May 16, 2006 City Commission meeting minutes

May 16, 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 Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner present.

RECOGNITION/PROCLAIMATION/PRESENTATION:

Mayor Amyx introduced the Lawrence student delegation traveling to Hiratsuka, Japan.

With Commission approval Mayor Amyx proclaimed Wednesday, May 17, 2006, as “National Employee Health and Fitness Day”; May 21 – 27, 2006 as “National Public Works Week”; the month of May as “Mental Health Month” and “Bicycle Safety Month”; and the week of May 14 -20, 2006 as “Bike to Work Week.”

The Mayor said the Regular Agenda item regarding overweight vehicles and vehicle regulations will be deferred until June 3, 2006.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of May 2, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Board of Electrical Examiners and Appeals meeting minutes of April 5, 2006; the Community Commission on Homelessness meeting minutes of March 14, 2006 and April 11, 2006; the Housing Needs Task Force meeting minutes of April 5, 2006; the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 9, 2006 and April 13, 2006; the Housing Practitioners Panel meeting minutes of March 2, 2006; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of April 6, 2006; the Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of August 4, 2005; the Public Health Board meeting minutes of March 27, 2006; and the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of May 1, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 379 vendors in the amount of $3,230,359.26 and payroll for April 30, 2006 - May 13, 2006 in the amount of $1,584,745.35.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Retail Liquor License for Neighborhood Liquor, 1906 Massachusetts.  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 reappoint Willie Amison to the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority to a second term which will expire April 20, 2010; reappoint Mike Treanor to the Lawrence-Douglas County Humane Society to a second term which will expire May 31, 2007; reappoint Donna Osness and Debra Warren to the Special Alcohol Fund Advisory Board to additional terms which will expire April 30, 2009; and appoint Ken Miller to the Traffic Safety Commission to a term which will expire April 30, 2009. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of June 27, 2006 for the preventive maintenance and repair projects for the Riverfront parking garage and the 900 Block New Hampshire parking garage structures. Motion carried unanimously. (1)

The City Commission reviewed the bid for elevator controls and car replacement at the Community Building for the Parks and Recreation Department. The bid was:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Dynatron Elevator $38,944

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the sole bid to Dynatron Elevator in the amount of $38,944. Motion carried unanimously.

(2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for painting lap and leisure pools at the Indoor Aquatic Center for the Public Works Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

JF McGivern $59,895

Dayco Painting $62,865

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to JF McGivern, in the amount of $59,895. Motion carried unanimously. (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the purchase of an IBM i5 model grade from the City’s hardware service provider, Synergistic Online Solutions, for $109,735. Motion carried unanimously. (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8003, allowing the temporary sale, possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages at Burcham Park for separate events on June 10; August 5; and September 8-9, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (5)

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, 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. (6)

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, 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. (7)

Ordinance No. 8002, authorizing the consumption and possession of alcoholic beverages at South Park on Thursday, May 25, Thursday, June 22, Thursday, July 27 and Thursday, August 24 for the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce Parties in the Park Series, was read a second time. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-03-26-06) for a commercial building, located in the 1300 block of 25^th Street; Lot 25, Commerce Park East, subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following:

a. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.

b. Revised site plan to show the location and dimension of the sanitary sewer easement and the recorded deed book and page reference.

Motion carried unanimously. (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the non-conforming and site plan (N-04-01-06/SP-04-34-06) for Great Planes Hangar Expansion at the Lawrence Municipal Airport, a site plan for an expansion of a non-conforming use for an existing hanger building, located at 2500 Airport Road, subject to the following conditions:

(A) The City Commission grant the authority to enlarge the building devoted to a non-conforming use as the extension is necessary and incidental to the existing use of said building and the conditions set forth in section 20-1303 (Expansion of Non-Conforming Uses) are met; and

(B) Approval of the site plan for the expansion of the non-conforming use subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of necessary agreements with the City of Lawrence for use of lease area;

2. Provision of a revised site plan to limit the total building addition at this time to not exceed 30’ by 100’ as an initial phase; and

3. Provision of a revised site plan to include a note that states the applicant shall be responsible for any and all application submissions associated with FAA requirements and compliance with such regulations associated with the proposed building addition.

Motion carried unanimously. (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve a Temporary Use Permit Upon Review (TUPR-05-15-06) for a promotional display of boats for sale at First State Bank located at 3901 West 6^th Street, subject to the following conditions:

1. Signs displayed in conjunction with this use shall comply with City sign regulations and shall not be located on public right of way. Signs for this activity can only be displayed during hours of operation;

2. Obtain temporary sign permit from Neighborhood Resources Office;

3. Obtain a Transient Merchant’s License from the City Clerk’s Office; and

4. Boat display to be confined to the area along the north side of the building [approximately 130’ x 25’ access aisle and nine parking spaces] and 3 parking spaces on the east side of the building as outlined on the attached plan.

Motion carried unanimously. (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the revised conditions of approval of the Final Plat of the Cove Subdivision. Motion carried unanimously. (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-03-02-06, pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. Chapter 12, Article 7, consider revisions to the adopted “Development Code, November 11, 2005 Edition,” enacting a new Chapter 20 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, establishing comprehensive zoning regulations and other land use regulations. The “Development Code, November 11, 2005 Edition” is a general and complete revision of the City’s existing zoning regulations and affects all property within the corporate limits of the City of Lawrence, Kansas. The “Development Code, November 11, 2005 Edition” is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in this notice, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-03-02A-06, A table of clarifying text/corrections is provided to clean up the November 11, 2005 Edition prior to the July 1, 2006 effective date, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-03-02B-06, Section 20-205, proposed revisions to the purpose statement for the new RMG, Multiple-dwelling Residential-Greek Housing District and to clarify that conversion of Greek Housing to other uses deemed to be compatible with adjacent residential development are permitted through a special use permit for Adaptive Reuse. Conversion to other multiple family residential uses will require rezoning to another RM District. Sections 20-1703 & 20-1704 have been modified to clarify Adaptive Reuse sections, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (15)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-03-02C-06, Section 20-403 currently permits the development of Retail Establishments, Large in the CS, Commercial Strip District, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.

(16)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-03-02E-06, Proposed revisions to Article 7, Planned Developments, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-03-02F-06, Proposed revisions to 20-908 regarding driveway standards in various residential districts, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-03-02H-06, Proposed revisions to 20-1304 regarding the criteria for Major Changes to Final Development Plans, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (19)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve TA-03-02I-06, Amendments to 20-1739 to identify additional uses permitted in the Manufacturing & Production, Limited category, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (20)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a design/build contract with the Burns & McDonnell/Garney LLC joint venture for the design and construction of the Yankee Tank Creek 2-1 & 2-2 Relief Gravity Interceptors in accordance with recommendations in the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan and direction provided by the City Commission on April 11, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (21)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a design/build contract with the design/build team of CAS Construction/Professional Engineering Consultants for the design and construction of the Baldwin Creek 1 Pump Station 1 (BC1PS1), its associated forcemain, and a portion of the upstream gravity sewer network in accordance with recommendations in the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan and direction provided by the City Commission on April 11, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (22)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the submittal of project applications for FY2009 ITS Set-Aside Program. Motion carried unanimously. (23)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive correspondence from KDOT for approval of the brick street restoration of Ohio Street from 6^th to 8^th and authorize staff to proceed with consultant selection for engineering design. Motion carried unanimously. (24)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to approve modification to the current Administrative Policy on Biosolids Management. Motion carried unanimously. (25)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Director of Administrative Services to execute an agreement with an executive search firm to assist with the City Manager recruitment. Motion carried unanimously. (26)

Vice Mayor Hack pulled for separate vote, the approval of the renewal of Public Entity Insurance coverage with Scottsdale Indemnity Company, due to a potential conflict of interest.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to approve the renewal of Public Entity Insurance coverage for May 18, 2006 to May 18, 2007 with Scottsdale Indemnity Company with an annual premium of $74,258. Aye: Amyx, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Abstain: Hack. Motion carried. (28)

Bill Mitchell, Lawrence, pulled text amendment (TA-03-02D-06) regarding Accessory Dwelling Units in RS Districts, for separate discussion. He said there was an inadequacy regarding the revisions to Accessory Dwelling Units (20-534). He noticed that “owner” had not been defined as in “owner/occupancy”. He said Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said that staff believed that everyone understood the common definition of “owner.” He said he thought Stogsdill meant that everyone knew what was intended and that one of the units must be occupied by the person who owned the property, but unfortunately there was no common definition of “owner” as they would discover when lawyers get a hold of it. The owner of record could be a person, but it could also be a trust, estate, or an LLP and he urged the City Commission to put a staff attorney to work on a definition of “owner” which would reduce the chances of those Accessory Dwelling Units being owned by LLP’s, turning into de facto rental units. He said if the City Commission would not direct staff to define “owner”, he suggested at least extending the prohibition against Accessory Dwelling Units into RS-7.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was some difficulty in more precisely describing and defining the term “owner” in the text amendment. He said he thought the speaker made a point, which he was not sure he fully understood, but he suggested the City Commission should make sure they could avoid as much uncertainty and disagreement in the future

Mayor Amyx suggested the item be placed on a future agenda.

