for the City’s existing water tank;
4. Keep land available at that location to accommodate future needs and growth for the Utilities Department;
5. Additional storage capacity could change as growth occurred and demands increased;
6. If a monopole had to be built, staff would prefer to place that facility in a location that provided as much flexibility for the Utilities Department as possible;
7. The Lawrence-Douglas Fire/Medical Department took great pride in the appearance of that fire station and had concerns about fencing, maintenance of the lawn, and the underground irrigation system; and
8. The Legal Department identified short comings with the lease terms.
a. Rent of $1000 a month, which was the same rent the City agreed to five years ago for the tower at the Clinton Water Treatment Plant.
b. A 25 year lease in which the City preferred shorter leases to give the City flexibility in its use.
c. T-Mobile planned to sublease the monopole to other carries and did not offer to share additional rent from subleases from that site which would be a recommendation by staff.
She said staff recommended that T-Mobile be encouraged to install their equipment on the existing water tank. If the City Commission authorized the installation of a tower, that T-Mobile be directed to work with staff to find a location that was agreeable to city staff and they would like to reopen negotiations on lease terms.
Mayor Amyx said he had no desire to see another tower at that location. He asked how many different businesses could be on the water tower.
Wheeler said it depended on that particular structure. She said the Stratford Water Tower had several private carriers in addition to several governmental entities. She suggested that Sandra Day, Planner, might have additional technical information about how much equipment that tower could support.
Mayor Amyx said he did not have any problem with a governmental entity using their facilities for government use. He said there might not be any other way around helping private carriers, but he thought that the City needed their space.
Commissioner Rundle asked if there were any current tenants on that tower.
Wheeler said the City did not have any private carriers, but a City department had equipment at that location.
Commissioner Rundle said City Code provision 20-14B03 stated: “A proposal for a new communications tower shall not be approved unless the applicant can document that the telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or other structure.”
He said if there was capacity at a nearby tower, then they should go there. He asked if that had any bearing on directing those applicants to a private entity. He asked if using the City’s tower constituted a new tower.
Sandra Day, Planner, said the code provision about towers dealt with the actual structure. She said many of the applications staff looked at were proposals to add antenna and then ground mounted equipment. She said staff did look at the provisions that encouraged carriers to co-locate either on an existing structure or on other buildings as they could. Part of what went on before applications went to the Planning Office or prior to a formal submission; staff would work with the applicants who identified possible opportunities to co-locate on existing structure. Many times what happened was those upper locations on towers were filled first and the positions that were 30 or 50 feet above ground would be left which did not meet what the carrier was trying to establish in terms of their coverage or their search range which was the instance with the Zaremba tower. She said Sprint considered that site and ended up ruling that site out because of the position and its location on the pole would not have placed their radio frequencies up high enough to have the same coverage. She said if Sprint co-located at that particular location, they would still need other location to meet the same coverage requirements. She said that was part of the justification that went into the background that staff reviewed. She said they also had discussions both prior to the application submission and during the review, discussing different opportunities to co-locate. She said that process took place before an application came in for a new tower. She said the topography of the water tank versus the Zaremba site, there was enough fall between those two sites that that was a benefit as well.
Commissioner Highberger asked how staff arrived at the dollar amount for the Sprint proposal.
Wheeler said that amount was obtained from other cities and their carriers. In the past, a real estate appraiser helped determine whether that amount was a fair rental charge and based upon that appraisal, that amount was fair for the market.
Mayor Amyx asked when that determination on fair rental charges was last updated.
Wheeler said she would need to check her records, but she thought it was at least a couple of years ago.
Commissioner Rundle said when considering an additional carrier for the water tower behind the Fire Station on 6th Street and Kasold, it seemed engineering studies were required. He asked if there was any concern about the capacity of that tower to bear the weight of that equipment.
Wheeler said the City required that any applicant that was proposing to install equipment on a water tower provide engineering analysis to show that the structure could support that equipment which was a routine requirement of the City. She said staff would not approve the installation of the equipment if an engineer determined the water tower could not safely accommodate that equipment.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the carrier that wanted the T-Mobile proposal could not be accomplished by using the City’s water tower instead of constructing a 120 foot monopole.
Wheeler said she did not have that information. She said they wrote the City a letter proposing a tower and did not specify they had considered the City’s existing water tower.
Jes Louk, Selective Site Consultants, representing T-Mobile, said he agreed with Mayor Amyx in not wanting to see another tower at that location. He said the first thing their company did when they entered into a search area was looked for vertical real estate. The first choices they looked at were the Zaremba tower, a self support tower further out in the county, and a water tank. He said all of those choices posed a myriad of problems in terms of structural capability, space, and elevation.
The Zaremba Tower did not have the space on the ground. He said while Zaremba submitted an altruistic letter stating that he would love for T-Mobile to co-locate on his facility, there were two problems: the facility was not tall enough; and not enough space on the ground. They would have to deconstruct and reconstruct the tower and they would not meet the setbacks requirements and would not be in compliance with the code. Additionally, they would be entering into two lease agreements.
He said they looked at the water tank and approached the City about that tank, but discovered that Sprint was a step ahead and had taken the top of that water tank. Typically, there could be multiple carriers on a water tank, but that particular tank would not accommodate two wireless carriers.
He said the third problem with the Cingular Tower was that it was too far outside of town to meet the coverage objectives of the Radio Frequency Department. He said that left them with governmental property. Before they start approaching private landlords, they felt they would typically approach the jurisdiction in question and present them with an offer to locate on their property. The City Code directed the applicant to come to the City to lease space.
He said T-Mobile had six active sites in the City of Lawrence, five of those sites were on vertical real estate that T-Mobile did not construct. In other words, T-Mobile had one tower in city limits. He said if they were to build this tower, they would build the tower to accommodate other carriers and eliminate the need. He said if the City chose not to enter into a lease agreement with T-Mobile their next step would be to move forward to private landlords and frankly they were eager to partner with the City.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the technology was changing in such a way as to require fewer towers and transmitters based on changes in radio frequency or other technological improvements in the delivery of those systems.
Louk said technology was requiring more towers. He said sending data streams, like motion pictures took up more space. He said spectrum was a finite resource and more towers were needed.
Commissioner Schauner said the City needed to use as much of their available vertical space before they entered into additional tower builds because it seemed like the City’s future would be more towers, not fewer towers.
Louk said he would concur with that statement.
Mayor Amyx asked if their company had a plan in place that would look at coverage using current vertical space that was available.
Louk said their company did have a plan. He said one of their first tasks was to look for vertical real estate. He said the radio frequency engineers, when they designed the search ring, those engineers identified a coverage gap either through sales telling them they had customers complaining about drops and coverage in this area, or the network performance standards were below par. He said the engineers drove the area and usually detailed two or three structures that were possibilities if those possibilities were there. What was happening more and more was people were demanding coverage in their homes, but were leery about having a tower in their backyard.
Commissioner Schauner asked if communication services wanted to be at the highest place possible for the best, longest range coverage for customers.
Louk said that was a good question, but the answer was no. He said in today’s world, higher was not always better. He said if getting too high, 150 to 160 feet, that signal would bleed into other sites and interference would occur degrading the network. He said 100-120 feet was essentially what T-Mobile needed in that area, depending on the location. He said the City’s water tank was approximately 90 feet, and Sprint was going on the top of that tank. The antenna was going to be between 100-90 feet, but there was not any other place to weld antennas to that structure, except for below the bubble, and that bubble was going to put them down 50 to 40 feet, which at that point, would be blasting into the trees and would require a second site.
Bill Holick, representing Sprint, said they had been working with the Planning, Fire/Medical and Police Departments, because of the police equipment on top of that tank. He said there would be no interference with the police equipment and Sprint’s proposed equipment. He said their proposal was to place those antennas on an existing structure which was City Code. He said regarding rent, $1700 a month was above market average, especially in Kansas City and Lawrence. He said this project took a little longer because they had to run the structural through a third party reviewer and they came through with a passing grade for their structural.
Jeff Cowan, Unison Site Management, representing Stan Zaremba, said their company owned and managed cell tower ground leases and they had interest in Zaremba’s lease.
He said they were for T-Mobile and Sprint locating additional antennas at that part of the City. He said if T-Mobile had a need for site coverage, they were not opposed. He said Sprint also had an existing cell tower in very close proximity. He said it was a 99 foot tower, and had Verizon and AT&T as tenants.
He said regarding ground space, the physical makeup of that location, the ground equipment was housed in a commercial building owned by Zaremba. He said from an aesthetic standpoint, there was no ground equipment. With this particular site, the only noticeable change was another antenna or two hung off that tower. He said the City Code called for all efforts to be exhausted and to co-locate new antennas on existing towers. They had a tower and space inside the building to house ground equipment, and they would like the opportunity to see if something could be worked out. There had been contact made with Zaremba in February by a T-Mobile representative. He said they would like to have an opportunity to see if this was a site that could work from an engineering standpoint.
