June 13, 2006 City Commission meeting minutes

June 13, 2006

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Amyx presiding and members Highberger, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present.

RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION

With Commission approval Mayor Amyx proclaimed the month of June as “Kansas Business Appreciation Month.”

Tim Herndon, LandPlan Engineering, pulled from the consent agenda, the Final Plat (PF-04-07-06) for Yankee Tree View Addition 2^nd Plat. He said there was a condition in the Final Plat that was ambiguous and needed to be addressed by Planning staff.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to defer the Final Plat (PF-04-07-06) for Yankee Tree View Addition 2^nd Plat, for one week. Motion carried unanimously. (1)

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Convention & Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting minutes of April 25, 2006, the Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of April 27, 2006, the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of May 4, 2006, the Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of May 4, 2006, and the Lawrence Arts Commission meeting minutes of January 11, February 8, and March 8, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 418 vendors in the amount of $3,014,226.65 and payroll from May 28, 2006 to June 10, 2006, in the amount of $1,707,251.42.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses to Kokoro, 601 Kasold Ste: D102 & 103, Panda Garden, 1500 West 6^th Street, and Milton’s Coffee, 920 Massachusetts.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed bids for the 2006 Manhole Rehabilitation Project. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Mayer Specialty $158,882.36

Pyramid Excavation $169,527.14

Ace Pipe Cleaning $177,037.13

Utility Maint. Contractors $192,214.96

KIM Construction $232,290.75

Midlands Contracting $234,546.00

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute a contract agreement and purchase order with Mayer Specialty Service, LLC in the amount of $158,882.36. Motion carried unanimously. (2) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute a preliminary design/build contract with the Burns & McDonnell/Garney Construction LLC joint venture in the amount of $59,760 for the design and construction of the Yankee Tank Creek 2-1 & 2-2 Relief Gravity Interceptors in accordance to the recommendations in the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan. Motion carried unanimously. (3)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the ceiling and lighting replacement at the Solid Waste Annex South Building. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Estimate $35,000.00

Mohl Electric $32,682.36

GSR Construction $33,500.00

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Mohl Electric, in the amount of $32,682.36. Motion carried unanimously. (4)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the various equipment needed for the Police Department. The bids were:

BIDDER BID AMOUNT

Alamar Uniforms $1,492.50

Baysinger Police Supply $17,743.95

Ed Roehr Safety Products $27,365.85

Gil Hebard Guns $921.75

Jay’s Uniform $2,789.25

Lawmens & Shooter Supply $6,740.63

Precinct Police Products $5,059.20

Sigarms $8,985.00

Ultramax Ammunition $20,028.00

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the following bid amounts above for a total amount of $91,465.88. Motion carried unanimously. (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute an agreement with Benjamin Victor for a bronze sculpture for Fire/Medical Station No. 5 in the amount of $65,510.00. Motion carried unanimously. (6)

Ordinance No. 7879, authorizing the codification of the general ordinances of the City, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)

Ordinance No. 8006, rezoning (Z-02-03-06) .26 acres from M-2 District to C-4 Distract at 827 Garfield Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)

Ordinance No. 8007, rezoning (Z-02-04-06) .34 acres from M-2 District to RS-2 District at 824 Garfield Street and property abutting 827 Garfield Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (9)

Ordinance No. 8009, annexing (A-01-02-05) approximately 17.52 acres, located north of Highway 40 and east of K-10 Highway, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-04-03-06) for the expansion of First Serve Tennis, located at 5200 Clinton Parkway subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.

2. Provision of a revised plan showing:

a. the standard road right-of-way to be dedicated for the extension of Olympic Drive and updated site area;

b. location of future street trees along extension of Olympic Drive;

c. grading with elevations and heights of retaining walls, or provide grading plan;

d. correct parking reference: 8 spaces per each court and 1 space for each 200 nsf, excluding courts;

e. retaining walls located outside of any easement.

Motion carried unanimously. (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-03-07-06) of approximately 4.6 acres from M-2 (General Industrial District) to O-1 (Office District) (the property is generally described as being located west of Haskell, and south of East 20^th Street (2001 Haskell Avenue)); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-09-06) of approximately 0.28 acre from RO-1 (Residence-Office District) to RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residence District) (the property is generally described as being located at 640 Arkansas); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the request for the establishment of a special assessment benefit district for the construction of George Williams Way north of West 6^th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and reaffirm the conditions of approval 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. (15) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and reaffirm the conditions of approval 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. (16)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said Lawrence Transit System and Mid-American Regional Council had teamed up to offer a free, online matching service for commuters interested in carpooling.

Also, City staff had a successful “Dump the Pump Day”. Cliff Galante, Public Transit Administrator, his staff, and MV Transportation were excited about the opportunity to provide over 2000 rides on that day which indicated a successful promotion and execution of that project.

Finally, he informed the City Commission there had been a number of capital improvement projects that were underway in the community.

Mayor Amyx said the City was currently implementing infrastructure improvements and maintenance to streets. He said people would appreciate those improvements when those improvements were completed. (20)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

Receive report on Naismith Drive bicycle lane striping issue.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director , presented the staff report. He said Naismith Drive from 23^rd to 19^th Streets would be milled and overlaid in the north bound lanes along with repairing or replacing the curb. He said the 2004 Lawrence/Douglas County Bicycle Plan was adopted by the City Commission and the plan indicated Naismith should be a single lane road with a bicycle lane. He said the street could be re-striped as a 4-foot bicycle lane and a 14-foot north bound lane for driving. He said staff talked to Betty Alderson who felt the street should remain as two lanes.

Soules said he also had discussions with Jerry Schultz, representative of Centennial Neighborhood representative about the proposed bike lanes along Naismith Drive and the Centennial Neighborhood felt it would be unsafe for bicyclists.

Also, staff had conversation with the KU Police Department, who were split on the issue, but they were concerned that if they had a driving lane on the northbound side, they were worried about what happened on the southbound side. He said staff agreed that adding bike lanes on Naismith Drive southbound would be discussed extensively before anything was done.

Lastly, staff had discussions with the Bicycle Advisory Committee who strongly supported the addition of bike lanes along Naismith.

He said staff was waiting for the City Commission’s direction. He said traffic counts were taken in 2004 by KDOT and noted that a 24 hour volumes on Naismith was 7,620 vehicles per day.

Commissioner Highberger asked if the traffic counts were for an average day.

Soules said yes.

Commissioner Highberger asked if there were any traffic counts for game day.

Soules said staff did not have a peak game day count.

Jim Long, Office of the Provost, University of Kansas, said he wanted to thank the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer for an opportunity to meet with them and talk about the support of this project. The University Staff of Design Construction Management and KU Public Safety met with City Staff on May 30^th to discuss the proposed changes for the 1900 through 2200 blocks of Naismith. The proposal was to provide a bike lane on the northbound lanes at Naismith and reduce the street to one vehicular lane over the length of the project. He said as they understood the project it was being implemented this summer as it addressed the resurfacing needs of Naismith Drive.

The City had traffic data to support the one lane configuration of northbound traffic on Naismith. The potential impact on vehicular traffic on a campus designation appeared to be minimal from the City’s data, which was traffic going northbound. The impact on traffic at Naismith north of 19^th Street, into the University, would also be minimal largely due to a traffic signal at the intersection of 19^th and Naismith, which controlled traffic moving on and off and through the neighborhood.

Since the main meeting, the University had met and identified a problem that existed with the potential for increased number of bicycles arriving at campus at that particular location. If those improvements were made, sooner or later they had the possibility of ending up at 19^th and Naismith.

There were also accesses to potential problems of downloading bicycle riders through 19^th Street and Naismith intersections without bicycle facilities on the campus side. They did not have facilities at this point to pick up those people coming northbound if that project moved forward. They understood that the current two lane configuration at Naismith and 19^th Street was simply not wide enough to install a bike lane without a widened road. He said the University had not studied the reducing of Naismith to one lane north of 19^th Street to see if it could carry traffic on a more permanent lane. He said if that option was explored, a traffic study was needed to determine the feasibility of this concept.

For that reason, the University, at this particular time, was not ready to recommend the proposed bike lane project, although they were in support of this project moving forward as best as it could.

The southbound lanes of Naismith, both north and south of 19^th Street, carry very high traffic volumes for special events, primarily basketball, and on occasion football games, and of course peak periods during most days of the week. The problem on the southbound was that everyone left at once from the Fieldhouse, which created the configuration problems with traffic and to a certain extent, safety.