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to defer to a future agenda, text amendment (TA-03-02D-06), Section 20-534, which concerned revision for Accessory Dwelling Units in RS Districts. Motion carried unanimously. (27)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, informed the City Commission the following: 1) A City website was available to solicit citizen participation on the City’s long-range transportation planning; 2) As part of a community project, staff visited with second graders to teach those children about City services; 3) Staff was continuing to pursue training and learning more about alternative land use codes; 4) Parks and Recreation staff was implementing the first phase of the new downtown landscape plan; and 5) the City was providing coordination assistance to KU on Wheels.

Commissioner Schauner asked Corliss to extend to Crystal Miles, Landscape Supervisor, and her staff, his compliments on downtown looking great. He said he was pleased with the staff’s responsiveness to the concerns that had been raised over the past few years.

Also, he wanted to extend his thanks to Cliff Galante, Public Transit Administrator, because Galante was doing a terrific job working with the “T” and the Park and Ride Project.

Corliss said Galante and his staff, along with Toni Wheeler, Staff Attorney, worked hard to wade through some extensive legal and procedural requirements to make sure KU could benefit from $800,000 worth of Federal money to get those buses in place. (29)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Receive letter from Chris Collister regarding the Stoneridge benefit district.

Chris Collister, Lawrence, said in the last two to three years she had been treated badly by various governmental agencies regarding development in her area. She said when her property was annexed, the annexation was not wanted or needed and she did not need any City services, but it was forced on her. At that time, she was told that because her property was being annexed there would be no additional costs that she would incur.

More recently, George Williams Way benefit district was on the west boundary of their property and she was included in that benefit district, but once again it was forced on her. The City Commission, at that time, deferred her share of the costs and again she was told that things would be taken care of prospectively, but that had not been the case.

As she detailed in her two letters, she had to endure a number of different issues and pay for things that were unanticipated. She said her property had been destroyed, her utilities had been disconnected numerous times and she been denied access to her property. She said at this time, she did not have access to her property. It was only because of the kindness and compassion of Hamm Construction, they built her a small access road down to her driveway. Otherwise, if it had not been for Hamm Construction, she would not be able to drive her pickup to her house.

It had taken her a great deal of time to deal with all of the problems that she noted in her letters to the City Commission. It had been a great deal of inconvenience and there had been monetary costs. She said she felt like she had been used and abused by everyone’s projects in the area and she felt she was invisible, unimportant, and irrelevant to the process.

She said what was going on now with the Stoneridge south benefit district. Again, this was another benefit district that she was being forced into. This benefit district was on the east side of her property. She said what was left of her property was not very big and it was hard for her to believe that she needed to have access and therefore pay for roads on both sides of her property.

The way the resolution was worded, she was expected to pay for half the cost of the road and improvements, but again this was not anything she needed or wanted. The people that lived on the 120 acres that lived behind her were the people that would benefit greatly by putting that road in because their going to have direct access to west 6^th Street.

She said she had discussed that issue with David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, and Corliss indicated they had paid for the streets in front of their homes when they bought their homes and she should pay for the street that went by her home. The problem with paying that was that she was not receiving any benefit from what was being put in, but she was expected to pay half and the people behind her were going to receive tremendous benefit from her. If costs were to be allocated to those who receive a benefit from the investment, it seemed in all fairness, that those people who lived behind her should contribute to the costs of the road which provided those people much greater access.

The resolution called for the allocation of the costs of this road to be made using the front footage, in otherwise the footage along the road that was part of this benefit district. She was told that this was the method the City traditionally used, but she knew the law allowed the City to use other allocation methodologies and there were other options out there. Tradition was a wonderful thing, but to make a decision without regard to the particular circumstances of each project was arbitrary and wrong. Ultimately, you might end up back at the same place, but you need to take the route at looking at the facts and determining, if in fact, the way it had always been done was the proper way to do it in any particular case. Each case needed to be considered individually.

She said she has spent the last 20 years as a witness testifying on cost allocation methodologies and during that time she had learned several things: equity and fairness were of the utmost importance, each case is unique, and when it came time to take the stand and swear to tell the truth, there better be good reasons for what was being proposed. There were some facts she wanted to make sure the City Commission was aware of regarding the allocation of costs. Tract 1 was her property and contained 39% of the land that was in that benefit district, but yet it was being asked to pay 50% of the costs. She said using the $725,000 estimate of costs that was included in the resolution, tract 1, on a per square foot basis, her cost was going to be 92¢ per square foot for the approximate 9 acres of her property that were in that benefit district. Tract 2, on the other hand, with that same calculation, was 60¢ a square foot for approximately 13.8 acres. She did not want or need this benefit district, yet her share of the costs per square foot was 50% higher than net cost per square foot for tract 2.

In her mind, this was neither fair nor equitable. It devalued her property by heaping more than its fair share of costs on it, and front footage might be a reasonable allocation methodology in most cases, but was clearly not reasonable in this case. From her perspective, the City had always done it that way when it came to allocating the project costs, they did not hear from her and the decision to do it by front footage seemed completely arbitrary. She asked the Commission to consider changing the allocation methodology for the costs of that benefit district to something that gave a more fair and equitable result in terms of allocating the costs.

Mayor Amyx said he thought there was a consistency in the way staff had made assessments over time, and that might be the reason they had done this in a consistent manner because they typically assess on a front footage basis.

He apologized to Collister for failure to notify her and not getting her involved earlier in the process. He asked staff about the City’s options.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager, Legal Services Director, said the resolution was in place, but there was an option to have a new public hearing. He said staff could publish for a new public hearing and make sure the property owners were notified and he had done some things administratively to make sure that happened in the future without having to double check. There were options on whether the Commission wanted to assess on a front footage or square footage basis. The property owner on the east might request that his square footage be reduced as well. That property owner could ask that his square footage be nine acres similar to Collister’s. One of the reasons staff assessed on front footage basis was because the City could establish a fair way of determining what the assessment should be because the property ownership lines were somewhat set regardless of whether or not a piece of property was benefiting. He asked how far staff should go back from a street in order to determine their benefit. He asked if it was based on property ownership lines. He said if it was based on property ownership lines, then all of the property owners would be included on the east side and all of Collister’s on property on the west side. The issue was whether the City Commission wanted to try and follow a standard that would always be used and that was why staff stayed with straight streets on a front footage basis as opposed to going by the area of the property. He said it was more difficult assessing by the area because decisions would need to be made about property owners such as would they include all of Collister’s property and Stultz’s property. It could be argued that it only should be half of Collister’s property because she was already on line eventually to pay for the improvements of George Williams Way benefit district.

Mayor Amyx asked if it was Corliss’ recommendation that staff republish the benefit district hearing.

Corliss said the Commission needed to deliberate on whether or not they wanted to change the method of assessment, and if they do, staff would then republish and have a new hearing and go with that method of assessment and make sure that everyone had an opportunity to participate in that discussion.

Mayor Amyx asked about the lack of notification.

Corliss said the City had a valid benefit district because the notification that was required by state law was simply published in the newspaper. He said staff went an additional step, per City policy, and notified the property owner by mail. In this case, staff did not notify property owners by mail in a timely way so that Collister would get the notice. Corliss said staff had conversations with her last year about this project, but that was not sufficient enough because it did not allow her to participate when they had the public hearing.