He said they had a private taxpaying businessman that did not want to compete with the City and comment was made that City property should be utilized for City resources and if there were no other alternatives, could be used for private enterprise. The bottom line was they would like the opportunity to see something done. He said he could not speak for American Tower, they were the tower owner, but Zaremba made the comment about remembering that tower was built at 99 feet to stay under the 100 feet, but it was designed to accommodate another 10 feet of additional height. He said approximately 20 feet down was the bottom of the second ring antenna, which would put the center line at approximately at 70 feet.
Commissioner Rundle asked if the center ring was the next highest place.
Cowan said those were approximate numbers, but there was approximately 80 feet of tower that could be utilized coming down from that second set of antennas. He said it was his understanding that at 70 feet would be the center ring and a 3.5 foot panel. A portion would be above the 70 feet and a portion would be below.
Louk said his firm had performed a radio frequency propagation study at the 70 foot antenna center line, which was where the antennas would have to be co-located, and it did not work from a radio frequency standpoint. He said further, his firm did the site acquisition for the AT&T installation and at that time, the tower was structurally close to failing. He said the T-Mobile installation with 18 lines and 9 antennas would fail this tower; it was not a usable tower. He said he could appreciate the rent stream for that facility, but it was not a usable structure. He said his firm took co-location very seriously.
Joshua Montgomery, Lawrence FreeNet, said in discussion with the Utility Department, it was determined that FreeNet should wait for Sprint to place their tower pod. He said they would be receptive to working with T-Mobile and the City to locate on that tower pod. He said they would be receptive if Zaremba was interested in donating some space to be on his tower. They did have a number of sites in that area, specifically because there was low income housing by that tower. He said there were trailer parks to the south and north of Douglas County Fairgrounds and they felt they could make a real difference with their project. Again, they would be interested in acquiring any space on any one of those three locations in a timely way. He said there was an opportunity to put multiple vendors up on the Harper Tower, just not multiple cellular vendors.
Holick said they worked closely with Lawrence FreeNet and dedicated an extra space in their equipment for Lawrence FreeNet, specifically, if FreeNet would like to put their equipment in the plan.
Cowan said he could not answer specifically any engineering questions, but they were simply asking for more time to explore all options to see if anything could be done to utilize Zaremba’s existing site for an additional antenna. He asked for 35 to 40 days to see if that site could be utilized.
Wheeler said she just wanted to clarify that the City had not been trying to compete with the Zaremba tower and was not out soliciting wireless communications companies. She said the City had responded to requests as those requests came in and to be sensitive to the community’s demands for wireless services.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there were any FCC rules or regulations that would inhibit their ability to prohibit, control or regulate in terms the number of towers served in this community.
Corliss said there was a specific federal law that indicated that if the City was going to deny the location of a telecommunications tower, it had to be done with appropriate and reasonable rationale. He said this situation was unique because they were not only dealing with the land use requirements, but was the property owner. He said the primary use should be for utility purposes.
Commissioner Schauner said the rationale of the staff report with respect to the Police and Utilities Departments concerns about the creation of a monopole at that location, he asked if that response was sufficient rationale to satisfy the circuits.
Corliss said absolutely. He said as a property owner, the City could say that this did not work for the purposes of which they acquired the property.
Commissioner Schauner said if T-Mobile went to a private property owner and wanted to erect a monopole, then the City Commission would be back doing the same analysis again with respect to whatever criteria might be applicable.
Corliss said the City zoning code set out the requirements for the regulation of telecommunication towers and staff attempted to ensure the applicant was meeting those requirements. If it was indicated that the applicant was not meeting those requirements then the City had to have rationale pointed to why the applicant was not meeting those standards.
Commissioner Highberger said they should not be in the business of competing with existing business owners, but they had existing structures and he thought that if someone provided them market rate proposals, they should be considered. He said he would like to ask staff to continue negotiations with Sprint. He thought the code provision indicated that a new communications tower should not be considered unless the applicant could document the equipment they needed could not be accommodated on an existing tower, but that documentation had not been seen yet and asked that the Commission defer this item until such time that T-Mobile provided that documentation and at that time, could be placed back on the agenda for consideration. He said he supported FreeNet goal of internet access to the community and he would like to direct staff to continue working with FreeNet to provide locations on City structures.
Commissioner Rundle said technologically speaking they were in over their heads. He hoped that with the predicted communications towers, that did not mean they needed to hire a communication towers engineer on a permanent basis. He said he was inclined to use public property as a last resort, but it sounded like that thinking was not feasible and supported the deferral and would be in support of Sprint’s proposal. He said they would have to deal with the T-Mobile towers as another planning item at a future point.
Commissioner Hack said perhaps T-Mobile and Zaremba could have further conversation, but she did not feel qualified to get in the middle of that proposal. She said with all the work that had been done with staff it made sense for Sprint to be located on the Harper Street water tower. She suggested that FreeNet, city staff, and Sunflower Broadband could have more discussions because she did not thing it was appropriate to have that conversation through e-mail because she thought it was not a productive way to solve problems and reach some understanding.
Commissioner Schauner said he supported the Sprint proposal and made sense to complete the negotiations for the lease of the water tower space for the Sprint PCS equipment. He agreed with Commissioner Highberger regarding the T-Mobile request in that they did not have enough information at this time to know what was possible or what was not possible with respect to the installation on either the privately owned tower or the City’s water tower. He said he agreed with Commissioner Rundle that it made sense to direct those activities to private enterprises. He said their main goal for using these water towers was for governmental purposes. He said regarding FreeNet, they should have a sit down conversation to talk about issues and resolve those issues. He said hunting land was an ineffective way to deal with e-mail conversation. He said he shared Commissioner Hack’s proposal in that regard. He said he was concerned if the representative from T-Mobile was accurate, it seemed they were going to rely more and more on wireless communication. He said he did not want to see a skyline that was proliferated with monopoles or guide wires or other structures. He said he would like to take a look on how they could coordinate the location of those matters with private landowners and others who might have high elevation locations that would be suitable for those tower locations. He said in the long run, they were all well served with a skyline that was not full of towers and other structures.
Mayor Amyx said he agreed with everything that been said and he thought they could go move ahead with Sprint negotiations and ask that T-Mobile work with the private provider and defer the request from T-Mobile until such time as that issue was exhausted and meet with Lawrence FreeNet in a study session or staff and everyone involved.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to direct staff to proceed with negotiation with Sprint PCS regarding their proposal; defer the T-Mobile request until such time as T-Mobile could provide documentation that it could not, consistent with Code 20-14B03, be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or other structure, and direct staff to continue to work with Lawrence FreeNet to make City properties available. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
Consider whether to include bike lanes on Naismith Drive (northbound) when it is overlaid this summer.
Chuck Soules, Director of Public Works, presented the staff report. He said Naismith Drive from 19th to 23rd, northbound lane, was planned in their Phase 2 of the mill and overlay program this year. He said staff intended to mill and overlay the road just on the northbound side, and replace the curb and gutter. Right now, the project had been bid, but they had not started construction. He said when they bid the project, they bid it as re-striping two lanes, but then staff found out there was a Douglas County Bicycle Plan that basically stated Naismith Drive should have a bike lane. In reviewing this matter, the width of Naismith Drive had two lanes that were 10 foot 6 inches wide. He said in order to establish a bike lane one of those lanes would need to be dropped and they would end up with a 14 foot lane and a four foot bike lane, along with the curb and gutter.
He said the bike plan was adopted by the Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Commission, recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Board and Citizens Advisory Committee on Transportation in August of 2004. The bike plan was an amendment to the 1999 Bicycle Compatibility Index Study.
He said with the issues of traffic, one problem was if a two lane facility could be dropped down to a single lane facility. He said within the Bicycle Plan, there was an initial review that removal of three lane traffic would not adversely affect traffic capacity. During sporting events, it was noted that both lanes might be necessary and in that case, the bike lane would become non-usable.
