July 11, 2006
The Board of Commissioners of the City of
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During
the City Manager’s Report, Dave Corliss, Interim City Manager, said given the
length of the City Commission’s agenda, he asked the City Commission to review
his report and he would respond to any questions at a later date, but wanted
the Commission to note the information about water supply that
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of June 20, 2006 and June 27, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority Board meeting minutes of May 22, 2006; the Mental Health Board meeting minutes of May 30, 2006; and the Planning Commission meeting of April 17-19, 2006 and May 22-24, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 502 vendors in the amount of $4,053,429.11 and payroll from June 25, 2006 to July 8, 2006, in the amount of $1,681,041.46. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for the Sandbar, 17 East 8th Street
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Tim Kaufman to the Board of Electrical Examiners and Appeals to a term which will expire on March 31, 2007 and B.J. LaBounty to a term which will expire on March 31, 2008; reappoint Truman Waugh to the Douglas County Emergency Management Board to a term which expires on July 1, 2007; and appoint Robert Rhoton to the ECO2 Commission to a term which expires on June 30, 2010. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by Hack,
seconded by Schauner, to authorize
the City Manager to enter into a contract with
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to set the bid date of July 25, 2006 for Alley
Reconstruction,
The City Commission reviewed bids for the building maintenance for the New Hampshire and Riverfront Plaza Parking Garages. The bids were:
BIDDER BID
AMOUNT
Engineer’s Estimate $497,250.00
Western Waterproofing Company $316,701.00
John Rohrer Constructing Company $457,979.50
CCS Roadway Enterprises $500,696.56
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to
award the bid to Western Waterproofing in the amount of $316,701. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner,
to approve a 60-month lease/purchase agreement with Lighthouse technology for a
total amount of $37,468 for the Konica-Minolta C500 multi-function
printer/copier (City Hall) as well as a separate service and supplies agreement
for operational expenses. Motion carried
unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the University of Kansas Public Research Institute (PRI) in the amount of $6,000.00 for economic development research pursuant to their June 28th, 2006 proposal. (5)
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by Hack,
seconded by Schauner, to authorize
the City Manager to enter into a design/build services contract with the
design/build team of CAS Construction/Professional Engineering Consultants in
the amount of $403,000 for preliminary design/build services for the
construction of Pump Station 48, its associated forcemain and a portion of the
upstream gravity sewer network in accordance with the recommendations in the
2003 Wastewater Master Plan and direction provided by the City Commission on
April 11, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to direct staff to decline participation in
the Mid America Council of Public Purchasing for appropriate City vehicles and
purchases. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance
No. 7993, rezoning (Z-06-40-05) 37.580 acres from A District to RS-2 District
described being generally located south of
Ordinance
No. 7994, rezoning (Z-06-38-05) 35.211 acres from A District to RM-D District described
being generally located south of
Ordinance
No. 8010, rezoning (Z-03-07-06) 4.6 acres from M-2 District to O-1 District at
Ordinance
No. 8011, rezoning (Z-04-09-06) .28 acre from RO-1 District to RM-3 District at
640 Arkansas 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.
(11)
Ordinance
No. 8020, authorizing industrial revenue bonds for the refinancing and expansion
of
As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve bike lane markings on
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the
Mayor to execute necessary documents in the event the Lawrence-Douglas County
Housing Authority acquires the Clinton Place Apartments,
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City
Manager to execute a license agreement with Brook Creek Neighborhood
Association for the use of a tract of land at 1205 Brook as a neighborhood
garden. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Hack,
seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage
for Carolyn Buchanan,
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider the following long term
transportation items:
a)
Provide direction on KDOT 5-Year Plan.
b)
Consider approving submittal of project
request form for improvements to
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said the City currently had an approved 5-Year Construction Plan with the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT). On that plan were several projects which were:
▪
▪
▪
▪ Intersection,
▪ Intersection
of K-10 and Harper. This project is for the
construction of a right turn lane on northbound Harper to eastbound
▪
▪ Kasold
Drive, 6th to 15th.