Commissioner Rundle said he questioned the idea of always assessing by front footage because it seemed they had assessed both by front and square footage.

Corliss said they had not always assessed by front footage. He said he did not know if the word “fair” was particularly applicable, but they were trying to be consistent in that front footage with a street where adjoining properties benefit, if assessing by front footage, the property ownership lines did not need to be looked at in length or other property. He said Collister’s argument was that the extension to 6^th Street benefited a lot of property to the south other than those two tracts. He said the way those other streets had been built was by the developers such as Stoneridge and other streets in that area. That area had already paid for other adjoining streets. In this case, the area of this benefit district collector street of a certain width and the city was going to participate as the road widens at 6^th Street.

Again, they had not always assessed by front footage. He said they struggled when constructing Monterey Way and Peterson in whether it was front footage and square footage. He said there was a similar discussion and in those cases they eventually ended up with front footage and when looking at that benefit district, it followed the property ownership lines in calculating those assessments.

Commissioner Rundle said his preference would be if there was additional property that could be reasonably demonstrated to benefit from this particular street that had not already paid for their adjacent street, he would prefer to spread it over the area and find some way to assess those properties reasonably, fairly, and equitably.

Corliss said when looking at tract 1 and tract 2, the reason why so much of the square footage of tract 2 was included was because it was all under the same ownership. That owner was spreading more of the costs on all of the different property. That property owner could just want 9 acres on tract 2 to be included, and the City Commission could either accept that or disregard it. The rest of Stoneridge was not paid for by a benefit district, it was paid for by others.

Vice Mayor Hack said the City Commission could request a second public hearing, determine the method of assessment, the property owner in tract 2 could indicate they only wanted a portion of that tract assessed and the split of the costs could be almost identical

Corliss said it could be or could not be identical. He said they could make an argument on why portions of tract 2 included that were already adjacent to an improved street or they were accessible by Stonecreek Drive elsewhere.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the City Commission was the ultimate decision maker in the area that would be included in the benefit district.

Corliss said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked who the applicant was for the benefit district initially.

Corliss said it was a partnership set up by Mike Stultz.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was the tract 2 property owners.

Corliss said yes. He said it was the discussion they had in the past about how the City would agree to defer the special assessments on tract 1 and agree to compensate her for the right of way acquisition that was necessary for Stoneridge. The costs of the property acquisition and the costs of the road improvement would be deferred by the City until such time as tract 1 and its other property was developed.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any difference in the ability to build out tract 1 versus, versus tract 2 that could be foreseen.

Corliss said he did not have the ability to foresee that difference. He said staff thought that property would eventually develop to urban density, but they were not trying to force that on Ms. Collister, which was why she was offered the opportunity for deferral. He said Collister made other comments about the road project, but he thought a number of those comments had to do with KDOT and the City’s participation in 6^th Street. He said it was his understanding that Collister was compensated for access rights and for right-of-way for 6^th Street. He said if he was misspeaking he hoped to be corrected.

Collister said she assumed that road would be constructed, but she had already put in her driveway and was not going to construct another driveway. She asked how was the City going to provide her access while this road was being constructed because her driveway came off the end of what Hamm’s Construction built her. She said she did not expect an answer tonight, but it was a big question and concern. She said it was a hassle last summer getting to her house. She said sometimes she had to park on the street, and did not think she should need to do that anymore.

Corliss said that was a good question and staff always tried to work with property owners such as providing alternative access. Staff provided alternative access to a family that lived on Monterey Way when that road was being constructed. He said staff would try to make sure Collister had equivalent access to her property, even though it might have some inconvenience.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said Corliss said was correct, staff did work with property owners on alternative access. He said there were two property owners on Monterey Way that staff had to maintain access. Staff would make sure they provided alternative access into the plan to help people get in and out of Kasold while under construction. He said staff would provide Ms. Collister access and would try and minimize that inconvenience.

Commissioner Rundle asked if the current resolution called for all of Tract 2 to pay for the costs of the improvements in this benefit district.

Corliss said tract 1 and 2 would pay for 50% of the assessments that would be assessed on the project. A deferral agreement would be drafted with Collister that indicated that she would not need to pay those assessments until the property was redeveloped.

Mayor Amyx asked if that was already drafted in the agreement.

Corliss said staff would work that agreement out not only for this issue, but for George Williams Way. He said when staff saw this project was moving forward, staff thought it made sense to combine that agreement into one because when the property redeveloped staff would see the entire costs.

Mayor Amyx said staff could continue to follow the current process with the caveat that the agreement between the City and Collister was not only for the sharing of the benefit district, but the deferral of all payments, plus the access to Collister’s property and how the property was to be maintained.

Corliss said staff was committed to implementing the deferral, but direction on how the City Commission wanted to proceed with the assessment of the costs. He said it was clearly indicated that access needed be provide, but he did not want to promise anything about the convenience issue. He said a new driveway could be graded, but he was not going to say it would be easy without doing the plans.

Commissioner Highberger said deferral of the benefit district payments for Collister was needed. He said the City Commission needed to follow policy and asked when they would republish or send out a notice and reschedule.

Corliss said staff would start off with another resolution that would set a new date for benefit district and staff would make sure that notice was given to the adjoining property owners. The City Commission could make a decision, at that point, on whether to assess by front footage or area.

Commissioner Schauner said if there was a doctrine of relative benefit, it would seem to apply in this situation. He said this applicant would be able, with the benefit district costs, to develop a significantly larger acreage than Collister. To the extent the developer found that was agreeable, in terms of how he would share those costs, that under those facts, if seemed a disadvantage. The relative gain of Collister was less than the relative gain to the applicant. To ask Collister to share a greater per square foot cost, under those facts, did not seem consistent with whatever doctrine of fairness ought to guide their policy and decision. He would rather have the benefit district blocks remain the same but in this case, make an exception and assess on square footage along with the deferral. The applicant wanted to move forward on this project which was fine, but it seemed, based on that relative gain to that person, it would make sense to allocate those costs differently and allocated those costs on a square footage basis, even though he understood that in the end, Collister would be able to develop her property as well. He said he had watched for years agricultural ground be taken over and appraised values went up because of development came to it, rather than development it sought. He said at some point there needed to be some more caring approach to how those costs were allocated. He said this was not for the applicant or Collister, but under those facts, it made a more equitable distribution of those expenses.

Mayor Amyx said if the applicant, in this case, decided to reduce the number of acres to 50/50, he asked if Commissioner Schauner was willing to reduce the costs.

Commissioner Schauner said he heard it was up to the City Commission as to what that benefit district consisted of. If the applicant believed that tract 2 was an appropriate participant in the benefit district, so be it. Tract 2 would be in the benefit district as well as tract 1 and those costs would be allocated differently.

Corliss said he did indicate that, but the applicant could make the argument that the southern portion of tract 2 already had access to Stoneridge Drive. He said they did not have the ability to develop that property until Stoneridge Drive was connected.

Commissioner Schauner said the applicant could make that argument, but it did not make sense they could develop their ground without being able to have better access off of Stoneridge.

Phil Struble, LandPlan Engineering, said the south portion of Stoneridge Drive was built, they had access to Stoneridge and they paid for it. He said tract 2 paid for the south portion of Stoneridge Drive up to Collister’s ground which those costs were spread over the entire tract 2. The north part of Stoneridge Drive was in the benefit district and would also be spread over the entire part of Stoneridge Drive. He said in fairness, the numbers Collister gave the City Commission were based on the benefit district, but did not include the other half of Stoneridge Drive south that was not a benefit district that was paid for out of pocket. The City Commission’s conversation would penalize a developer for paying for a street and not coming through the City and creating a benefit district, yet those costs had to be allocated somewhere. When all the numbers were put together, they were equal. The numbers Collister gave the City Commission were only the benefit district numbers, but they did not have the benefit of adding in the privately financed portion of the road. Those costs were also through the developers spread over the entire piece of ground. The equity issue was misconstrued at this point, in his view.