He said David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, had taken a look at some of the traffic volume in that area. Since they were discussing the northbound lane, they were talking about people coming off of 23rd Street. The intersection itself had a limit. They could only funnel so many people through that intersection on to Naismith Drive, which would be approximately 600 vehicles per hour. The single lane road could handle up to 1800 vehicles per hour, which was an average used when access was not available. When arriving at KU there was another intersection at 19th and when entering KU on the north side there were two lanes going into campus. He said they would have a three lane section with a left and right turn lane, along with a through lane. He said one lane going into two lanes would not create a problem. He said in the next year or two when the southbound lane was constructed, coming out of the campus, it might be more of an issue, especially during sporting events. He said during some of the sporting events, there was Police presence at the intersection of 19th and Naismith and the Police would direct traffic because of the capacity. He said there was approximately 10 feet of right-of-way from the back of the curb to the property line in most areas except an area off of west 20th Street where there was a two or three feet section. He said if they wanted to place a sidewalk at that location, the City would need to acquire right-of-way. Staff had not had an opportunity to see if widening the road was feasible, but it would be substantially higher in cost. To re-stripe that area with a bike lane would cost approximately $3,500 more than what the bid came in as which would be for materials and symbols to identify that area as a bike lane.
Commissioner Hack asked if there were any roads that went from one lane and a bike path, to two lanes.
Soules said no.
Betty Alderson, Lawrence, said she was a proponent of bike lanes, but she could not see taking two lanes of traffic off of Naismith where people had been driving on two lanes for years, particularly leaving half of it two lane and half one lane with a bicycle path. She said she was concerned about accidents because she was not sure that anyone was going to pay attention with the number of right turns that were made off of Naismith to come down 20th Street or 19th Terrace to Maine to get to 19th Street. She said people zoom down those roads to avoid the intersection. She said she would question how many bicyclists were going to get hit at one of those corners. She said she had been trying to find a way to get sidewalks on the east side of Naismith because it was important and it was important to encourage people to walk. She said there were right-of-way questions. If watching the traffic on 19th Street, almost any hour of the day, she was not sure they wanted to recreate that type of traffic on Naismith. She said it was not just athletic events, it was everyday traffic. She said there were times when it required two-lane traffic. She asked if they were going to have traffic backed up from 19th to 23rd Street. Right now, the bicycles were on the sidewalk on the west side of the street which she did not care for because bicyclist thought they had the right-of-way. She reiterated that she was in favor of the bike lanes, but on this particular street, considering how few through streets they had in town, she was opposed to taking two lanes of traffic off. She said if they could widen the street to handle the bike lane and two lanes of traffic plus putting in a sidewalk that would be preferred. She said this street required attention along with all the other streets in that area. She said 19th was one pot hole after another. She said she was not opposed to the bike lanes, but she could not see doing away with two lanes of traffic on Naismith. She said it would be confusing and hazardous.
Erik Struckhoff, Chair, Bicycle Advisory Committee, said when he first received word from the City Staff about the impending project on Naismith, he thought it was strange that staff would take two lanes of traffic and make it into one. He said when he read the information about the traffic counts and learned that they could not get anymore traffic on that street because of the intersection on the south and one lane capacity would be way more than needed for any traffic coming from the south. He said it seemed reasonable to go ahead and start to create the sort of freeway they should have on all major streets which would be a complete and optimal freeway for all forms of transportation such as cars, bikes and pedestrians. He said it would be important to install that bike lane and consider widening the right-of-way to install a sidewalk as well. He said right now with the issues of connecting existing bike lanes to the south and KU campus, he thought it made sense to install a bike lane in that regard. He said the history of bike installation in the city, which had progressed slowly but steadily, showed that they were not creating a hazard for a cyclist or motorist. Most of the motorists and cyclists were careful enough to know how those things worked and operate within them safely.
Currently, on Naismith Drive, there were two substandard traffic lanes, two narrow lanes, with increasing vehicle size and it was more of a hazard to keep those lanes that small. He said having one, large comfortable lane that would handle all of the capacity from that intersection to the south, would be sufficient and there would still be room for a bike lane. He said that would encourage people to bring their bicycles from those facilities to the south, like Naismith Valley Park, onto campus. He said that was the important part of providing those facilities to encourage those forms of transportation because campus could hold only so many cars in the future.
He said during normal daily use, traffic would not be adversely affected and during high peak hours, during sporting events, the bike lanes could be inoperable so that two lanes of traffic could still flow north or south bound on Naismith. He encouraged the City Commission to support the bike lane on Naismith between 19th and 23rd Street.
Commissioner Schauner asked how this section of Naismith with the bike lane connected to the existing or proposed bike paths across the City.
Struckhoff said it would connect with the heavily used bike route on 21st Street, the east and west connector, and to the Naismith Valley Park Trail which ran to the southern end of the City, south of the intersection of 23rd and Naismith.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there were any other proposed lengths between those two besides the Naismith route.
Struckoff said yes, it included from West Campus down Irving Hill Road, connecting with 15th Street near Murphy Drive.
Mayor Amyx asked if staff had any discussion with KU Police Department about the type of arrangement that was going to happen during game days.
Soules said staff had not contacted the KU Police Department.
Struckhoff said he had not contacted KU Police either, but he did contact one of his fellow Bicycle Advisory Committee members who was also on KU’s Construction and Space Management Committee, who expressed the same concerns about, in the future, what would happen to KU’s development. He said it was a legitimate concern because KU did not currently have a reconstruction plan for that area in front of Allen Field House. That road was recently resurfaced a couple years ago. He said the facility did open up into two lanes, north of 19th Street, which would relieve the congestion with the additional traffic coming from east or west on 19th Street. He said it would still be well served with two lanes of north bound traffic heading onto campus. He said the stretch of Naismith between 23rd and 19th northbound was limited by the intersection of 23rd Street to far less than a single lane could carry.
Commissioner Highberger said it seemed like on the off beat times, if there was a bicycle present in the right lane would be a de facto bike lane.
Struckhoff said it felt like a bike lane when he road on that stretch around 12:15 in the afternoon.
Commissioner Schauner asked Soules if he had an estimate on what it would cost to construct a 5 or 6 foot City standard sidewalk on the same length of road.
Soules said a ballpark figure would be approximately $150,000 and it did not include any right-of-way. He said if the street was widened to accommodate the two lanes and a bike lane, they would use all the right-of-way. He said they would not be able to have a sidewalk on the east side unless additional right-of-way was purchased. He said this was identified as one of the streets that had a gap. He said if his department had a program for sidewalks, that sidewalk would be identified to be on that list. Staff would need to do something at this intersection of 20th Street and Naismith, but staff could try and minimize that as much as possible so they did not affect the property. He said it was possible to place a sidewalk at that location with a little bit of work and right-of-way.
Struckhoff said their committee would be meeting in a week and suggested taking this issue to the Bicycle Advisory Committee because they had members of the KU Construction Committee and members of Lawrence Police Department. He said he would bring the issue back to City Commission with a recommendation.
Alderson said there also had been no discussion with the area neighbors.
Mayor Amyx said there had been no discussions with KU Police Department, Advisory Committee, or the neighborhood. He said he was not real excited about taking two lanes of traffic and making it into one because it would make it an unsafe situation, especially north of 19th Street. He said he did not know how it would work together, especially on game day when the stripes did not count. He suggested asking for information from KU Police Department, have Struckhoff take this issue to his Advisory Board, and have Alderson take this issue to her neighborhood, and place this issue back on the agenda in a few weeks.
It was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to defer until such time as additional information from the KU Police Department, Bicycle Advisory Committee, and area neighborhood associations is provided. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning and annexations requests, and authorize drafting of ordinance for placement on a future agenda for the following:
a) A-01-02-05: Annexation request for approximately 17.52 acres, located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway.
b) Z-03-05-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 45.31 acres from A (Agriculture) District to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway.
c) Z-03-06-06: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 31.12 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RO-1A (Residence-Office) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway.
d) Z-01-10-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 25.82 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway.
e) Z-01-11-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 7.63 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-D (Duplex Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway.
f) Z-01-12-05: A request to rezone a tract of land approximately 12.77 acres from A (Agriculture) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway.
Paul Patterson, Planner, presented the staff report. He said item 3A was a request for annexation. The site was located at the northwest portion of the Prada Subdivision and was 17.52 acres. The 123 acre subdivision was located at the northeast corner of K-10 and Highway 40/West 6th Street. The topographical features were 1070 feet along 6th Street, 980 feet at the extreme north of the property. He said the property was approximately 2200 feet wide east/west and 2500 feet on north/south.
He said in looking at the proposed roadway system for the subdivision, the preliminary plat had been approved conditionally at the April Planning Commission meeting. The roadway systems that were proposed were west 6th Street/Highway 40, K-10 to the west, the extension of George Williams Way to the north, a collector street Overland Drive going through the property and continuing north, and a number of internal roadways that would provide access through the subdivision. There were also two local streets that would be connected to the north. Along the west side of the subdivision was an existing frontage road which had been identified by the Kansas Department of Transporation that this road frontage which served several properties to the north, would be removed in the future once the Overland Drive connection was provided. There also was an existing 10 foot wide bike/pedestrian right-of-way, which went into an existing tunnel underneath the highway.
