June 6, 2006

 

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 5:00 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Amyx presiding and members Highberger, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present.

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

Tom Singleton said that each year, by Kansas Statute as well as by federal law, the City must have a financial audit.  He wanted to emphasize, because of the recent discussions about employing an internal auditor, the financial audit they performed for the City for 2005, was not a performance audit.  The internal auditor, should they choose to hire one, would perform an entirely different type of audit with more detail. 

He wanted to mention what the financial audit was intended to accomplish.  The primary goal of the audit was to audit the financial statements and issue an opinion on those financial statements as to whether the financial statements accurately and fairly represent the financial position and the financial activities of the City.  In the auditor’s report they issued on the basic financial statements, they indicated the City presented the financial position and the activities or operating results of the City for the year 2005.  As auditors, they could issue a number of opinions, but this was the highest opinion that they did issue on financial statements which reflected in a very positive way on the City. 

There were two other aspects on the audit that he wanted to mention briefly.  The first was the City’s Finance Audit Financial statements issue reports on compliance with laws and regulations as they related to the financial statements and internal controls.  There were no findings and no negative items in either one of those categories. 

Secondly, the federal government did require that for the major programs that on a rotating basis would be audited.  They audited the Transit Formula Grant in 2005 as a major program and there were no findings in that area.  He said there were very positive outcomes in those areas as well. 

They did issue a separate management comment letter.  They had a couple of fairly minor comments.  He said he wanted to cover the two major changes that were coming along from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. 

First, in 2006 there would be a change in the statistical section of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which would change dramatically.  He wanted to emphasize that it was going to be adding new information regarding operations, specifically it would include information about the number of governmental employees by program, operating indicators to show the level of services such as fire calls, police calls, and so forth, and capital asset information to indicate volume and nature such as lane mile streets or average daily water consumption. 

He said the big news from a financial reporting standpoint was GASB Statement 45.  He said they were one year closer to implementation, which he believed for Lawrence would be in 2008. Right now the city should be gearing up to have the actuarial studies completed, considering some of the options for funding.  GASB Statement 45 would require the City to determine a liability for the other post employment benefits.  Specifically, those would be the benefits related to cost of providing health care to retirees.  The way the standard was written, the City would begin accruing liability, not just for the people who were about to retire, but for the entire employment base who would be participating in these benefits in some future date.  He said for many entities, this liability could be a very large number, so the questions was ask ed how could they go about calculating that liability and whether it would be funded.   

He said as far as emerging issues, one thing that had caught the attention of the public was Sarbanes Oxley.  This law was passed several years ago to address concerns revolving around scandals of WorldCom and Enron.  Sarbanes Oxley did not require their standards be applied to governmental entities or so called non-issuers.  However, some of the recommendations in Sarbanes Oxley were beginning to filter down into the governmental community, specifically adoption of a code of ethics, which Lawrence already had, and secondly the adoption of an audit committee, which Lawrence currently did not have, but he would be more than happy to discuss the specifics with the City Commission at another time. 

He concluded his remarks by saying that he appreciated the opportunity to serve the City of Lawrence and wanted to compliment the fine City staff and assistance they provided during the audit process. 

Commissioner Schauner asked what they should know about 2007 Budget about GASB 45 and its impact on things like the City’s bond rating.

Singleton said one of the major issues with Statement 45 was the question of whether to fund it or not.  One of the things the City needed to find out from the bond underwriters was their sense of what effect it would have on the bond rating in the event the City would chose to fund, not fund, partially fund, however they want to go about that.  He said in the State of Kansas there was currently no statutory vehicle to set up a funding mechanism.  He said they believed there might be some options using the home rule which would allow the City to establish a plan to fund this.  He said that if the City did not fund it, the GASB statement would then basically force the City to leave the liability on the balance sheet, which could possibly have a negative effect on the bond rating.  He said there were many issues and he would be more than happy at a later date to spend a little bit more time with staff and Commission and discuss it in more detail.                           

Corliss said the City continued to look for opportunities to not only improve this document, but to try and improve the translation from this document to a budget document.  He said he discussed that issue with Singleton and Ed Mullins, Finance Director, along with Professor Justin Marlowe, who was in the Public Administration Department at KU and had done a lot of work in this area and indicated that was a challenge that a number of other communities had, but staff wanted to try and make the budget and CAFR document intelligible, not only for staff, but for the City Commission and public as well.                                                        (1)

The City Commission deferred for one week, the Mercado rezonings that were approved at the May 9, 2006 City Commission meeting.  (Z-03-05-06, Z-03-05-06, Z-01-10-05, Z-01-11-05, and Z-01-12-05)

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of May 9, 2006, May 16, 2006, and May 23, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Lawrence Memorial Hospital Board meeting minutes of April 19, 2006; the Human Relations Commission meeting minutes of February 15, 2006; the Historic Resources Action Summary of April 20, 2006; the Mental Health Board meeting minutes of April 18, 2006; the Planning Commission meeting for March 13-15, 2006; and the Board of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Meeting of April 19, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. 

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 494 vendors in the amount of $2,511,352.30 and payroll from May 14, 2006 to May 27, 2006, in the amount of $1,602,185.13.  Motion carried unanimously.     

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Paisano’s Ristorante, 2112 West 25th Street; Scarlet Orchid Restaurant, 2223 Louisiana Ste: C, the Retail Liquor License for Cork & Barrel Downtown, 901 Mississippi; and World Wine & Beer, 3106 SW Iowa Ste: 202.   Motion carried unanimously.  

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Travis Atwood, Gary Fish, Theresa Klinkenberg and Stanley Sneegas to the Aviation Advisory Board to terms which will expire May 31, 2009; appoint Brad Finkeldei to the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission, to a term which will expire May 31, 2009.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the appointment of Lynne Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, as City representative to the University of Kansas Community Program Advisory Committee for new practice fields and parking lot expansions near Memorial Stadium.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the 6 surplus vehicles that have met or exceeded the criteria for replacement.  The vehicles were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the sale of surplus vehicles through Gov Deals.  Motion carried unanimously.                 (2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the 2006 Overlay and Curb Repair Program, Phase 3 Street Improvements.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid from Kansas Heavy Construction in the amount of $1,127,500.00.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                      (3)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the purchase of six FC200 Itron handheld computers for reading water meters for the Utility Department.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Utility Solutions, in the amount of $18,772.00.  Motion carried unanimously.           

                                                                                                                                           (4)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the Comprehensive Housing Rehabilitation for 1619 East 18^th Street.  The bids were:

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Penny Construction Inc., in the amount of $16,346.00.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                                (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7879, authorizing the codification of the general ordinances of the City.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                          (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8006, rezoning (Z-02-03-06) .26 acres from M-2 (General Industrial District) to C-4 (General Commercial District), located at 827 Garfield Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (7)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8007, rezoning (Z-02-04-06) .34 acres from M-2 (General Industrial District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District) located at 824 Garfield Street and property abutting 827 Garfield Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                      (8)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8009, annexing (A-01-02-05) approximately 17.52 acres, located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway.  Motion carried unanimously.        (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6653, establishing June 20, 2006 as the public hearing date to consider establishing a special assessment benefit district for the improvement of Stoneridge south of West 6^th Street. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                             (10)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6654, calling for the establishment of a recreational pathway between Lawrence and Topeka.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                        (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-04-09-06) for MP Addition, a replat of Lot 40 less the south 115 feet, Addition No. 11, North Lawrence, a three lot residential subdivision containing approximately .484 acre, located at 200 North 9^th Street; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1.                  Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a.         A current copy of a paid property tax receipt.

b.      Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds.

2.                  Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for street and sidewalk improvements.

3.                  Submittal of public improvements plans for extension of sanitary sewer, prior to the recording of the final plat.

4.                  A signed copy of the Master Street Tree Plan.

 

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                      (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-04-11-06) for Lake View Commons, a replat of Lots 1 & 2, Block 2 of the Lake View Addition No. 2, a three lot planned commercial development containing approximately 4.725 acres, located at the northwest corner of Clinton Parkway and Lake Point Drive; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1.       Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

a.      A current copy of a paid property tax receipt;

b.      Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;

c.      Revised Master Street Tree Plan graphic showing trees outside the utility easement along Clinton Parkway.

2.       Provision of the following revisions to the final plat:

a.      Mark and label the portion of Lot 3 along Lake Pointe Drive from Clinton Parkway to the detention basin as ‘no access’.

b.      Remove the easements along the front property line, except those that are required for sanitary sewer.

c.      Show that previously dedicated easements which are no longer needed are vacated.

d.      Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-103 of the Subdivision Regulations

 

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                      (13)

 

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-03-05-06) approximately 45.31 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial District).  The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                          (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-03-06-06) approximately 31.12 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RO-1A (Residence-Office District).  The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                (15)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-01-10-05) approximately 25.82 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-family Residential District).  The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                (16)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-01-11-05) approximately 7.63 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-D (Duplex Residential District).  The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-01-12-05) approximately 12.77 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential District).  The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the distribution of Request for Proposals for the development of a Traditional Neighborhood Design Code.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                       (19)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the write-off of certain water, sewer, sanitation and miscellaneous receivables deemed uncollectible by the Finance Department for the period of January 1, 2004 through December 21, 2004.  The total requested write-off is $114,018 for 753 utility billing customers and $16,820.93 for 52 miscellaneous receivable accounts.  Motion carried unanimously.        (20)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to amend the current service contract with MV Transportation, Inc., to add an FTE Road Supervisor.  Motion carried unanimously.                                (21)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Adeta Allen, 1345 New Jersey.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                        (22)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Daniel Hellyer, 1535 Rhode Island.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                     (23)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Tammie Hughes, 626 Locust.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                             (24)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for George and Ardith Shove, 1614 East 18^th Terrace (2 mortgages).  Motion carried unanimously.                                                       (25)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Carol Thrasher, 2025 Vermont.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                             (26)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Receive draft Memorandum of Understanding with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1596.

 

David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said he was pleased to present a draft Memorandum of Understanding that staff had prepared for the City Commission’s consideration this afternoon.  He said he was joined by Kathy Elkins, President of the Local International Association of Firefighters.  He said he believed the Commission was familiar with the content of this document.  He said Chief Bradford had provided a memorandum that outlined and highlights the changes.  He said within the memorandum, it indicated staff was going to work this year with changes to Resolution 5063 regarding to timing of the City Commission’s consideration of those Memorandums of Understanding which the needed to focus on during the budget process.  Elkins was joined by Russ Brickell and Ed Noonen, part of her executive board of the International Association of Firefighters.           

Kathy Elkins, President of the Local International Association of Fire Fighters, said Brandon Holloman was also a member of the executive board, but was working and not able to be there.  She said she could not do without her executive board because they did the leg work and helped her understand a lot of the numbers and things and wanted to thank her executive board publicly.  She also thanked Corliss and his staff; it was a good process and a lot of respect was given both ways, which was the only way to do this.  She also thanked Chief Bradford.  Everything worked out well and they appreciated the City Commission’s support.

Corliss said Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director was a strong participant and also Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, participated as well.

Mayor Amyx said that the City Commission appreciated all of the work Elkins and her executive committee had been able to accomplish along with the City staff in making sure this process was able to work and they were able to get through issues and come out with a positive.  He said it spoke highly of the wonderful job staff did for the City of Lawrence.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the International Association of Firefighters Local 1596.  Motion carried unanimously.                               (27)

 

Receive draft Memorandum of Understanding with Lawrence Police Officers Association.

 

Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report.  She said all four LPOA members were detained in other engagements.  She said Chief Olin was present and assisted his staff.  She said Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director, and Johnathan Douglas, Management Analyst, participated in those discussions. 

Mayor Amyx said he appreciated Van Saun’s work and asked Chief Olin to pass onto all of his officers the good work that had been done. 

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to execute Memorandum of Understanding with the Lawrence Police Officers Association.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                   (28)                   

 

 

Consider the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission that protected-permissive phasing be implemented on Iowa Street at 34^th Street on a trial basis.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said on March 6^th the City Commission heard a request to implement protected-permissive left-turn phasing for Iowa Street at 34^th Street.  The traffic signal at 34^th Street & Iowa Street was coordinated with the other traffic signals along Iowa Street using a 120-second cycle length; therefore, a vehicle entering the left-turn lane could wait as long as 120 seconds before receiving a left-turn arrow. During high traffic periods a 2 minute wait did not seem that long because some traffic would be moving at all times; however, during low traffic periods, a 2 minute wait seemed much longer if there was little or no traffic. Protected-permitted left-turn phasing would allow left-turning vehicles to turn left during the left-turn arrow phase and during the straight-through green-ball phase after yielding to other traffic.  Protected-permitted left-turn phasing was currently in place at many intersections in Lawrence.  Most of the protected-only intersections were in place due to the number of crashes resulting from drivers miscalculating gaps in the traffic stream and attempting a left-turn when there was not enough time.  Protected-permissive left-turn phasing could be implemented at this intersection on a trial basis; however, it should not be continued if there was a significant increase in left-turn crashes (4 or more left-turn crashes in one year, or 6 or more left-turn crashes in 2 years on one approach; or 6 or more left-turn crashes in one year or 10 or more crashes in 2 years on both approaches).  The Traffic Safety Commission recommended on a 5-1 vote that protected-permissive left-turn phasing be implemented on a trial basis until the intersection meets the established criteria for protected-only phasing.

Commissioner Highberger asked if staff had any accident history on other protected phasing intersections that would indicate that would be a problem.

Soules said if allowing the permissive turn on the green ball became a problem, staff would change the signal to protected phasing, allowing left turns only on the green arrow.  Staff needed to do this at a few intersections, after the number of crashes met the criteria.   

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any consideration given to the fact that north bound traffic on Iowa would be coming from a significantly higher rate of speed than one expected to see on inner streets.

Soules said that was the initial reason for setting the signal up as a protected left turn only.  However, when people were sitting there waiting for the green arrow and there was not a lot of traffic, those people might get impatient and turn without the arrow. 

Commissioner Schauner said phasing could be done in another way, for example, the way people drove at 6^th and Wakarusa.  He said if there was no oncoming traffic and no left turn arrow; the traffic signal could be intelligent enough to permit a left turn arrow.

Soules said if that idea was implemented, it would take the traffic signal several cycles to pick back up.  He said that idea could technically be done, but he did not think there would be problems.    He said with Wal-Mart at 33^rd Street that street would reduce the traffic.

Mayor Amyx asked what the difference was between what was being recommended at this location and the light at 27^th and Iowa.  He said if he was on 27^th Street trying to make a left turn onto Iowa and there were no cars around, the traffic signal would not change.

Corliss said 27^th and Iowa was completed about four to five years ago.

Soules said at 27^th & Iowa was completed when he first came to Lawrence.  That intersection should be set up with video detection, but he would get back with the Mayor to answer his question. 

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Schauner said his concern was to make sure staff monitored the intersection for increased incident of left turn crashes.  He said that was one of his major concerns since the traffic northbound was coming quickly and a left turn at the wrong time could not just be a fender bender, but something worse than that.

Mayor Amyx said unfortunately, warrants had to be in place to be able to make a change. 

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission that protected permissive phasing be implemented on Iowa Street at 34^th Street on a trail basis.                                                                                     (29)

Receive staff memo regarding overweight vehicles and vehicle safety requirements.

Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, presented the staff report. He said the ordinances were not meant to impose any new or additional burdens on anyone, but meant to procedurally proceed with prosecution in the Municipal Court.  Currently, the traffic unit of the Lawrence Police Department had individuals who were trained to do commercial vehicles inspections and enforcement.  He said in enforcing inspections, those issues proceeded to fruition either administratively or those individuals would need to file charges through district court.  He said from the perspective of enforcement expediency, it would be better for those charges to be filed and processed through Municipal Court; it was easier for the officers to charge and allowed the process to be handled locally. 

The last time these ordinances were before the City Commission was November 29^th, 2005, and at that time the drafts were presented and the City Commission indicated it would be proper to have the meeting with stakeholders that might be interested in those ordinances.  Staff invited fifteen heavy truck operating firms and three firms were present, Penny’s Concrete, LRM Industries, and Capital City Oil.  Those firms concern was the perception that if those ordinances would be adopted based upon pavement management concerns the City was pushing a burden of pavement management on private industry, but exempting itself from any of the requirements of the ordinance and of the State statute.  He said based upon that input, the ordinance was amended to indicate the City would not participate in any exemptions or exceptions to the ordinance’s application that would not also apply to private industry, with a couple of exceptions.  One exception would be for firefighting apparatus, because that was not designed to meet weight requirements when loaded with water.  The other exception would be for emergency situations.  All other situations under this ordinance, in order for the City to have an exception or exemption, a private contractor performing the same service would also have an exception or exemption.  He said other than those situations and other minor changes to address state law, those were the same drafts presented before.

Commissioner Rundle said concerning the ordinances that Miller mentioned from Lenexa, he asked how Lenexa treated those exemptions or exceptions.