Both the City and University Staff agree that would be more challenging to design sections of Naismith north and south of 19^th Street to accommodate both automobiles and bicycles, which eluded to right of way issues and perhaps sidewalk issues on each side.

The University would like to participate in a study of the impact of traffic and options for bicycle and pedestrian routes on both the north and southbound on Naismith. Part of it was they needed to have their study at the state where the City had their study in terms of the northbound and they both needed to look at southbound traffic as well.

Betty Alderson, Lawrence, said she spoke against this project over a concern for safety of bicyclists at the last meeting. Her neighborhood steering committee, which was not a large group, was not unanimous in their decision. Frankly, they could not see less than two lanes of traffic on that street. It had been two lanes of traffic since it was built in the mid 1950s. They had no less traffic now than they had then and they did not want that traffic diverted into the neighborhood because that was where they want the traffic to go out of the neighborhood and use the wider street. She said there were times, in the day, when she walked early in the morning and there was a lot of traffic. She said if it was one lane, it would be a nightmare on both north and south of 19^th and Naismith.

She said they were in favor of bicycle lanes. She said they could not have two lanes of traffic and a bicycle lane all in that stretch of road because there was no room. As she understood it, they had 10 feet of right of way from 20^th to 23^rd Street. One of the suggestions that came out from the Steering Committee was they put a pedestrian bike lane on that 10 foot right-of-way as there was on Clinton Parkway, but when arriving at 20^th Street, there was three feet of right-of-way and a terrace.

There had been quite a few accidents. One gentleman was severely injured a number of years ago and never actually fully covered from it at 19^th Terrace and Naismith. She said it was a case of speeding and this idea was not going to do anything for speeding on that stretch of the street. She said she talked to a few people in Schwegler and they thought traffic would kill a lot of bicyclists if that was implemented.

One issue they were almost in complete agreement with was they badly needed a sidewalk on the east side of Naismith. She said she had been under the impression several years ago that when improvements were made on Naismith that that would be part of it.

She did not think there was much support with doing away with two lanes of traffic, but she knew statistics backed that up. Periodically during the daytime there were a number of times when that street needed two lanes of traffic. She knew what it was like trying to access 19^th Street because she went to Naismith instead of 19^th to get downtown and to get onto 19^th Street and she would not like to see the same thing occur at Naismith.

She said they needed bicycle lanes and need to provide for all kinds of traffic. One of the questions had been addressed by Long was what happened when arriving at 19^th Street. She said they could not get to 19^th Street and asked what would happen at 20^th Street. She asked where the bicycle lane would go.

Eric Struckhoff, Chair of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, said he agreed with both Long and Alderson that that corridor was severely lacking in transportation facilities. He said the most glaring transportation facility was the sidewalk. He thought that corridor should be an optimal facility; pedestrian, bicycle, and auto traffic. According to the traffic count, there was enough capacity and space on that street for all three of those things to exist. He said the sidewalk was an expensive item and the re-striping for new lanes was also expensive, but right now they had the opportunity to establish the bicycle facility in accordance with the Bicycle Facilities Map that was adopted in 2004 while moving toward the vision of the optimal transportation corridor later.

When they adopted the bike map in 2004, the rationale for Naismith was that excess capacity on Naismith. Right now, 1800 cars per hour could travel on that street, but only 600 could enter from the south at the intersection with 23^rd Street, which meant that the capacity was 6 times what was needed. If they reduced it to one lane, the traffic that could possibly enter that street from the south would still be 1/3 of what the street could handle. Right now, they had a lot of excess capacity on the street.

Another rationale was connection to existing facilities which were Naismith Valley Park, the recreational path in the park, and 21^st Street, all important bicycle corridors which would provide connection between all three of those corridors.

Another issue was the lack of facilities currently serving KU Campus. He appreciated the comments made by Long that those facilities were not on KU’s campus yet and the plan was not there for those facilities to be installed. He thought the lack of facilities any place in the City or on campus was not a reason to forego facilities anywhere else. He thought it was reasonable to establish facilities where they were needed and this was a good place for those facilities.

He said KU was the number one destination for students, workers, and cyclists in Lawrence. He said there was only one bike facility that served the campus which was the recreational path between 19^th and the Lied Center which was about 300 meters of bike facility. He said it was a high level of service area because there was a lot of student housing in the area between KU and 31^st Street and it was reasonable to suspect that if they provided the facility, it was like any other roadway; people were going to use it which was a positive thing. He said he understood Long’s concern about cyclists arriving at campus via the bike lane and then they had more bicyclists than before. He said those bicyclist would proceed onto campus via the street on the right lane of Naismith on campus which he believed traffic counts would show had a 1/10 of the volume of the left lane because most of the traffic going onto campus was turning left continuing north onto 15^th Street.

He said he rode that stretch of Naismith once or twice a week and it was clear sailing on the right lane. He said on busy game days, there should be no problem with their experienced KU Police Department and Lawrence Police Department which routinely took entire streets and made them one way so that traffic could enter and exit one way. The bicycle lane should not be a conflict with the traffic lane at those times because he thought it was perfect and reasonable with Allen Field House or the stadium there to make those bike lanes inoperable as it was written in the staff report. He said they could put up a sign stating to form two lanes of traffic, which would be simple enough for drivers to understand. He said even if two lanes of traffic were done onto campus, once they get to Sunnyside, they had to break into one lane of traffic depending on what way they were going anyway.

He said there was the need for transportation options. The space for cars on campus like the rest of the City was getting tight so it was important to encourage people to use other forms of transportation which was what bike lanes did.

The report from the City Engineers indicated that staff had performed traffic counts and the cost analysis. He quoted from the report stating, “Initial review indicates the removal of a through travel lane will not adversely affect traffic capacity. In fact, changing to a dedicated right turn lane at 19^th Street may have capacity benefits.” He said he appreciated the concern of removing a driving lane and making a two lane street a single lane street. The fact was there was still going to be plenty of room for cars to drive. Knowing that, the lane would be wider. Right now there were two substandard lanes on that street. Anyone driving next to another car had felt the pinch as they went around the corner of 21^st and 19^th Terrace. He said it would be a wider, more comfortable driving lane and a needed bike facility.

He said KU Police Department had indicated its concern about traffic volumes on game day. He believed that police and drivers could handle the change from two lanes to one and ignore the bike stripe on the road in favor of signage and police instruction.

The BAC had unanimously recommended that bike lanes be installed per the bicycle facilities map that would provide a comfortable lane for a needed bike facility and important connections to existing and future bike facilities. He thought the corridor needed a complete redevelopment of all transportation facilities between 19^th and 23^rd Streets and should continue onto campus and thought that KU would agree with that. KU had not planned for that yet, but if they would provide those now, they should move forward with it to provide the best transportation corridor they could. They were going to provide needed capacity and would make exceptions like they did on game day in the rest of the city. They were going to make changes so that drivers could get to where they needed to go. The BAC still unanimously supported the installation of bike lanes on Naismith Drive.

Commissioner Rundle said during football season, between 9^th and 6^th Streets, two way streets became one way to help alleviate traffic leaving the stadium. He asked if there was any experience with exiting football game traffic that could give comfort in doing something on Naismith Drive.

Soules said he knew two-way traffic became one-way traffic in certain areas during football games. He did not disagree with Struckhoff that the Lawrence Police Department worked well with the University in getting people in and out of those events.

Vice Mayor Amyx said he had some concerns about removing two lanes of traffic, one on each side, and then changing it on game days would confuse some people. He said he agreed with Long that the entire corridor should be looked at and whether or not they were going to add sidewalks on the east side of the road. He said there were a number of issues that needed to be addressed. He said he would hate to see the City place someone in a position of getting hurt because of some confusion that might happen. He suggested as part of a capital improvement plan, to possibly add the sidewalk on east side of Naismith as a separate structure along Naismith Drive. He said there were some areas where it would be a pinch to try and construct a sidewalk through, but the question of safety came to mind.

Vice Mayor Hack said she appreciated Soules bringing this issue forward because it was part of the bicycle plan. She thought the Commission supported the connectivity efforts of the bicycle plan by several modes of transportation, but at the same time there were traffic issues to address. She said a study session took place several months ago regarding sidewalks and connectivity and one of the issues discussed, was having more opportunities to connect sidewalks on arterial and collector streets and by policy, had sidewalks on both sides of the street. To have a major north/south connection in that vicinity would be preferable to what it was now, but it would need to be done safely. She echoed the Mayor’s comments, that she would like to look at the bike and walking paths at that location and work with the University.