He briefly described each zoning request which was recommended by the Planning Commission in the April Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Schauner asked how many units were in the multifamily area.
Patterson said in a multifamily area there were 11.73 net acres. Currently, that would equate to 24 dwelling units per acre, or a total of 281 dwelling units would occur.
Mayor Amyx asked if that was under the new code.
Patterson said yes, it was one of the new code provisions of 24 dwelling units per acre.
Commissioner Highberger asked what was planned for Overland Drive as it exited the north side of the property and if there was any future street planning.
Patterson said in discussing this issue with Kansas Department of Transportation, it was determined that one of the best ways to develop this road would be to follow the extension of that frontage road. There were creeks located further north of the subdivision. He said that on Transportation 2025 document, it showed that it would reconnect with Wakarusa Drive connection.
Commissioner Schauner asked how many residential dwelling units had been approved to the east of George Williams Way.
Patterson said they had the Oregon Trail Addition preliminary plat that had been approved that had residential, duplexes and some multi-family. He said when the applicant made his presentation he would get that number for Commissioner Schauner.
Commissioner Highberger asked Patterson to address a concern that was raised to him outside the meeting about the RO-1A zoning and how that type of zoning translated to the new code.
Patterson said the RO-1A zoning district would convert to RS-O in the new code on July 1st, which was a residential office and single residential office districts. He said there appeared to be a technical error that would need to be corrected that discussed retail general use. He said typically what was found was residential uses and office uses, and the combination of those two along with mixed units of office and residential. He said 15 dwelling units per acre was the maximum density.
Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said Patterson addressed what the RO-2 would convert to which was RS-O. She said RO-1A converted to the RM-O, which had the 22 units per acre for residential and did not have the mistake that was pointed out in the use tables related to the general commercial uses. She said to RS-O needed the text amendment, but the RM-O did not. She said as requested by the applicant, the RO-1A would convert to RM-O with no retail sales.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the RM-O would allow for banks as a permitted use. He asked if staff was considering banks as commercial properties.
Stogsdill said banks were permitted in RM-O. She said as was discussed in the Bauer Farm Project, banks were not considered a retail commercial use so they were not counted in the total retail square footage.
Commissioner Schauner asked if staff did traffic generations differently than staff did for residential.
Stogsdill said the traffic study would have accounted for either all residential at a certain density with the trips associated or all office, or some combination of the two.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was a fair statement that if a bank would be built on any of the RM-O area, would generate more trips per hour than a single-family residence.
Stogsdill said in a single-family residence, she thought the answer was yes, but Phil Struble, Landplan Engineering could probably discuss how it related to multi-family.
Jane Eldredge, representing the Mercado project, said one issue, dealing with the annexation was that this was a depiction of the parcels that were included with the nodal area in the Nodal Plan that this Commission adopted unanimously on November 11, 2003. The parcel the City Commission was being asked to annex was the one that showed as 18 acres, which was an approximation. She said that parcel had been planned for urbanization since the time of the Northwest Area Plan which was created and adopted following the Comprehensive Plan Horizon 2020 because Horizon 2020 did not include with any specificity, the area north of 6th Street, but after the Free State High School site, it was necessary.
She said the annexation complied with the City’s policy on the annexation, complied with the annexation policies contained in Horizon 2020, and state law. She said that if the timing had been different, the original staff report that had recommended denial was primarily based on the wastewater system. She said that issue had since been corrected and if staff were asked to do it today, it would be a recommendation for approval since it was included as urbanization.
She said the rezoning request was for a single-family, multi-family, town homes or duplexes, residential office, and commercial areas. She said this rezoning had been planned in accordance with all of the many plans for that area and was the land use plan from the Northwest Area Plan.
She said the area known as Mercado, at one time, was planned as commercial, multi-family, residential and this was an office multi-family mix and was adopted by the City Commission in January of 1997.
At that time, the application was made for the system enhancement funds to widen 6th Street there was generally a block annexation between Folks Road to the SLT, on the north and south sides of 6th Street, to bring anything that was not already in the City into the City. She said the 17 acre parcel was left out of that annexation because the annexation legal descriptions had been taken from sewer benefit districts. In order to do that unilateral annexation, the City was required to have a service plan that was approved by the Planning Commission, City Commission, and County Commission. On the basis of that annexation service plan was a land use map, a land use anticipated and planned for in the annexation service plan. She said in the Mercado District there was a lot more commercial and multi-family that had been planned for in terms of infrastructure and in terms of the plans that then went forward to KDOT for the planned widening of 6th Street. A very small portion of the area was agreed to be single-family residential. Generally, the uses were exactly the same in that they would have some commercial, mixed, and single-family uses which were approved by the City Commission in 2001.
In 2003, when the City Commission approved Transportation 2025, it also contained a land use map and that land use map had commercial, office, multi-family and low density residential. In Transportation 2025, there was a smaller piece of commercial approved on the south side and a larger amount of office and no multi-family was planned at that point.
Finally, the Nodal Plan was created and adopted as a result of two zoning requests that were pending at the time. One zoning request was for the north side and one for the south side of the Nodal areas. The Nodal Plan indicated that commercial should be on the east side of the SLT and half of the northeast quadrant should be in commercial and office and half should be in residential differing in densities. The south side majority was to be residential with a small portion in commercial and office. The Nodal Plan was approved by the City Commission in November 11, 2003, with a unanimous vote. The Nodal Plan included the definitions of the approximate amounts of land use and also included references to Chapter 6, the commercial portion in Horizon 2020. In Horizon 2020, Chapter 6 had been modified and it required that this node have no more than 400,000 square feet of commercial. Less than that square footage had been recommended to the City Commission by the Planning Commission from the east side of the node. This Commission unanimously approved on the south side 198,000 square feet of commercial. The recommendation for the north side was for 184,640 square feet of commercial. She said this was what was recommended by the staff, approved by the Planning Commission, and were the restrictions that the applicants had agreed to. The Planning Commission approved the commercial area on a 9-1 vote. She said it was important when looking at the unanimously approved areas on the south side where the RM-2 was, just as finding the RM-2 on the north side, that this Commission had interpreted the Nodal Plan by the unanimous approval of the requested zoning on the south side. She said they believed the zonings were all consistent with the planning that had been done with this area since 1997 with the Northwest Area Plan. They had suggested that they believed it was consistent with the Nodal Plan, the Transportation 2025, with the policies and goals contained in Horizon 2020, and they were asking for the unanimous support for both the annexation and the zoning categories.
The Planning Commission and planning staff had some difficulty with their minutes for the last couple of meetings, so she took the liberty of including suggested findings of fact. She proposed those findings of fact based on the combination of staff reports and staff minutes because when zoning requests were approved, those zoning requests needed to be based on findings of fact. She asked that the City Commission use those findings of fact based in support of each of the zoning request. In each case, the Planning Commission recommended conditions that had been recommended by the staff and they agreed with all of those conditions and would like to have the zonings approved with the findings of fact and with the conditions that were recommended by both staff and Planning Commission.
Mayor Amyx asked about the rezoning request (Z-03-05-06) regarding the language of the restrictions per Horizon 2020. He said the maximum square footage was 184,640 square feet, and asked about what the maximum size of the retail building that would be allowed on that site. He said if he added all of those figures up, there could be one building of 80,000 square feet and another building of the balance of approximately 430,000 square feet.
Patterson said what they were looking at was Horizon 2020, Chapter 6. He said those were the requirements for a commercial center of 400,000 square feet of gross maximum retail commercial space that could be found and staff spelled out what those requirements. They would come into play in multiple different scenarios. He said they did have a planned commercial development, so they would see a development plan come before the City on this commercial aspect.
Mayor Amyx said he understood that was not part of the rezoning. He said he did not understand the language that staff had recommended. He asked on 45 acres, what was the maximum square footage allowed under the definitions in the code per building.
Patterson said the maximum for commercial retail was listed and a formula that would give the maximum amount for the largest building.
Commissioner Highberger said he calculated a little over 129,000 square feet.
Patterson said 129,000 square feet could be the largest and there could be additional restrictions placed on the development plan when that came forward.
Mayor Amyx said the maximum amount of square footage based on the 70% was 129,000 and one of the buildings had to be at least 40,000 square feet and that left 89,000 as the maximum square footage of any building.
Patterson said Mayor Amyx needed to wrap around the difference between commercial retail gross square footage and other types of commercial square footage too. He said there could be other things like the office square footage that would be in addition to commercial retail. He said there could be banks or other things in a planned commercial development that might come forward, such as some residential components as a possibility.
Mayor Amyx said technically, he could see one building at 40,000, plus the balance of 129,000 being spread through those small buildings.
Patterson said the balance could be spreads through those small buildings, but it would not be practical in leasing out to tenants or selling the lots to different users.