Commissioner Rundle asked if all of tract 2 was included, when the assessment was finally divided up and developed, would those cost be spread out according to how the developer on that particular tract wants to spread those costs.

Struble said with the current resolution, the assessments for the north half of Stoneridge Drive that was the benefit district request, half of that cost was spread over all of tract 2 on a square foot basis. Once that property had a recorded final plat, it was spread over every square foot of ground.

Commissioner Rundle said some of the southern part of that street had been assessed to that property and the northern half of the street was going to be assessed to some of the same property.

Struble said it was overlapping. The private development costs were spread over the whole piece of property and the benefit district costs were spread over the whole piece of property. The other option would be to have two separate benefit districts and they would have asked the City to do the exact same thing, however, they did the first piece of it privately, not through the benefit district process.

Commissioner Schauner said they had asked for a benefit district to help build the south part of the road that would have included ground to the west of the project, but did not include Collister’s property.

Struble said yes. It included the property on the west that paid their half of the road and the east half included the entire tract 2. The Commission’s conversation was leading to penalizing someone for constructing road improvements privately when the Commission liked road improvements paid for in that fashion.

Mayor Amyx said the Commission could direct staff to re-advertise the public hearing for the benefit district and at that point, establish the assessment and how those properties in the benefit district would be assessed.

Corliss said that was one option. If the City Commission wanted to change the method of assessment from front footage to square footage, staff would draft a resolution setting a new public hearing date and staff would take the Commission’s direction on what the Commission wanted to do.

Mayor Amyx said it was fairly obvious there was lack of notification, and suggested that it would be proper to follow the rules of notification. At that time, the Commission and property owners could decide on the method of assessment.

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with Mayor Amyx. The allocation question would have been easier to answer had a larger area been required to participate in a benefit district and pay their share of the development costs. In a way, the costs of the extension of Stoneridge would benefit lots of people beyond those two property owners.

Corliss said the idea of who would benefit was true, but it was true on every link of the street.

Commissioner Schauner said in this particular case, as one of the few access points off of a major arterial coming into town from the west, those particular streets did benefit significantly to larger bodies, including the ability to get out of town on the west. He said it could be argued with Stoneridge and the other roads.

Corliss said on Folks Road, they just included property that was immediately adjacent and they did not go south into the Harvard area neighborhood which was somewhat analogous to that property.

Commissioner Schauner said maybe this issue should be handled differently in the future in that those costs could be more equitably spread. He said Stoneridge would be more than a collector street because of the tremendous amount of traffic. He said he was agreeable to postpone this issue.

Commissioner Rundle said even if lopping off the southern portion that was already adjacent to a developed street, there would still be more square footage in tract 2 than tract 1. It seemed this benefit district was working out to the benefit of the development in that each square foot received a lower assessment. It seemed if any property benefited, then it should have been access proportionately in square footages.

Commissioner Schauner said on the other hand, a deferral for any extended period of time would reduce the net costs to Collister, so there was some long term advantage to tract 1 owner even under an allocation that he had some concern about.

Vice Mayor Hack said it was an unusual circumstance and all benefit districts were difficult because staff tried to be consistent and at the same time benefit districts were often unique. She suggested correcting the procedural error by republishing the notification and having an opportunity for staff to visit with Struble and get figures about the costs. The last thing the Commission needed to do was to penalize someone for construction of a road at their own costs even though those costs would be transferred to the eventual owners of the property. She said she was inclined to go with consistency which was front footage.

Mayor Amyx said the Commission had been involved in benefit districts for a long time and the argument that who actually received benefit often came up. They were all going to question the benefit they received from any type of taxing authority placed on their property.

Commissioner Highberger said it was an unfortunate situation and he apologized to Collister. He thought they were going to see more of this type of situation as Lawrence continually grew. It was clear they needed to defer the assessment on the property and take an objective look on how this benefit district burdens both tracts and take in consideration the amount spent on previous construction. They might not want a 50/50 allocation, but it was reasonable to take that allocation into consideration given the fact they were deferring the assessment.

It was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to prepare a resolution for a future agenda, ordering a public hearing regarding Stoneridge Drive south benefit district, and notify the property owners. Motion carried unanimously. (30)

Receive presentation from the Community Design Committee. Consider request on the possible retention of a consultant to assist in the development of new Code provisions and alternative Code provisions to reflect some of the work of the Committee.

Marguerite Ermeling, Planning Commissioner and Chair of the Community Design Committee, said they were engaged in the process to bring forward a parallel code for building options that provided flexibility in the life’s choices someone might choose to have in their environment. It would take on the potential of providing not only a mixed use of types of buildings together, but also mixed economic living places. It would also merge together and marry the possibilities of safety existing between a more walkable community and cars. It structured things around centers for neighborhoods and regional centers that provided alternatives for people to get there in multimodal fashion other than just depending on their cars. None of this at the moment was accessible to them through the current development code, even the new code, and it was the potential and hope of this committee to bring forward those possibilities for an incentive program to the building industry to provide that as options for people to live in this community.

They started on their work by looking at the hierarchy of how they should approach this project. They had now completed a project or summary of the Smart Code, which was used as the scaffolding on which to build this process to move forward. They were at the point where they needed the consideration for a consultant or team of consultants, or the building process of a team of people that could come to them with technical expertise to carry this past what they were able to do. They had analyzed those documents and had looked at some of the wording, changed some of the wording, and had gaps that required the technical input of those people who had put this together.

Their committee was energetic with a whole lot of background which they had been pulling together. Both planners had been to meetings nationally and so had members of the committee and also members of this Commission had been involved. There seemed to be a positive direction toward coming up with this as an alternative or viable parallel code.

It was with that and hope they could build a consensus through the community and since visioning process was a part of bringing this together, then it was an appropriate time to consider that it would bring together many things that were currently out there as tangents to what was occurring, anything from the transportation concepts to problems with local traffic, school district issues, neighborhood design, maintenance of the downtown, all of those things come to a hub of how could some alternatives be presented to the community to consider and allow the building community to experiment with those things. The vehicle to do that would be through the process of evolving this code.

She said they were present in hopes that they would consider that as a worthy cause and possess much energy to head that direction and waiting for support from the City Commission.

Dan Warner, Planner, said the key issue for this new traditional parallel code was the fact it would be based solely and entirely on the existing pattern of development that was already found in the traditional neighborhoods in Lawrence. It was those elements with the building of the existing neighborhoods that created the public realm that were experienced when walking and driving down the sidewalks of those neighborhoods. Also, other elements were the width of the street in these neighborhoods, whether or not there was parking on both sides of the streets in these neighborhoods, the width of the planter’s strip in those neighborhoods, the width of the sidewalk, how close the buildings were to the street, and where the parking was located on the lot, whether it was in front or behind the buildings. Those were the elements that would be coded in the new code and would form the basis of how the new neighborhoods were developed and take on the characteristics of traditional neighborhoods that worked well.

The first task for the consultant would be to identify and analyze those existing conditions in the neighborhoods. The consultant would provide a community wide visioning process where they would begin to hear what the community wanted for the new neighborhoods in Lawrence. The consultants would have the benefit of a multi-day design charette that would synthesize that information they heard and provide images. The consultant would then develop the development standards that would go into the code and then write the code.

The Community Design Committee had gotten out in front of this project by instituting an education program. Vice Mayor Hack had made a number of presentations to various civic groups throughout the Lawrence community, which had been helpful in moving the project forward.

In an effort to estimate cost for this project, staff looked at similar projects in communities around the country and also received information from other sources and were able to give an estimated cost to bring in a consultant to do this parallel code project, which would be approximately $150,000.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the costs of the consultant would be spread over multiple budget years or all at once.

Warner said he thought they could draft a proposal that would break those costs down into phases. He said they could do certain elements of that project first and then come back and finish it up. Ideally, they would want to get the visioning completed ahead of time and get that established and then finish up the code.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said he preferred from a funding standpoint that the costs be spread out over multiple years because $150,000 would be a challenge to get out of the Planning Department’s budget or some of the contingency items, but they could begin the work. He said a consultant would not perform $150,000 worth of work this year, just because of some time constraints in order to go through that process, but staff was excited about working through those options and opportunities and some of those costs could be allocated this year and build the rest of the costs into next year’s budget.