Commissioner Schauner said he had driven down Naismith Drive in both directions to look at current sidewalk on the west side which was in substantial disrepair and was not safe to walk on, much less ride a bike on. If the City was going to spend a significant amount of money constructing and repairing sidewalks, he thought they should spend it first on the west side where they already had a sidewalk which would help the pedestrian traffic.

He said he was not as troubled by the addition of a bike lane at that location. He said as he had driven down the street during the middle of the day with the traffic, he found the two lanes were pretty narrow. He did not find those lanes at a comfortable distance to be driving side by side with another car. He said if they added a bike lane on the northbound side, he asked if it was necessary to add a bike lane on the southbound side. He asked if there was some uniform traffic rule that indicated those lanes had to mirror one another.

Soules said no. He said he made that comment from a driver’s perspective. He said there was no rule that it had to be the same cross section.

Commissioner Schauner said KU was spending a tremendous amount of money on a Park and Ride lot on Clinton Parkway. It seemed that anything the University and the City could do to reduce the student reliance on automobiles and increase the student reliance on other modes of transportation; they would be huge dollars ahead with the University in terms of parking capacity. He said he was supportive of adding bike lane on the northbound side. He did not support bike lanes on the southbound side because he thought money could be better spent. He thought they could provide a very good pedestrian access on the west side using the sidewalk that was at that location if it was repaired.

He agreed with the BAC because they were the people riding on the streets everyday and had a better sense of what was doable and what was not in respect to bicycle traffic. He said he would like to try that idea of re-striping bike lanes.

Commissioner Rundle said he concurred with Commissioner Schauner. He said if the idea proved unworkable they could revisit that issue. When they were looking at the reconstruction of Kasold originally, the first proposal was to go to a five lane facility and at that time, they started looking at other research on the internet and thought there was considerable evidence a lot of traffic could be moved on two lanes, one each way, as long as the intersections provided all of the turning capacity and stacking ability.

He was very confident that staff had shown this was something they could handle. He said if they were not able to do that now, they needed to look at other areas that were in the same situation such as the University of Madison in Wisconsin where they had a lot of bike lanes, lots of pedestrian and bicycle activity, but also a lot of major streets going in and around the campus. He thought that they could get some reassurance from other areas that had the experience with comparable issues.

Commissioner Highberger said he supported the bike lane and they needed to do everything they could to encourage bicycle use and the safety of bicycle users, but he was not sure this was the right way to address this issue in this case. He said if those traffic numbers were everyday traffic numbers, he would have no trouble at all saying this could be a two lane street. Given the fact they had substantially higher traffic volumes on single days during the year, he was unsure. He was also concerned about the 14 foot driving lane. He thought there was evidence showing that driver speeds depend on the lane width. He was afraid if they made that lane 14 feet wide, they were going to see dramatically higher speeds at that location. He thought it would put people on foot and on bicycles in much more danger than the people who were trying to navigate the 10 foot lanes. He thought a bicyclist in this situation would be safer using a driving lane than trying to drive beside a 14 foot wide traffic lane. He said he regretfully could not support the bike lane, but could support the sidewalk improvements on this corridor.

Commissioner Rundle said it was an intriguing idea that somehow they needed to make it clear the right lane was bicycles and automobiles. He said it might raise awareness and make people be a little more careful.

Mayor Amyx suggested receiving the report and asking staff to consider the item Commissioner Rundle brought up about sharing the lane. Once the City Commission went through the budget process, to take some time to make some recommendations or look at what kind of area they did have to add a bicycle path or sidewalk.

Corliss said he planned on having a recommendation in the budget that responded to the interest in sidewalk connectivity. He said this summer they would be doing a sidewalk inventory which would give them a beginning analytical basis for determining sidewalk priority and clearly they had identified a location in response to the neighborhood or other concerns. He said they would be sure to note that location as well.

Soules said staff needed direction on whether or not to proceed with the mill and overlay and curb repair on Naismith. If they wanted to get this project done before school started, he thought the contractor already started saw cutting some of the curb out there.

Corliss said staff could follow up on the comment about signage and/or land markings.

Soules said staff could address the additional issues that Commissioner Highberger brought up as far as markings. Signage they could do anytime, but markings they would want to do that in the asphalt. He said they were going to start tearing out those curbs, but if Commission wanted to wait on this project, they needed to stop them now.

Commissioner Hack said she would move to direct staff to mill and overlay and restripe Naismith.

Commissioner Rundle said he knew they had difficulty in getting space for a sidewalk along that area, but it seemed the time of curb replacement would be the time to do the sidewalk, too. He asked if there was another way to postpone this issue for another year.

Soules said they tend to have a space between the sidewalk and the back of the curb so they could put the sidewalk in afterwards. He said there were some tight areas, but they would not need to tear up the curb or gutter to put a sidewalk in. He said he did not know if that decreased or increased the cost by doing it all at the same time, but it could be something that could be done afterwards.

Commissioner Schauner asked if part of the project cost was land acquisition at the north end.

Soules said yes. Whether they acquired it as right-of-way or a pedestrian easement, it would depend on how they would need to work with the property owners.

Moved by, Hack, seconded by Rundle to receive the report on the Naismith Drive bicycle lane stripping issue and directed staff to mill and overlay Naismith Drive and restripe it as it is today and to add additional signage for lane sharing for bikes and automobiles. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (21)

Conduct a public hearing on the creation of a special assessment benefit district for the improvement of Overland Drive from Queen’s Road, west to Stoneridge Drive.

Chuck Soules, Public Works, Director, said the City Commission was conducting a public hearing on creation of a benefit district to improve Overland Drive from Queens Road, west to Stoneridge Drive. He said the benefit district would be assessed on a front footage basis. There was a waterline that was involved and staff had started some interviews for consultants for Stoneridge Drive for that benefit district which was approved several weeks ago. He said it was a collector road and anticipated a roundabout at the intersection of Stoneridge and Overland Drive. They also anticipated a roundabout at Queens Road, but it was not a part of the benefit district.

Mayor Amyx called a public hearing on the creation of a special assessment benefit district for the improvement on Overland Drive from Queen’s Road, west to Stoneridge Drive.

Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6655, ordering the construction of public improvements of Overland Drive from the intersection of Queens Road, west to Stoneridge Drive approximately 1340 feet, including property acquisition, traffic calming/control devices, intersection improvements, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, waterlines and other necessary and appropriate improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (22)

Conduct a public hearing on possible amendments to the extra-ordinary setback requirements along West 6^th Street pursuant to CH 21, Article 12 of the City Code. The first text amendment (TA-07-04-05) concerns the impact of the setbacks when property is acquired by governmental takings. The second text amendment (TA-01-01-06) is consideration of the repeal or amendment of the 50 foot setback requirement.

a) TA-07-04-05: Consider Text Amendment to Chapter 21 of the City Code which would eliminate government takings for street or other public purposes as a cause of any setback or required off-street parking violation.

b) TA-01-01-06: Consideration of repeal or amendment of the 50’ setback along West 6^th Street/US 40 between Monterey Way and Wakarusa Drive.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said he wanted to speak briefly about the first text amendment which the City Commission considered several months back. The formal public hearing was held off as the City Commission discussed possible amendments to the entire setback article in the Subdivision Regulations. Text amendment TA-07-04-05 was a text amendment the City Commission authorized an ordinance to be drafted regarding the elimination of governmental takings and whether or not that would impact setbacks in the special extraordinary setback requirements in Chapter 21 Article 12.

He said the statute they were operating under required a special public hearing before the governing body that was enacting the extraordinary setbacks. He said they were conducting one hearing regarding proposed text amendment and the impact of governmental takings on the setback requirements. He said this was essentially stating, regardless of the governmental taking, that they were not going to hold the property in harm because of the setback requirement, which was approved several months ago, but the Commission needed to authorize the ordinance to be enacted.

He said the other text amendment concerned the 50 foot setback between Monterey Way and Wakarusa Drive, which had been a subject of discussions before the City Commission which was sent back to the Planning Commission and now it was coming back from the Planning Commission to the City Commission.

Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission needed to hold two public hearings.

Corliss said they were holding one public hearing on all of the text amendment issues.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the Commission had to hold one public hearing on each of the text amendments.

Corliss said those text amendments were advertised as one public hearing. He hoped the City Commission proceeded with the governmental taking setback issue because it had already been authorized by the Commission. He said the Commission could work their will on what they wanted to do with reducing or eliminating the setback as well.