Miller said as far as he knew, Lenexa did not exempt themselves. Lenexa adopted state statute.  He said Lawrence would be one of the few, if not the only city, that would write out an exception or exemption that would apply.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the current state law provided an exemption for municipal vehicles.

Miller said in some circumstances, but not all municipal vehicles.

Corliss said what staff was proposing was to include more municipal vehicles other than what was required by state law.

Commissioner Schauner asked staff what specific vehicles would be included in that exemption.

Miller said staff would take advantage of exceptions that apply for hauling highway sand, rocks or gravel, fire apparatus and fully loaded garbage trucks.  He checked with Steve Stewart, Central Garage Superintendent, who believed the garbage trucks could comply even when those trucks were fully loaded.

Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to understand how the exemption worked.  He said if someone received a ticket for being overweight, he asked if that person could say the City was doing it, and therefore, would become an affirmative defense for a ticketed operator.

Corliss said staff needed to ensure that City vehicles, such as a fully loaded sanitation truck, would not be violating the weight standards that were set out in the ordinance, whereas under state law, there was already an exemption.   

Miller said in other words, City vehicles would get tickets as well.

Commissioner Highberger asked if the City could prosecute itself.

Corliss said the City would look to see why it was not in compliance with law. 

Mayor Amyx said if a police officer pulled a sanitation truck that was fully loaded over, he asked if the officer would ticket the City’s driver.

Corliss said he would likely find out about that incident and would ask why the Department Director was not in compliance with the law.  He said the City would not give itself a fine, but the City would be in compliance with the state law.  Technically, right now, the City did not need to be in compliance with that particular state law.  

Mayor Amyx said if the City was not going to exempt itself, and the City had an overweight vehicle and would only talk to the department head, he asked if the City would give the private hauler the same consideration.

Corliss said the private hauler would be ticketed.  He said City vehicles would be in compliance with City law.  He said they could get tickets for things like speeding and they could get a ticket for overweight vehicles.   

Commissioner Schauner asked what it would take from an operational standpoint to have equipment in place to make the ordinance enforceable.

Miller said the City would purchase a set of portable scales.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was the City’s intention to purchase those portable scales.

Miller said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the probable cause was to stop somebody for being overweight.

Miller said that was under circumstance; it was generally administrative inspection.  He said those were closely regulated industries and those vehicles were always subject to being stopped for inspection.  He said there was no necessity for probable cause determination or reasonable suspicion.

Corliss said he wanted to make sure the Commission understood what staff would do with City vehicles.   He said right now for state law purposes, which was the only law that applied, the City had an exemption.  When looking at that exemption, staff found out that the City would be in compliance in all circumstances according to the different departments with the exception of fire apparatus vehicles.  The City would still need that exemption for emergency purposes.  He said staff had the intent of complying with the ordinance.

Mayor Amyx said if the City was just going to talk to a City driver and not ticket that driver, he asked why the City would go after the private hauler when both would have the same effect.

Corliss said that was a good comment and he understood.  He said they would give a ticket to that individual.

Commissioner Schauner said he understood that when a private hauler left the loading site, he assumed there was a procedure in place to weigh that truck to see if that truck was in compliance with the State overweight rules.  He asked if staff had any way to weigh city vehicles. 

Corliss said staff would find a way to be in compliance with law.  He said he had been told by Department Directors that City vehicles would be in compliance.  He said non compliance would not be an issue.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment

Steve Glass, LRM Industries, said he wanted to briefly address the issues he raised in his letter to the Mayor.  First, they were dealing with 2 ordinances, Ordinance No. 7990, dealt with weight issues, and Ordinance No.7991, dealt with safety regulations.  He said it was his understanding and interpretation of the two ordinances that the exclusions for municipal vehicles were different in those two ordinances.  Under the safety regulations, all governmental vehicles blanket any level of government, federal, state, or local, were exempted from the safety regulations.  He said he was not going to speculate how that happened and it was probably like Congress exempting themselves from various regulations, which hardly seemed fair, but it seemed reality in the world. 

Under Ordinance No. 7990, the overweight regulations, certain municipal vehicles were exempted, specifically fire apparatus and sanitation trucks.  He agreed the section was added to Ordinance No. 7990 which stated the City was not going to avail itself with that exemption.  However, within the wording for that section which was Chapter 17-913, it stated: “however, if a private entity was exempted under a particular category, such as sanitation trucks, then the City was still exempted under that exemption.”  He said if he was reading that wrong he would like someone to tell him, but that was the way he read that section.  He said when being told the City would need to legally comply with the overweight regulations for sanitation trucks, he would differ on that under the ordinance as it was currently written.  He argued the City should be covered under that regulation, not for fire trucks because he understood that exemption, but certainly for sanitation trucks.  He thought sanitation trucks were already covered under the state regulations and therefore under this ordinance for dump trucks, etc.  He thought in addition to adopting Chapter 17-913, staff needed to go back to Chapter 17-902(e) where it exempted solid waste trucks and remove that exemption for anyone, which for Lawrence would be the City and the University because the City had a monopoly on hauling trash within the City. 

He said Ordinance No. 7891, which dealt with safety regulations, exempted all federal, state and municipal vehicles.  He said as he read that ordinance, he did not see specifically that the City was waiving that exemption.  He thought the City should set an example to private businesses by complying.  He said it was very difficult, in some cases, to address the issue on how to know when a truck was overloaded, which was the question Commissioner Schauner raised. 

He said when his business was loading asphalt they had scales where they weighed the truck before it left and in the case of concrete, they weighed how much material was added to the drum and those methods could be controlled.  It was the same way if going to a quarry or a sand pit because charge by the ton.  What would become more difficult would be if they were hauling dirt from an excavation for a new building and trucks were loaded on the site hauling the dirt to some other site.  There they would rely on the judgment of the truck driver for amount of load and it would be hard to look at a pile of dirt or rock and get it exactly right.  He said that was something his company dealt with and understood they were at risk everyday when they were loading trucks. 

The City had the same situation with sanitation trucks in that they are at the mercy of the judgment of the drivers and loaders of the sanitation trucks.  He said it was really not a risk that private businesses were not already asked to take and he felt it was one that was reasonable for the City to take.

He thought those corrections needed to be made.  Also, in the letter, he mentioned there was one section in Chapter 17-104(b) in Ordinance 7991, which appeared to contain language from two separate sections of the State statute and as a result, in his opinion, did not make sense.  He thought it was a typographical error, but it needed to be corrected before the ordinances would be approved.

He said in his letter he raised a few more issues.  One of the problems in the ready mix industry was they were dealing with a perishable product.  Particularly, in hot weather, concrete would begin to set, whether in the drum or outside the drum.  He said this issue was something the state association had worked with the State enforcers of the weight ordinances that currently enforced those weight limits through highways that passed through the City of Lawrence.  Those State enforcers realized that a loaded ready mix truck could not be unnecessarily delayed because once the concrete hardened the drum would need to be replaced.  The State enforcers would typically weight the truck quickly and if legal, let the truck go on or if they wanted to conduct a safety inspection, which was more time consuming, they would direct the loader to come back to a certain place at a certain time.  He said they had no problem with that procedure and had invited the highway patrol, on occasion, to come to their plant sites and inspect their trucks right there for their convenience and LRM’s convenience.

He thought it was important that if those ordinances were adopted, the Police Department be made aware of that issue with concrete trucks.  He said with asphalt trucks there were issues in cold weather, but it was not as big an issue as with concrete trucks.  He was not asking for any change to that ordinance, but simply recognition by the people who were enforcing that ordinance. 

He said his final concern was by adopting this ordinance and presumably having the City invest $6,000 in portable scales and investing more time of the police officers in enforcing those ordinances than they currently spend, he asked if they were really making the best use of the time for law enforcement officers.

He said an article in the Kansas City Newspaper ranked a variety of cities on levels of service provided and it did not rank the police department particularly high, which surprised him because he thought the Police Department was a well run organization.  He said one of the comments made in the newspaper, was the Police Department in Lawrence, based on their survey needed more officers.  He said he or the general public would not disagree that Lawrence needed more police officers, but he understood the budget constraints that the City operated under.  It did raise the question of if the City wanted to give more duties to the police officers who were already, at least by one survey, undermanned or did the City want to devote those resources to other demands.  He said if the City planned, in their budget, to add 10 officers, it might be a moot point, but if that was not the plan, it would be something the City Commission might want to consider. 

Mayor Amyx said he would suggest taking one week to review the document from Glass. 

Commissioner Schauner said absent the exemption question and perhaps the question on whether or not to spend $6,000 for a scale, it seemed this ordinance was not doing anything more than what the state statutes already mandated.

Amyx said he agreed.

Commissioner Schauner said he would not want Glass or others to leave thinking the Commission was trying to impose something the state did not already impose.  He said concerning the $6,000, he thought it was a small expenditure when considering the additional expense the City taxpayers incurred for City vehicles.  He said he would like to move this agenda quickly rather than have it delayed until the construction season was over.

Mayor Amyx said he agreed with Commissioner Schauner and suggested that the City Commission receive a response from staff as soon as possible so that it was placed back on the City Commission’s agenda to consider the exemptions and especially the weight issue of the scales. 

 Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to defer first reading of Ordinance No. 7990, regulating the sizes, weights and loads of vehicles and required licensing.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                              (30)  

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to defer first reading of Ordinance No. 7991, adopting Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, as amended, and providing supplemental provisions related to the operation of certain types of commercial motor vehicles.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                     (31)

Receive staff memorandum concerning downtown safety issues.

Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, presented the staff report.  He said he was present to share ideas that other communities used to face problems of safety in their city centers and downtown areas in their entertainment venues.  He said in a situation that was received by the public as problem liquor establishment, citizens ask why the City wouldn’t revoke that liquor license.  The fact was the City’s control over liquor licenses was extremely limited.  All the City could do was to impose itself in the procedure in Topeka with the Department of Revenue who actually had control over liquor licenses.  He said since the City did not have ultimate control in that circumstance of licensing, some of his suggestions, would grant the City control over licensing, which would be seen as increased local control of those businesses and the problems that existed. 

One idea many cities had adopted regarding bars, nightclubs, and things that were termed to be entertainment venues, were Entertainment Venue Licensing schemes.  Olathe was the closest neighbor that had one of those schemes.  The licensing scheme applied to warehouse clubs which were clubs that had capacities over 350 people. The idea of those licensing schemes was to make certain the clubs where they existed mitigated any impact those clubs would have either on the City or the surrounding neighborhood from a noise or crime standpoint.  He suggested the Commission needed to make certain the fact that larger clubs were a larger drain on City resources because sometimes the entire Police Department that was on duty would need to respond to an emergency at that location. 

Some of the concerns that were legislated against were disorderly conduct, violence, crimes by individual in the establishment or immediately after leaving the establishment, and repeated over occupancy issues.  He said those ordinances and licensing schemes provided for the quantity and the training of the security that had to exist based upon occupancy loads, required that venues had security cameras with recordings available to the police, and provided minimum acceptable levels for technical issues, such as lighting.  He said that would be one thing the City Commission could consider doing was to try and formulate some type of licensing scheme for those venues to address those issues or other issues.  He said in order to draft such an ordinance, the pertinent questions would be: 1) What type of entertainment must be regulated; 2) Did the Commission want to regulate some entertainment venues above a certain occupancy, and if so what the occupancy should be; 3) What the primary harms that were being legislated against were and whether the City worried most about criminal activity or the impact of the club or entertainment venue on surrounding areas; 4) Safety of individuals within the club; 5) Should security measures or other technical requirements be included in the ordinance and if so, how to determine the appropriate levels; and 6) To what extent business owners would be responsible for the overall impact on the area around their club that those owners did not have direct control over, but indirect control.  He said those were some considerations.  If the City Commission would be favorable on the idea of entertainment venue licensing, he would ask the City Commission to provide some answers prior to drafting any type of licensing scheme.

He said another idea that could be pursued separately or in conjunction with this idea was the idea that bars and entertainment venues would need to have licensed security officers that had gone through a training course.  The specifics of the training course could be legislated by the City, but would not necessarily need to be provided by the City or the Police Department.  He had received correspondence from training companies who provided this training to other cities and other entertainment venues elsewhere.  The idea beyond having well trained security personnel was that they might be able to detect or cause a problem not to escalate.  The main idea from the City standpoint on why this would be beneficial was the City could impose a duty to report criminal activity by those security personnel or they would lose their license.  He said sometimes that did not happen because security personnel’s main loyalty was to the people that employ them; they had no independent duty to the City.  He said that would give the City another means of knowing what was going on.  He said if there was a problem, they could take care of that problem before it escalated too far.

A third idea, used in Canada and the United Kingdom which was just starting to make the inroads into the United States, was the Pub, Club or Bar watch program.  The most famous implementation of that program was in Vancouver.  He said that program was modeled after neighborhood watch program. It was basically a program run or directed by bar owners with the participation of the police.  The main goals were to improve the relationship between the police and the bar owners and to have solidarity among the bar owners so that if they ban a person from one bar, then that person would be banned from all bars that were in the pub, club, or bar watch program.  He said in their estimation, it gave individuals a greater incentive not to violate rules within those bars because they knew if they were banned from one place, they might not have no place to go as opposed to being banned from one place and there would be no communication knowing that person could go to the next place down the street. 

He said there were also many permutations of this program and many other factors in this program that people adopted.  He said in Vancouver it was a controversial program because they used card readers at all of their bars and there was a central computer database of bar customers.  When walking into a bar, the bar would run your ID through a card reader, a picture was taken, and if someone was banned from a bar, they immediately know when you go to the next bar, they had been banned.   He said some civil liberty advocates thought that type of program went too far from a civil liberties standpoint.  He said Vancouver apparently had success on their crime rates. 

The final suggestion involved police response.  The police in Lawrence had been very proactive in utilizing technological resources in order to supplement their manpower.  Computer assisted dispatch was an example.  KU had a system where they had thirty plus surveillance cameras which were mounted throughout campus fairly unobtrusively and actively monitored.  He said KU mounted those cameras in 2004 and by 2005 they had seen a 7.7% decrease overall in crime and in parking lot crime they had seen a 23% decrease in the crime.  He said in KU’s experience it was fairly effective and something the City could consider doing would be to concentrate only on the downtown area.  There was a concentration of public establishments trying to establish program or perhaps a full blown program of actively monitored cameras during peak times so an individual was consistently scanning the area on the look out for trouble.  He said those could be used not just by the Police Department, but also gave public access to those cameras so that individuals who might own businesses in the area could check on their businesses in the middle of the night.  He said some people had suggested the cameras could also be used to make sure the police were doing their job effectively because they would be monitored by cameras during the time they were doing enforcement actions downtown.  He said there were a lot of potential uses for those cameras and if that was something that interested the City Commission at all, staff could provide some price estimates or some efficiency or effectiveness data because that data existed. 

Passively monitor cameras did not work well and staff would be asking for the implementation of some actively monitored cameras at least during peak time.  He said most camera systems in place had the capacity of automatically blanking out things like windows, so a person would not need to worry about the police using the camera system to invade someone’s privacy by trying to peer in their window.  A computer algorithm automatically detected a window and flags it out when getting to a certain level of resolution.  He said if anyone was interested in seeing those camera systems in action, he had received permission from KU to take people singly or in groups to their camera station to show people how those cameras worked.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the cost of cameras system at KU.

Miller said for the first 17 cameras and installing the system was approximately $250,000.  Since that time, KU had steadily built up the number of cameras they had because those cameras had proven to be effective.  The main complaint about the camera system that KU had been receiving recently was there were crimes occurring on campus where there were no cameras which frustrated people.

Mayor Amyx said the item on the agenda was to simply receive the staff report.  One important issue was that Miller was asking a number of questions throughout his report and those questions should be addressed by the City Commission because the entertainment venue might be concerned about what the City Commission’s answers would be to those questions.

He said one important issue was that a homegrown effort should occur.  He knew people in the entertainment business wanted to make sure that downtown would be a safe place and he was willing to work with bar owners throughout the community along with City staff to come up with something that would work for everyone in the next couple of weeks.  He asked that the City Commissioners provide direction to the questions raised by Miller along with compiling a list of questions for Miller and come up with a proposal that would be good for everyone.

Commissioner Schauner said in looking at Miller’s memorandum about Olathe’s licensing scheme, he said if the City issued drinking establishment licenses now and if the City was to have entertainment club licensing, he asked how would that be any different on its ultimate ability to have an impact on the license if in fact they found an operator in substantial disregard for the health and welfare of the community.

Miller said this was an entertainment license.  If the entertainment license was pulled, that person could still operate their business and could still sell alcoholic beverages, but depending on the definition of entertainment, could not have live music, DJs, or performances.  He said if that person did have entertainment, they would be in violation of the law.

Corliss said certain occupancy could be an initial restriction.

The City Commission received staff’s memo            .                                                    (32)

Receive request from Downtown Lawrence, Inc. for marketing assistance during the downtown waterline project.  Receive status report on downtown waterline project and fire line improvements to businesses.