It was important the consultant that was selected could work efficiently and effectively with legal counsel to make sure that any code language developed was something they could proceed with in a timely and seamless manner. He thought staff learned something about the last development code and the necessity of keeping that project on track, making sure the language developed was something they could move toward implementation. He said he had some ideas about teaming up and move that project more efficiently in the future. He saw a team of people that could be involved to help with the conceptual level and planning items and a legal a team that could help work on that language on good code language to move this project forward.

Vice Mayor Hack thanked those who were involved on this project. She said much of the preliminary work had been completed. She said Commissioner Highberger had been the driver and the incentive for looking at this project. There had not been one individual who had not received this project positively out of hundreds they had presented this project to.

Commissioner Highberger thanked the committee and Vice Mayor Hack for taking the show on the road. He wanted to make sure staff coordinated and worked with the Sustainable Design Assessment Team in October. There might be a way for those consultants to help do some of the work and start the charette process. He suggested allocating as much of that $150,000, reasonably, in this fiscal year.

Vice Mayor Amyx also thanked everyone who had been involved with this process. There had been a lot of hours in trying to establish a new code that would look at traditional neighborhood development which he thought was exciting. He asked if the City Commission should discuss this issue during the budget process.

Corliss said he thought the RFP needed to get into the right format which would not take too much work and staff would work with Warner and the design committee to get that ready to be distributed and get consultant proposals to proceed. Staff would work to accomplish as much of this project quickly. Staff would make some judgments during the budget process about how much to budget for next year. He did not think they needed to wait until 2007 in order to start the project. The project could be started now, make determinations concerning a consultant and work with the legal team to get that in place and budget for this project in 2007 that determination was made in the upcoming weeks.

He said the next step to would be to work on an RFP which would be a consent agenda item and part of the selection process would involve the committee and the City Commission could decide how they wanted to participate in that consultant selection process as well. He said they could negotiate contract items for payment as funds were available this year and next year.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger , to direct staff to draft an RFP for a consultant to assist in the development of new Code provisions and alternative Code provisions to reflect some of the work of the Community Design Committee. Motion carried unanimously.

(31)

Consider authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter concerning the final environmental impact statement for the South Lawrence Trafficway.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. He said the City Commission directed staff to work on a draft letter that would reflect the views of the City Commission concerning the final environmental impact statement for the SLT. He said the Federal Highway Administration was seeking to expand federal funds in the amount of $1.5 million for this project. In order for the FHA to expand those funds, the FHA had to adopt a Final Environmental Impact Statement that had been previously adopted by other federal agencies. The document currently existed and the comment letter reflected the concerns voiced by the City Commission. The letter needed to be received by the appropriate federal official by the end of this month to meet the deadline.

Commissioner Rundle asked about the funds the FHA was seeking to expand. He asked if the FHA indicated how they would spend those funds.

Corliss said he was not aware the FHA had indicated how they would spend those funds. He said he believed they would not use those funds for building, as far as he knew, but it was only his observation. He said those funds might be spent on wetlands mitigation, but that idea was speculation and he did not know for certain. He said $1.5 million dollars was a lot of money, but in comparison to building this project, that money would not move a lot of highway into place which he wanted to make clear.

Commissioner Highberger said he understood that KDOT would make the decisions about allocation.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Daniel Poull, Lawrence, speaking on behalf of the Wakarusa Group, the Kansas Sierra Club, and its 600 members, said he wanted to thank Commissioners Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner for their stance on the South Lawrence Trafficway. He said he hoped the entire community could work together to develop a transportation plan that moved people cleanly and efficiently. They also hoped that any plan would protect vital, natural, cultural, and historic areas such as the Haskell/Baker Wetlands.

Thomasine Ross, President of Save the Wakarusa Wetlands, Past President of the National Haskell Alumni Association, and member of the Wetland Preservation Organization on the Haskell Campus, thanked Commissioners Highberger, Rundle and Schauner for their stance on this issue. She said they had discussed with the County and City Commissioners their stance on the roadway going through the wetlands area. The Baker Wetlands, at one time, was owned by Haskell.

She said they would like to see that letter sent to Federal Highway Administration stating the road should go south of the river which had been their stance all along. They had never been against a South Lawrence Trafficway, but against a traffficway going through the Baker Wetlands. The members of the Save the Wetlands Group would like to see a more avid study of the area south of the Wakarusa River.

She said if Mayor Amyx signed the letter stating that south of the river would be a better alternative for the City of Lawrence, it would be a great advancement for the County and the City of Lawrence. She said they had attended many Commission meetings to ask Commissioners to consider their feelings about that area culturally and spiritually. She said she and her husband used the area everyday and they would like to continue to use it in the way it was now. She said it was a beautiful area, one that could not be replaced and it was not possible to have mitigated wetlands.

Ryan Dyer, Treasurer and speaking on behalf of the Prairie Band Pottawatomie Nation, said they were in support of signing this letter and moving it onto the Federal Highway Administration. The packet he submitted to the Commissioners included a letter responding to both Mr. Hannon’s letter sent to the Commission on May 14 which pointed out the inaccuracies in that letter. The Prairie Band Pottawatomie Nation had been a long time opponent of the 32^nd Street alignment of the South Lawrence Trafficway, and would continue to do so. They believed the social, cultural, and environmental detriments that would occur from that alignment were too severe for them to continue considering it. He believed there were viable alternatives. He appreciated if the City Commission would consider those alternatives and encouraged the City Commission to send that letter on.

Michael Contreras, Jr., Lawrence, former Haskell student and former President of the Wetlands Preservation Organization, said he hoped the majority vote of the Commission would be to go south of the river. He said it was good to see officials take a stand and recognize the value this piece of land had to a lot of different people for a lot of different reasons. He had been involved with this issue for 12 years and enjoyed the area as well as the history of Haskell in which he tried to share with his children and everybody he knew. Again, he said if City officials were to vote for the SLT to go south of the river, they would be setting an example statewide and nationwide as a group of officials that recognized people’s values of that land, in a spiritual, environmental, biological, and historical aspect.

Joyce Wolf, speaking on behalf of the Jayhawk Audubon Society, thanked the City Commissioners for the comments in the draft letter to the Federal Highway Administration, and especially the idea there had been significant changes happened in the last few years since that final Environmental Impact Statement was made in terms of especially changing population projection south of the river, the proposed roadways within Lawrence, and the Kansas City Regional Transportation Network. There were some major factors that needed to be reconsidered rather than adopting what the Corps of Engineers approved for the 32^nd route. She said they supported the Commission’s request for them to review and update that position.

She said Jayhawk Audubon had always taken the position they did not disagree with the need for a trafficway, but believed the trafficway needed to go some place other than through the wetlands. There had been a number of different opinions on that idea, but one idea which was significant which was Roger Boyd’s history and future of the wetlands. She said Boyd discussed the approximately 18,000 acres of wetlands in the Wakarusa River Valley within Douglas County, which was pre-European settlement. The issue she thought was most important was written in 2001 about SLT issues continuing and it was anticipated the current proposal for an alignment on 32^nd Street was fatally flawed due to the location and expected costs. It was likely the alternative of constructing an alignment south of the river would finally happen. The wetlands would continue to host hundreds of visitors to enjoy the diversity and solitude and just getting away from it all for years to come. Baker University had committed to continue protection of this area for the foreseeable future. She said positions had changed, but thought that it was in the capacity of this community to answer their concerns about the future of the wetlands with development encroachment from the east and west. She thought it was possible and they needed to have a conversation about that; a visioning session. She thought the action the City Commission was considering in terms of a letter to Federal Highway Administration, asking them to rethink, restate, review, and update was very important and appreciated the City Commission efforts.