Mayor Amyx said his concern was that he saw one building at 40,000 square feet and at the 70% rule, what was actually allowed on this site.
Eldredge said she did not understand that formula either, but when getting to the preliminary development plan stage, they would have an opportunity to work with staff and it would be reviewed by the Planning and City Commissions and everyone would have a better understanding of what it meant.
Mayor Amyx said he agreed at the preliminary development plan stage, but they were discussing the rezonings and the land as it was recommended to be used in the future.
Commissioner Highberger asked if 70% of the gross commercial square footage could be more than 84,640 square feet. He asked if he could consider gross commercial and gross retail to be the same.
Mayor Amyx said in other words could there be 200 banks on that site.
Patterson said staff would not approve 200 banks for that site.
Commissioner Highberger said condition 1d used the phrase “gross square feet of retail commercial” and condition 4d used “gross commercial square footage.” He said it was his understanding that gross commercial square footage included commercial uses that were not retail, including banks, for instance.
Patterson said that was correct.
Commissioner Highberger asked if it was 70% they were taking was not 70% of the 184,640, but is the 184,640 plus the non-retail commercial.
Patterson said yes.
Commissioner Highberger said they really did not know what the size of the biggest building could be.
Stogsdill said they did not know, but what they did know was that they needed to have a 40,000 square foot anchor and that it was limited to 184,000 gross square feet of retail uses and there would be some combination of retail and non-retail uses that would make up the remainder of the development t plan and it would be at the time the plan came in, they would look at the size of those buildings. Clearly, this was new territory for staff as well in that even though this had been in Horizon 2020 since May of 2004, it was just recently there had been commercial developments move through the process and be subject to it. She said staff did not have a lot of experience in terms of how it was going to work in reality and they would work with the developers to try and see if it worked and if it did not work, staff would bring this issue back to the City Commission.
Commissioner Schauner asked if gross commercial square footage was a larger number for this intersection than retail commercial.
Stogsdill said the limitation of 400,000 was on the gross retail square footage.
Commissioner Schauner said the gross commercial square footage for that corner of the intersection was a larger number than the gross square feet of retail commercial permitted at that corner.
Stogsdill said it was her understanding that Horizon 2020 did not have a cap on the overall square footage. She said it was capping the retail.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the possible maximum gross commercial square footage for that corner as it was proposed in those documents.
Stogsdill said she did not believe those documents set a cap.
Commissioner Schauner asked how they would know what 70% of an unknown number was as they were asked to address that question.
Stogsdill said she thought it would be 70% of what was proposed on that development plan.
Commissioner Schauner asked about that number.
Stogsdill said staff did not have a development plan and staff would not know that number.
Commissioner Schauner said so the City Commission was being asked to approve rezonings without knowing what the proposed with the preliminary development plan was suggested to them.
Stogsdill said yes, but it was a conditional approval subject to approval of a preliminary development plan. She said there would be no zoning published until they made the final adoption.
Commissioner Schauner said he understood, but why did the City Commission need to make a decision about rezoning to any of those proposals, until they had a fuller picture of what was proposed as presented by a preliminary development plan.
Stogsdill said she thought the applicant was better able to answer why the timing was important.
Commissioner Schauner said his question was more directed to staff. He asked if staff was better able to identify issues and more fully investigate the impact of those words they were looking at in paragraph d4 if they have the development plan in front of them rather than just the words. He wanted to know what staff would find easier to work with.
Stogsdill said she believed the comprehensive plan was directing staff to look cautiously at the additional retail commercial square footage. She said it was not directing staff to look at every type of use and what that impact was on the overall economy. She said this language provided that safeguard that they were only going to have so much retail use and they were going to be more realistically being able to evaluate a development plan that had been designed based on users. She said that her understanding, based on conversations with the applicants, was that until they knew something about what they had, it was premature to try and lay out a design when they did not have any commitments for the users. She said staff could do that evaluation, but they are typically going to be going back and redoing those evaluations as real users come in.
Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission believed the recommendation of the Planning Commission was correct, the City Commission essentially concurred with the Planning Commission contingent upon approval of a preliminary development plan. He said the City Commission was only to consider the rezonings, absent the preliminary development plan, but understood that this zoning was only contingent upon that development plan being approved.
Commissioner Schauner said he understood where they were, but his point was that the City Commission was being asked to make a decision about a tentative zoning, subject to the preliminary development plan being approved, and he thought that might become a slippery slope. They would find every way they could to approve the preliminary development plan that came to the City Commission, but he would rather have a more complete understanding concurrently about whether they could absorb and at what rate, the gross square feet of retail commercial. He said he had no reason to believe the preliminary development plan would come with less than 184,640 square feet of commercial development, retail commercial.
Mayor Amyx said this body had developed all of those plans, and any developer who wanted to develop the property, right or wrong came forward based on the plans of this body. Planning staff had made recommendations through negotiation, and the Planning Commission had made recommendation based on the plans they had adopted. He said he did not disagree with what Commissioner Schauner was saying, but at the same time, there were procedures to follow.
Commissioner Schauner said he thought the City Commission was following procedures to a point, but he thought the retail analysis component of this process was not something about which this Commission had an agreement. He said if they did a retail analysis that looked at absorption rates and made assumptions about community population growth that were overstated, it would support additional commercial retail development that they could not absorb and would in fact cause them to have much of their existing retail, including downtown and downtown projects that were proposed, to be less successful or not built. He said he thought they needed a discussion about absorption rates for retail as a condition of when they permit additional commercial to come online. He said he knew there were some Commissioners who believed they ought to let the marketplace control, but there would be a winner and loser in the marketplace, but they set as a Commission goal, a Horizon 2020 goal, which was a major goal to protect downtown. He wanted to make sure that any commercial development they permitted to be developed did not do any harm to their existing high priority which was downtown. There was already 10,000 square feet of empty space, commercial retail downtown. He said if they added 184,000 commercial retail on the north side of 6th, in addition to the 170,000 or 180,000 they approved a couple of weeks ago across the street, he was not convinced and wanted somebody who was more informed of commercial economics than he did to tell him when they could absorb that retail, at what rate could they absorb retail, at what rate they were growing, and so forth.
Mayor Amyx said that as they looked at the procedures that were in place today and had been adopted by the majority of the membership of this body, he asked if the Commission was just going to keep adding more and more rules.
Commissioner Schauner said he thought they have had that rule in place about retail analysis for quite some time.
Commissioner Hack said she thought they were way off from where they had started, which was the question about 4d and it seemed that Eldredge had a comment that she wanted to make with regard to the process and the Commission was big on process and they needed to follow it. She said she wanted to hear what Eldredge had to say about the development plan and how the rezoning dovetailed into that, what the proposals were. She said they could discuss downtown and retail analysis and whether they agree or disagree with the study at another time.
Commissioner Rundle said they had three CC400 locations identified, but that was long-range planning. They could not develop all three of those locations at this time and he did not think they could proceed with this one at this time because the retail analysis had been in place for Horizon 2020 since the late 1990’s. He said they failed to implement Horizon 2020 and they did not have adequate analysis to address the concerns that Commissioner Schauner had raised. He said he thought it was very germane in getting to the point of a decision in this matter.
Eldredge said she thought it was important to remember that the City Commissioners had adopted all of those restrictions in Horizon 2020. She said the reason that had been done was to protect the downtown. She said the City’s consultant looked at the Mercado Project, the Diamondhead Project, and the Bauer Farms Project as if all would come online at the same time. She said in the September 23, 2005 letter to the Planning Director, the analysis was made of a total of 750,750 gross square feet. She said that was with Diamondhead adding 269,300 which they had not. She said they were restricted to 198,000 which were with the Mercado project coming in at 420,000 square feet, which it was not, but it was coming in at 184,640. The Bauer Farms Project came in at 61,300 square feet. She said none of those projects were going to come on as soon as tentative rezoning was approved. One of the reasons those zoning designations was very important was the developers were unable ethically or any other way and had not talked with any users because they could not tell the users what they had until the City Commission acts. Then, if the users say they understood there were 184,000 square feet, then they could talk to the staff and find out what that meant as far as what they could put there and what did the City’s studies tell them about what would be reasonable in Lawrence. She said that was when the combination of the detailed requirements of the preliminary development plan and what was workable in the real world come together. None of that was final until the City Commission voted on it. She said this was the process that they used on Diamondhead. She said this Commission, without Mayor Amyx, approved all of the Diamondhead rezonings in 2004 unanimously. In March of 2006, it was unanimous approval of the final development plan. Preliminary development plan had been worked on in March, which was unanimously approved. She said that was unanimously approved partially because it was the restrictions on the gross square feet. The combination of Northgate Diamondhead and Mercado did not add up to the 400,000 square feet. The argument was made that they were first and they should get more zoning which did not make a lot of sense because the Commission would want that zoning equitably, but when looking at where they were planning urbanization at the CC400’s, this was the one that was identified in Horizon 2020. She said this was the one they had known about since that plan was adopted and the one that was initially identified as a commercial center with 450,000 square feet, and that had been reduced to 400,000 and the requests that were before the City Commission were also under that. She said there was no reason that the City Commission should want to oppose the staff recommendations, the Planning Commission recommendations, or be inconsistent with the approvals the City Commission had granted to the mirror image project on the south side, particularly since it all fits into the Nodal Plan. She urged the City Commission’s support and said they would continue to work with the City Commission, staff, the Planning Commission. Those owners had built quality projects in town and would continue to build quality projects.