 

David Corliss, Interim City Manager, presented the staff report.  He said a memorandum was drafted by Chris Stewart, Assistant Director, Utilities Department, about staff’s work with downtown property owners regarding what the City could do as an incentive for business to add fire line connections between the water lines and the structure.  He said staff would work with individual property owners on a business by business basis to see if those fire lines could be effectively accomplished. 

The City Commission also had a request for Downtown Lawrence Inc. and other interested businesses for assistance for marketing during waterline project.  He also provided a staff memorandum where he tried to lay out the pros and cons of providing assistance.  He thought the next step would be to hear more about that request for the marketing assistance.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment

Rick Marquez, Director of Downtown Lawrence Inc., said after speaking with a lot of the businesses on the 700 and 800 Block of Massachusetts, they wanted to commend the construction crew and City staff on this process.  He said on behalf of their member businesses and other businesses on the 700 and 800 blocks, Downtown Lawrence Inc., wanted to discuss a marketing proposal to try and alleviate some of the business terms that might be associated with this project and based on that they came up with a proposal.  He said after reading Corliss’ memo concerning this issue, DLI agreed with many of Corliss’ points that the project in Downtown Lawrence was a bit different than some other projects because it was physically closer to the front of the businesses.  The safety fencing was close to some of the front doors of the businesses and parking spacing issues such as the street being closed on one side of the street.  The request was in place to assist with marketing, event planning, and other items.  Downtown Lawrence would be working with member businesses to come up with a funding program for cooperative advertising.  The actual expenditures would exceed the requested amount.

Mayor Amyx said they were talking about essentially only 64 spaces on one side of the street.  He thought the crews had done an excellent job.  He knew that they have been working quite a bit and the project was moving along quite rapidly. 

He asked Marquez to give him any horror stories he may have heard from some of the businesses downtown.

Marquez said he had not heard any horror stories, but speaking with businesses the past two weeks, a number of the businesses had a hard time ascertaining whether or not the project itself had anything to do with the slowdown in business. It just happened to be at the time the University was out of session and business owners expected things to be a little slower. To be perfectly honest there were three or four businesses who noticed that business was the same.  He said DLI wanted to continue to remind people that all the businesses were open all of the time regardless of the construction. DLI also wanted to remind everyone there were parking spots available and wanted to point out those spots such as the parking garage on 9^th and New Hampshire and they wanted people to use that parking lot now and continue to use that lot.  He said he had not heard any horror stories, but he believed that Fields Gallery had water in the basement which was the closest horror story that he could come to. 

Mayor Amyx said they needed to thank customers who came to shop downtown. He said it was important to understand the amount of work DLI, the businesses downtown, along with staff and the City Commission did to make sure that street was half open at all times.  The real problem was the fire line installation and the impact on his businesses in which he would not vote on that issue.  He said there had been a lot of effort put forward to make sure this project was done in a timely manner.  He turned the meeting over to Vice Mayor Hack.   

Vice Mayor Hack asked about the additional staffing request for $6,400.

Marquez said for clarification that would not be for additional staffing.  It was a number that was arrived at by figuring out the amount of time that he, as a director, would be devoting to this project specifically. 

Vice Mayor Hack asked if that amount would be subtracted from the $48,100 that DLI was asking from the City.

Marquez said yes it would be subtracted from the $20,400 that DLI contributed.  He said they had a total marketing budget of $68,500.  Of that amount $48,100 was being requested from the City and $20,400 would be contributed by DLI through cooperative advertising for a number of businesses and staffing contribution.

Commissioner Schauner asked if he was asking the City for an additional $6400 as part of this request to provide additional salary for staffing work Marquez would be doing on those projects related to the waterline.

Marquez said no.  He said Downtown Lawrence Inc. would contribute $14,000.  Looking at the type of marketing and advertising that DLI wanted to do, DLI should get $10,000 in cooperative advertising dollars from Downtown businesses.  Also, during those meetings it was felt that DLI should list the time DLI was spending on this project and assign a dollar amount to that time which was $6,400.  Adding that to the $14,000 contribution from Downtown Lawrence Inc. and from members buying into cooperative advertising, it will come to $20,400.  The request from City was $48,100.

Ron Culvert, Vice President/General Manager of KLWN/KLZR and KMXN, said he had been in Lawrence for about a year and half and had tried to do everything he could do to make sure that they do what was best for the community in general.  He knew the City and tax dollars were going to improve the downtown with the new waterlines.  He said a better way to go about this marketing endeavor would be to let the radio stations and hopefully the other media in town come together.  He said instead of using another $48,000 in tax dollars, he suggested letting the media come together and come up with a solution so they could give back to the community because he did not feel it was right to use tax dollars to help businesses because of something they were trying to improve.  From the standpoint of the radio stations, he would donate air time, promotions, and news stories for downtown owners.  He said if there were other areas in town that they ran into that had those problems, they needed to help everyone because if they set a precedent at this location, then later a lot of tax dollars would go to buying advertising.  He said tax dollars should be used to continue to improve the community.  The media should get together with Downtown Lawrence Inc. to come up with comprehensive plan to help the community in general.

Commissioner Schauner asked how Corliss arrived at $2,400 in the staff recommendation.

Corliss said he had a little bit of difficulty completely understanding the scope that DLI was discussing, but he did see some items that were not as worthy of funding as others including the event sponsorship and the advertising for the public benefit of the waterline.  He thought he expressed in the memorandum the concern about the precedent.  While they could distinguish this project from other projects, he knew he had animated discussions with property owners about the inconvenience that public projects had on their property and he had told those property owners the City did not pay for that inconvenience.  Staff would work with the business owner and contractor to minimize that inconvenience, but it might be more difficult for customers to get to that business.  He said he had to contrast that with the fact that in this situation parking was being taken away and construction was a lot closer to the businesses than almost any other project he could think of. 

He said the Commission needed to look at the proposal, recognizing the precedent concerns he had and cut the proposal in half.  Staff’s focus on this project was to get this project moving and be ready to go as soon as graduation was over, have a good qualified contractor, look at the incentives which staff had included, and know the City had a good staff that was on top of the project.  He said the main issue was to get the project completed.  He thought it was fair to look at assistance, but staff needed to be mindful of the amount.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if the cost of the project was increased when the work order was changed to speed up the project.

Corliss said no, it did not increase the amount when two blocks were being done at one time, but because there were liquidated damages in the project and there were expectations about the completion of the project, the rate payers were paying a premium, which was justifiable to get this project done as quickly as possible.

Vice Mayor Hack said the incentive to speed the project up was the public at large.

Corliss said yes, if the contractor qualified for incentives.  The key was to get this project done at a quality level and expeditiously as possible and staff was focused on that idea and thought it was appropriate to have that level of incentives given the importance of this project and the inconvenience on those properties.

Commissioner Rundle said this area was a big sales tax generator and wanted to know how much was offset if they did not address concerns to get people to go downtown and keep spending money.  

Corliss said this project was affecting 2 major blocks of retail component of the community and he thought it was important to have that assistance, but he had difficulty in knowing what level to fund that project and the impact would be.  They were not shutting the businesses down, but they were making it more inconvenient for people to shop there at most times. 

Commissioner Highberger said the memo summarized the issue well in that this project was a unique situation.  They were not only inconveniencing the downtown businesses, but people who used downtown.  He was intrigued by the prospect of giving City money and knew that time was of the essence.  He would be willing to defer this issue for two weeks to work things out with DLI and the media and if something could not be worked out in a couple of weeks, he would be ready to approve the amount Corliss suggested in the memo.

Commissioner Rundle said often times the City Commission approved up to a certain amount and if that amount could be brought down by that type of effort that would be great.

Corliss said Lisa Patterson, Communications Coordinator, would to talk to KLZR about free time and advertising.  He said if the Commission thought that funding an amount was appropriate, the Commission needed to understand that the first effort should be to get the free time and the advertisement and use the City’s existing marketing efforts whether it was Channel 25 and look at opportunities to step that effort up.  

Vice Mayor Hack asked if Commissioner Rundle’s proposal would be up to the amount that Corliss suggested.

Commissioner Rundle suggested to authorize that amount, but if the amount could be brought down that would be good.

Vice Mayor Hack said her preference would be to help because they had inconvenienced a number of businesses in this community.  She liked the staff’s proposal of up to $24,000 and encouraged the cooperation with the local media to begin some additional advertising.

Commissioner Schauner said he would like to condition whatever the City spent on a 50/50 match with DLI.  DLI suggested they were wiling to spend up to $20,000.  He said he was suggesting to spend up to $20,000 with a dollar for dollar match with DLI, up to, but not to exceed $20,000.  He said that number came from DLI’s offered participation as opposed to Corliss’ number.  He did not have a problem with $24,000, but would like a dollar for dollar share up to $20,000 and he also liked the idea of working with the media.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to authorize spending not more than $20,400 on a dollar for dollar match with DLI expenditures for the items listed in the marketing campaign memorandum from DLI.   Aye:  Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay:  None.  Abstain:  Amyx.  Motion carried.

Commissioner Schauner said what was more important in the longer term than this marketing piece was the fire line installation downtown.  He would really like to make sure that every business, whether they opt to ultimately install sprinklers or not, have the line installed.  He said it had to be cheaper to do it now than retrofitting that line later.  He said the per line costs in the aggregate should not be a budget buster on this project.   He said he did not know if they needed to do a no interest loan, but he would like to see some specific details to provide a specific incentive to sprinkle their building then the Commission had done a terrific service to downtown and to the community.

Corliss said it was important to hear from the Utility Department and the concern they had about installing a fire line that was not used within a certain period of time and its integrity by sitting there over the years. 

He said staff had been in contact with property owners over the years on this issue.  He said staff wanted to, on a case by case basis, work with those property owners to install the fire line even though the property owners might not want to install the fire sprinkler systems at this time and find ways to reduce those costs and think about the idea of a payment plan.  If those properties did not want those sprinkler systems now, staff was not so certain that it was wise to go ahead and install the fire line.

Chris Stewart, Acting Utilities Director, said there were 11 working days to date and 24 working days remaining on the east side.  The contractor was on schedule and looked like he was moving fast in terms of getting the 1200 feet of pipe installed in those two blocks.  He said there was a lot of work left to do with the electrical system and with individual service transfers, pressure testing, and disinfecting the waterline.  There were still approximately 4 weeks of work left on that site and the contractor was on schedule.

In terms of the fire line issue it would cost about $6,500 to put in a fire service line from the main to the inside of the building about 6 inches and then cap it.  Later, they would have the businesses install a fire sprinkler system if the business chose to install that system. The timeline would be 5 year period.  Staff really did not want to put in a line and let it sit and do absolutely nothing because the integrity of that line would be in question after a certain period of time.  It really did not make much difference on how they were going to install the line because they would just make a tap to the existing waterline and install the main into the building and the plumber connected the line inside the building and puts in the fire sprinkler system.  He said that needed to be done during the evening hours.  If a number of business owners decided on the fire line program, it would take approximately 7-8 months to do that work since they could only do that work during the night time hours because they did not want to close the sidewalk everyday. 

As indicated in the memo, they were proposing a $3,000 cost that the business owner would pay for the materials and the City would donate the labor in order to install that line.  He said staff would like direction on whether on not to proceed with this idea.  If yes, staff would meet with business owners on an individual basis and staff would have an application available for the property owner to sign off on indicating that the property owner understood they needed to install a fire sprinkler system in accordance to NFPA requirements for that particular business within a five year period. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if those lines would be pressurized fire service lines.

Stewart said no.  Staff would install the tapping valve and a sleeve on the existing main and extend the pipe into the basement and valve off that line at that point.

Commissioner Schauner asked why an unused fire line was any more prone to suspect of serviceability than the waterline that was being tapped.

Stewart said when placing a piece of pipe in the ground and no water was flowing through that pipe, over time the pipe would deteriorate, but he did not understand the concept of why that would happen.  The integrity of the pipe itself did come into question after time.  He said if leaving a pipe installed for 10 years before someone was ready to install a fire sprinkler system, then 10 years of service life would be already taken out of that fire line which would have an impact when installing that fire sprinkler.  

Mayor Amyx asked if metals in the ground would have an effect on the copper pipe.   

Stewart said yes.  The minerals in the soil would deteriorate the piping.

Commissioner Schauner said he assumed some sort of diode would be attached on those lines as well.

Stewart said no.  He said most water systems did not have that protection.  In fact, with electrical service lines a lot of grounding systems in buildings and homes were attached to the water service and there were times that would corrode existing pipeline or service going into that building or home.

Commissioner Schauner said whatever was decided, he wanted to make sure it was made affordable to people to incentivize putting those fire lines in now.   

Corliss said this issue should be seen as part of the entire budget package.  Also, installment plans had been discussed with those business owners.

Vice Mayor Hack said regarding the waterline installation, she said if they lost one of those buildings, the community would lose a significant part of community history, not to mention the lives that could be lost by the spread of fire.   

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to direct Downtown Lawrence, Inc., to proceed with marketing assistance during the downtown waterline project; direct staff to work with the media to help provide media coverage as a way to assist downtown marketing efforts during the waterline improvement project downtown Massachusetts Street; and, receive the status report on downtown waterline project and fire line improvements to businesses.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                   (33)

 

RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION

The Mayor proclaimed June 7-11 as “World War II Army Ranger Days”; June 8^th as “Dump the Pump Day” and Proclaimed the month of June as “Lawrence Native Plant Appreciation Month”.

 

REGULAR AGENDA (cont’d)

 

 

 

Receive public comments related to the 2007 budget.

Mayor Amyx called a public hearing related to the 2007 budget.

After receiving no public comment, Mayor Amyx said the Commission met various times during a four to five month period and now was the time the Commission considered any and all projects.  He said the Commission tried seeking out as much public comment as possible and hoped that some day everyone would be more involved in the budget process, but there would be future opportunity. 

He said a correspondence from the Lawrence Preservation Alliance was received and hoped the Commission had an opportunity to review that correspondence.                       (34)

Consider the action plan related to UPR-09-06-05:  Lawrence Community Shelter.

Mayor Amyx said a lot of time had been spent addressing this time over the last six months.  The item before the Commission was the Lawrence Community Shelter’s action plan as one of the conditions that was placed on the use permit and whether or not the City Commission believed the action plan met the spirit of that condition.

Lisa Pool, City/County Planner, presented the staff report.  During the City Commission’s March 14, 2006 meeting, the Commission recommended the approval of the UPR-09-06-05 for the Lawrence Community Shelter, subject to several conditions.  She said Condition No. 4a stated the Shelter should submit an action plan within 60 days of March 14^th to address Options 1 and 2 listed in the March 9^th memorandum.   The LCS submitted an action plan within 60 days which was submitted on May 10^th.  The Shelter had chosen Option 2 in their action plan. 

Loring Henderson, Director of Lawrence Community Shelter, said he would like to make a brief statement about the effort LCS put into their Action Plan.  To develop the action plan, the Shelter held three public forums at the Public Library and had proposed a series of follow-up actions and meetings to continue discussion with the neighbors to discuss security measures, traffic control, and to finish the completion of their good neighbor agreement.  The LCS would also work with Community Cooperation Committee which had been appointed by the Community Commission on Homelessness. 

He said relevant to the conditions that were in staff’s letter of March 14^th, he read Roman Numeral II which stated the following:

II.         Maintain the LCS property in good condition.

 

A.        Instruct all guests that persons are not permitted to lie or sit for an extended period of time on the front property of the LCS. 

B.         Guests are permitted to sit, stand and congregate on the front porch of the shelter.  

C.        The LCS will provide picnic tables and cigarette disposal containers for guests. 

D.        Daily pick up and maintenance of the LCS property will occur as follows:

 

1.         Clean up all trash, cigarette butts and other litter around the LCS property. 

2.         Remind guests that all bicycles are to be parked at the bicycle rack on the side of the LCS. 

3.         Prevent animals from being tied to trees, railings, parking meters or other structures on the LCS property. Guests will be educated on city ordinances regarding animals. Verbal reminders will be given, and then Animal Control will be called. 

5.         Prevent guests or persons receiving services at the LCS to congregate, sit or lay down in the alley. 

6.         Prohibit extended parking of seldom used or broken-down vehicles. 

7.         Continue LCS monthly neighborhood clean-up.

 

He said in connection to one of the points as far a preventing guest to congregate in the alley, there had been for several years a small cement wall along the edge of the City parking lot, on the edge of the alley.  In discussions with the City, that wall was torn down approximately 10 days ago and it would no longer be a congregating place.

In addition, one of the concerns was trespassing on neighborhood property and one way to control trespassing was to place a fence on the north side of the driveway that lead across the street to a neighbor’s property which would totally prohibit pedestrian traffic as a way of trying to help.  A former City Commissioner suggested using CDBG money to place fencing on one of the neighbor’s properties.  The idea of using CDBG money was that this was a community issue and problem and CDBG was community money.  