Commissioner Schauner asked if they were having one hearing, but two separate votes.

Corliss said that was correct.

Dan Warner, Planner, presented information on the setback issue. He said this was the second time the City Commission had seen a version of this particular issue. He said when this issue was shifted back to the Planning Commission, the City Commission recommended the Planning Commission take a look at the corridor between Folks and Wakarusa and examine options for amending or repealing the extraordinary setback. Staff came up with two options in that corridor.

One option was to completely repeal the 50 foot setback between Folks and Wakarusa and the other option was to amend the setback to 25 feet between Folks and Wakarusa. Both of those options would be on both sides of the corridor. The recommendation was for the Planning Commission to choose between those two options. The Planning Commission had a number of votes on a number of different options and failed to garner a majority on any of those options. He said the City Commission was getting the amendment back without a recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Highberger asked if the Planning Commission’s recommendation was to deny or repeal the setback.

Warner said he believed the Planning Commission voted on denying the setback, but failed to get a majority vote. He said it was coming back without a recommendation.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the super setback was either amended to 25 feet or eliminated all together, would it permit construction of additional buildings within that now vacated or altered text amendment of the 25 or 50 feet.

Warner said not necessarily. The property that had yet to be platted, between Folks and Wakarusa, which was very small, could now get closer to the street. He said there were a number of subdivisions that had already platted a 50 foot setback. He said he did not think they could get any closer and needed to go through the replatting process.

Commissioner Schauner said without the 25 or 50 foot setback, either through replatting or some other method, they could build closer to the street than they were currently permitted to do.

Warner said that was correct.

Commissioner Highberger asked if there was a map that showed the setback to setback distances now and what they would be.

Warner presented a map that showed the setbacks and right-of-way.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment on either of the two issues.

Dan Watkins, representing Bauer Farms Project, said he respectfully requested the City Commission adopt Ordinance No 8004 which would make the setback subject to the existing zoning in that district. He said this would only apply between Folks and Wakarusa and he thought of all the subdivisions or areas that had been platted that were subject to the 50 foot setback; nearly all were done with 50 feet of right-of-way from the center line on 6^th Street. He said in this corridor between Folks and Wakarusa, there was 75 feet of right-of-way north of the center line. If there was existing zoning, it would be 30 to 35 feet, but that could also be departed through approval of a development plan. He said they could be closer. He said if the setbacks were 10 to 15 feet, there would be 85-95 feet from the center line, which would allow plenty of room for the utilities, green space and the sidewalks.

He said this issue had been a ping pong ball back and forth and numbers were a little bit jumbled, but it provided the most flexibility for the Commission and again it would only apply to this one section of the corridor.

Mayor Amyx asked, from the curb line going north based upon the improved zoning for each one of those tracts, what was the distance to the first building going north.

Watkins said there was 75 feet of right-of-way and 2 ½ lanes, although it was not the entire distance, but if it was the entire distance it would be 30 feet. If there were 2 to 3 feet of curb and gutter, it would be 32 or 33 feet of roadway. He said there would be 42 feet of right-of-way left, plus the setback of 10 to 15 feet which varied along this development, so it would end up a total of 52 to 57 feet from the back of curb to a building or parking area.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Highberger said he was looking at the 160 foot number and it looked like the number without the 50 foot setback for the total setback to setback line, and the 225 was where the 50 foot setback.

Warner said that was correct.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to place on first reading Ordinance 7949, a joint City ordinance/County resolution, amending subdivisions regulations pertaining to the enforcement and exceptions to building setback which are the result of governmental takings for public right-of-way, easements or other governmental use. Motion carried unanimously. (23)

Mayor Amyx said the next text amendment was the consideration of the repeal or amendment of the 50’ setback along West 6^th Street/US 40 between Monterey Way and Wakarusa Drive.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought repealing the 50 foot setback was not a good idea because of the reasons that were stated in the Planning Commission notes. Commissioner Burress stated the Gateway Committee’s comments were that the section of the street was a gateway to the community. If the 50 foot setback was eliminated, they would see replatting of existing properties and would see substantial addition of construction closer to the street. He did not think that was the look the street was planned to deliver and he did not think it would be keeping with the long term plans for that part of town. He thought they could accomplish that with the Bauer Farm issues without abandoning the 50 foot setback throughout the entire corridor from Folks to Wakarusa. He said if they did that then he suspected they would be faced with the similar request west of Wakarusa. He thought they had a legitimate setback the way it was and could accommodate the Bauer Farm development without the larger and broader text amendment. He thought they ought to deal with Bauer Farms separately, other than adopting the substantial text amendment.

Vice Mayor Hack said that was what they were exactly doing with the zoning that was in place for Bauer Farms. She said regarding this area being the gateway, it might have been the gateway when Wakarusa was Drag Strip Road, but she did not see that area as the gateway now and believed the gateway had expanded west.

She said the Bauer Farms Project was approved by the City Commission. She said Ordinance No. 8004 allowed the zoning to take place. She said from a philosophical standpoint, Commissioner Highberger discussed the restriping on Naismith and creating that wide lane of transportation. With buildings being closer to the road it made people more aware and would give people that sense of slowing things down in that corridor. She supported the ordinance that left the setbacks in place in the area it was zoned for and if the project was approved, made more sense.

Commissioner Highberger said he respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Schauner and the Gateway Committee on this issue. The fact that this was potentially a gateway was a prime reason for changing the setback. The only function of a 50 foot setback was to mandate sprawl. He said there were high traffic roadways being designed in this country that were workable which set building line to building line distances of 120 feet or 130 feet. If the 50 foot setback was taken away, through most of that corridor there would be 50 feet from curbline to a building. Studies had been conducted regarding what made people feel good about places and the ratio of the height of the edge to the width of the space was crucial to people. Anything more than 1 to 4, was more than four times of the height and people did not have a sense of place.

He said he thought it was piecemeal and would be happy to do away with the setback the rest of the corridor, but that was not meeting with a majority vote. He said regarding Bauer Farms or no Bauer Farms, he thought getting rid of that 50 foot setback was good public policy.

Commissioner Rundle said the fact the Planning Commission could not come to a majority vote on this issue was a sign this issue had not been thought through as well as they should to make this decision. He thought it was relevant to discuss those issues of new urbanism, but in the context of developing some new urbanism code or plan. He thought they needed to discuss what setbacks they had when discussing specifics of that parallel code at some point.

He said in Ordinance No. 8005, the setbacks were all along 6^th Street to Wakarusa and this was just from Folks to Wakarusa. He preferred not taking on the entire length of 6^th Street, at this time, until the City Commission could get a clearer community and Planning Commission consensus.

Commissioner Schauner said regarding the comment from Vice Mayor Hack on predictability, people developed that section with an expectation of a certain setback. He said with the gateway treatment that was offered, predictability was taken away.

Secondly, trying to essentially place new urbanist principles in an existing development in an area that had been developed was not good public policy. New urbanism concepts, if placed in an original development, might be fine because he did not have a strong opinion about that issue, but he had a strong opinion about whether it made sense to overlay new urbanist principles in an existing area. He said they would end up with an eclecticism that he did not think would be particularly appealing. He said as a matter of principle, he would rather maintain that level of predictability that was valued.

Mayor Amyx said the comments made on this issue were all very good. He said Commissioners Rundle and Highberger brought up a comment about going west of Wakarusa Drive, but he was not ready to even think of going west of Wakarusa Drive with any type of change in the setback.

He said Ordinance No. 8004 addressed and satisfied his concerns. He said Commissioner Schauner brought up an interesting point on whether or not a new urbanist type of project could be brought to the fold at a late date. He said as they looked at a new development code that dealt with traditional neighborhood development, he thought they would be giving people in the development business the opportunity to bring that type of development which was what this particular developer did. He said his main concern was the setback from the curb line and to make sure there was adequate space along the right-of-way. He thought the development had been done very well and accomplished things that were important along that stretch of West 6^th Street which was from Folks Road to Wakarusa Drive.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8004, a joint ordinance/resolution of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas, amending the joint subdivision regulations, Chapter 21 of the “Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003, “and amendments thereto, specifically amending subdivision regulations pertaining to building setback lines on major streets or highways. Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger. Nay: Rundle and Schauner. Motion carried. (24)

Receive report concerning City approval and financial participation in the proposed Douglas County sanitary sewer benefit district south of East 23^rd Street, east of O’Connell Road.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Service Director, said City Staff had been in discussions with Douglas County officials and the developers of Fairfield Farms East, a mixed use development that was approved on the east side of O’Connell south of 23^rd Street. He said as the Commission was aware, one of the infrastructure issues that needed to be responded to with this development was sanitary sewers. The proposed sanitary sewer benefit district with Douglas County would conform to City plans for providing sanitary sewer in that area.