Commissioner Rundle said when the City Commission had their study session with the consultant there were a number of problems that surfaced in his mind with that study. There were three population rates used which were conservative, moderate, and aggressive. The conservative rate was higher than the rate the Census Bureau had estimated the City growth rate. He said they did not have that much capacity and they were not growing capacity at the optimistic rate that they put out. The population rate was just one aspect of it. He said the City’s wage rates in Lawrence had averaged substantially below the state average for years to the tune of $200 million dollars a year that was not in the economy, if the City did have the average state wage. He said they might not have the capacity that was optimistically put forward.
The DSI study did not account for additional retail space and anticipated in other parts of the City, such as the downtown, and the additional added space elsewhere in the community was going to exasperate the problem. He said they had those plans for the time period mentioned, but the plan also said they should take into account the impact on existing retail and they had not implemented that idea as in the manner they could in terms of the sophistication and the approach taken. It was a very clear basis for caution and reason to defer delay of the development at that intersection at this time. He said, at this time, they did not have the basis that would give them confidence that they might not be harming other parts of the community.
Commissioner Hack said as to the annexation it was important to approve the annexation to complete the area. In terms of the rezoning, the only concern she heard about was the RO-1A transferring to the RM-O in the new code that did not allow the general retail sales, but that issue had been resolved. The design guidelines and gateway appearance were positives. She said regarding the retail study what she had difficulty with when there was a difference of opinion on the outcome and concerns were about the consultant, results, or the data that was input when actually they just did not like the results. The consultant that was hired by the City did provide some very accurate information about leakage in this community and unmet retail needs. She thought that was for another day’s conversation. She said rezoning of areas would allow for the development plan and would allow for the process to go through, and the need to follow the process.
She said conformity of the plans was discussed by the Commission. She said it was hard for her to say this would not work because of certain factors when they as a body, and bodies prior, agreed and approved the Transportation 2025, Northwest Area Plan, Nodal Plan, and Annexation Service Plan, and this project conformed to those approved plans.
In terms of the effect on any additional retail downtown, she believed very strongly that the downtown and the survival and enhancement of the downtown would not live or die by external retail factors in CC400’s that were on south Iowa, SLT, or Highway 40. She said they had serious issues that they needed to address downtown, but she did not think the availability of additional retail in these areas was going to affect downtown as much as working on a way to draw more residents, more events, along with the Downtown Revitalization Project were all discussed in the Commission’s goal setting session. She said those were the types of things that would enhance downtown.
She said she supported the annexation and rezonings because it allowed them to move forward through the process which they had allowed other projects and had been consistent. She said this was a perfect opportunity to show their consistency and transparency.
Commissioner Highberger asked about the standards for approval of preliminary development plans and the amount of discretion the Commission had.
Stogsdill said the City Commission had more discretion than site plan approval. The Commission had the ability to look at the arrangement of how it was laid out on the site. She said the Commission also had the ability to phase it so that they could deal with some of the absorption questions. She said the condition on the PCD allowed the developer up to 60 months to submit that preliminary development plan again anticipating that there was going to be a significant amount of planning effort that needed to happen before they were ready to come in with a plan. Staff would be asking to look at the change of the market at that point and time to deal with the absorption question because the phasing of the development plan would be where the Commission would look at how they addressed all of it coming on line. She said there was no way it would all come on line in one building season.
Patterson said regarding the question of the numbers for the plats on those two subdivisions, the Oregon Trail Addition had 50 single family residential lots and 72 RM-D duplex lots, which would be a total of 144 dwelling units on those 72 lots. He said there was a portion of 10.43 acres of RM-1, multifamily residential, which had a maximum of 129, or total dwelling units of 323 for Oregon Trail. He said there had been a preliminary plat and a zoning that had been approved subject to the final plat.
He said immediately to the east of Oregon Trail Addition on the north side of Overland Drive was the Stultz land property. This property had an approved preliminary plat and the rezoning and again the rezoning was conditioned upon recording the final plat of 73 single-family residential lots and 69 duplex lots, which would be 138 duplex units, or a total of 211 dwelling units. He said they also have a benefit district coming forward for improvements to Stoneridge Drive and a request for Overland Drive in the near future.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the benefit district would be south of the Stulz land.
Patterson said Overland Drive was on the south edge of the Stultz land.
Commissioner Schauner said a component which would convert to RM-O in the current proposal would be a 22 unit residential per acre.
Patterson said that would be the maximum in RM-O.
Commissioner Schauner said that would be 22 x 31.12 net acreages, which would be an additional 600 units.
Patterson said it would be times the net acres which was 22.11 acres.
Commissioner Schauner said that was about 440 residential units.
Patterson said 440 units was the maximum.
Commissioner Schauner said 400 plus the 323 from Oregon Trail plus the 211 from Stultz land which would be 934 dwelling units in the area. He said part of his concern with that might have followed their practice in approving those rezonings, but that was wrong. He said the problems they had created were because they were always looking at a snapshot of the development in front of them, without any look of the broader picture. He said there was nothing wrong with the project standing alone, but when adding this developments to 6th and Wakarusa and all of the other developing west, the 400,000 square footage of commercial retail on the east side of 6th and the SLT, KDOT had already stated that it would take at least 15 minutes to go from SLT to Folks Road if they develop all of it. He said he wanted to discuss phasing of those projects. He said the marketplace works well if the general public was willing to accept that the developments that lose in this battle would be a blighted part of town. He said his real concern was that as they approve a preliminary development plan, they were going to be left with looking at arranging the chairs on this project, rather than making decisions about whether this was a project that really benefits this community. He said he did not think this was changing the rules, but thought rezoning was not a right, it was a privilege. He did not think they should tentatively or otherwise grant that privilege unless they were certain that by doing that, they were saying to those developers that when you bring a preliminary development plan, all things being equal, the Commission was going to approve the preliminary plan, which he could not say. He said at least one of those owners was deeply involved in the downtown redevelopment project. He thought the truth of the matter was that downtown would never again be the place to buy the stuff that was needed.
Mayor Amyx said he disagreed.
Commissioner Schauner said downtown had become a specialty area. If he wanted to buy daily stuff he needed, he did not think of downtown as the first place to go. He said in a way, this way of protecting downtown through Horizon 2020 had been a failed effort. He said he thought downtown was unique, extremely important and they should continually try to make it better. He said the new developments provided a different kind of service than downtown would be able to provide because the square footage was not available downtown.
He said what he would like to think about when they were asked to approve rezonings that they looked at those rezonings in a bigger picture way. He said the numbers that were input for the study by the consultant were based on some gross numbers which simply were not supported by the US census. Lawrence was growing less than 1% annually. He said those studies were based on a 2 to 3% annual growth. If they approved this project, it should be approved in phased developments so they could do their best to make sure they could absorb this in a way that was consistent with the growth of the community. He said if they approved too much too soon, somebody loses.
Mayor Amyx said they had seen changes in downtown over the years; from the time of the discussion of the 80’s as far back during the 60’s when they did have some vacancies that had been taken care of over time. The real result of downtown was of a whole lot of work by a whole lot of people that put in a whole lot of time in their businesses and they were all very proud. He said one of the things that helped downtown more than anything was a business owner being downtown for a number of years. He said his family had owned a business downtown the last 31 years. One of the things that had made businesses successful was the amount of new growth in this community and people who had been able to spend money downtown since the middle 1980’s. He said they were going to continue to see new buyers.
Also, downtown had been a destination for a lot of out of town people. He said he was always going to believe downtown was something very special to him and his family because of the years of commitment they have had with downtown. He said he appreciated the concern that everyone had and wanted to make sure that with whatever projects they had did not have a negative impact.
He said the preliminary development plan stage was the time to bring up questions. He said the recommended zoning fit all of the plans. He said they had all the plans in place and could not imagine it needing any more plans. He said if the majority of the City Commission believed that this project needed to be phased at the time they were looking at the preliminary development plan he would bet that this would be a fairly accommodating deal and it would happen anyway because of the economics of today.