In 2005 the City Commission approved placing this project on the 5-Year
Plan for FY 2010; however, due to a shortage of funds was not approved. Estimated construction cost - $4,000,000.
Other option evaluated
included:
§
§
6th and
§
§
§
He said concerning the 5 Year
Plan, instead of
Commissioner
Schauner asked about the City’s cost to construct the bus pullout lanes on
Soules said the cost was approximately $40,000.
Commissioner
Schauner said with respect to the
Soules said typically on major thoroughfares they included curb and gutter work. He said if some of the curb and gutter was in good shape, it would not be replaced.
Mayor Amyx said in last discussions concerning 19th and Louisiana and the possibility of traffic calming devices, it was said those devices would not last long enough to control the amount of traffic at that intersection.
Soules said the effectiveness of constructing traffic calming devices at that intersection would only last approximately 10 years.
Mayor Amyx asked by lengthening the left turn lane on 19th would that would buy them more time and make that intersection a safer situation. He asked if the accident problems were purely the left hand turns.
Soules said no. He said there were several issues such as the left hand turns and people getting rear ended because they were stopping short. At that intersection there were miscellaneous accidents as well. He said what staff was proposing would take care of the current traffic and make it safer. He said the intersection would be upgraded as far as lighting and provided protective left turns and pedestrian access.
Mayor Amyx said $800,000 would take care of the current traffic, but asked Soules if that was a wise buy.
Soules said he did not know what else could be done as far as accidents, because something needed to be done. He said the neighbors feared that if a large improvement was constructed, more traffic would come.
Commissioner
Schauner said by extending the left turn storage area to the west of
Vice Mayor Hack asked if a right out only on the eastern most exit of the Lawrence High parking lot was being discussed.
Soules said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there would just be a sign at that location.
Soules said
staff would work with the
Commissioner Schauner said if it was just a sign, they could just forget it.
Soules said
those were details that should be discussed with the
Vice Mayor Hack said she appreciated the comments about pedestrians. The City Commissioner’s received an email from the University Place Neighborhood regarding pedestrian access in that area.
Commissioner
Highberger said he was generally supportive of proceeding with the 19th
and
Soules said if the City Commission desired to place this project on the 5 Year Plan, staff would schedule the project. He said obviously they were behind schedule because it took approximately 27 months to get a KDOT project moving. He said they could have more neighborhood meetings to discuss different options to help alleviate traffic.
Commissioner Highberger said he suspected most options would not be very popular.
Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission placed this project on the 5 Year Plan, would the Commission be under the gun to get this project moving.
Soules said staff would receive notice from KDOT indicating the City should select an engineering firm to look at the design phase. He said staff could add to the contract, that the City Commission wished to look at other alternatives and pedestrian issues. At that time, staff could come back with a preliminary design with some of those other options included. He said KDOT would expect to have certain plans in by certain dates, but there was some flexibility. He said KDOT expected plans and utilities relocated 4 to 6 months prior to the bid date and at that time KDOT would know the City was ready.
Mayor Amyx
said if 19th and
Soules said no. He said he would like the project started May 2008.
Commissioner Schauner asked why staff did not ask the buses to park off the street rather than having to build a turn-off lane for those buses.
Matt
Brungardt, Associate Principal at
Commissioner Schauner said he understood pulling off one of the two driving lanes would be a safer proposal. He asked if the reason why they did not use the parking lot was because there was so much student traffic at the beginning and end of school.
Brungardt
said they had two drop off locations which were at the main entrance and on
Commissioner
Schauner asked if it was possible to have a pork chop entrance and exit
scenario onto
Brungardt said he was not familiar with what that term meant.
Commissioner Schauner said it was a triangle that would fit into the driveway which would, in most instances, prohibit a driver from making a left or right turn depending on how it was constructed.
Brungardt said they would be open to looking into traffic flow situations and any help they could get from the City. He thought the school district would be willing to engage in on-going discussions. He said it was also an issue on how long it took to get kids in and out of campus at those busy points of the day. They were looking for any solutions they could get and would be willing to engage in further study with the City in that regard.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
Kathyrn
Risk said her property was on the north side of
Soules said currently, at the intersection, there was a small left turn lane. The intention was to widen the south side. Staff needed to work with the school district, but they would try to leave the north side alone. There were no detailed plans at this time, but the curb and gutter might need to be replaced on the side of Risk’s home, which would lead to some construction. He said they realized there were several homes on the north side, but there was available space on the south side and they would try to make all the improvements on the south side.