One of the items concerning sanitary sewers was they would be able to remove some sanitary sewer pump stations from the City system and have it drained by gravity to the new sanitary sewer improvement and thought that was beneficial in keeping with the master plan. He said that was going to require City financial participation from the Utility Department in which staff was recommending. He said staff also wanted to discuss this project as it related to some of the other issues in the southeast area.

Philip Ciesielski, Utilities Engineer, presented the staff report. He said the area in question that would determine the southeast area benefit district was depicted as south of K-10 Highway, east of 1750 Road, north of 31^st Street extended, and east of O’Connell Road. The current developer had interest in developing the Fairfield Farms East Residential Development as well as other development toward K-10. They also had a tract on the west side of O’Connell Road, currently part of Fairfield Farms West that per its development and plat required, being sewered to the east. He said what the developer had laid out was a benefit district that ultimately would be poised to serve the entire area. He said there was an opportunity to eliminate three existing pump stations; two with City participation and the other station would be with developer participation. Other pump stations were: pump station 41, on east 27^th Court; pump station 38, Douglas County Detention Facility; and pump station 47, a temporary facility, as part of Fairfield Farms West. The flows from those stations would immediately be consolidated in a larger, regional facility located east of East 1700 Road and north of the 31^st Street Corridor. This facility would initially pump by force main north of and across from K-10 into the existing pump station 25 in the East Hills Business Park. City participation was targeted at strictly the flows for the decommissioning of pump station 41 and 38. The benefit district was comprised initially of City participation for those two pump stations as well as the land. The property owners had been approached and were considering being part of the benefit district.

The facilities from the upstream area in the northwest down to the pump station were proposed to be sized, designed, and constructed to accommodate all of the gravity drainage that would ultimately land in this interceptor. The initial design of the pump station would be for the immediate need of the area within the benefit district as well as the City participation. It would be constructed and designed as such it could be expandable as additional land areas around this that came in to participate in the benefit district. He said depending on the timing, they would also participate in their share of the gravity interceptor which was installed for the benefit district, sized to accommodate those lands.

Staff’s desire was to remove the pump stations because they were smaller packaged type pump stations that were in operational capacity and a maintenance drain on City staff. Consolidating things in a larger, more regional facility would be a much more efficient design and operational set up.

The basic layout did conform with the update to the master plan which was the Southeast Area update to the 2003 Master Plan. They had recognized in their submission where they deviated from the master plan in terms of populations and had addressed those issues.

City staff did plan on discussing with those adjacent property owners what the installations of those facilities meant to those property owners with regard to future sanitary sewer service. They also would need a document understanding in what their future participation would be, not only in those facilities constructed today, but what would be required of them as additional facilities to accommodate their land as it developed. At the moment, the proposed cost based on concept type plans was $806,141.00.

Corliss said one issue that was important to note was the sanitary sewer capacity was supposed to accommodate any of the uses that had been discussed in the southeast area, whether or not the uses were focused on employment center, business park, or residential uses. He said it did not provide capacity for a large scale water user that might be an industrial park. That would be a major system issue regardless of where it came into the community.

Ciesielski said they had assessed this area based on some fairly dense residential for the majority, which was one of the higher use categories when looking at the overall peak flows that were generated. As scaling back to additional commercial outside of the anomaly industrial user, like a meat packing plant, that needed to be considered on its own no matter where in the City it would be sited. Those facilities accommodated a wide range of land uses.

Corliss said the other point Phil touched on that he wanted to emphasize was that he directed the Utility Department staff to begin work on a document that would be provided with the property owners in this area that would ensure they understood the sewer capacity they had in this area. He said they would not have the challenge in coming years with misunderstanding the fact if they wanted to develop outside of the property right now, it would require an improvement to the pump station and an improvement to the force main.

Ciesielski said they would buy into their share of the gravity system, pay for improvements to the pump station, in either a share of the force main or additional force main capacity needing to be constructed. Part of the force main sizing was yet to be determined in the ultimate design as to what was efficient and acceptable within design parameters for that flow.

Commissioner Schauner asked if build out were to be denser than currently projected and the developer buys into the system, would there be additional City participation, at that point, over and above the $806,000.

Corliss said no, it was not anticipated there would be City participation. The only City participation would be if the decision was made to direct the flow south to the new water reclamation facility.

Ciesielski said that was a consideration. He said there was one more existing pump station, in the future, that they would have the opportunity to take offline.

Corliss said it was not a capacity issue, but rather an efficiency/operational issue.

Vice Mayor Amyx asked about the estimated cost of the entire benefit district.

Ciesielski said the estimated total cost for the benefit district for the pump station, all of the gravity system, the force main and the decommissioning of the existing pump stations other participants costs would be $3,266,616 plus the City’s $806,161 which totaled approximately $4.1 million total.

Mayor Amyx asked if the County looked at this issue or was that the next step.

Corliss said that was the next step. The County asked for the City to perform studies because the County was essentially the financing mechanism. The City was going to approve the plans, own the facilities, and operate those facilities and the County was going to debt finance and collect the money from the property owners as they come online for the sewer facilities. He said after the City Commission was satisfied with the direction they wanted to proceed and was satisfied with the financing participation based on staff’s recommendation and then staff would be sending that information onto the County. Staff was working on a City/County Cooperation Agreement.

Mayor Amyx asked if this was similar to the way they normally did a County benefit district for a sewer.

Corliss said it was similar to how they normally did a county sewer benefit district.

Mayor Amyx asked if the City had been involved to make sure the City Commission recommendations were being fully considered on those capacities.

Corliss said that had been staff’s question at all of those meetings and staff was satisfied with the answers. He said staff was taking the additional steps that he had outlined to make sure not only did the City know what the capacity issues were, but that those property owners know by legal description exactly what they had to do to hook up to the sanitary sewer system.

Mayor Amyx asked if the capacity ran with the property.

Corliss said staff would have a document that was based on a legal description that would say for this property, if that property wanted to hook up to sanitary sewer system, this was what would be required.

Commissioner Rundle asked how this related to the Wakarusa Sewer Plant once it was completed and asked if it would be totally decommissioned.

Ciesielski said the facility would not be decommissioned. The initial construction would be positioned, north across to K-10 to the large pump station at the East Hills Business Park, which pumped to the existing wastewater treatment plant. This facility had the opportunity to actually in the future be pumped south to the new Wakarusa Facility.

Commissioner Rundle asked if they were building it to the capacity they needed to for the future use.

Ciesielski said the capacity of the pump station and force main would be specifically targeted at the people participating today. He said that was part of the discussion with the land owners that were not participating, at this time, as to what their required additions would be to bring their participation in the gravity portions of the system which were being sized to accommodate them, but also what their participation or requirements would be additional capacity at the pump station as their properties come online.

Mayor Amyx said the new pump station was going to be designed that if there was going to be a work center, the pump station would be of size to accommodate that center.

Ciesielski said it would be expandable.

Corliss said it would be expandable, but was not being built for the ultimate size. He said that was a key reason to why they wanted to communicate this to the property owners. If they see sewers out there, that did not mean they would be able to hook onto it. There would be additional cost they would need to bear to right size the pump station and right size the force mains going north.

Ciesielski said the portion that was being right sized today was the gravity portion that led to the pump station.

Corliss said they were making plans to accommodate that, but they were not putting facilities in the ground to completely accommodate for future development because they did not know the timing. He said for gravity line, they were making it the correct size for what they believed to be the ultimate density, including property such as the O’Connell Youth Ranch which had never given any indication that they wanted to pursue development.

Commissioner Rundle asked if there would be a totally new force main to go south when that time came and would the properties have any responsibility.

Corliss said he did not know if they had determined how that would be financed in the future. He thought it would be a relief line the City at large would pay for, if they determined that was in the best interest to direct that flow to the south.

Commissioner Schauner said concerning the article in the newspaper regarding potential buyers for the Farmland property, if that were to develop mixed use residential medium density, or some other combination, he asked where would it seem best to take that flow. He asked if it would go around to the existing wastewater treatment plant or go south.

Ciesielski said it would go north.

Commissioner Schauner said even if it would be gravity to the new wastewater treatment plant on the Wakarusa.

Ciesielski said it would go on the north side of K-10.