Mike Caron, Executive Director, Save the Wakarusa Wetlands, but speaking as a private citizen, said he had spent a number of late nights reading the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the thing that struck him was how much of a false dichotomy was set up in that statement repeatedly which discussed 42^nd Street versus 32^nd Street. He said 42^nd Street was to open up all types of developments south of the river, which because of its human impact, would negatively affect the environment of the wetland. If it went on 32^nd Street, that development south of the river would be saved from it, therefore there would be far less impact on the wetlands. He said it was very clear the Corps of Engineers knew quite well the folks who were providing them with that information did not do the study themselves. He said the notion that south of the river was not going to develop if 32^nd Street took place was something they knew when they were writing that FEIS was not the truth about the future of Lawrence. He said that dichotomy was the whole basis of the FEIS. To accept the Corps of Engineer’s FEIS when it was based on that kind of totally bogus assumption and to move on to begin to fund the highway as a federal project again based on accepting the FEIS made no logical sense and was fundamentally unethical. Everyone had discussed the development that was going to take place south of the river and when the FEIS was read and understood how much they relied on that false argument that if building 32^nd Street, a person would not need to worry about the impact on the environment of development south of the river and the logic totally fell apart. He did not see how anyone could honestly argue the Federal Highway Administration, at this point, should accept the flawed and fictitious FEIS.

He said he had a pleasant conversation with Les Hannon who had provided correspondence to the City Commission and knew that correspondence implied there were great benefits to Haskell in terms of them acquiring new land or acquiring land where 31^st Street was right now. He said Hannon discussed the issue in terms of Haskell’s future and that Haskell would be able to build dorms and new buildings as they expanded into the future. He thought that was a fundamental reflection of a total misunderstanding of where Haskell was on all of this. He did not know if anyone associated with Haskell that would begin to consider building a dorm or any kind of building on vacated land at 31^st Street.

Aaron Ross, Student Senate Representative of Wetlands Preservation Organization at Haskell, thanked Commissioners Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner for taking a stance on this issue. He said on behalf of the Wetlands Preservation Organization, they were glad the City of Lawrence had finally decided, during the past 10 to 12 years, to take a stance that accurately reflected the members of this community. He hoped Mayor Amyx would sign the letter.

Betty Alderson, Lawrence, said she supported the point of discussing sending a letter. She said as the town grew, 32^nd Street alignment of the SLT was nothing and they would be back in 5 years requesting another street south of the Wakarusa River. She asked why not place a street at that location to save the City money. They supposedly could not do the connection to the turnpike east of town several years ago because it was going to be too expensive, so they spent a lot more money going through the south and the west than they would have spent building a bridge which was now on the plans they needed for east of town. She hoped they could go forward and choose a route south of the Wakarusa, which had made sense from the very beginning and she did not have any of the background that any of the speakers had about this issue.

Les Hannon, Lawrence, said he seemed to be a minority in the number of speakers present on this subject since he was looking at things from the other side. He sent a letter to Mayor Amyx and felt that Mayor Amyx and Vice Mayor Hack had done excellent job in taking a stand in support of the 32^nd Street route. It was also supported by County Commissioner Bob Johnson.

The plan that Commissioners Highberger, Schauner, and Rundle had come up with was to reopen the whole case over again and re-examine the idea of a route south of the Wakarusa River. He believed it was seriously flawed. The costs going south of Wakarusa were going to be much higher than the cost of going along 32^nd Street. The route recommended by the Army Corps of Engineers funding would be seriously compromised and would result in costs escalating. He understood the proposal by the Army Corps of Engineers, which was in the hands of KDOT and the Federal Highway Administration was what they had agreed to and the citizens of Lawrence would need to pay the difference and the much higher costs of going south of the river. He said this would result in mill levy increases and taxes rising for the citizens of Lawrence as a whole. He understood that one of the main reasons for putting in the SLT was to relieve the pressure on 23^rd Street. The south of the river route was so far south that the citizens of Lawrence, in general, would continue to use 23^rd Street rather than using the bypass. The 32^nd Street route was close enough that people would use that route a lot more than the south of the river route and as a result, would start relieving the ever growing pressure of the traffic flow on 23^rd Street.

As far as the wetlands were concerned, he said they needed to remember that 50 years ago what was now the Baker Wetlands was arable land. The current Baker Wetlands had been grown from arable land to where they were today in a matter of 50 years. By putting in the 32^nd Street route, some of the existing Baker Wetlands would be taken off, which had already been approved and agreed to by Baker.

The Army Corps of Engineer’s recommendation was that a very substantially greater amount of space be made available adjoining the present wetlands to be developed by future, new wetlands. He said this would make the total new wetlands, combined with the old, into a true, natural resource for Lawrence.

The costs of the east leg SLT had virtually doubled in the last 15 years and he said they should not make matters worse. The total package for the 32^nd Street Project, delineated by the Army Corps of Engineers was fair and equitable to all. It had been prepared by professional consulting engineers and planners. He said he had spent most of his life before he retired doing strategic long range planning all over the United States and many countries overseas. He knew what needed to be done was to try and develop a project where taking the emotion and partisanship out of it and look at it from the best engineered planned basis, which was what the Army Corps of Engineers had done and had resulted in the recommendation for the 32^nd Street route.

He said he felt strongly that people who were not qualified engineers and planners should not second guess the Army Corps of Engineers and want to reopen this can of worms again for going south of the river. He asked the Mayor to stick to the strength of his convictions and refuse to endorse that letter. Alternatively, if Mayor Amyx felt it was his duty to send the Highberger/Schauner/Rundle letter to the Federal Highway Administration, he would add that he was doing that under protest and did not concur with the recommendations. Further, that the Mayor state he did not believed it was in the best interest of Lawrence as a whole. He strongly believed that a referendum were held City and County wide, with all the pros and cons considered, that Mayor Amyx and Vice Mayor Hack’s stance would win by a large margin. He again asked that Mayor Amyx not sign the letter or if he did, he add that he was doing it under protest.

Sierra Farwell, Lawrence, said she lived in Lawrence her entire life. She said the wetlands was a treasure and should not throw that away for something fake. She said they needed to place this road south of the river because the wetlands benefit Lawrence as it was and that road would not benefit Lawrence more than the wetlands did at this time.

Charles Benjamin, Lawrence, Attorney for the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club, said he was present to urge City Commission support for the May 11, 2006 draft comments on the proposed Federal Highway Administration adoption of the FEIS for Project 10-23K8392-01. He attached a letter with comments submitted on February 16, 2003, by J. Scott Smith, then Chair of the Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club, to Mr. Robert J. Smith, of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He said the letter outlined the Sierra Club’s position of the FEIS on the SLT and the Section 404 permit which was dated December 2002, prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers. He said he was not going to go into detail about that, but wanted to say to anybody in the audience that he would be happy to provide a copy of these comments and his telephone number was in the phone book.

The Sierra Club was authorized by the National Sierra Club Litigation Committee to litigate this permit. He said that was because they believed that the Corps’ permitting process did not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act as interpreted by recent case law in the US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly other relevant law.

He said that litigation from the Sierra Club was not taken lightly. It must start at the local level, this case in Lawrence, go up to the state chapter and be approved, and then go to the National Litigation Committee, which was composed of leading environmental lawyers throughout the United States and must be approved by Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. They were urged not to litigate if they could possibly avoid it, so they had not pursued litigation thus far because they were hopeful that the efforts undertaken by former Mayor Highberger to find an alternative route for the eastern leg of the SLT that took into account future growth patterns in Lawrence and the surrounding area would produce a consensus that could be supported by all concerned. They remained hopeful under their leadership; the citizens of Lawrence and Douglas County could come together as a community and finally resolve the issue that has bitterly divided them. He wanted to offer the Sierra Club, at the local, state and national levels stood ready to provide whatever assistance they could in this regard.

Finally, he had looked at every document on the SLT at the Kansas Department of Transportation and was fairly familiar with the law, including the recent efforts by the Federal Highway Administration. He said if they had any specific questions about what this letter meant or what the Federal Highway Administration was doing, he would be happy to answer any questions.

Stan Ross, Lawrence, said they had heard a lot of comments about the trafficway. He had personally been involved with this issue for 18 years, which was how long the City of Lawrence had been involved in this issue. He felt the City should have taken a stance a long time ago. He said he was employed at Haskell and prohibited from taking an official stance from the University on this matter. However, they had a solicitor that was going to be giving an opinion on this issue to the FHA. The City Commissioners had been elected to serve as a governing body of the City. At Haskell, they were also in the leader business. They trained young Native American men and women to become leaders in their respective communities. Tonight, the City Commission saw a good example of two of those Native American’s speaking out for something they believed in. The Corps of Engineers and the EIS study best estimates for taking an amount of traffic off of 23^rd Street was 10%. He said the EIS was a good document, about 5 volumes, broken down into detail, but it was still a flogged document for various reasons. He thanked the Commission for hearing their comments, and especially the member of WPO present. He said when thinking about wetlands, water comes to mind. He did not know how much a gallon of water cost, but if the people in this country did not stop and think about what was going on, people would be paying $3 or more for a gallon of water.