Other sections of the action plan were:

III.       Inform community that LINK is open on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday from 12 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.  Guests will walk between the LCS and LINK at those times. The LCS will work with the First Christian Church and with LINK to address concerns of guests walking back and forth between LINK and the LCS.

 

IV.       Meet with the day and night supervisors for the Lawrence Police Department.

 

V.        Participate in and plan meetings with the Community Cooperation Committee and interested community members throughout the year, at a minimum one meeting in the spring and one meeting in the fall.

 

VI.       Inform community/neighborhood of contact information for the LCS and encourage contact of the LCS with any complaints/concerns. LCS pledges the anonymity of any communications made by neighbors.

 

A         Neighbors can email the Executive Director at the LCS website.

            (www.lawrenceshelter.org) or at loring@lawrenceshelter.org.

 

B.         Neighbors can call the Executive Director at the LCS.

            Day – 785-832-8864 (8:00 am to 5:00 pm, every day)

            Night – 785-832-0040 (8:00 pm to 8:00 am, every night)

 

C.        Neighbors can write the Executive Director at the LCS, 214 West 10^th Street, 66044.

 

D.        To address complaints and concerns, the LCS requests neighbors provide the following information on all correspondence with the Executive Director:

 

1.         Name of Neighbor.

2.         Address of complaint/concern.

3.         Date of Incident.

4.         Whether Law Enforcement Authorities were notified.

5.         Description and/or name of individual involved.

 

E.                 LCS will have the phone book corrected to delete the Community Drop-In Center and to add the Lawrence Community Shelter.

 

He said the good neighbor agreement that had sections in it on property, conduct, behavior, and communications were all included in the Draft Action Plan. 

In addition, they were working with the neighborhood association and LINK to host a barbeque and block party. 

Vice Mayor Hack asked if Henderson would like to comment on the purchasing of furniture for the porch at the Shelter.

Henderson said the Shelter had installed a large metal awning, purchased picnic tables, and white picket fence sections for the patio area in the back.  The Shelter had a fundraiser in April and some of that money was earmarked for furniture for the patio, which had been purchased.  

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Brandy Sutton, a downtown business property owner, said LCS was instructed to create an Action Plan to address the issues which the neighbors had raised in the various Commission meetings.  She reviewed what the LCS had submitted as an action plan, which was basically what had been said for the past five years, along with the addition of a block party.  She could appreciate the spirit of the block party, but believed those resources could be better used. 

The LCS held community meetings, which were not well publicized nor well attended.  The true solution would be more money and a better facility, but regardless of where the LCS went, they were going to need an action plan.  Since LCS had failed to come up with a true action plan, she spent time and resources to create an action plan based on other communities’ action plans which had viable solutions to the never ending problems which had been created by LCS. 

Sutton’s Action Plan stated the following:

1)                  Shelter shall establish a written policy on management;

a)      This policy shall include:

i)    A List of offences, their consequences and how this is to be documented;

(1)        All staff should follow the same procedure regardless of individual (“guest”), time of day or staff member dealing with the complaint;

(2)        Currently it appears that their may be a list, however, it is not being enforced;

ii)                   The use of drugs/alcohol/intoxicants should be discouraged;

(1)               Individuals who engage in this behavior should only be permitted admittance to the shelter during extreme climate times (temperatures below freezing for at least 48 consecutive hours);  

(2)               Individuals who engage in this behavior should be permitted 48 hours of shelter use in order to attempt to persuade them to enter into a treatment program;

(a)      If the individual at any time changes their mind they may re-enter the shelter property to secure treatment services;

iii)                 LCS was established to be a temporary emergency shelter for Douglas County Citizens;

(1)               Those individuals who did not live/reside in Douglas County prior to becoming homeless shall not be allowed to use the LCS facilities;

(2)               Individuals who are Douglas County residents shall be permitted up to a maximum of 90 days use of LCS during any one calendar year;

(a)      During this 90 day period the “guest” must be actively:

(i)                  participating in job training;

(ii)                participating in the LCS work detail

(iii)               attending any meetings/counseling deemed advisable by the social worker at LCS

(b)      Each guest shall enter into a contract with LCS outlining their responsibilities to LCS in order to prevent miscommunication

iv)                 Each individual who is allowed to use the LCS facility shall complete an intake form.  The intake form shall include:

(1)               The individuals name

(2)               Last Know address

(3)               Date of birth

(4)               Sex

(5)               Place of birth

(6)               The needs which they have (medication, counseling, disability, etc.)

(7)               Any substance abuse problems which they have

(8)               Social Security Number

(9)               Identification Card and/or other proof of Douglas County residency

(10)           Each individual shall sign the intake form acknowledging that they are subject to a criminal background search to determine if there are any criminal warrants for their arrest or if they are a registered sex offender

(11)           A picture of the individual shall be taken and placed with the intake form to ease in the identification of individuals who are allowed to use LCS services

(12)           The LCS shall submit these intake forms to the police department, sheriff department or other agency for screening on a daily basis

v)                  LSC shall prohibit individuals who are registered sex offenders or have active criminal warrants from using the LCS facility at any time

(2)               The general appearance of the Shelter

a)      The current appearance of the shelter foster crime.  The Shelter will establish a “work detail”.  This would include: 

(1)   A list of all chores which need performed in and around the shelter including but not limited to:

(a)      Picking up trash/cigarettes

(b)      Caring for the yard

(c)      Sweeping the porch/patio areas

(d)      Caring for the flowers, etc.

(e)      Cleaning the facility

(f)        Doing facility laundry

(g)      Any other task deemed appropriate and/or necessary

(2)   How often these chores are to be performed

(3)   A sign up sheet to perform these chores.  Each individual who uses the shelter’s services shall be required to perform “chores” in, at or around the shelter for a fixed number of hours per day

b)      Install additional exterior lighting.  This can be accomplished by contacting KPL and having mercury vapor lights installed in the alley ways surround the shelter and across the street.  The cost of these lights is minimal and usually added as a monthly charge on the electric bill

c)      Installation of security system

A continued theme at the shelter is they lack staffing to enforce the rules and things happen outside of their view.  The “guests’ are not willing to assist due to fear of retaliation and intimidation, as present at this time.

(1)  The use of a recording camera system would allow a volunteer from inside the shelter to monitor activities occurring outside the shelter

(2)     This would also provide a record for the police to use if an accident should occur

(3)     This would also increase accountability of those outside of the shelter and diminish the “no one is watching” attitude present today                           

d)  The Shelter shall prohibit the following

i)          Loitering

ii)         Lying and/or sleeping in the yards of the premises

iii)                 Permitting pets to be tied up and/or unattended

iv)                 Bicycles from being stored anywhere other then the bicycle rack

v)                  Permit inoperable or seldom used vehicles from being parked on or near the premises

3)         Staff Training Program

a)  All staff and managers should be trained in the polices and procedures of the shelter 

i)          This should include review of the rules

ii)         Policies on enforcing the rules

iii)                 Management skills including how to enforce the rules

iv)                 Training with the police department to help identify potential volatile situations and appropriate use of 911

v)                  This would improve consistency between day and night staff, non existing at present time

4)                  Establish a procedure for documenting all “problems” and identifying those individuals causing the problems

a)      It has been shown that by establishing an identification system at a shelter it provide tighter controls

b)      This should include documenting and helping neighbors to identify individuals engaging in illegal/inappropriate behavior

c)      Create an incident log which shall include:

i)                    The name of the individual causing the complaint

ii)                   Date

iii)                 Time

iv)                 Description of incident

v)                  Who witnessed the incident

vi)                 Picture of individual if not already on file

vii)               Whether the police were called (case number if appropriate)

viii)              How the incident was resolved.

d)      A copy of any incident involving an LCS shall be placed with that guest’s intake sheet.  This shall aid in the tracking of problem guest.

5)                  Enter into an “Authorizing to Act as Agent” with the local police department.  This would empower the police to enforce the law on private property in the absence of a manager or staff.

6)                  Establish a “whistle blower” program

a)      This would allow shelter “guests” to provide information anonymously to shelter staff who could in turn provide the information to police.

b)      This allows a guest to provide information without fear of being intimidated or being retaliated against or of becoming known as a snitch.

7)                  Targeted approach to behavioral problems

a)      There are numerous individuals who “hang out” around LCS,  but do not use the services (some of which are known drug dealers)

b)      These people should be approached by a staff member, police officer and social worker

i)                    The officer shall advise that their presence is not welcomed unless they are engaged in a program or services at LCS

ii)                   The social care person shall attempt to encourage these people to enter into the program

iii)                 Should the individual refuse to enter into an LCS or other program, their name and identity should be documented to enable LCS workers to identify individuals who engage in this inappropriate behavior and placed in the LCS logs and/or with the guests intake form

8)                  A packet of information including pictures, names and/or other identifying characteristics shall be compiled of those individuals who have engaged in illegal/inappropriate behavior

a)      These packets should be kept at the LCS and updated regularly

b)      These packets should be available to neighbors and community groups to aid in the identification of persistent violators

9)                  Tactical approach for dealing with unacceptable behaviors

a)      Types of behavior targeted

i)        Obscene profane language

ii)       Throwing of rubbish on the ground

iii)     Willful obstruction of the alley way, street, or sidewalks

iv)     Causing alarm or distress

v)      Public urination

b)      Each individual who engages in this behavior shall be given one warning.  This warning shall be documented in the logs kept at LCS

c)      The individual that engages in this behavior shall be advised that should this behavior occur a second time during their use of the LCS facilities it shall result in a loss of services for a period of one month

d)      If the individual returns to LCS after any loss of services

i)                    The shall be required to engage in counseling to assist them with their behavioral problems

ii)                   Another incident shall result in permanent exclusion from services at LCS

10)              Tactical approach for dealing with substance/alcohol abuse.  Individuals who engage in use of alcohol or substance abuse surround the LCS property

a)      Shall be approached by an officer, social care worker and staff member

b)      Shall be advised of treatment options

c)      Given an opportunity to peacefully leave the area

d)      Shall be warned that should they return to this area they will be arrested for public intoxication or any other remedies available under the law

e)      LCS shall document this incident in the LCS logs

 

Again, she said LCS had not drafted a true Action Plan, but simply submitted what everyone had seen before and she suggested the City Commission look at serious Action Plan to address the problems. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if part of her document came from the shelter in Topeka.

Sutton said no.  The document was a culmination of several different projects and action plans that had won accommodation for decreasing drug trafficking in and around homeless shelters and other illicit behavior in high crime neighborhoods.  

Henderson said he believed the shelter submitted an action plan according to the way the wording was requested from the City Commission for the two options that were in the letter dated March 15^th. If the Commission would have asked for their operations or procedures manual, that would have been part of their submittal. 

Most of the items in the LCS action plan submitted by Sutton were standard practice at the shelter and already implemented.  He wanted to specifically point out that Item 7 said “targeted approach to behavioral problems” and plan mentioned individuals who hung out around LCS, but did not use the services and should call the police.  The LCS was in a working conversation with police regarding drug dealers in the immediate neighborhood.  It was an ongoing project and was not something the LCS had overlooked. 

In addition, he said the comment was made that the forums were not well publicized.  All of the landowners within 200 feet were notified, hand distributed flyers to over 300 residences and businesses within a four block radius from the shelter, and individual calls were made, but the forums were not well attended.

Sharilyn Wells, Project Acceptance, said she was concerned about homeless people and did not want neighbors to resent homeless people so much that it created a problem.

It was suggested by Sutton that if a person from the shelter did not participate in a program, that person should not be allowed at the shelter and she asked where that person should go.  There was no mental health building, no social detoxification, and no treatment center, the only place was the jail.  She said they had a similar problem at Project Acceptance where they had to turn someone away because the person was intoxicated, and that person was later found ran over in the alley.  She said she was not allowed to let people in if they were going to engage in unacceptable activities, and one man died under a bridge because of lack of water.  The consequences for people not having any place to lie down were serious.  She understood giving people consequences, but what were they going to do with those people? She understood that people did not want to feel like they were enabling people to continue in the destructive pattern, but there was a great deal of alcohol facilities in the downtown area and drugs were a problem.  She asked if Henderson and the LCS needed to be a quasi detoxification, mental health unit, and treatment center.  She said if person was turned away and not in a coherent state of mind and wander off in some other corner of the community, it accomplished nothing. 

She said she appreciated the many hours people had worked on this issue, but they had to think about “then what.”  If a person was mentally unstable or addicted and that person could not behave and was kicked out of the shelter, it would not accomplish anything. 

Bob Oderkirk, President of Downtown Lawrence Board, said after reading the Action Plan and activities drafted by LCS, Downtown Lawrence Neighborhood was not invited to those meetings.  They believed the Action Plan was not comprehensive and did not provide enough solutions.  He said the Commission had discussed indirect control of their citizens, for example the bar safety issue, and the LCS should be held to those same standards. 

Lynn Dawson, Community Cooperation Committee, said they wished to state their intent to coordinate communication among the Lawrence Community Shelter Board, staff and guests, and various business, nonprofit and residential neighbors as they worked to take an action plan into a working agreement where all parties had vested interest in seeing the agreement succeed.  The CCC supported the LCS and its neighbors in the process of developing such agreement in the hope of a resolution that could be defined and realized by all parties.  Further, the CCC would invite LCS and its neighbors to participate in the CCC’s process of developing community wide plans for dealing with concerns as they occur within the Lawrence community.

Phil Hemphill, Lawrence, said an 8 foot fence would not stop traffic.  He said 30 years ago he was an appraiser for General Services Administration and had a boss whose philosophy was, “An ounce of image is worth a pound of performance any day of the week.” He said the LCS Action Plan did not solve any problems and scheduling more meetings, was not going to solve those problems.  The LCS was not going to come up with penalties against their clients and they had steadfastly refused to issue penalties, in the past, to curb the antisocial and unlawful behavior, and they were not going to do it in the future.  He said he was past being fed up and was angry.  Again, he wanted to know how many more meetings needed to take place before something happened. 

Eileen Strong, downtown business owner on Massachusetts, said LCS frequented her business downtown.  She said she had her own ideas about an alternative model for homelessness.  She said what she had seen and heard in discussion, she understood the problems and her heart bled for both sides.  However, she heard a very stereotypical view of what a homeless person looked like.  She said as an educator for many years in the lower socioeconomic area, she dealt with homeless families and began to deal with homeless individuals.  What she saw now among the homeless individuals were totally different types of people.  She saw a certain number of well educated, cultured, refined, polite, helpful, homeless individuals along with a group of people seeking homelessness as an alternative lifestyle.  She thought those individuals with the capacity to move on suffered greatly under the current model.  She said with the current model, Henderson did the best he could, but how can Henderson serve those who had the potential to move on and those who chose to have no potential.  She said as they looked at this issue at hand, and hopefully considered alternative models in the future, that they not group all homeless into drug using and alcoholic derelicts.  She said that was not the case with all homeless and those people were suffering because they were unable to improve their situation in life and become members of the community and could possibly help with this problem, having been there.

Herman Leon, Lawrence, said at the last meeting, a request was made to initiate citizen input concerning an action plan which resulted in a series of meetings which were not well attended, but well publicized.  He said there were very many constructive recommendations that were made at those meetings, including the recommendations made by Henderson which would be a major change on how the City could approach the issue of trespassing downtown which was taking advantage of block grant funding to put up attractive, City owned, fencing in such a way that people’s private property could be enjoyed.  He said that was a proposal that nobody seemed to object to, but the proposal was not getting any traction because everybody seemed to think that nothing could be done and meetings were useless.   

He said the LCS block party was part of an educational program where they were enlisting their guests to act as hosts to anyone from the neighborhood who was willing to come down to enjoy free food prepared by a lot of volunteers.  Those volunteers wanted to participate to help create a climate downtown where there was less fear, anger, rage, and the possibility of development of community spirit.  He said all of those things were happening because of the Commission’s request.  He said it was good to recognize when progress was being made, which was what they were hearing. 

Mayor Amyx said they were discussing conditions on a use permit in which the Commission granted a 1 year approval of that permit for the LCS to be at that location.  He said the Commission appreciated all the comments that had been brought forward by both sides. 

The Commission had asked LCS to come up with action plan and right, wrong, or indifferent, LCS came up with a plan.  He said it needed to be understood that there were too many people at one location and it would be hard to run a full blown program at that location with the number of people LCS was trying to serve.  During the next 7 months, it should be determined if the location was appropriate.  He said that neither side was going to get everything they wanted, but one part of the Commission’s job was to come up with a compromise.  He said he believed there had been an attempt to write an action plan and hoped there would be discussions over the next few months on the future of LCS. 

Commissioner Highberger said it was time to act on the idea of a better facility and suggested including that idea in the Commission’s budget discussions.  He said he had attended one of the meetings and thought there was a good effort to address the concerns of the Commission.  He said at the last City Commission meeting, he suggested that no one would be allowed to sit outside the LCS in which he regretted that comment.  He said the action plan took a good step toward meeting the concerns of the neighborhood while respecting the dignity of the people at the shelter.  He appreciated that effort and agreed the plan was not perfect, but he supported Action Plan drafted by LCS.