Commissioner Highberger said he believed the governing bodies had made it clear about the projected future uses at that location.

Mayor Amyx said since he had been on the Commission there had been discussion, especially from Commissioner Schauner, about the removal of pump stations and making it work more efficiently. He said he never understood it until they got into some of the problems they had in the northwest. He said it seemed that staff had looked at a number of ways to make the system more efficient such as decommissioning a number of the existing stations and adequately sizing along with expandability of a new station. He said they would have an understanding with property owners as to what they were actually buying in available use of this new district.

He said he appreciated the work that Corliss had done in making sure the City’s participation was important to decommission those pump stations, but also make sure the property owners do understand the capacity that they would have based on the zonings that were available at this property. He said if the agreement worked out, it would be a very big step in the improvement of the sewer system over a period of time.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve City financial participation contingent upon approval of City-County cooperation agreement and final City staff approval of sanitary sewer plans. Motion carried unanimously. (25)

Consider approval of CPA-2005-2: Chapter 9, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space to the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020.

Paul Patterson, Planner, presented the staff report. He said the primary reason for revising the update was to be consistent with the Parks and Recreation master plan, the notebook document of 2000. The update was consistent and conformed to the current Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Chapter 9 did not include improved definitions of park standards and definitions; it included a level of service to 12 to 15 acres of park land per 1000 residents as an acceptable benchmark. The adoption of Chapter 9 was discussed by the City Commission on October 18^th, 2005. The City Commission sent the item back to the Planning Commission to review the issue of one quarter mile of service radius for neighborhood parks instead of the standard of one half mile service radius. A neighborhood park was generally five to ten acres in size and represented the basic unit of the park system and served as recreational and social focuses of a neighborhood. The basic neighborhood planning concept was one square mile. The neighborhood park of 5 to 10 acres would be located in the middle of the square mile and would have a one half mile service radius was the basic concept.

The Planning Commission Ad Hoc Subcommittee met on this issue and discussed the one quarter mile distance standard for parks multiple times. A prior memo from the committee to the Planning, City and County Commissioners stated the committee was aware of the debate over mini parks and whether to place small parks within one quarter or half a mile of everybody. The emphasis on green belts and greenways did offer the opportunity to place many parks throughout the City in the form of nodes within greenways. Those nodes could be trough heads or larger grass areas within the greenways, for example Burroughs Creek Trail Project. This proposal continued to use a half mile standard for neighborhood parks, but in combination with connection of greenways. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had also discussed this on several occasions and continued to support the one half mile distance standards for neighborhood parks. Providing parks every one quarter of a mile did not seem practical due to the cost of tax payers of acquisition of the park land plus initial development of ongoing maintenance. The Advisory Board encouraged the Parks and Recreation Department to emphasize connectivity to parks, schools and neighborhoods with greenbelts and trails, which the parks plan supported. The one half mile standard with connecting greenways was supported by surveys from the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. The survey results indicated the most important park improvements citizens want were walking and biking trails that link neighborhood parks.

At the January 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission did discuss the neighborhood park service radius issues. They requested additionally information on the park maintenance to determine what the desire of service rates of neighborhood parks should be, whether it was one half mile or one quarter mile, a copy of the January Planning Commission Minutes were in Attachment A of the staff report. He said this went back before the Planning Commission in May and again discussed the standards and the Planning Commission voted 7-1 to recommend adoption of Chapter 9 with the one half mile service radius for a neighborhood park. They also discussed that linkages to neighborhood parks should contain resting areas and that play lots and mini parks would be acceptable in certain specific new areas with concentrations of higher residential densities. The copies of the May Planning Commission minutes were included with this item.

The Board of County Commissioners the previous day met and adopted Chapter 9 Parks and Recreation and Open Space. They did not discuss the standards for neighborhood parks; they left that to city for the City Commission’s discussion. He said they would like to meet with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to see if areas of cooperation coordination made sense.

He said it was staff’s recommendation and the Planning Commission recommendation for approval of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 9 Parks and Recreation Open Space for the unincorporated Douglas County in the City of Lawrence.

Aida Alaka said she moved to Lawrence from Chicago three years ago and since that time, she had been concerned about the way development occurred in Lawrence. One of the biggest issues for her personally was the issue of park space. In Chicago people could walk anywhere they needed to go and she knew this Commission had been interested in issues of new urbanism. She urged the City Commission to consider adopting a plan that would require mini parks, at least, for every ¼ mile. She said in all neighborhoods in Chicago and other wonderful cities, being able to have access to outdoor space where the community could congregate, walk to, socialize, and exercise, was al part of living in a beneficial way in that city.

She said in Barcelona, everywhere you go in that city, there were promenades and streets wide enough with open space where residents could come to congregate in the evening. She said Lawrence needed to think about the long term and the aspects of this city which were so appealing to outsiders who would come to Lawrence and make their lives here. She said Lawrence could not rely on the existing amenities forever. She said this city was attractive, but as monochromatic development heads further and further west and as they experienced sprawl, they did need to think about having sidewalks on both sides of the streets and having mini parks. They did not need to be extensive or expensive in order for them to have benefit for the community.

She believed that in East Lansing, Michigan, which was also a college town like Lawrence, the developers paid at least in part, if not in whole, for pocket parks as they developed new areas and that was something the City Commission should consider getting more developer involvement in creating not just greenbelts with bike paths, although she supported that 100%, but for actual gathering spaces for the community.

Commissioner Schauner said he would like Lawrence to see a shorter distance from neighborhoods to parks. He suggested amending this proposal to a quarter of a mile. He hoped that they continued to look at providing developers an opportunity to see the value to their financial interests in contributing to the City’s park system. He said a park made it a lot more attractive place to buy, build, live, and raise a family and to the extent they could continue to motivate developers to do that he would like for staff to try.

Mayor Amyx asked if it would be a wise idea when looking at mini parks to consider dedications as they look at new developments on those mini parks. He said he believed those mini parks would make new neighborhoods viable. He thought the big neighborhood parks could stay at that half mile distance, but he thought they could develop in the newer areas of development, through dedication of the small one acre types of mini parks.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if the Mayor was suggesting accepting this issue as written which was the ½ mile and further investigate the idea of smaller parks in new neighborhood developments.

Mayor Amyx said yes. He said he did not disagree with the one quarter mile, but he thought they could adopt this with the recommendation of the one half mile and could start having discussions about the necessity of the mini parks as the developments occurred as being dedicated or some other plan.

Vice Mayor Hack said she could support that idea. She said what concerned her was the quarter mile distance and the number of parks it created, along with the amount of money it would take for maintaining those parks if they expanded those parks over the long haul. She said she was comfortable in supporting the way the chapter was written in Horizon 2020. She said they needed to take a look at what they could do as new neighborhoods were created to emphasize the necessity for those mini parks, gathering spots for communities. She said those parks would add to the sense of place.

Commissioner Highberger said he could not support the plan as written. He said looking at a map that showed a quarter mile radius around all the City’s existing parks and when looking at the older neighborhoods, they were all pretty much covered, but it fell apart moving farther west. He agreed that it was crucial that all of the new neighborhoods had some sort of public gathering space, whether it was a small park or some type of public facility.

He said with all due respect to City staff, the figure of a million dollars for maintenance was based on full build out of the urban growth area which they were not expecting for 25 to 30 years. He said if the City Commission approved a smaller service area for parks, they needed to understand that it might cost more for maintenance and might not be able to provide that money in future budget years.

He said the information he had seen showed that a small majority of people would walk a quarter of a mile to go to a park and a very small percentage of people would walk half a mile to go to a park. He thought if they really wanted to build livable neighborhoods for our future, he thought they would need to address this issue. He said he would like to work on the suggestions by the Mayor, but he was not willing to adopt this plan in this form, at this time, because it would make it part of their long term planning document.

Commissioner Rundle concurred with Commissioner Highberger. He said the deficit that the City had already out in the western areas of the communities was already pretty glaring. He said this half mile standard was a way to start addressing a very clear need, but they needed to be more aggressive and one was to establish a more aggressive policy.

Commissioner Highberger said he did not want to denigrate any of the work that had been done. He said there had been a lot of hard work that had gone into this plan. In general, he thought it was a good document, but only had a concern about one area of the plan.

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to refer this issue back to the Planning Commission, the proposed Chapter 9 Parks Recreation and Open Space to the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020 with the recommended to change the park service radius area from one half mile to one quarter mile. Aye: Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Amyx and Hack. Motion carried. (26)

Receive staff memo regarding overweight vehicles and vehicle safety requirements.