Commissioner Highberger thanked everyone who came down to speak on this issue. He said he knew they had been publicly discussing this issue for years, it was the Lawrence way. He said he feared if construction had begun on the 32^nd Street route, it would open wounds in this community that would take a generation to heal. He knew Hannon expressed the opinion that only engineering consideration ought to come into play when building a highway, but he thought there were many other considerations to be looked at, and federal law required other things to be looked at. He said the 32^nd route was a political route, if they looked strictly at an engineering standpoint the 31^st Street route, would have been a better option.

He said he had two main concerns about what was proposed. One was the impact on the community and second was the road would not meet their long term transportation needs and the funds for highway construction were limited. He said he was glad Ross pointed out information from the Environmental Impact Statement. All of the studies he had seen for traffic projections for the trafficway that no matter where the bypass was located, it was going to take a very minimal amount of traffic off of 23^rd Street. He thought even KDOT was pushing that for a reason for the trafficway. He suggested that if the Mayor was not comfortable signing the letter that he would support having three Commissioners who supported it sign it.

Vice Mayor Hack thanked everyone for their comments. She said there had been a lot of conversations about this issue and the majority of the conversation had not been particularly civil. She said this had been an example of civility in this community, regardless of a person’s position on this issue, it was to all of their credit that they were speaking with measured tones and willing to disagree. She said she appreciated Commissioner Highberger’s views and respected his stance because he listened and pondered what was said. She believed her stance on 32^nd Street route was well documented. Again, she thanked people for their efforts and the manner in which they expressed their feelings.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not live in Lawrence when this issue first came up in the 1980’s. He said this was an issue which had been as divisive as any issue in the history of the City. When he lived in Topeka, he lived in an antique neighborhood and in the 1950’s or early 1960’ there was an interest by the Federal Highway Administration running Interstate 70 through the middle of that antique neighborhood, which began in the 1870s. The neighbor’s thought that was a poor idea and began a long struggle and organized a neighborhood association and ultimately the road was not built through the neighborhood and was rather engineered around that neighborhood to the north. He thought in retrospect, everyone who had seen the result was pleased that there was a change of heart and a change of decision and not destroy what continued to be a vibrant, productive, and cultural asset to that city.

He said his concern about this road was that he thought they knew more now than when this road was first proposed on the economic, social, cultural, and financial impact that 32^nd Street alignment would have on this community than they knew when this road was first proposed. He said clearly there was a lot of disagreement on where the road should go and did not know whether they would ever arrive at a consensus about this issue at least with more discussion or perhaps litigation. He said if he tried to follow his general mantra it was the greatest good for the greatest number, he believed that the greatest number was served by a road that did not continue divisive, argumentative, and comments less than civil debate on whether there should be a road and if so where should it be. He believed there were reasonable alternatives to the 32^nd Street alignment and reasonable alternatives that would serve their transportation needs and serve Johnson County citizens who would benefit more from a 32^nd Street alignment than people in Lawrence, Kansas.

He encouraged the community and this body to sign off on this letter. He thought it would be a fair representation of the facts that they knew today, and those facts were different than what they knew 20 years ago about this road or its proposed earlier versions. He asked the Commission to operate under the majority rule and ask that the Commission send this letter to the Federal Highway Administration. He said if there are dissenting opinions, he thought it was appropriate for those opinions to be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration as well. He thought the 32^nd Street alignment would not serve the community and would encourage this Commission, KDOT, and the Federal Highway Administration to step back, make decisions based on the latest and best information about how the transportation and other needs could be best served. He said things had changed in the past 20 years and it was time to take a fresh look at this proposal and act accordingly.

Commissioner Rundle thanked Vice Mayor Hack for her appreciation of the tenor of the meeting and the discourse tonight. He said even though there was a split on the Commission, they disagreed respectfully and he was hoping they could make a decision and close ranks.

He said he did not think they were reopening this issue because it was never resolved. The idea they were going to solve the problem on 23^rd Street had always been prior to this issue. He said it was going to have a marginal effect, but as the City grew, it was going to be eaten away by increased traffic. KDOT had conducted a traffic origination and destination study right before this proposal came forward on 23^rd Street traffic and it showed the traffic was not going through town, but traffic was trying to get to 23^rd Street.

He said this community responded when there was an identified need. They had supported sales taxes for Public Safety employees and county wide sales tax for two indoor swimming pools, public health building, County Jail, and school bond issues. He thought the community had agreed transportation problems needed to be solved problems and he did not think this was the most effective way to do that. He said it was said that the Commission was not qualified to discuss the traffic proposal, but the people who proposed this were not qualified either. He thought it was important that everybody be involved and not to disregard opinions because it was a very important community decision.

He said the community wanted to solve transportation problems in a way that did not tear this community apart, but he thought the proposed route would do that. He said the area was a significant natural area, spiritual area, and part of some darker part of Haskell Indian Nations University history in that the resting place of bodies of men, women and children were in the wetlands and he did not think it had been appropriately assessed by the State Archaeologist. He hoped that they could get this letter off and move on to solving the transportation problems.

Mayor Amyx said it had been since February 1985 when the community first started to discuss designing a roadway to help solve some of the traffic needs. He said he also had spent a lot of time on this issue. He appreciated all of the comments made, but he believed there would always be a split on any type of development that was discussed such as roadways and transportation systems on the south end of town. He said there was nothing in the works to receive that traffic. He said they would see development from the Sunflower Ammunition Plant over time.

He said moving south of the Wakarusa was a good future goal when talking about the need for increased driving options. He said 31^st Street could be looked at as an inner-loop and there would be a need for an outer-loop.

He said he would not enjoy signing the final environmental impact statement letter for the SLT, but if it was the wish of the Commission, he stood by his pledge that he would always respect the Commission’s wishes.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter concerning the final environmental impact statement for the South Lawrence Trafficway. Aye: Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Amyx and Hack. Motion carried. (34)

Consider adoption of 2007-2012 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for the City of Lawrence.

Casey Liebst, Budget Manager, presented the staff report. She said last year staff made improvements to the CIP process. Projects were submitted by departments, the public, and private development community. Those projects were reviewed by the Administrative Review Committee made up of City staff and representatives of the Planning and City Commissions.

She said to summarize the plan itself there were 164 projects submitted and spread out over the six years of the plan, totaling just over $305 million dollars. A table was included in the plan that showed each project and the relevant chapter, goals and policies from the City’s Comprehensive Plan. There were tables that showed the proposed costs and anticipated funding sources for all of the projects in the plan as well as a breakdown of the source of support for the anticipated General Obligation Bonds.

The score sheets from the Administrative Review Committee were also included in the plan and she noted that the Utility projects were not reviewed by the committee because those projects were recently prioritized through the development of their Water and Wastewater Master Plan and recent rate study.

Finally, the plan contained a section for each year that provided some summary information as well as the project request forms for all 164 projects and programs that made up the plan. This plan was presented to the Planning Commission on April 17^th and after some discussion, they voted to approve the plan for being in conformity with the City’s comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission did suggest an additional project and that along with one other project were the two items that staff needed additional direction from the City Commission.

The project the Planning Commission wanted to recommend for inclusion in the plan was Peterson Road extended, west of Folks Road, and they said this project was top priority and should be included in the 2007 plan. The first phase of the project could be a study of various alignments of that road and those possible impacts.

The other item was an extension of another road which was 31^st Street to O’Connell Road. This project was identified by Mayor Amyx and was suggested to be a priority if not in 2006, in 2007.