He said he agreed with Commissioner Schauner the entire corridor north of 6th Street and west of Folks Road or west of Monterey probably should have been looked at all at one time, but they did not have that opportunity to look at the extension all the way to the SLT. He said in the future when going across K-10 or south of Wakarusa River that might be the way they should look. He said the rules that they had in place today were rules that the City Commission set up and asked people to follow. He said he believed this development group had followed those rules because of the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Commissioner Rundle said he did not dispute the fact that there was compliance with the plan, but it was incomplete. He said Horizon 2020 spelled out processes to include this retail study which was another rule. He said there was the fact that there had been a lot of retail zoned property that had been converted to other uses, which was not taken into account. The consultant said it would be something valid to pursue and might affect the results.
That retail study clause, the section of the commercial development polices had never been taken seriously. There was a previous Planning Commission that wanted to eliminate that study. He said all of that reflected irresponsibility and that practice was continued today. He said it was not just downtown, but retail all over town that was at stake and they needed to be more cautious about downtown vacancies.
He said he did not see a problem deferring this issue until a new policy was in place. He said the minutes from the Planning Commission indicated the applicant did not have an aggressive timeline.
Mayor Amyx said they looked at all of those rezonings, they had a building safeguard of the approval in that it was contingent upon approval of the preliminary development plan.
Commissioner Rundle said he did not look at that safeguard as that comforting. He agreed with Commissioner Schauner in the fact that rezoning was a privilege and they needed to award that privilege very carefully.
Commissioner Hack said when Commissioner Rundle suggested this issue needed to be deferred until such time the retail analysis was completed seemed blatantly unfair in this situation. She said this issue was before the Commission and Eldredge stated they could not proceed with a development plan that would indicate square footage of buildings until they had the appropriate rezoning.
Commissioner Rundle said he did not think the retail study was done according to the process set out in Horizon 2020. He said there were many weaknesses and the study was not well done.
Commissioner Highberger said they needed to address this issue about the market study and whether it was valid or not. He suggested setting up a study session very soon to find a consensus or majority agreement on whether it was adequate or not. He said he did not like the street design, but the plan submitted was consistent with Horizon 2020. He also thought it was crucial to recognize the rezonings were conditioned on approval of the preliminary development plan. He said he thought that was when they should address the absorption issues and they had a wide range of latitude.
The traffic studies indicated they were facing serious problems on 6th Street and could address those problems by building a better street grid on the north side of 6th Street. He said before he approved a preliminary development plan he wanted better assurance of how the street system in the north part of town was going to work.
He said the calculation of the building size was confusing, but it was part of the plan they adopted. He said, with some reservations, he concurred with staff’s recommendation and Planning Commission’s approval for the annexation and rezonings conditioned upon adoption of the preliminary development plan. He said he would rather not adopt the applicant’s findings of fact and suggested asking staff to bring back findings of fact.
Stogsdill said there were findings in the minutes, but Eldredge stated that those findings were not consolidated in the minutes, but staff could consolidate those findings and place it back on the agenda.
Commissioner Rundle said as he mentioned, they had three other areas designated as appropriate someday for CC400. He said they could go out tomorrow and calculate the square footages, but that did not mean they would want to develop all three of those right now. He said they could not support that much more just because it was in the plan. He said the plan had processes such as the retail analysis and was a matter of timing.
Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to go on record to say he did not think anybody had any more heart and soul in downtown Lawrence than the Mayor did. He said his comments about downtown were more a reflection of his concern about the trends. He said when he walked downtown he did not see enough people carrying bags of merchandise that they had purchased downtown. The food and entertainment business was doing quite well. He said he was concerned as they moved forward in approving this proposal or others, the last thing he wanted to do was harm to the basic retail downtown and he was confident that they had a common concern about that. He wanted the record to be clear that his concerns about protecting downtown were based on that concern and not one that disagreed with Mayor Amyx’s view.
It was moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx to approve the annexation request, A-01-02-05, and authorize the drafting of an ordinance for placement on a future agenda. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (23)
It was moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx to approve the rezonings Z-03-05-06, Z-03-06-06; Z-01-10-05; Z-01-11-05; Z-01-012-05, subject to conditions, and subject to the proposed findings of fact to be brought back for approval on a future agenda. Aye: Amyx, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: Rundle and Schauner. Motion carried. (24)
Receive staff memorandum concerning current long-range planning issues and workplan. Consider directing staff to distribute request for proposals for consultant services for the Southeast Area Plan.
Corliss said this was a general discussion memorandum about planning and some of the work staff was pursuing on long range planning items. He said one of the things staff had identified as coordination issue was that as they were pursing their long-range planning efforts, they wanted to make sure it was done in recognition that they had a number of tools that were essentially in the process of being development. One of those processes was the possible adoption or consideration of a parallel code to reflect community design interests and the SDAT process that was underway. He said those efforts and other efforts would give the City Commission additional planning items that they might want to use in long-range planning efforts and would want to recognize this as a new tool.
He said another long-range planning item that staff thought in responses to earlier direction had to do with the Southeast Area Plan. He said there was information in the memorandum about the process that had been underway regarding planning in that area. He said it was staff’s understanding the City Commission would like to receive a consensus on the plans and staff had prepared a scope of services for a consultant that would be disseminated to the consulting community. He said staff understood that the role of the consultant in the Southeast Area Planning was not to create a new Southeast Area Plan. He said the scope was more of a mediator or facilitator to see where the common ground was with planning background that could perhaps work in conjunction with planning staff, elected officials, Planning Commissioners, and stakeholders to provide a path toward a consensus document that could be adopted.
He said the Planning Commission made recommendations on the transportation chapter. He said he wanted to forecast that when they brought that chapter back to the City Commission for adoption that it continued to have discussion about the extension of Peterson Road. He said this Commission had dealt a couple of times with the extension of Peterson Road west of Folks Road indicating that it should not proceed straight west of Folks Road. He said he thought it would be of value to all of the stakeholders and interested parties if they could proceed with some engineering work at a conceptual level to help them work out an east/west arterial. He said the Planning Commission had identified a very important need and their response to that need was to have Peterson Road go straight west from Folks Road. He said this Commission had said they did not want to include that in the transportation chapter. He said what he would like to do was similar to what was discussed for the southeast area was to see if a design, from a engineering and traffic study standpoint, might be able to help come up with options and perhaps a plan. He said he would like to come back to the City Commission with a suggested scope and the ability to obtain an engineering firm to respond to that issue.
The memorandum also discussed planning west of the K-10 area and south of the existing City Limits. He said staff wanted to continue with data gathering and initial review in that area. He said he was concerned that if they proceeded too quickly and then in 6 to 9 months they adopt a parallel code or the Commission made significant policy decisions on how the City Commission wanted to be involved in subdivision lay out and all of those types of things that are related to that issue. He said staff wanted to make sure particularly the area west of K-10, south of the existing City limits, that those plans reflected the City Commission’s desire in that area. Those areas would be looked at for the Next Step in the Cost of Growth Study which would need to be coordinated. He said there had been some discussion about the 9th Street Corridor Plan. He said staff was working on a number of different things to respond to the Commission’s goals to plan the community and the memo provided a general overview of those items.
He said he was also trying to indicate his personal preferences, which was they try to avoid blob maps. He said he understood those maps could serve a purpose of giving property owners and planners some conceptual idea of what was going to occur, but it was his experience, they could better serve with an increased level of definitiveness. If they wanted to give ranges of zoning uses that would be allowed in certain categories, they could. He said they wanted to speak with specificity of zoning designations and square footage or acreage use when talking about long-range planning items as opposed as a more conceptual approach. He said he wanted to make sure staff’s work priorities were matching the City Commission’s priorities. He said staff was going to be working on a number of those items, but staff would like to have a discussion with the City Commission, especially about the Southeast Area Plan and about the consultant for the east/west arterial and the northwest area.
Commissioner Amyx said the information provided by Corliss was very helpful in understanding what information was needed from the City Commission.
He said concerning the Southeast Area Plan, consultants could be hired any day of the week, but would like the opportunity to visit with the County Commission to look at some of the preliminary discussions they needed to have in the Southeast Area plan, whether it be the percentage of acres allowed in the various categories in that area or whatever type of discussions. He said it might be a deadlock issue and they would need to proceed, but he would like that opportunity before proceeding to hire a consultant.
Commissioner Highberger said the reason why he proposed a consultant in the first place was to bring some ideas to the table that they really had not thought of yet. He said the areas of contention dealt with industrial versus residential. He suggested getting someone with mixed use development experience to take a look to see if there were mixed use options which would address the traffic concerns. He said he had extensive discussion with Bob Johnson, County Commissioner, but they were not able to come to an agreement that they thought would be appropriate.