Scott Miller, Staff Attorney, presented the staff report. He said before the City Commission was one version of the Ordinance No. 7990 and two versions of Ordinance 7991.

He said Ordinance No. 7991 adopted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations as something that was municipally enforceable in the City of Lawrence through Municipal Court. The only difference between the two versions was the original version did not eliminate an exemption from the City of Lawrence’s own vehicles because all the vehicles that were owned by governmental units, federal, state, local governmental units, were exempt under the federal regulations. He said Steve Glass, LRM Industries, recommended the City adopt a little bit more of a proactive approach or be a leader in this subject by exposing its vehicles to inspections under the regulations. The alternative version of Ordinance 7991 specified the City’s vehicles would no longer be exempt from the inspection requirements under those regulations. That was the only difference between those two versions. Based upon the City’s operation, whether it would have significant impact, he thought the answer was, under either version, the impact of the City’s operations would be about the same. He did not expect if they adopted either version of that ordinance there would be any significant change in the way the City did business.

Ordinance No. 7990, the Overweight Truck Ordinance was a little bit more complicated because of a wider variety of policy decisions that probably needed to be made to determine the appropriate ordinance. The ordinance that was before the City Commission adopted all of the rules that were present under state law, with one exception. That exception was the City exposed its vehicles to overweight enforcement, which did not exist in state law. He said in other words, for normal members of the public, citizens, and companies, the rules were identical between state law and the City’s version of the ordinance as it was presented.

He said Glass had asked that a couple of the exceptions that existed in state law be revisited for either the purpose of City vehicles or eliminated overall. Those involved garbage trucks, when those trucks were carrying solid waste and fertilizer spreaders, which were two of many exceptions that existed in the ordinance and state law. If they eliminated those exceptions, they could do it either only in regards to the City vehicles or they could eliminate the exceptions for vehicles belonging to members of the public as well. The problematic thing about doing that idea was they would have Lawrence only rules. They would have rules that people outside the city traveling through the City might not understand because they exist no where else in the state. He said that was something that needed to be considered because from a pavement management standpoint there was no difference, between one overweight vehicle, compared to another overweight vehicle in the amount of damage they might do to the pavement of the City. He said from a public policy standpoint, the State of Kansas had seen fit to decide that there were some things that overweighed pavement management concerns. He said he was looking for some sort of direction regarding whether the City Commission wished some type of amendment to Ordinance No.’s 7990 or 7991 or whether the Commission would entertain the thought of passing those ordinances as written.

Commissioner Rundle asked if it was possible to write an ordinance in such a way the exemption would stay in the ordinance, but include Lawrence City vehicles as not exempted.

Miller said yes. He said another option was by administrative policy. He said there would be an administrative policy that stated the City staff would comply with the strictest requirements for all City vehicles as opposed to writing it actually into the ordinance, but that could be done.

Commissioner Schauner said that idea would be his preference.

Vice Mayor Hack asked Soules how difficult that would be to comply.

Soules said he had discussed that idea with solid waste crews and the street division and they were in the same boat as Glass. When City workers were out on a construction project loading those dump trucks, staff did not have a scale on hand. He said City employees, from experience know when the trucks were loaded and would need to error on the cautious side.

He said on the solid waste side, he received a monthly report from Hamm’s quarries concerning weights of those loads. He said staff had only seen a few times when they might have been overweight and that was when they had wet trash. He said they would need to make sure City workers were aware they would be subject to all rules. They also talked to staff that if this ordinance passed, staff needed to sit down with the Police Department when they received their scales, and staff would need to start pulling their trucks over to see how they were running to give them experience and make sure they knew what was going on. He said staff did not have any problems with it.

Commissioner Rundle said the ordinance could be written in such a way that if there were special circumstances such as removal of flood debris that they could come before the City Commission to received emergency authorization.

Corliss said staff had a way to comply with the ordinance.

Commissioner Schauner said he sensed that state and federal rules, with respect to weight limits, were themselves a compromise. He said it was not like those were the best practices with respect to weights per axle. He said the weights that were permitted and considered legal did damage to City streets because those were politically compromised. He said it was probably long overdue the City Commission adopt an ordinance that would be in conformance so they could locally enforce and protect infrastructure and taxpayers in the long haul. He thought the idea of not exempting City employees and drafting an administrative policy was the way to go.

Miller said if that was the City Commission’s preference at this point, if the Commission wanted to entertain Ordinance No. 7990 and the primary version of Ordinance No. 7991, he thought with the addition of an administrative policy that would cover everything the Commission had discussed.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7990, regulating the sizes, weights and loads of vehicles and required licensing thereof and to place first reading, the primary version 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 and directed staff to prepare an Administrative Policy consistent with Ordinance 7990. Motion carried unanimously. (28)

Receive report on the following Public Works transportation projects:

a) 31^st Street, Haskell to O’Connell. Discussion of southeast area road needs, including 31^st Street, Haskell to 1900 Road.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said the City received federal earmarked aid in the amount of $800,000 for the construction at 31^st Street and Haskell to O’Connell Road.

The steps to the project were as followed:

1% is taken off the top for administration, so $792,000 is available.
Obligation authority has been approved, therefore funds are available.
The project description is 31^st Street from Haskell Avenue to O’Connell Road. No other limitations on how the funds are spent, so this may include engineering, right-of-way, and construction.
The bill does not have an expiration date; however, Mr. Emig recommends we commit the funds sooner rather than later.
This is 100% funding, no match required.
The City’s next step is to submit a project request form to get this project underway.

He said regardless of the alignment for the SLT, 31^st Street would be necessary for local access. He said this project had not been on the 5 year plan for several years and the earmarked aid could only be used for that section of highway. He said although this aid did not have an expiration date, it was mentioned that nothing was guaranteed once funds were short so staff suggested getting the project request form to KDOT .

He asked the Commission, to allow staff to submit the project request form for that section of road which would cost approximately $4-6 million. Once that money was received, staff could start with planning, preliminary engineering, right of way acquisition and start looking at how they were going to start funding the construction of that project. He said they might get lucky and receive more federal participation.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the City asked for this earmark.

Soules said it was his understanding that Congressman Moore received a request for that earmarked funding for the City, but he had not been able to find out who requested that of Congressman Moore.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Mayor Amyx said he knew that there had been a lot of discussion about 31^st Street improvements. He said over time, no matter what happened on a future roadway network system, he thought it would be important to have another east-west roadway link to help alleviate any future traffic coming off of Highway 10. He said they needed to look at it as an additional roadway. He said they had tried to direct traffic down 23^rd Street while trying to keep traffic out of existing neighborhoods and thought there needed to be another roadway.

Commissioner Rundle said from the recent meetings with KDOT, it was clear if funding, if ever, did come available, the communities that had their plans and design in place might have an advantage. It seemed what they were doing with this money was planning, designing, and getting prepared.

Vice Mayor Hack said she agreed with Commissioner Rundle and the Mayor. If they had this money available, it would be an opportunity for forward thinking in this area and regardless what happened with the South Lawrence Trafficway, there needed to be an east/west connection that ran south of 23^rd Street to alleviate some of the east/west traffic. She appreciated the comments from the Mayor and appreciated the work of Congressman Moore to allow this to happen.

Commissioner Highberger said he knew this project was important to the Mayor. He said he appreciated Congressman Moore’s efforts in getting the funding. He supported in moving forward. He said the Commission had talked about how they needed a good, solid grid of streets to move traffic. He wanted to make sure that when considering design of this project that they look at context and design. He thought they could design streets that were okay to live by even thought they carried large volumes of traffic and they could design those streets to the speeds they preferred cars to drive. He said provided they took that idea into consideration, he was strongly supportive of this project. He said they also needed to be conscious of the effect of the extension on the existing 31^st Street, especially the section near Haskell. He said he was very supportive of moving forward.

Vice Mayor Hack said the Commission had discussed the 31^st Street Corridor Study did not envision the kinds of alterations that they wanted to put in as a community in terms of needing to boulevard trees, bike lanes, sidewalks and those kinds of things. She said this would allow them to design something that would meet the needs the Commission felt needed to be addressed at this point.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger to authorize submittal of project request form for the construction of 31^st Street from Haskell Avenue to O’Connell Road. Motion carried unanimously.