Vice Mayor Hack said she appreciated the comments made by Commissioner Highberger on balancing the neighborhood and existing business needs with the dignity of the residents.  She thought progress was being made with this difficult situation.  She agreed with Mayor, the best avenue was to look for increased space and the ability to handle the incidents that needed the most care.  She appreciated the work and believed the Action Plan moved this issue forward.

Commissioner Schauner said a lot of the detail was missing in LCS Action Plan along with the word “accountability” which was not in their action plan.  He said he did not know what level of accountability was required of guests at the shelter, but would feel a lot better about an action plan that had some measurable and enforceable accountability.  He thought it was fair to the people who lived nearby and for the people who wanted to stay at the shelter for one reason or another.  He said if he was staying at the LCS and people were acting inappropriately and there was no accountability against those people, he would feel he was not getting the kind of treatment he deserved as a guest of the shelter as well. 

He agreed the current shelter was too small and too close to many residents.  He said if a different location was going to be discussed at some point, one thing he thought the Commission should insist on was an accountable program; a program that had genuine accountability built into that program.   He said he wanted a more detailed plan, but not exactly what Sutton had presented, but something with a lot more detail so neighbors could understand the rules of the road.  He said he would really like to see accountability incorporated into the plan so that the Commission and other could see those accountability features.

He said Hemphill was correct in that a fence along the driveway would not seem to be a particularly effective deterrent.

Mayor Amyx asked what language Commissioner Schauner would like to place into the plan.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought he heard Henderson say that in the LCS’s policies were some of the ideas that Sutton had shared in her plan. If that wording was already in the LCS’s operational guidelines, then he would like to see it merged into their Action Plan.  In the meantime, he suggested that the Commission move forward with the idea of a different location.

Commissioner Rundle said he assumed the Community Shelter would be willing to continue their dialogue.  He said he was sorry there was such a level of frustration and the neighbors had not seen the progress that they had hoped to, but he believed they would get to that point eventually.  He said he recently attended a conference in which four subject areas had been identified where ideas were shared among communities for resolving issues such as homelessness.  At this point, there were successful programs and best practices options available.  He hoped the community would rely on the Community Commission on Homelessness to look at best practices and keep track of progress.   He was supportive of this effort to find a solution as they looked at the City’s budget and moved forward in the next couple of years.

Commissioner Schauner asked if some of the operational guidelines could be incorporated.

Henderson said the questions that were asked in the March 15^th letter were addressing what the board and staff were going to do about those issues.  He said they were not asked about the accountability of their guest.   He did not incorporate accountability into their Action plan because it was his accountability.  He said the LCS had accountability, actions and consequences, house rules, goals, intake sheets, and he would provide those rules and regulations to the City Commission.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Henderson would be willing to make those accountability measures part of their Action Plan.  

Henderson said yes.  He said he saw some tension because there were different types of accountability.                   

 Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve the Lawrence Community Shelter Action Plan as a condition of UPR-09-06-05 to include wording of detailed accountability of their clients at the shelter.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                    (35)

Consider items related to the proposed Salvation Army facility to .be located on the west side of Haskell Avenue between Lynn Street and Homewood Street.

 

a)       Consider Initiation of Rezoning for Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan first tier recommended for Salvation Army property from M-2 District to O-1 District or RMO (new development code district). Receive Staff report on zoning issue.

 

b)      Consider approval of site plan SP-03-27-06:  A site plan for a Salvation Army Community Complex to be located on the west side of Haskell Avenue between Lynn Street and Homewood Street.

 

Mayor Amyx suggested that a one hour time limit be placed on this agenda item.  There had been two meetings with the neighbors and the applicant which were well attended.  He said the adjoining neighbors suggested that a Use Permitted Upon Review be applied, which would be required under the new development code.  He suggested limiting comments from three to five minutes regarding this issue. 

Michelle Leininger, Planner, presented the staff report.  The plan was approved by the Commission on February 14^th and upon approval of the plan, staff asked that 5 first tier rezonings be initiated in which 2 of those rezonings were initiated.  Independence, Inc., which was south of the Salvation Army site was given more time to consider the rezoning.  Independence Inc. site had moved forward and the rezoning item would be before the City Commission next week. 

At the March 28^th Commission meeting, the initiation for the Salvation Army was deferred to allow City staff, Salvation Army, and neighbors to come to consensus on some of those issues.  Two meetings had taken place on April 10^th and May 3^rd, where the neighborhood and Salvation Army proposed conditions, but there was no consensus. 

Staff recommended that instead of rezoning from an O-1 District in the current code, to rezone to RMO District in the development code because the Salvation Army and staff decided the zoning would be based on the purpose of description in the code and was more appropriate and because it was a more restricted that the O zoning district.  It would transition appropriately into a dense manufacturing district to the north and west.  Staff was requesting the property be rezoned to RMO.

Mayor Amyx said if the initiation was approved by the City Commission, he asked when this issue would be taken to the Planning Commission.

Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said July would be the earliest.

Wes Dahlberg, Lawrence Salvation Army Administrator, said they were requesting the City Commission not initiate down zoning of the Salvation Army’s property at Haskell and Lynn Streets as suggested by the Burroughs Creek Corridor Planning Committee. 

Mayor Amyx called for public comment. 

Matt Tomc, President of the Woods on 19^th Street Homeowners Association, said the issue was not whether or not this facility should be located on Bullene, but related to the land use reforms contained within the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan and also the new development code.  He said he thought they saw a little bit of a contrast between the types of process they had and the types of process that were afforded to other neighborhoods.  He said they did not have an adequate amount of time to develop and address those issues that were of a concern to the neighborhood.  He said there should not be two sets of rules for different neighborhoods.  He knew there were all types of legal explanations and being a lawyer he understood.  The City Commission was not just a judge, but also policy makers and he asked the City Commission to look at the big picture. 

He said some of the families that lived in The Woods were present and one of the planning goals of that project was to bring new young families into the area.

He said he was not present to speak against the Salvation Army because they provided needed services to the needy in the community.  He wanted everyone to keep in mind the ends did not always justify the means.  The issue was the important land use codes contained in the Burroughs Corridor Plan and their development code and they wanted those codes to be upheld and implemented by the City Commission.  The rezoning that was offered with the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan would allow a shelter facility, but would allow a Use Permitted Upon Review process. 

He said the Salvation Army wanted was to see the rezoning be denied from the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan; and a 2 year variance into the new code, and the vehicle designed to accomplish that would be the use of a site plan to grandmother the Salvation Army over and to hold onto those rights and privileges in the old code and carry them into the new code, in which the Woods objected to.  The Salvation Army also wanted the City Commission to reconsider the condition that was placed on the renewal last year of no further extensions which seemed unequivocal.  He said he wanted it noted that if the plan was accepted, the ongoing review the Commission had with a UPR with periodic reviews, although a painful process, it would reach a compromise on issues which would no longer be available once the facility was built and the Commission would lose that ability to have that oversight and accountability that Commissioner Schauner was speaking about. 

In exchange for what was requested by the Salvation Army in their discussions, they were offered commitments that were attached to a construction site plan which was not adequate to address the neighbor needs and was a rather a novel idea, the conditions were drafted by the Salvation Army and they did not have the process to merit out which conditions were good and bad.   He said he was at a loss to figure out how this would be enforced in the same manner a UPR would be enforced.

He said last year the Salvation Army was in contact and negotiations with Kansas Department of Corrections concerning the housing of parolees which was reported in the newspaper and could not be denied.  He said the Commission planned this area in the interim when this whole Salvation Army process started with an eye toward attracting families and providing affordable housing.  He said a process needed to be identified that examined the appropriateness of that type of use and in the future.  That revelation was in total contradiction to the previous descriptions of the nature of that facility by the Salvation Army.  He said the idea was not well received by the Woods or the East Lawrence neighborhood.  In fact, at the first meeting where they discussed the shelter and at that time they were under the impression that it was a family oriented facility and there were very little objections or concerns at that point.  Those concerns now about the safety of the children and people in the neighborhood were now more acute with the parolee controversy. 

Regarding those discussions, the Woods had participated in good faith along with other neighbors.  He said if they were going to discuss this issue in the future, various members of the City Commission, including the Mayor, had taken certain positions on the homeless issue and it was  important that they had a neutral third party so it would give the process a little more of a real sense of a mediation process.  He said the special use permit process was the preferable method and they did not need a separate, but equal type of different processes for different neighborhoods and he suggested that they had access to the same processes as everyone else would. He said they wanted full participation in a meaningful forum.  He thought they needed to stop working against neighbors in certain projects that were controversial such as this project, but instead try to work together.  He thought the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan should be honored, rezonings, and the land uses in the new development code because they were valid. 

In every town in this country, there were wrong side of the tracks, other side of the river, or the bottoms.  Those were arbitrary distinctions and in certain places blight and poor urban planning would be seen, especially when compared to traditionally more affluent areas.  The areas that had poor planning would typically include a demographic of younger families, working class families, and more of a multicultural demographic.  He thought East Lawrence was no different.  He said the Revitalization Plan, such as the Burroughs Plan and the Redevelopment Code brought much needed reform.  He said East Lawrence neighbors were gaining a seat at the table and were very important to the community as a whole.  He said they wanted equal access to the process designed to protect neighborhoods and did not think it was appropriate or fair, because an area was poorly planned traditionally because of one reason or another that neighbors were denied access to certain processes.  He said he did not think the Commission should grant exceptions for the new code because it was bad public policy and he thought that was being requested.  The Woods homeowners stood together along with other neighborhood groups in East Lawrence.   

Again they were not condemning the Salvation Army for wanting to help people in the East Lawrence area, but they could not agree with the problematic site plan.  They asked that the City Commission honor the condition imposed last year that there be no further extensions; move forward with the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan rezoning; and adopt the new development code without exception.  He said there had been two years of an ability to build a facility without any restriction and dwelling on the old code needed to be stopped and move forward.  He asked the Commission to initiate the rezoning and deny the site plan until a special use permit was issued.  

Gwen Klingenberg, President of Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said there were two main points she wanted to make.  First, you could not condition or eliminate uses in a site plan; and second, the site plan being considered for the Salvation Army was too deficient to allow it to conform to the section on transitional provision 20-110b in the new code.  Any use or development activity for which a complete application was submitted to the City before the effective date and pending approval on the effective date may at the applicant’s option be reviewed wholly under the terms of the development code and effective immediately before the effective date.  If approved, such uses or development activity may be carried out in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of the application. 

The thinking of the Salvation Army was that by accepting a site plan tonight, it would allow them to continue without a Use Permitted Upon Review in the new code because the site plan would qualify as a development activity under Section 20-110b of the new code.  First of all, you could not condition the site plan in a way that conditions permitted uses, which was what the Salvation Army was trying to do.   A Site plan was a designed ordinance and dealt with things like landscaping, drainage, location of access and the like.  A site plan could not eliminate or restrict permitted uses in a conventional district. Conditional zoning of uses, meaning allowance of some permitted uses and not others was not legal in Kansas and conventional zoning districts unless the use in question required a UPR.  The process was important because a UPR allowed those uses to be conditioned in the variety of ways that made them more compatible with existing uses.  Trying to condition a site plan in the same way as a UPR, in a way that effected which uses were permitted and adds conditions to them that were not already required by the zoning districts would be wishful thinking, but not legal and not enforceable. 

The site plan alone was not ordinarily a complete application that qualified for a building permit and therefore could not be considered as a use or development activity that would allow the plan to be carried over into the new code under the provision of transitional Section 20-110b.  A complete application included all of the information needed to qualify for a building permit, in this case, a plat and the additional information required of this particular site plan to make it conform to regulations.  The site must be at least platted before it would qualify.  The plat must conform to a development, not present plans or plats from past decisions. 

In the zoning code 20-1428, site plan approval, development means any man made change to improved or unimproved real estate including but not limited to the construction or placement of building, structures, or other man made fixtures or the paving of ground or any combination of those.  Development did not include filling, grating, or excavation.  The definition of development activity was any human made change to premises including, but not limited to, the erection on conversions, expansions, reconstructions, renovation, and so forth, but required substantial construction changes. 

Complete application was explained under Article 5, building and occupancy permits of the present code.  A recorded plat of the subdivision or a ratified lot split was made available for the builder’s official examination; required public improvements had been substantially completed to provide for adequate occupancy of subdivision, a certification by a licensed engineer or land surveyor and there had been compliance with this regulations and conditions of a plat approval. 

Also, K.S.A. 12-764, approval of site plan, did not in itself vest any right.  Approval of a site plan did not in itself invest any rights under K.S.A. 12-764, rights vested only after the related building permit was issued and substantial construction had begun in reliance on the permit.  Rights in the entire site plan shall vest under K.S.A. 12-764 upon timely issuance of an initial building permit and completion of construction in accordance with that building permit or upon timely completion of substantial site improvements and reliance on the approved site plan. 

Since all of the above showed the site plan did not constitute a use or development activity and was not a complete application on its own, a site plan approved tonight did not meet the criteria stated in section 20-110.  Therefore, a site plan presented may not be carried out in accordance with the standards in effect at the time of the application. The site plan could not be grandfathered using section 20-110.

Beth Ann Mansur, Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, said their neighborhood felt the Salvation Army was abandoning its responsibility to the homeless.  The Salvation Army wanted to change the direction of their business and focus on a specific population of homeless people, the rest of the population they were leaving with no plan in place to address their situation.  Secondly, the City had no plan in the works to care for that population.  It was no secret that no one wanted a homeless shelter in his or her neighborhood.  Yesterday’s newspaper article covered some of the hassles that occur, yet it was also no secret that downtown Lawrence and the Chamber, the powers at be of Lawrence, did not want a homeless shelter downtown, but downtown was where the shelter should be.  The homeless were attracted to downtown areas.  It had been going on for decades and would continue to go on.  Abandoning those people by the Salvation Army and the City away from downtown was not going to rid downtown of homeless people. 

Those problems that had never been adequately addressed were: 1) what to do with homeless that did not work with Salvation Army’s new format; and 2) the discussions with the Kansas Board of Corrections about parolee housing.  They needed the use permitted upon review.  She said when she asked Mayor Amyx at the second meeting with the Salvation Army about how enforceable were conditions attached to a site plan and the Mayor replied that those conditions were not enforceable and that a new City Commission could void everything.  She said Mayor Amyx stated in yesterday’s newspaper, when commenting about the neighbor’s concerns with the Lawrence Community Shelter, that it was important to remember that permits had conditions and special uses that were to be met.  They wanted the neighborhood’s concerns addressed and what to see the right thing to happen.  The right thing to happen would be to listen to the neighborhoods.  She said they needed the Commission to approve the rezoning and deny consideration of the site plan until a special use permit was issued. 

She presented a petition to City Commission that had signatures from businesses and homeowners concerned about trespassing, vandals, and the property values.  Since this chart was made, they had three more houses on Homewood sign and two more businesses in the shopping center at 19^th and Haskell Avenue.  The petition stated: “We the undersigned property owners, business owners, and/or residents of Brook Creek Neighborhood, Barker Neighborhood, and adjoining neighborhoods including the Woods, urge the City Commission to initiate rezoning of the Salvation Army site at Haskell Avenue and Lynn Street to O-1 (Office District), as called for in the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan.  Please rezone the property before the new City zoning code took affect.  Also, we urge this rezoning take place before any new site plan is granted and that any site plan approval be deferred until after the new City zoning code takes effect.  While the facility with a church, offices, gym, and live in rehabilitation may be acceptable, they objected to any homeless transient shelter or community meal program being allowed there.  These two uses would attract vagrants to their neighborhood with the likelihood of trespass and inappropriate use of their parks.  Whatever the Salvation Army does there, they want the same right as the use permit process that the Oread Neighborhood and the Downtown Neighborhood have with the Lawrence Community Shelter.  Two years ago, they were denied the standard UPR process because of a loophole.  Their neighborhoods deserve the same right that the Salvation Army complied to conditional uses and periodic review of those conditions.  She asked to close the use permit loophole by rezoning now and deferring site plan approval.” 

Michael Almon, Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, said just as a preface, he was sure that the comments that Klingenberg made had not been overlooked by one of the best land use attorney’s in Lawrence or City staff and they probably had some legal answers because there were lots of legal interpretations and gray areas; and possibly those types of questions would need to be resolved in court, but he hoped it would not get to that point.   The reason he stated that was because he had facts to point out that he felt rendered a site plan as inappropriate and unenforceable and reasons why the rezoning was the way that would not only benefit the neighborhood, but also the Salvation Army.      