Commissioner Hack said they had a discussion with Charles Jones, County Commissioner and thought they had come up with something. She asked if it was a problem to try one more time or were the issues too complex.
Commissioner Highberger said he did not think so.
Commissioner Schauner said there were some fundamental, philosophical differences about transportation and land usage allocations. He said he did not know if he was particularly optimistic, but he was not opposed to having discussions either.
Mayor Amyx asked if 30 to 40 days was sufficient.
Commission Schauner said what might be helpful was to see a specific analysis of the two positions. He said he would like his own recollection refreshed about their position and what they had said they would agree to. He said he assumed staff could do that and they did not need to hire a consultant.
Mayor Rundle said he thought that would be good particularly if it outlined the areas of controversy. He said he would also like to discuss expanding the scope of services because some of the areas of controversy such as, what were the industrial land needs for the community. He said if they could get a good consultant objectively identified and resolve some of those controversies then it provided a basis for adopting a Southeast Area Plan.
Commissioner Amyx said that some of the discussions he was going to have would only address specific categories. He said when Commissioner Highberger was Mayor he spent a lot of time trying to resolve this issue. He thought it was worth a try for 30 to 60 days to see what information staff could provide.
Commission Schauner said he thought there was an elephant in the room with respect to transportation and the SLT. He said it depended on whether or not a parkway transportation device through the southeast corridor and how it might be part of an industrial residential split. He said he was not sure they were talking out loud about it even though they were all aware it was an issue. He said his sense was that they had some major street infrastructure issues to address and they ought to be doing those things now rather than later.
Commissioner Hack asked if that put them back into the need of a consultant.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not know. He just wanted to make sure it was on the list of things they checked off in that discussion in terms of transportation and how to get around that part of the City as part of their discussion.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to extend the meeting for 20 minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Amyx said the discussion they needed to have was the information that Commissioner Schauner brought forward about Peterson Road.
Corliss said he wanted to make sure the status of the southeast area.
Mayor Amyx said he had 30 days to talk to County Commissioner Bob Johnson concerning the analysis.
Corliss said if it did come back, staff would look at scope issues like hiring a consultant.
Commissioner Schauner said on the Peterson Road discussion, he made his point clear a year and a half ago. He said there were some practical reasons why that was a difficult extension and thought that discussion started with a dollar sign in front of it because it was a pretty expensive road to build, put aside the other issues of Martin Park and people who donated ground. He said he would like to hear an alternative and would like discussion on what alternatives there were.
Commissioner Rundle asked when Commissioner Schauner said alternative, did he mean an alternative somewhere in that quadrant.
Commissioner Schauner said yes.
Corliss said that was the area where they might need some engineering help to take a look at different options to discuss, argue, and decide based on the conceptual discussion of the facts of the costs, and how it responded to traffic needs and a number of other things.
Mayor Amyx asked what direction Corliss needed from the Commission.
Corliss said he needed the direction for staff to come back with a RFP for an east/west arterial alignment options in the northwest area of the city.
Mayor Amyx asked if they needed a specific action on directing him to meet with County Commission.
Corliss said no. He said he wanted to bring back the RFP because he thought he knew what the result was going to be on the transportation chapter. He said he did not know if the City Commission was going to be satisfied with just adopting that transportation chapter. He said that issue was still there and they needed to answer some of those questions.
Commissioner Schauner suggested making an assumption that Peterson Road went through and they managed to carry traffic from its western terminus on east. He asked what happened to the traffic as it got closer and closer to town and where would it go. He said he would like to figure out how traffic would get to downtown. He wanted to know if the traffic had to take 6th Street and if so, he asked what would be the implication for 6th Street traffic flow. He said that would be a significantly bigger project, but they needed to answer that question. He said extending Peterson might not solve the bigger problem of getting across town as a surface street city.
Corliss said that was a good discussion to figure out and what the scope of that project would be. He said they had a number of other transportation issues still underway, but that was a good point. He said if they placed more traffic onto Peterson Road and it connects to north Iowa, he asked what was accomplished.
Stogsdill said those were scenarios the consultant was working on with the Transportation 2030 update. She said staff could plug in all of those different scenarios to see what it did to the existing network or what potential improvements would be necessary to the existing network. (25)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Commissioner Schauner, as Corliss discussed west of K-10 and what that area might look like, he thought this was that moment when they could have a discussion about how, if at all, they could change the planning processes. He said that was a perfect broad line against which to begin to do things differently, if in fact there were three votes to do that. He urged staff to look at how they wanted the process to be different west of the SLT and south of the current City limits.
WALK-ON ITEM:
David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said the Chamber of Commerce had requested they be allowed to sell alcohol in South Park on May 25th. He asked the City Commission to adopt on first reading an ordinance that would allow for alcohol sales and consumption in South Park. He said by adopting the ordinance on first reading allowed the Chamber to know this issue was proceeding.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk, said there would be four separate dates to approve which would be the fourth Thursday of each month beginning in May through August.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8002, allowing the sales and consumption of alcohol in South Park on May 25, June 22, July 27, and August 4, 2006. Motion carried unanimously (26)
It was moved by Highberger seconded by Hack, to extend the meeting to 10:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
REGULAR AGENDA (continued):
Consider a motion to recess into executive session for 30 minutes for the discussion of matters relating to employer-employee negotiations. The justification for the executive session is to keep negotiation matters confidential at this time.
It was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to recess into executive session at 10:25 for 30 minutes for the purpose of discussing matters related to employer-employee negotiations. Motion carried unanimously. (27)
The Commission returned to regular session at 10:55 p.m., at which time it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED _____________________________
Mike Amyx, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Set bid date- May 23, 2006 for Project No. 12-SR5-306(C).
2. Set bid date- May 16, 2006 for runway improvements at the Lawrence Municipal Airport.
3. Bid- 2006 root control program in the amount of $64,667.
4. Bid- Comprehensive Housing Rehabilitation in the amount of $22,300.
5. Bid- award Project No. 35-G12-603(BD) in the amount of $112,800.
6. Ordinance No. 7998- 1st Read, Annexation of 97 acres south of K-10 Highway and east of E. 900 Road.
7. Ordinance No. 7988- 1st Read, amending Chapter 5, Articles 4, 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas.
8. Ordinance No. 7996- 2nd and Final Read, alcoholic beverages on city property, Ole’ Tapas.
9. Ordinance No. 7997, 2nd and Final Read, sale, consumption, and possession of alcoholic beverages at Broken Arrow Park on Friday, May 12th and Saturday, May 13th for the Lawrence Sertoma BBQ Cook-off Fundraiser.
10. Resolution No. 6651- Establish a public hearing date of June 13, 2006 for improvement of Overland Drive from Queens Road, west to Stoneridge Drive.
11. Rezone – (Z-02-03-06) .26 acres, M-2 to C-4, E. of Delaware St., S. of Garfield St.
12. Rezone- (Z-02-04-06) .34 acres, M-2 to RS-2, Garfield St., E. of Delaware St.
13. Release of Mortgage- Alice Vantuyl, 325 Clayton Court, Joshua and Heather Stein, 2825 Fenwick, and Elizabeth Dumortier, 1229 Laura.
14. Agreement- Springsted, for on-going services of Financial Advisor.
15. License Agreement- Philip and Rachel Rademacher, City street right-of-way.
16. Agreement- executive search firm to assist with City Manager Recruitment.
17. Contract- ADG for $177,100 for engineering services for Lawrence Municipal Airport
18. Contract- Design/Build Services for modifications to PS-16 with Burn & Mcdonnell/Garney LLC in the amount of $1,846,680.
19. Agreement- anaerobic digester process for Engineering Services Agreement with Black & Veatch.
20. City Manager’s Report
21. Harper Street water tower site
22. Bike Lanes on Naismith Drive
23. Annexation- (A-01-02-05) 17.52 acres, N. Highway 40, E. K-10 Highway.
24. Rezone- (Z-03-05-06) 45.31 acres, A to PCD-2, N. Highway 40, E. K-10 Highway; Z-03-06-06) 31.12 acres, A to RO-1A, N. Highway 40, E. K-10 Highway;(Z-01-10-05) 25.82 acres, A to RS-2, N. Highway 40, E K-10 Highway; (Z-01-11-05) 7.63 acres, A to RM-D, N. Highway 40, E. K-10 Highway; (Z-01-12-05) 12.77 acres, A to RM-2, N. Highway 40, E. K-10 Highway.
25. Memorandum concerning long-range planning issues and work plan.
26. Ordinance 8002 – 1st Read, allow the sales & consumption of alcohol, S Park on May 25, June 22, July 27,
27. Executive Session