She said those were the two items staff needed additional direction on and were not reviewed by the Administrative Review Committee, but that did not mean those items could not be included in the plan because if it was the City Commission’s prerogative. The next step would be to adopt the plan with or without inclusion of those additional projects. Should the City Commission adopt the plan at this time, the Interim City Manager would then select projects from the first year of this plan and include those projects in his Operating and Capital Improvement Budget, that would be brought before the City Commission in the next few months.

Commissioner Schauner thanked Liebst for her work on the plan. He said he always struggled with the Capital Improvement Process and he thought it was enlightening to serve on the Administrative Review Committee and get a sense of how difficult it was to match priorities with goals. He said it was a subjective process and one that he would invite members of the Commission to participate in.

Vice Mayor Hack said she was a member of the committee last year and agreed with Commissioner Schauner on how difficult it was to match priorities with goals. She said the CIP process was far better than when she first was elected into office.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the Peterson Road extension issue.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said the City Commission discussed that item last week and gave him the authority to proceed with working on a scope to get a consultant on board to help staff on the east/west arterial issue. He said he thought it would be appropriate to approve that item in the Capital Improvement Plan.

The issue on 31^st Street was going to be an early June City Commission item where they would discuss the fact that they had $80,000 available for a study, property acquisition, and some roadwork on 31^st Street between O’Connell and Haskell and he also thought it would be appropriate to include that project as well. He said the City Commission was not making decisions to build that project at this time, but they would be including it as something that was not in conformance with the comprehensive plan.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought the Mayor had it right when the Mayor discussed the need to improve and extend 31^st Street. He said that street would ultimately serve as a significant relief valve for the 23^rd Street traffic issue. The sooner that project was completed, the more everyone would see relief in a meaningful way off of 23^rd Street.

Vice Mayor Hack said when the City Commission was discussing the route of the SLT at their goal setting session they also discussed the route of 31^st Street. She said sometime they were going to need to face the fact that something was needed to be done with 31^st Street before a serious accident happened because of the deterioration of the road. She said the Commission would not allow a road that held that much traffic to serve anywhere else in the community. He said the 31^st Street issue needed to be on the City Commission’s plate because it was an extremely unsafe road and a highly traveled road. She said they needed information about total costs and who would bear the cost of the enhancement of that road.

Mayor Amyx asked staff to add 31^st Street and Peterson Road to the list.

Corliss asked if the Mayor meant 31^st Street from Haskell to O’Connell Road.

Mayor Amyx said from Haskell to 1057 Road.

Corliss said the $800,000 was for Haskell to O’Connell, but that did not drive the Capital Improvement Projects. The CIP should reflect what the Commission thought was appropriate from a project standpoint.

Commissioner Rundle said it was fine to proceed with 31^st Street from Haskell to O’Connell. He said before they went further, that issue would need to be discussed with the Planning Commission and with Transportation Planning in terms of when would be the right timing.

Mayor Amyx said changing the route of the SLT was important, but they still had a traffic problem. He said there was a diamond interchange east of town at 1057 Road and some day they needed to incorporate that interchange to take care of some of the problems in the interest of East Hills Business Park and its safety issues. He said they should be out there right now demanding that KDOT lower the speed limit from the ski lake back into Lawrence. He said a lot of infrastructure that was in place right now and they could be making some decisions to help move traffic and make safety issues a priority.

Commissioner Rundle said making use of that diamond interchange and discussing that idea with KDOT was a worthy discussion.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the 2007-2012 Capital Improvement Plan with the addition of Petersen Road extension and 31^st Street extension from Haskell to O’Connell Road. Motion carried unanimously. (35)

PUBLIC COMMENT: None

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

David Corliss, Interim City Manager, suggested the Commission might want to discuss the timing of the first City Commission meeting in June because it would be a lengthy meeting given the items listed. He said the Commission might want an early meeting. He recommended starting the meeting at 5:00 p.m., break at 6:00 and start the meeting back up at 6:35 p.m., for the items that would clearly involve public comment.

REGULAR AGENDA (CONT’D):

Consider motion to recess into executive session for 40 minutes the purpose of discussion of matters relating to: 1) discussions with attorneys for the City on matters which would be deemed privileged under the attorney-client relationship; and 2) employer-employee negotiations. The justification for the executive session is to keep negotiation and attorney-client matters confidential at this time.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to recess into executive session for 40 minutes at 9:25 p.m. for the purpose of discussion of matters relating to: 1) discussions with attorneys for the City on matters which would be deemed privileged under the attorney-client relationship; and 2) employer-employee negotiations and to extend the meeting for 10 minutes p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (36)

The meeting was called back to order at 10:05 p.m.

Dave Corliss explained that the City was in a lawsuit with the Home Builders Association. He said the City was preparing for trial and also recently had been in settlement negotiations. He said before the Commission was Ordinance 8008 and a related policy statement.

Corliss said he recommended approval of Ordinance 8008 and the policy statement

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to adopt Ordinance 8008 on first reading, approve the policy statement and authorize the Interim City Manager to sign a settlement agreement. Motion carried unanimously.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 10:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Mike Amyx, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 16, 2006

1. Bid Date – Riverfront & 900 Block New Hamp parking garage, June 27, 2006.

2. Bid – Elevator controls & care replacement for Community Bldg to sole bid of Dynatron Elevator for $38,944.

3. Bid – Painting lap & leisure pools, Indoor Aquatic Ctr to JF McGivern for $59,895.

4. Purchase – IBM i5 model grade from Synergistic Online Solutions.

5. Ordinance No. 8003, temp alcohol sale at Burcham Park, separate events, June 10^th, August 5, Sept 8-9.

6. Ordinance No. 7998 – 2^nd read, annex (A-02-01-05) 97 acres, S of K-10 Hwy & E of 900 Rd, Sesquicentennial Park.

7. Ordinance No. 7988 – 2^nd read, amend Chapter 5 contractor licensing program.

8. Ordinance No. 8002 – 2^nd read, temp alcohol consumption & possession, S Park, Aug 24 for Lawrence Chamber of Commerce Parties in the Park Series.

9. Site Plan – (SP-03-26-06) commercial bldg, 1300 Block of 25^th, Lot 25, Commerce Park E.

10. Non Conforming & Site Plan – (N-04-01-06/SP-04-34-06) Great Planes Hanger Expansion, Municipal Airport

11. TUPR- (TUPR-05-15-06) boat display at 1^st State Bank, 3901 W 6^th.

12. Final Plat – Revised conditions for Cove Subdivision.

13. Text Amendment – (TA-03-02-06), Development Code Nov 11 2005 Edition.

14. Text Amendment – (TA-03-02A-06), clarify text/corrections.

15. Text Amendment – (TA-03-02B-06), 20-205, purpose statement for new RMG, Greek Housing.

16. Text Amendment – (TA-03-02C-06), 20-403, permit development of Retail Establishments in CS.

17. Text Amendment – (TA-03-02E-06), Revise Article 7, Planned Developments.

18. Text Amendment – (TA-03-02F-06), 20-908, driveway standards, residential districts.

19. Text Amendment – (TA-03-02H-06), 20-1304, criteria for Major Changes to Final Dev Plans.

20. Text Amendment – (TA-03-02I-06), 20-1739, additional use permitted in Mfg & Production, limited category.

21. Agreement – Executive search firm for City Manager recruitment.

22. Design/Build Contract – Burns & McDonnell/Garney LLC, construction of Yankee Tank Creek.

23. Design/Build Contract – CAS Construction, construction of Baldwin Creek 1 Pump Station.

24. FY2009 ITS Set-Aside Program.

25. KDOT correspondence – Brick restoration, Ohio from 6^th to 8^th .

26. Text Amendment – (TA-03-02D-06), 20-534, Accessory Dwelling Units in RS.

27. Modify Admin Policy on Biosolids Mgmt.

28. Public Entity Insurance coverage renewal, Scottsdale Indemnity Co. for $74,258.

29. City Manager’s Report.

30. Stoneridge benefit district

31. Community Design Committee, consultant to assist in new code provisions.

32. Ordinance No. 7990 – 1^st read, Overweight vehicles

33. Ordinance No, 7991 – 1^st read, vehicle safety requirements.

34. Final Environmental Impact Statement for SLT.

35. 2007-2012 CIP.

36. Executive Session

37. Ordinance 8008 – 1^st Read, Policy statement.