The site plan method had been a foiled or a diversion, and not only never practically workable for land use controls, but was also illegal by Kansas law.  On the 23^rd of February this year there was a four page, very detailed, legal letter submitted by the Salvation Army’s attorney, Mr. Zinn, listing his interpretation of how the code would work and staff had used some of those ideas in developing their site plan review and zoning recommendations.  They subsequently met with staff with the current acting director, the current acting City Manager, and the current planner for rezoning on March 3^rd and came up with the idea of how they would implement the vehicle by which they would be able to carry on with a transient shelter and a soup kitchen which was mentioned many times in both of those documents was why they were trying to take that course with the site plan.  Their expressed intent was to circumvent the UPR for various reasons, one of which had been stated a number of times that they were trying to avoid the controversy surrounding this issue because it could harm their fundraising.  Nevertheless, they said they were implementing this method to avoid the UPR.  The rezoning, therefore, had been side tracked for 115 days as a result. 

On February 14^th the City Commission approved the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan, which was approved by the Planning Commission and Burroughs Creek Advisory Committee unanimous approval rezoning of this site to O-2.  Both bodies chose that route so as to allow the Salvation Army to conduct their activities at that facility, but also to make sure there would be a UPR in place to simultaneously protect the neighborhoods.  The zoning was sidetracked at the March 28th City Commission meeting when the hearing was truncated and the idea of negotiating with the Salvation Army on the site plan was initiated.  The Salvation Army hoped to attach unenforceable commitments to the site plan.  When the Neighborhood Coalition from the East side proposed a set of legally worded, though still unenforceable, conditions at those negotiating meetings, the Salvation Army balked.  The Salvation Army wanted a site plan with something attached to it that would allow them to do what they wanted to do, regardless of what the neighborhood wanted.  In the Site Plan review minutes, Mayor Amyx specifically asked that the Salvation Army provide a quick response to the Neighborhood Coalition proposed conditions, but Salvation Army never did respond. 

The staff memo, in response to the neighborhoods coalition, indicated how a site plan could be enforceable, reviewed, who would be doing the reviewing, and on what basis.  In that staff memo, staff made a feeble attempt to address that agreement from May 3^rd for staff to explain legally how land use conditions on a site plan could be monitored, periodically reviewed, and enforced.  Staff gave a three sentence answer in their memorandum which was key to how the Salvation Army site plan supposedly would work.  The tool was a site plan performance agreement.   The three sentences basically stated the site plan would be notarized by the Mayor, signed by the applicant, and the neighborhood coalition would not be included.  The zoning enforcement inspectors “could” schedule inspections on a regular basis, not “shall” schedule inspections. 

The site plan performance agreement, Section 20-1433 of the City Code, was to specifically ensure a one time physical completion of all site specific requirements before an occupancy permit was issued.  He said after the requirements were met, the performance agreement would be history.  He said the site plan review was riddled with errors and the only way to go was to rezone.  He said surrounding land uses were identified as industrial uses, which was totally wrong.  All those uses were commercial and there was no manufacturing, which was determined in the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan and was one example of wrong statements in the site plan review.  Attachment A was the 9 item commitments from the Salvation Army and there was no Attachment B, which were the conditions from the neighborhood coalitions and were not included.  He said their conditions were central to their negotiating position, yet it was not included in the staff report.

The Site Plan review findings of fact referenced the old code Section 20-1448, the UPR exemptions for six specific land uses was the loophole that was used two years ago for the Salvation Army to gain their site plan.  The loophole that Commissioner Schauner questioned, and loophole the Commission made sure was not included in the new code.  He said staff relied on that thinking as the vehicle by which not having a UPR was grandmothered over to the new code.  He pointed out that in 2002, that section was amended.  Prior to that section being amended, it did not effect whether a rehabilitation center could or could not fall into that category which was not changed in the amendment.  Other things were changed in response to a recreation facility.  In the process other wording was changed.  In the second to the last sentence, it was indicated that if those uses were located in commercial or industrial zoning districts, the requirement for a Use Permitted Upon Review “criteria” shall not be applied.  In staff’s site plan review it indicated the requirement for a Use Permitted Upon Review shall not be applied and he asked where was the word “criteria.”  He said Salvation Army Council had put all their eggs in the wrong basket because he did not believe that loophole ever existed.  That was something that might or might not be determined in court, but he hoped they would not reach that point.  

He said the UPR was the only acceptable way to resolve the differences at hand.  The Salvation Army was entitled to protect their interest and they could use the code as long as they were using the code legally.  The City Code was not for the purpose of protecting the interest of one party, at the expense of another party.  Any zoning code was initiated as intended to be a vehicle to balance the interest of all parties.  If the Salvation Army was trying to avoid controversy, that was all good and fine, but that was not what the code was for.  Whether or not they agreed the Salvation Army had a code granted loophole and the City Commission had the power to close that loophole at this time.  They could rezone the property now to a use that required a UPR which they believed should be RM-1 or RM-1A as Burroughs Creek Plan called for which converted to CO or a PUD. He said they did not want the RMO zoning because they did not think it was a less intensive use as staff had indicated.  First of all it was the highest density and had all types of uses including sorority/fraternity houses, soup kitchens, and transient shelters.  It included a lot of different uses that they did not feel was appropriate for their neighborhood. 

The second part of what the Commission could do to close that loophole was to deny the site plan.  If the Commission denied the site plan and passed the zoning there would be the UPR.  If the Commission tried to go the site plan route, the Commission would open a can of worms and nothing would be resolved for a number of years.  He said this issue was a political decision the Commission would need to make.      

Aaron Brown, President of Brookcreek Neighborhood Association, said the new RMO zoning was a new twist that he was not familiar with from their earlier meetings, but by covering this issue on two separate parts, which was the proposed new zoning and separately the site plan, he asked if it was the Commission’s intention to initiate a new zoning now with the plan that zoning would apply to the new site plan or did the Commission expect that if a site plan was initiated, that it would happen under the old codes and continued forward.

Stogsdill said staff’s recommendation was to move forward with a rezoning consistent with the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan.  In consultation with Salvation Army representatives, it was felt that an RMO district was more appropriate than O-1 district that had originally been recommended by the committee.  Staff also recommended approval of the site plan.  Staff understood, through all of the years of work on the development code, that a site plan that was in process, before the development code became effective, could be executed under the old code.   An approval of a site plan would give the property owners a time period in which to construct that facility based on the site plan that was approved and the zoning would follow along.  

Brown said the short version was the new zoning had little effect on the validity of a given site plan that might be discussed because the site plan would come up and not be governed by the new zone.  The new zoning would apply if the proposed site plan went away, some new business came in for far in the future use of the zoning was his understanding.  He said with that idea in mind, Brook Creek Neighborhood’s position was in the general goal of adding more residential areas to the surrounding neighborhoods and to reduce the industrial zonings.  In short, the neighborhood would approve of down zoning away from industrial and down zoning to as low as they could get with the target of having a residential only area.  He said how that played into site plan issues and special use permits he would like to reserve the right to discuss those issues in part B, if there was a separate part B discussion.     

Mayor Amyx said all of those issues were intertwined and all those comments were being taken at one time.

Brown said again, whatever the City could do to add some neighborhood oversight on- going into the future, over the facility and the area was something the Neighborhood Association would be in favor of and it seemed the special use permit was written exactly for that purpose and would serve very well in this case that the site plan with corollary requirements did not seem to provide the level of enforcement and continuous attention to possible infractions that the neighborhoods would be concerned with.  He said in the interest of being able to monitor the site on-going in the future, they supported placing the site under Special Use Permit restrictions and not give a blank check for the site plan to do whatever it felt like doing.

Mark Cline said he would like to call for better accountability by the Lawrence Community Shelter.  He said Salvation Army should have its use permit reviewed by the City Commission annually.  He said for example, the Commission should weigh in especially if the Salvation Army flip flopped on housing felons.  If the Salvation Army was going to move to another location, the Salvation Army should give its existing building to the City so the City had complete control over the fate of that building.

The City Commission recessed at 8: 55.

The City Commission returned from recess at 9:03.

Dick Zinn, Salvation Army Planning Board, said the City Commission was being asked on one hand to promote the overall public welfare of the community which was a huge broad task and at the same time to balance that broad welfare with what was in the best interest of the entire community with neighborhoods and groups of people who had chosen to live in different parts of the community.  The neighborhood members had spoken and their concerns were legitimate and the Salvation Army tried to address those concerns for several years.  The Salvation Army had been looking for a new location to properly provide services to members of the community for approximately 5 years.  He said they had looked at over 20 sites and the site on Haskell was the site the Salvation Army selected, in large part because of the extraordinary generosity of the Scott family, to make that site available to the Salvation Army at a price they could reasonably afford to pay. 

He said concerning the zoning issue, Captain Dahlberg indicated the Salvation Army opposed the down zoning as recommended in the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan and they did.  He said that recommendation was O zoning.  However, they did not object to having the site rezoned to RMO.  He said RMO was a category that would become available with the new development code, July 1^st.  He said the SALVATION ARMY request was that their site plan be approved, that down zoning be initiated, and that the conditions they had suggested be attached to the site plan that incorporated a number of the suggestions made by the neighbors as they offered their suggested conditions.  He said they agreed that the conditions attached to the site plan be made conditions to the rezoning because under the new development code rezoning could be conditioned which had always been the case.  He said the concern that was expressed that the conditions had no enforceability would no longer be the case and an argument would lose any merit whatsoever, if those conditions were attached to the RMO rezoning, to which they agreed.  In effect, what the Salvation Army was suggesting was they would be willing to have those conditions totally and unquestionably enforceable as conditions to the RMO zoning. 

He said Salvation Army had been asked, and Captain Dahlberg would respond in discussions of the site plan issues on why not follow the UPR procedure? The UPR procedure had become to fast of a way of dealing with land use decisions.   The UPR concept was not a concept that allowed stability in land use. 

He said he talked to a lender about another project, totally unrelated to this issue, who said, on his own initiative, that they would require their appraiser to value this property significantly lower because it was under a UPR.  The loan value of that property was diminished significantly.  He said transport that idea to the Salvation Army tract. He said they were asking members of the community to give through their generosity, approximately 3 million dollars.  He said they were asking the community to give to the stability of a project they knew had some certainty.  The experience of the issue of the Lawrence Community Shelter and a short-term extension of a UPR only affirmed the lack of stability of a UPR process.  If however, the Salvation Army had the site plan approved, with the conditions attached, and the down zoning to RMO was initiated, made effective after the new development code came effective on July 1^st, those conditions would clearly be enforceable.  He said they would have enforceable conditions and a site plan that had been presented as new site plan with the conditions, with consistent adherence to the rules that existed two years ago when that site plan was first presented.  Those were rules, but some say those were loopholes.  He said those were rules that offered certainty and predictability and the Salvation Army followed those rules and they asked that those same rules be applicable subject to the willingness to go ahead with the RMO zoning so the conditions clearly would become enforceable.                         

Mayor Amyx said Zinn stated that conditioning the zoning was allowed following the new development code.  He said there were items that stood out with discussion from the adjoining neighborhood, which dealt with the soup kitchen, 7 day a week operation, change in the mission of the Salvation Army to a more family oriented situation, and the comments about the people who had been  incarcerated.  He asked if a conditioned zoning would take on the appearance of a legal responsibility of a UPR. 

Corliss said one of the differences was with a UPR the City Commission had the ability and procedures for revocation.  With conditions for zoning, if the conditions were violated, under the new development code they would be able to place on conventional zoning, and it would be a zoning violation if the condition was violated, but the Commission would not be able to revoke the use.  The UPR could also have some other aspects that were set out in the code.  

Mayor Amyx asked why was there all that discussion about how important it was to condition zoning under the new development code.

Commissioner Highberger said the City would need to seek an injunction.

Corliss said the City could take them to court and require the Salvation Army to follow the conditions which was a powerful tool and something the City could ensure there was compliance.  The ability for the City to condition zoning allowed the City to, tailor specific conditions that were not spelled out in the zoning code for a particular land use and establish criteria and conditions that made that zoning category more palatable than what was already spelled out in the code.       

Commissioner Schauner said if there was a violation of the zoning as conditioned, the remedy would be either voluntarily cease and desist or a court ordered injunction.  He asked about what remedy the court could order.  He asked if the court could order anything beyond ceasing and desisting from the activity which was prohibited by the condition attached to the zoning.

Corliss said the court would order compliance with the law which would mean the Salvation Army would need to cease the unlawful activity and was the City’s goal with the condition in the first place.  

Mayor Amyx asked about a UPR compared to a conditional zoning.   He said a UPR was something that a neighborhood would hold as that special tool to stop a function.

Corliss said the City would hold that tool.  If a UPR allowed a soup kitchen, as long as it met those general criteria and many cases the criteria would be established by a governing body and the City Commission would determine whether or not there were extraneous problems.  If the Commission made the determination, after appropriate notice, that those conditions were not being satisfied, the Commission, with the UPR could disallow the soup kitchen use.  With conventional zoning, the City Commission did not have that authority and the property would need to be rezoned to remove that use. 

Commissioner Highberger said in terms of enforcement, if the Commission were to revoke the UPR, they would be in the same situation of either voluntary compliance or court.

Corliss said correct.

Commissioner Schauner said the concern he had with the UPR was how effective it would be.  As they saw with the Lawrence Community Shelter was the discussion on some regular basis would be on some future City Commission meeting agenda.  Since this body would determine if the UPR would be granted an extension for some period of time.  He said whatever the length of the permitted use would be, the Commission would determine whether that UPR should be granted an extension or not, rather than asking a Court to enjoin some use which might otherwise be in violation on conditioned conventional zoning.

Corliss said it was part of Zinn’s illustration. The temporal nature of the UPR had a concern for the property owner and their ability to get financing, whether it was private financing or fundraising. 

Mayor Amyx asked if a conditional zoning would work the same as a UPR.

Corliss said that in some aspects the conditional zoning could work the same as the UPR, but he did not think the Commission had the ability to condition the zoning in such a way that the use that was allowed by that zoning disappeared.  The Commission could condition it so that certain uses were allowed with certain types of criteria.  There could be any number of different requirements, but to condition the zoning that was lawfully granted by the ordinance disappeared, the zoning ordinance should actually be changed

Commissioner Schauner asked if Zinn agreed with the interchange between Corliss and the Commission. 

Zinn said he thought it punctuated the observation that he made about the Salvation Army’s desire to have stability and predictability.  He said he thought that procedure would allow them to do that and at the same time, take the conditions that some had said were not enforceable and make those conditions enforceable.

Commissioner Schauner asked what level of down zoning would be appropriate.  He said he heard Zinn say there was a difference of opinion between what the neighborhood wanted in terms of what the down zone was to be as compared to what the Salvation Army wanted as a downzone. 

Zinn said the RMO zoning designation was a more appropriate because that zoning was more consistent with the existing neighborhood than RO-1 district.  He believed staff also agreed that would be a more appropriate zoning designation.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was anything in the O-1 zoning that would prohibit the Salvation Army from doing what it had indicated to the Commission that it had an interest in.

Zinn said he needed to look at the list of permitted uses in the O-1 district.

Stogsdill said when they had their discussion they were looking at the purpose statements.  The O-1 district would convert to a CO district and looking at the purpose statement for the CO district versus the purpose statement for the RMO, the RMO purpose statement described much more closely the types of activities the Salvation Army was intending to do on that property.  The O-1 district would create the ability to do a number of commercial uses on that site. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if both of those zoning categories under the new code and was it possible to condition the RMO district under the new code that would get it closer to the O-1 district and still satisfy the purpose statement of a RMO district. 

Stogsdill said O1 district was today’s code which would convert to the CO in the new code.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the RMO district could be customized to fulfill its purpose statement and yet get them back to what was presently called O-1 district and tomorrow, as of July 1, CO district.

Zinn said the Salvation Army was not concerned about ancillary uses.  The Salvation Army was dealing with the existing M-1 and M-1A zoning on this site, which had allowed the Salvation Army to be at the site planning process stage.  Those districts converted into uses that would not even allow a church, the IL and IG zoning categories under the new code’s conversion table.  Therefore, the Salvation Army did not think it was appropriate for the status quo to continue and to be converted into IL and IG zoning districts.  He said whether they rezoned to CO or RMO, it would not make a lot of difference because they were not concerned about the ancillary uses.  They knew, in the future, if they enlarged their use and it changed, the Salvation Army would need to seek a Use Permit Upon Review.  There was no question that the use they were seeking was related only to the Salvation Army Center and the Community Center.   If they changed those centers in the future, then they clearly understood they were subject to the UPR process.  He was not sure if it made a lot of difference to them, but believed that staff thought RMO was more appropriate, but the Salvation Army was willing, after July 1 when the new development code was in place, to mold, blend or create whatever hybrid designation that seemed appropriate.  He said they were not concerned about selling that land to someone who might be able to maximize the value of the property to its most intensive use. Their objective was to use the land for the Salvation Army’s purposes.

Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission felt it was appropriate to rezone that site to a CO zoning district category that that zoning could be conditioned so that in the event the Salvation Army project did not come to fruition, that site could revert back to some other category of residential use.   If they were going to accommodate the Salvation Army on that site and they were doing it for the Salvation Army’s purpose only, he asked if the Commission should rezone that site to a commercial nature.

Zinn said RMO district would be consistent with a broader range of residential and office uses because if it was zoned O-1 which was the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan recommendation when in fact they would be down zoning and it converted to the CO district than that site would have a broader range of uses than if it was down zoned to an RMO district.

Mayor Amyx said the neighborhood indicated they would like to see the least amount of development in that zoning category.  If the site was zoned O-1 as recommended by the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan and it converted to a CO zoning district, they would end up with commercial zoning on that site. 

Zinn said it might not, in fact, be as much in the interest of the neighborhood as the RMO district.  He said he could not make that decision that the Salvation Army would be happy if their project did not come to fruition to convert the land to single-family purposes because that was a decision the Territorial Office of the Salvation Army would need to make.  

Commissioner Rundle asked if Zinn could identify any of the conditions apart from whether or not they were attached to a site plan.

Zinn said there were a great many conditions suggested that would eliminate the Salvation Army from being the Salvation Army.  The Salvation Army took several of the neighborhoods recommendations and included those recommendations in their conditions.  Those conditions were the result of input from meetings and input from the neighborhood.  He said the Salvation Army did not just develop those conditions spontaneously.  He said the Salvation Army tried to be responsible, but unfortunately the starting line kept moving on them and it had been very difficult because the procedures changed as to what demands were made.  He said he hoped the City Commission would consider this a reasonable compromise and one that responded to the concern about enforceability.

Judy Bauer, Salvation Army Advisory Board, said she was present to mention the meetings that Zinn had referred to.  The meetings began after the main meeting of 2004 when the Salvation Army received approval of their initial site plan.  They held two meetings that fall and were going to be holding some meetings in January and spring, but at that time the neighborhood decided there was no issue to pursue at that time.  They also had numerous e-mails and the two meetings with the Mayor who mediated.  During those meetings, she thought there had been a good exchange with brain storming those solution focused meetings and the neighborhoods concerns.  Most of those concerns involved safety issues and in generating solutions, most of the Salvation Army ideas centered on the idea of how to address issues of safety.  The list of items attached to site plan grew out of those suggestions. And those suggestions and ideas came from the neighbors at that time.  She thought the dynamics of the neighborhood group had somewhat changed since that time.  During those meetings, she did convey the Salvation Army’s desire to work with neighborhood as the program unfolded to address concerns as they went along.  As a result, the Salvation Army Advisory Board endorsed this concept at their last meeting and furthermore, by approving the creation of the Neighborhood Liaison Social Services Advisory Council which fed into the advisory board to make sure neighborhood concerns were known and understood and that they were able to work together, if in fact this project came to fruition.  She wanted the neighbors and Commissioners to know that the Salvation Army did continue with their desire to work with the neighborhood in the coming years. 

Commissioner Schauner said he understood that this project was going to be a change in emphasis away from the mission of the Salvation Army downtown to be into a more family oriented approach and asked if that was still the case.

Bauer said she understood this facility was set up to serve families.  They were very interested in people who were interested in helping themselves.  In the construction, the Salvation Army allocated space for families and was currently changing their emphasis.

Vice Mayor Hack said the current site was not setup for families. 

Bauer said at their present site, they were not setup for families.  She said that facility was built as a result of City’s needs in the 1970’s or early1980’s.  It was never constructed for families and the facility was woefully inadequate.

James Grauerholtz, Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan Committee, said this issue was not a win/lose situation.  He said one observation was that if there were differences with location, programs, and operations, it would be a cake walk to keep extending the UPR.  If the use fit well, then everyone would not be opposing the use of that site.  He said he believed it was 1986 when Salvation Army was asked to open up as a shelter at 10^th and New Hampshire and about 10 years ago the Salvation Army began looking at expansion plans in which they ruled out a rebuild or new facility at their current location.  He said the lot that was volunteered by Mr. Polk, for the safe house, north of the Salvation Army facility was combined in 1999 with their property into one lot.  He said there had been quite a bit of feedback with tentative choices on East 11^th Street, the north part of Brook Creek Park, which was proposed and had a lot of opposition.  Then, they proposed The Woods at 15^th and Haskell, which was built as the Hanscom/Tappen Addition, PRD residential housing nicer than some other that had been built in the Brook Creek neighborhood in the last 10 or 20 years and there was opposition to that site.  He said that might be a context on how the SA dealt with neighborhood relations when announcing this site.

He said as a footnote, at the two committee reconciliation meetings that Mayor Amyx chaired, it was confirmed by Zinn that it was not the consensus of today’s Salvation Army leadership that they had always had the most diplomatic and effective way of building bridges with the environment in the past.  He said prison parolees might not be such a bad use, but if you could imagine how people felt when they open a newspaper and there was that shocker of housing parolees right after they had those three meetings. 

The Salvation Army had gone to great lengths, as of now, to offer some reassurances.   Zinn made a valid point, that having a special use permit hanging over a piece of real estate did create uncertainty, especially if the SA was still trying to raise those funds. 

He said concerning rezoning, he asked why did the Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan Committee recommend that zoning?  As a land use question, they knew it was the intention of the people of the Salvation Army to raise the money to build that facility, but the committee did not know if raising that amount of money would happen so rezoning was recommended.  He said that type of zoning was recommended as a way to cover the possibilities that they might not succeed. 

Another question was what did the Salvation Army do to reassert the neighborhoods?  He said eventually the SA did quite a bit to reassert the neighbors, especially in the last few months.  He said it took a lot of serious arguing to get it to that point because those promises were not given.  Also, the Commission unanimously agreed to limit the site plan. 

He asked about the Salvation Army needing two more years.  The SA was very candid in that they had not raised all of their money and needed time to try and raise the rest of the money in which he understood because by published accounts, the SA had raised 1.2 million and upped their estimate from $3.5 million to $4 million.

He asked about why the Salvation Army opposed the Special Use Permit.  He said at one of the reconciliation meeting, it created an air of uncertainty about the project which hurts fundraising. 

He asked about why was fundraising left and Zinn commented that it was because there would be controversy over the headlines and people did not want to donate to a project that was controversial and opposed.  He said there was opposition because the extension extended for two years from a special use permit review procedure. 

Finally, he asked the reason why the east side preferred a special use permit procedure.  He said the reason why the east side preferred a UPR was because it was more enforceable.  They just had an illuminating discussion about the differences between conditions placed on the rezoning they proposed to accept, RMO, versus the UPR. 

He said if Salvation Army failed, then the neighborhood did not want a factory.  The other side was that how could the neighborhood imagine that the SA would fail.  The zoning violation would be fined between $10-500 per day and up to 6 months in jail, which would be hard to put a corporation in jail.  He said this was a great debate and had taken a little bit of sand in the oyster to get this pearl.  He said they should not look back, but forward.  If they succeed in their fundraising, and build their facility, then he and others would work with the SA.  If the SA did not succeed, he and others did not want to be seen as the Grinch who appealed the Salvation Army’s efforts of all those good people who volunteer to help the needy, poor, and homeless.

Larry McElwain, Salvation Army, said they had been through some disappointments in the past with locations such as 15^th and Haskell Avenue.  He said the SA thought the current proposed location was in a cluster with Social Rehabilitation Services up the street, Health Care Access, and Independence Inc., all in the vicinity.  Those agencies that could help the SA and their clients were already there. 

As Bauer indicated there had been many meetings that had occurred for the exchange of ideas and Zinn had pointed out the SA was trying to be accountable through the zoning agreement they had through the City.  They intended to keep their word and he thought the SA was a good neighbor now.  He did not think there had been many complaints of the Salvation Army.  The SA had a lot of challenges, but they had worked their way through those challenges. He said he thought they would be a good neighbor to this neighborhood if they were allowed to be at that location and they did not want to be at odds with their neighbors and did not want them to be unsafe.  The SA had been accountable in this community for many years.  In the 1980’s there was a need and there was not another organization to step up and they stepped up and met that need over the years.  Now the Lawrence Community Shelter had stepped up to meet another need and were working through their problems just like the SA had to work through their challenges and problems also. He asked City Commission to approve staff’s recommendation allow the SA the opportunity to serve in that neighborhood and to be a good neighbor.

Dahlberg said the SA had operated this shelter as they were asked to do by the leaders of this community.  They did not operate the shelter because it was good of the Salvation Army, but because there was a genuine need in this community.  He said the SA met that need of the community, at their own financial peril.  The organization provided great services without receiving great enough resources from the community.  He said the Salvation Army struggled to provide services to the homeless and meet the needs of those that came to them.

The SA had a building that deteriorated around them because the facility was never designed to do what was asked of the SA.  He said the added wear and tear had taken its toll. The SA had seen other valuable programs go by the way to keep providing those types of services to this community. 

They had raised $1.5 million thus far and would operate a rehabilitative program for the needy in the community based on the resources available.  The Salvation Army would not go on indefinitely warehousing people on the floor.  He said the community should be embarrassed that they were warehousing people on the floor and enabling them to continue in their homeless state without hope of ever getting help.  The SA must assist those people in getting out of homelessness. 

He said the City Commission were representatives of the citizens of Lawrence, not just those of wealth and influence, but those without a voice or much of a voice such as the elderly, children, homeless, and helpless.  The Salvation Army desired to enhance and do the most good for every neighborhood in Lawrence.  He said sometimes it was hard to do what was not popular, but sometimes it was more important to do what was right rather than what was popular.

Craig Comstock, Vice President of Brookcreek Neighborhood Association, said his main concern was would the Salvation Army be accountable for their behavior and whatever mechanism they could come up with to make that happen he would support.

He had a couple of questions about the proposal of conditions on a new zoning.  If there was not a concern about the CO or RMO zoning, why did they need to wait until after July 1^st and if a site plan was approved, what conditions could be placed on the RMO after July 1^st.   

Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission initiated rezoning at this point and consider the idea of conditional zoning, he asked if they would need to send those conditions with that initiation.

Stogsdill said staff’s memo suggested that if the City Commission was comfortable with conditions that the Salvation Army had suggested, the Commission could approve the site plan with those conditions and initiate the rezoning with the intent that those conditions would be attached to the rezoning when it eventually went through the process.  If the Commission felt they wanted to change a condition on the site plan, tonight would be the opportunity to do that change and whatever was approved on the site plan would be what staff would recommend be attached to the rezoning, assuming that would be a consistent action.

Commissioner Schauner asked what the urgency of approving the site plan was at this time.  He asked what the harm was to the Salvation Army if they were without a site plan on that property until after July 1^st.   

Stogsdill said she understood that until a site plan was approved, the SA could not proceed with fundraising and any progress toward that project.  She said whether it was tonight or a month from tonight, Zinn would need to respond if there was something different.

Commissioner Schauner said he was asking about the land use effect on the applicant if the Commission did not approve the site plan and wait until the first City Commission meeting after July 1^st to approve this site plan or a successor.   He asked what the legal disadvantage to the applicant was.

Stogsdill said she was not sure there was a legal disadvantage.  She said staff understood that they would process any site plans that had been submitted based on the existing code.  Anything submitted prior to July 1 had that option to proceed under the existing code.  The City Commission could be approving a number of site plans under the existing code for several months.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the advantage to the applicant by having this particular site plan approved now.  He asked what the applicant would get from the current code with this site plan that the applicant could not get under the new code, under a site plan adopted after July 1^st. 

Stogsdill said if the City Commission approved a site plan on July 2^nd and it was still based on the existing code, there was not a requirement for the UPR.  

Mayor Amyx said if the Commission did not feel there was any urgency with the site plan, the Commission had to make sure any conditions should be placed on the zoning at this time.

Commissioner Schauner said the real key to neighborhood issues was whether it was on the site plan as an enforceable vehicle, which he was not certain that was really possible to do, or if it was a conditioned conventional zoning that the devil would be in the details in terms of what specific conditions were attached to either the UPR or the conventional zoning.  He said the City Commission was not in the position to know those clearly articulate conditions should be.  He said the Commission had an application for a new site plan under the current code.  He said he was trying to understand what the applicant gained by operating under the current code as opposed to the new code.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to extend the meeting until 10:30. Motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Rundle said concerning the site plan under the current code, he asked if that was being drawn from the transitional provisions.

Stogsdill said she respectfully disagreed with Klingenberg’s interpretation because it had been discussed for more than five years that people in the pipeline had the ability to choose.  If a person wanted to proceed under the old code, they could do that or they could choose to submit in anticipation of the new code.  In looking at the definition of development activity, it discussed the change of use.  A site was a proposed change of use.  Clearly, staff had been talking to property owners, developers, and neighbors that if they had a project that was submitted, they had a one year approval time period in which to submit their building permit application.  At that time, the process had begun with the Planning office and it was a continuum.  She said having the site plan submitted staff believed the transitional section would give the property owner the ability to move through the development process based on that site plan. 

In response to Commissioner Schauner, if staff waited until after any rezoning was approved and published, they would be waiting multiple months.  If the Commission initiated the rezoning, a public hearing would be held at the July Planning Commission meeting and that recommendation would come back to the City Commission mid August.  The City Commission would take action and ordinances would be drafted, so it would likely be September before that rezoning would actually be published.  If there was concern about attaching conditions to the rezoning so that they were reflected of whatever site plan they wanted to approve, it would be multiple months they would be asking the applicant to wait.  She said it was not the question of putting off the fundraising stability issue for three weeks,

Vice Mayor Hack said it was not the fundraising stability issue for three weeks essentially, it would be three to four months.

Stogsdill said the City Commission would want to make sure they had all the conditions in the zoning ordinance and the City Commission would need to wait until the zoning action was completed.

Commissioner Schauner asked if a site plan could be conditioned in such a way that it became an enforceable document between the applicant and the City.

Stogsdill said staff indicated they thought it was acceptable with the second movement to rezoning and including those conditions in the zoning ordinance.

Commissioner Schauner said the movement to conditional conventional zoning would also take 3 to 4 months so how would conditioning site plan now with a transference of those conditions to conventional zoning after July 1^st, shorten that 3 or 4 month time period.  He asked how it provided the applicant with any sooner ability to raise with certainty.  The applicant was still going to have a process to go through in terms of conditioning the final conventional zoning.

Stogsdill said that was correct, but she thought Zinn could respond to that question.

Vice Mayor Hack said perhaps it was the idea the site plan had been approved, knowing that it was going to go through the transference to the conditional zoning.  The process was going to involve more time, but at least up front they knew zoning had been done.  She asked Commissioner Schauner if he had specific concerns about approving the site plan and were their conditions that he was not happy with or were there issues that should be included that were not.

Commissioner Schauner said what he kept coming back to was his lack of certainty around what the Salvation Army proposed.  He could not determine what it was the Salvation Army agreed not to do.  He asked how he could, in making that vote, protect the interest of the neighborhood in the way that gave the neighborhood reasonable assurance about what would be their neighbor.  He said if the City Commission could approve the site plan the Salvation Army could begin fundraising right away.  He said that if they did not approve it, they would have to wait 3 weeks, which he thought would not make much of a difference since they have been working at this for five years.

Mayor Amyx said the site plan was in conformance based on staff recommendation.  The concerns come in on whether or not they were going to condition a zoning or they were going to require a use permit under the new code.  He asked if they could create a zoning that would protect the neighborhood and make it function as UPR. 

Commissioner Schauner said he was not willing to accept the site plan conditions were sufficient protection of that interest.  He did not like the UPR because the Commission sat through over an hour of UPR’s and the last thing the Commission needed was that to come back every five years. He said he would like good conditioned conventional zoning that would have the right restrictions on it.  He thought it was in the Salvation Army’s long term best interest, the City Commission’s long term best interest, and in the neighbors’ long term best interest.  

Mayor Amyx said they were looking at conventional zoning that would be conditioned to allow the current site plan, over time, to be approved.

Commissioner Highberger said what mechanism they had for requiring a UPR given there was a site plan submitted and staff’s interpretation.   He said if the Commission denied the site plan, he asked about the restrictions of resubmitting the site plan.  

Corliss said when denying a site plan, the site plan requirements would need to be looked at.  He said in staff’s view of site plan requirements was that this property complied with the code requirements for a site plan.  Staff was going to need Commission directions to where the site plan that had been submitted failed to comply with the code.  The Planning staff in their staff report indicated it complied with the site plan requirements. 

Mayor Amyx said the site plan was not in question.  It was the conditions of the zoning.

Corliss said it was about the use.  He said they traditionally had limited uses through zoning. 

Commissioner Schauner said if they down zoned the property in a way that would make the proposed site plan uses off the permitted use list, then they could deny the site plan.  After July 1^st, they could rezone it to RMO.

Mayor Amyx asked how they would put together an initiation of conditional zoning for this piece of property so they had something to discuss that took into consideration the current site plan. 