Status of North 2^nd and Locust geometric intersection improvements.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, present the staff report. He said with their preferred option, they had met with several interested parties concerning the intersection of North 2^nd and Locust Street. He said they were all in agreement that Option 2, which was the widening to the east provided the best solution for the rebuilding that intersection at 2^nd and Locust. They were widening that intersection to install turn lanes, which everyone agreed was needed. The alignment would be better, cost and construction time was less, and the affect on the adjacent businesses would be minimal other than the construction in the intersection.

Staff also discussed with those interested parties concerning about making it a no left turn on Elm Street. He said the problem was when coming north over the bridge, there was a curve and which could not be seen and was why it was a one way to the east. He said they were all in agreement the left hand turn needed to be prohibited. The question was how to get people back to those businesses.

He said staff was requesting Commission direction to start proceeding with the recommendation of Option 2, which was on the east side widening, and would like to proceed with the no left turn onto Elm Street if appropriate.

The schedule for bidding was October 2007 because it took a long time to work out those projects with KDOT and the Corp because it was close to the levy and the Corp would need to review the project as well.

There were water mains at that intersection and they were reviewing what was needed and would come back to the City Commission with some type of design contract to relocate their waterlines. He said staff intended to maintain traffic with one lane, each direction throughout the construction process.

Commissioner Highberger asked if they were eliminating the left turn onto Elm Street going south, but keeping the right turn in.

Soules said yes.

Commissioner Highberger said on the widening on North 2^nd, he asked what happened as that widening of the road arrived at the railroad bridge.

Soules said the road would taper back in. He said they were going to smooth out the horizontal curve and widen it so it would be more comfortable, but keep the same two lanes on the bridge. The pedestrian walkway would shift to the east, but they would still maintain it.

Commissioner Schauner asked if any of the work that would be performed had any ability to alleviate the flooding in that area.

Soules said yes, staff was looking at the storm sewer drainage and those issues, but they were hopeful that they would not have the flooding problems under that underpass. There were two pumps in that area and one of those pumps was being replaced because it was not functioning.

Mayor Amyx asked if Soules had any concern after the 1993 rainy season and what was done beneath that roadway.

Soules said they understand there was everything underneath that roadway. He said that roadway would need to be addressed when they begin tearing the roadway out.

Corliss said staff had some concerns about ensuring the structural stability of that road. He said they did not want to create a hole they could not fix.

Soules said he did not have any problems and was confident they could provide a good road, but he did not know what they were going to encounter to put the new road in.

Corliss said they would learn more as they go through the engineering process. He said they were at the concept stage right now.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the engineer’s estimate would have a contingency in it.

Soules said the engineers estimate already included that contingency. He said they started planning those projects a couple of years ago and thus far had not broken the estimate. What the Commission had seen had been lower in any of the CIP plans. He said it was a state funded project, so it was 80/20. The state would pay 80% of the construction and the City would pay the cost of the design. He said right-of-way acquisition would not be needed.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Ted Boyle, President, North Lawrence Improvement Association, said the neighborhood had been waiting for this North 2^nd Street improvement for 13 years. The neighborhood appreciated that bump being smoothed out which was a great improvement, but the turn lane was another safety issue. He said when sitting at that intersection, coming from south or north, generally people were not looking ahead at the traffic, but looking in their rearview mirror for traffic coming up from behind.

He said the North Lawrence residents preferred the Eastside Plan which was $400,000 cheaper. He said that plan would not impact the businesses on the west side and could be completed quicker.

The idea of the no turn lane onto Elm, coming north, was a good idea because traffic would be backed up at that location which caused a few rear-ended accidents.

The narrowing of Elm Street going toward 3^rd Street was not a good idea to the North Lawrence residents. He said paving the alley off of 3^rd Street, where two residential houses and three low key businesses were located, on the south side of the alley, would benefit those businesses. The North Lawrence residents looked forward to that improvement.

He suggested that when construction was taking place on North 2^nd Street, emergency vehicles should be located on the north side of the tracks because traffic congestion might hinder those emergency vehicles from arriving at the scene of an accident. He said during the rush hour, which was usually from 6-8 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., he suggested those vehicles were available at the north side of the tracks for a longer period of time and entire day like in 1993.

In 1993, a first responder was parked at the depot, due to a large hole that formed at that intersection. Since the intersection would be under construction, the depot would be affected because traffic would not be able to enter on to North 2^nd, but needed to enter on Locust and then go down 3^rd Street, which was why he suggested those emergency vehicles be parked on the north side of the tracks. He said by that time, Harley Davidson might be established at the old grocery store, and the Commission might consider parking an emergency vehicle at the recycling center on Industrial Lane. He said they would like to see a permanent fire station in that area at some point. He said the neighborhood looked forward to the improvements at that intersection.

Mayor Amyx said there were sound recommendations for Option 2 and suggested a timeline be placed on the improvements. He said the City Commission could direct staff to work with businesses and everyone affected by the no left turn on Elm. He thought that was a reasonable request due to sight problems that existed coming from the south and trying to see over the bump of that bridge.

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to direct staff to proceed with Option 2 and directed staff to work with effected businesses regarding a proposal to prohibit left turns on to Elm Street. Motion carried unanimously. (29)

PUBLIC COMMENT: No Public Comment

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

06/20/06 Stoneridge Benefit District public hearing

Report from ECO2 Commission

Amendments to State funding five-year project plan.

19^th & Louisiana Intersection Improvements

06/20/06 Commissioner Schauner is scheduled to be absent; Commissioner Hack will participate by telephone

06/27/06 Commissioner Hack is scheduled to be absent

LMH bonds for refunding and expansion

7/11/06 Salvation Army site plan (continued from 6/6/2006)

1313 Haskell Avenue dangerous structure (house moving) issue

(30)

COMMISSION ITEMS: None

It was moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to adjourn at 9:10p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

APPROVED _____________________________

Mike Amyx, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 13, 2006

1. Final Plat – (PF-04-07-06) Yankee Tank View Addition 125.189 acres, 5200 Clinton Pkwy. (Pulled from the consent agenda & defer for 1 week)

2. Bid- 2006 Manhole Rehabilitation Project to Mayer Specialty Svc for $158,882.36.

3. Prelim design/build Contract - for Yankee Tank Creek to Burns & McDonnell/Garney Construction for $59,760.

4. Bid- Ceiling & lighting replacement -Solid Waste Annex S Bldg to Mohl Electric for $32,682.36.

5. Bid- Various equipment to the Police Dept totaling $91,465.88

6. Agreement - Fire/Medical station No. 5. sculpture to Benjamin Victor for $65,510.

7. Ordinance No 7879- 2nd Read, codification of general ordinances

8. Ordinance No. 8006- 2nd Read, rezone (Z-02-03-06) .26 acre from M-2 District to C-4 District, 827 Garfield.

9. Ordinance No. 8007- 2nd Read, rezone (Z-02-04-06) .34 acre from M-2 District to RS-2 District, 824 Garfield and property abutting 827 Garfield

10. Ordinance No. 8009- 2^nd Read, Annex (A-01-02-05) 17.52 acres, N of Hwy 40, E K-10

11. UPR – (UPR-04-03-06) First Serve Tennis, 5200 Clinton Pkwy.

12. Rezone – (Z-03-07-06) 4.6 acres from M-2 to O-1, W of Haskell & S of E 20^th (2001 Haskell)

13. Rezone – (Z-04-09-06) .28 acre from RO-1 to RM-3, 640 Arkansas.

14. Benefit District - George Williams Way, N of W 6^th.

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

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

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

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

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

20. City Manager’s Report

21. Naismith Drive bicycle lane striping issue.

22. Resolution No. 6655 – Public Hearing/Order construction, Overland Dr from intersection of Queens, W of Stoneridge approx 1340’.

23. Ordinance No. 8004 – 1^st Read, Joint City/County, Bldg setback lines on major street or hwy, W 6^th between Wakarusa & Folks based on approved zoning for each tract.

24. Ordinance No. 8005 – 1^st Read, Joint City/County, Bldg setback lines on major street or hwy, W 6^th between Wakarusa & Folks; setback line of 25’

25. City-County Cooperation Agreement – Sanitary Sewer Plans

26. CPA-2005-2 – Chpt 9, Parks & Rec, & Open space to Comprehensive Plan and Horizon 2020

27. Ordinance No. 7990 – 1^st Read, size, weight & loads of vehicles, required licensing.

28. Ordnance No. 7991 – 1^st Read, supplemental provisions to operation of commercial motor vehicles.

29. Transportation Projects – 31^st, Haskell to O’Connell & N 2^nd.

30. Future Agenda Items