Corliss said the starting point would be the initiation of the rezoning to the Planning Commission in July.  He said because it would be initiated under the new development code as a conventional zoning, that would be part of the Planning Commission’s deliberations and the City Commission’s decision as to what conditions would be placed on that zoning.  He said it sounded like there was favorable support to initiating zoning to the Planning Commission in July.

He said in staff’s memorandum, it indicated to go ahead and when the site plan met the site plan requirements of the code, they struggled with the conditions in the site plan.  They had conditioned a number of site plans on a number of different items looking at the criteria in the site plan.  In this case, they have a property owner willing to limit the site plan with certain conditions which would also be reflected in the zoning ordinance.  He said he thought it was doubtful the applicant would be pulling a building permit before the zoning ordinance.  He said the applicant might be willing to have that as an additional condition that there would be no building permit pulled until the zoning ordinances were out.      

Commissioner Schauner said the City Commission could defer the site plan,

Corliss said the City Commission could defer the site plan, but it needed to be in a reasonable time period because the SA had an argument that they complied with the site plan code requirements.

Commissioner Schauner said the City Commission could defer the site plan for a reasonable period of time.

Corliss said yes.

Commissioner Schauner said the site plan could be deferred until they could condition the zoning.

Mayor Amyx said they could approve the site plan conditioned upon zoning.     

Vice Mayor Hack said they could approve the site plan conditionally based on the zoning to which conditions would be added as reflected in the conditions that were presented. 

Commissioner Schauner said what did the applicant think they would achieve by operating under a site plan approved under the current zoning code as opposed to the one approved under the next development code.

Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission initiated the rezoning, depending on the conditions that were placed on that rezoning, it would have an affect on that site plan.

Corliss said that could happen, but he thought the conditions set out by the Salvation Army and the neighborhood would not change the physical structures on the site plan, they speak to its use and occupancy.  He said it was the use that was the focus of both the neighborhood and Salvation Army conditions.  He said those conditions were appropriately placed in the zoning.  He said that was what a special use permit was, a special animal of zoning.

Zinn said under the existing zoning ordinance, because this was an industrial zoning district, the ordinance specifically provided that a special use permit was not required whether it provided that a special use permit was not required or it provided that the criteria for the special use permit should not be applied, but he was not sure there was any practical difference.  He said Salvation Army believed the existing zoning ordinance for the zoning district for this particular use would not require a UPR.  He said under the new development code there was no such thing as M1A or M1 zoning.  The conversion would put the SA inn an IL or IG zoning district, and even the church would not be permitted.  Using the existing zoning ordinance was in their interest.  The development code intercepted the process at an awkward time and they had been struggling to try to deal with the new development code and a new set of rules to follow.  The provisions, whether it was grandmothered or grandfathered, however one describes that process, as the new development code made available to development activities that had been started and the applicant elected to have determined under the old zoning ordinance. The special use permit process gave rise to a great deal of uncertainty, which was why they preferred to have the zoning conditioned than having to deal with a special use permit.

Commissioner Schauner said if the property was rezoned after to July 1^st to RMO, he asked if the Salvation Army’s uses be permitted without a special use permit.

Zinn said the uses would be permitted if the site plan was approved because a site plan carried through the existing zoning.  As he understood the rules, they would be able to have the uses allowed under M-1 and M-1A, but they were limited by the site plan.  In other words if someone wanted a factory in the M-1 or M-1A zoning district, that could not be done because the site plan limited it to this particular site and nothing else.     

Commissioner Schauner asked what zoning category would be available to the Salvation Army after July 1^st that would not require a special use permit, but that could be conditionally approved. 

Stogsdill said none.

Corliss asked Zinn if the SA would agree to a condition on the site plan that the SA would not pull a building permit until the City had rezoned the property with a no later date of October 1^st.

Zinn said he did not see any reason why the Oct 1^st date would not be acceptable. 

Corliss asked if the SA would agree to a condition on the site plan that the SA would not pull a building permit, prior to October 1^st, or the effective date of a new rezoning ordinance with conditions.

Zinn said if October 1^st was the latest date, he said yes.

Corliss said whatever occurred first which was the new zoning ordinance or the October 1^st date.  He said staff would then incorporate those use conditions that would be placed in a zoning ordinance.  

Zinn said the Salvation Army submitted those conditions based on meetings with the neighborhood.  He said the SA was not interested although perhaps not totally disinclined to go through that condition process again, yet he did not want to simply invite starting over again with the conditions.  They had been at this issue a long time and knew the neighbors were proceeding to do what was in their best interest and the Salvation Army was trying to blend in the interest of the neighbors with the community’s general interest.  If they started over, the process would take a long time.  He was not looking into adding more conditions.  He said those conditions went through a process and were approved by headquarters.  Any conditions that were attached to zoning must be approved by division headquarters.

Commissioner Highberger said he was not sure that was true.  Any conditions that were attached to the zoning were conditions attached to the zoning. 

Zinn said that was correct, acceptable to the applicant.  He said the Commission had the authority to impose conditions, but the conditions had to be approved through their divisional headquarters. 

Commissioner Highberger said he did not want to start the process over again.  He wanted to be clear that if they went through this process and conditions on the zoning were changed from the conditions on the site plan, he understood that zoning conditions would be what would prevail.

Corliss said correct.  He said they would have rezoned the property prior to substantial construction on the property and those zoning conditions would prevail.  

Mayor Amyx asked where that left the site plan.

Corliss said the site plan would still be valid for a year based on the fact that it was approved.  Those conditions would still be there, but they would essentially have the most onerous conditions that would be governed on the use.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the conditions on the zoning could trump the site plan.

Commissioner Highberger said given the fact that they were not sure they could enforce the site plan and conditions.

Corliss said use conditions on a site plan were problematic.  He said if the Commission wanted to enforce those conditions, he would make the best argument he could.  He said there might be examples where they had done it elsewhere, but he did not think it was wise to limit uses in a site plan.

Zinn said he looked at this issue recently to the Kansas Supreme Court decisions or Kansas Court of Appeals decisions on this point and there were not any.  The Kansas Supreme Court in the Rodrock case within the last two years reiterated its position that conditions imposed on a plat were enforceable.  The leap from a plat to a site plan, he could not say what it was.  On the other hand, they were both means of regulating land use and the Court had said that conditions on a plat were enforceable.

Commissioner Schauner said the difference was that a plat would be filed with the county and a site plan would not be filed with the County.

Zinn said they did place conditions on site plans.  He said there was a public notice of a plan by filing with the county.

Commissioner Rundle said the City Commission should wait and do this project under the new zoning code.  He could not imagine the City Commission or the Planning Commission would jeopardize the center coming into fruition at this location largely under the plan that had been proposed.  He did not think that process of waiting would bring them to that.  He said when looking at this issue as a land use decision, it made him think of when a benefit district was proposed, they discuss the value that was being assessed went with the land and not the particular user at that time.  He thought zoning decisions were the same.  He said the Commission was placing those zoning on that piece of property, but the entire process took into account the impact on neighboring property.  It was reasonable to take the time to come up with some mutually agreeable resolution to this issue and it would probably resolve the controversy, eliminate the headlines, given all those difficulties in fund raising. 

He said this was also an infill project such as the Wood project and the City Commission was committed to making that happen and in a way the neighbors and developer were mutually agreeable to.  He said nothing in the current zoning matches its current uses.  He said for all those reasons they needed to step back and wait until they had their new zoning code and proceed from that point.  He said another issue he heard was consistency.  He said it was a valid request that the scrutiny, oversight, and accountability the Commission had been applying to the Open Shelter should apply to the Salvation Army.  He said there was not anything disparaging about that project and was a land use matter.  He said this project deserved the same careful attention that was given to the Open Shelter. 

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to extend the meeting until 10:45.  Motion carried unanimously.

Vice Mayor Hack said she was not sure where that left the site plan. The site plan was a continuing document based on the current code.  She said consistency, stability, and predictability was something that both sides were asking for.  She said her preference would be to proceed as Corliss suggested because it would give the Salvation Army project the ability to move forward.

Mayor Amyx asked if there was a suggestion to go into the new development code, where this item came under a special use permit.

Commissioner Rundle said it was not clear that it would be required.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was possible to have a text amendment to the development code to have a zone.

Mayor Amyx said the Commission needed to deal with this particular rezoning at this time and whether or not they were going to allow a conditional zoning to proceed from this point forward.

Commissioner Schauner said it was not the conditional zoning that bothered him, but the site plan living under the current rules.

Vice Mayor Hack said that particular site plan did not violate the current code.  She had not heard any arguments from staff that it did violate the code.  She did not see any reason why to deny the site plan.  She agreed with staff in that this needed a continuation and the applicant would not pull a building permit until October 1^st and when the zoning took place, they would deal with the conditions.  She said they could not start over by throwing a thousand new conditions in the hat.   She said to go along with what Corliss said would move them forward.  

Commissioner Schauner asked about Corliss’ proposal.

Corliss said the City Commission could defer the site plan for a reasonable period of time and the Commission needed to indicate to staff when the site plan would come back and what information the City Commission needed in the meantime.  If the City Commission was going to deny the site plan, staff needed direction as to the rationale.  He said staff’s memorandum indicated the site plan complied with the requirements.  If the City Commission approved site plan, then Zinn indicated that his client would not seek to pull a building permit until October 1^st, 2006, at which time staff would initiate a rezoning of the property with conditions.  He said they would work with those different conditions that were set out by the neighborhood and Salvation Army and work through the staff process, the Planning Commission deliberation, and the City Commission’s decisions as to what those conditions should be.  Those conditions would be placed in the zoning ordinance and effect that use.  The site plan would be effective for 1 year from the date the City Commission approved the site plan with those conditions as well.

Commissioner Rundle said a deferral would not change the interpretation that it was under the current zoning code.

Corliss said correct.  The new development code indicated that if someone had submitted an application, the application would be considered under the existing rules.  He said in years past as staff was trying to think about how to handle this transition period where they knew that people would buy property or be making plans based on current rules and staff wanted to have some ability to transition into new rules that would change that.  He said SA might not be the best illustration, but Zinn and the SA did their diligence as to what was allowed and what conditions.

Commissioner Rundle said he would prefer to defer the site plan and initiate the rezoning to RMO.

Mayor Amyx said the Commission would defer the site plan and initiate the rezoning, subject to the conditions established through the neighborhood and the applicant.

Corliss said staff’s memorandum indicated recommendation of the site plan and initiating the rezoning.

Commissioner Rundle suggested that the motion would be to defer the site plan, and initiated the rezoning so that it would be on the July Planning Commission agenda.

Corliss said they would initiate rezoning to RMO which was staff’s recommendation.

Commissioner Schauner asked if they would condition the zoning in  any way.

Corliss said the City Commission could condition the zoning to the SA Community Worship and Resource Center.  He said the City Commission could be specific as long as it was reasonable.      

Mayor Amyx said it was zoned to O-1 that converted to CO, all of a sudden they would have create d a commercial zoning district on an expensive piece of property and he did not think that would set well.

Commissioner Highberger said he was not opposed to mixed uses.  He asked if any residential was allowed in CO.

Stogsdill said no.

Commissioner Highberger said he would be satisfied with RMO.

Stogsdill asked the Commission how long they would defer the site plan.

Corliss said they could wait until they had a full City Commission, which was fairly reasonable.  He said if the City Commission could give staff the rationale as to what the City Commission wanted to do.  He asked if the City Commission had work for staff so they could have a focused discussion in four weeks.    

Mayor Amyx said staff could develop the conditions on the site plan and the zoning which was where they were heading.

Corliss said the fact that they were deferring this item until after July 1^st; would not change the fact that SA had submitted their application under the current laws.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to extend the meeting for 10 minutes.  Motion carried unanimously.

Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to defer site plan (SP-03-27-06) until July 11^th for the Salvation Army Community Complex, to be located on the west side of Haskell Avenue between Lynn Street and Homewood Street; and initiate the rezoning of Burroughs Creek Corridor Plan first tier recommended for the Salvation Army property from M-2 and M1A Districts to CO; and direct staff to work on the conditions of the site plan.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                               (36)

PUBLIC COMMENT

James Dunn, on behalf of the Landlord Association, said he wanted to invite all of the Commissioners to the Landlord Information Fair, June 12^th, 6:00 p.m., Building 21, Douglas County Fairgrounds.  The event begins at 6:00, Mayor Amyx will be giving a welcome, and there would be landlords around the state at this event. 

He also said the Oread Neighborhood Association would be having their neighborhood clean up on June 17^th, 9:30 a.m., 12^th and Oread at the YelloSub. 

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

David Corliss said Commissioner Hack was going to participate in the June 20^th, City Commission meeting by telephone; Mercado rezoning findings were deferred until June 13^th; and the overweight ordinance would also be on the June 13^th, City Commission meeting as well.

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Vice Mayor Hack and Commissioner Rundle volunteered to participate in the Project Steering Committee for the Matrix Consulting project that involves a review of the development process.  The role of the steering committee is to review documents as they are developed during the course of the project, i.e. the profile of the process, the best practices assessment, issues list, draft report, etc.                                                                                                           (37)

Moved by Schauner              seconded by Hack   , to adjourn at 10: 58 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

    

 

                                                                                                           

APPROVED                                                                _____________________________

Mike Amyx, Mayor

ATTEST:

 

___________________________________                                                                        

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

 

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2006

 

1.                City Manager’s Report.

 

2.                Bid- approve sale of surplus vehicles through Gov Deals.

 

3.                Bid- 2006 Overlay and Curb Repair Program to KS Heavy Construction for $1,127,500.

 

4.                Bid- 6 FC200 Itron handheld computers to Utility Solutions for $18,772.

 

5.                Bid- Comprehensive Housing Rehabilitation for 1619 E. 18^th to Penny Construction for $16,346.

 

6.                Ordinance No 7879- 1^st Read, codification of general ordinances     

 

7.                Ordinance No. 8006- 1^st Read, rezone (Z-02-03-06) .26 acre from M-2 to C-4,  827 Garfield Street

 

8.                Ordinance No. 8007- 1^st Read, rezone (Z0o2-04-06) .34 acre from M-2 to RS-2, 824 Garfield and property abutting 827 Garfield

 

9.                Ordinance No. 8009- 1^st Read, annex (A-01-02-05)17.52 acres, N of Hwy 40, E of K-10

 

10.            Resolution No 6653- Public hearing, June 20^th, benefit district, Stoneridge S of W 6^th Street

 

11.            Resolution No. 6654- Recreational pathway between Lawrence and Topeka.

 

12.            Final Plat – (PF-04-09-06) MP Addition, 3 lot  residential sub, 4.84 acres, 200 N 9^th.

 

13.            Final Plat – (PF-04-11-06) Lake View Commons, 3 lot planned commercial, 4.725 acres, NW corner of Clinton Pkwy & Lake Point Dr.

 

14.            Rezone  - (Z-03-05-06) 45.31 acres, A to PCD-2, N of Hwy 40 & E of K-10 Hwy. (Mercato)

 

15.            Rezone – (Z-03-06-06) 31.12 acres, A to RO-1A, N of Hwy 40 & E of K-10 Hwy. (Mercato)

 

16.            Rezone – (Z-01-10-05) 25.82 acres, A to RS-2, N of Hwy 40 & E of K-10 Hwy. (Mercato)

 

17.            Rezone – (Z-01-11-05) 7.63 acres, A to RM-D, N of Hwy 40 & E of K-10 Hwy. (Mercato)

 

18.            Rezone – (Z-01-12-05) 12.77 acres, A to RM-2, N of Hwy 40 & E of K-10 Hwy (Mercato)

 

19.            RFP – Traditional Neighborhood Design Code.

 

20.            Write-off of water, sewer, sanitation and misc receivables deemed uncollectible

 

21.            Contract Amend - MV Transportation, Inc., to add FTE Rd Supervisor.

 

22.            Mortgage Release – Adeta Allen, 1345 NJ.

 

23.            Mortgage Release – Daniel Hellyer, 1535 RI.

 

24.            Mortgage Release – Tammie Hughes, 6265 Locust.

 

25.            Mortgage Release – George & Ardith Shove, 1614 E 18^th Terr (2 Mortgages)

 

26.            Mortgage Release – Carol Thrasher, 2025 VT.

 

27.            Memo of Understanding –IAFF Local 1596

 

28.            Memo of Understanding – LPOA.

 

29.            TSC – Protected-permissive phasing, Iowa at 34^th on a trial basis

 

30.            Ordinance No. 7990 – 1^st Read, Overweight & vehicle safety requirements.

 

31.            Ordinance No. 7991 – 1^st Read, Fed Motor Carrier Safety Regs, certain commercial motor vehicles.

 

32.            Downtown Safety Issue discussion.

 

33.            DLI – Marketing assistance Downtown Waterline Project.

 

34.            Public comment – 2007 budget.

 

35.            Action plan related to UPR-09-06-05:  Lawrence Community Shelter

 

36.            Salvation Army facility location discussion

 

37.            Project Steering Committee selection for Matrix Consulting.