Mayor Amyx asked if the project would take place in 27 months.
Soules said
if the City Commission wanted this project started 2008 along with the
Risk asked if
there would still be a thru street going west through the intersection on
Soules said yes.
Risk asked if there was room to place a left turn lane into the high school property.
Soules said yes and they could go north as well.
Risk asked if there was still room for a thru lane going east on the south side of the left turning lane.
Soules said yes, but they did not have the plans or survey.
Vice Mayor Hack suggested that anytime Risk had questions, as this process was moving forward, to talk with Soules because he worked hard in informing neighbors on the status of a project.
Risk said if for some reason she had to move, there was always a 2 to 3 year waiting list to move into those places that she had investigated. She did not want someone to ask her to move in 6 months or a year because her property was being taken.
Vice Mayor Hack
said there was no way Risk’s property would be taken away. The curb and guttering might be changed along
the
Julie
Nicely, Lawrence, said she lived on the corner of 19th and
Mayor Amyx
said what he had heard, in previous discussions, was staff would look at a
number of scenarios along 19th and
Nicely asked if this discussion would not end with what was recommended or suggested today.
Mayor Amyx said yes.
Vice Mayor Hack suggested that neighbors check in with Soules periodically.
Commissioner
Highberger asked if they needed to do any widening on the east side of
Soules said
there were pros and cons both ways.
There was concern about encroaching on the park side because of some
significant trees as well as encroaching upon any of the properties. It would be challenging, but not much
widening needed to be done because there was an existing turning lane, along
with an established taper width. The widening
would not need to be a full lane until they were closer to the intersection at
Commissioner Highberger said he thought they should be looking at 11 foot lanes everywhere.
Commissioner
Schauner said one of their goals was to maximize the efficiency of those intersections. He asked instead of making significant widening
to this street, could they instead signalize those intersections differently to
provide different levels of flow through them by having the coordination of the
traffic lights from
David
Woosley, Traffic Engineer, said that was one of the things that could be looked
at as one of the alternatives. One
challenge, for instance, would be a couple of signals that were close together
such as at
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was something that they had not developed a lot of study to at this point, but something worth addressing.
Woosley said yes. He said looking at that idea was certainly relevant since they were looking at other options.
Risk said a
person could drive from
c)
Consider KDOT Applications for KLINK,
Geometric Improvements, and Economic Development (applications for this project
are due by August 1, 2006).
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said every year the City submitted three applications for KDOT programs which were:
1) KLINK – 2007, resurfacing Iowa Street from 6th to Harvard Road, and from Irving Hill Road to 23rd Street and for FY 2009 (CY 200) resurfacing 23rd Street from Iowa to Louisiana Street;
2) GEOMETRIC IMPROVMENTS – Previous projects submitted included: Signalization intersection at 23rd and East Hills Drive, roundabout at intersection of 23rd and East Hills Drive, and left turn lane on Harper (south leg) at 23rd Street; and the proposed projects included: Center turn lane on West 6th from Folks Road east approximate 1,000 feet west of Monterey Way, and left turn lanes on Michigan Street (north and south bound) at 6th Street.
3) ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT: - Last year the City submitted the extension of
He said staff was looking for direction on those submittals so they could get those projects submitted.
Commissioner Schauner asked Soules if he attempted to rank those projects on some type of matrix.
Soules said no, not other than what he just explained about the projects.
Commissioner
Schauner asked if Soules had any sense about what the match would need to be,
to be favorably considered by KDOT for the
Soules said he did not know, but if the City Commission was willing to go 50%, he thought it would send a strong message to KDOT that this was a project the community would like to see.
He said as
a side note, in October, KDOT would be funding a beacon that would be placed in
the area of
Mayor Amyx asked if lowering the speed limit to the east would have been too easy.
Soules said they did not have the warrants to lower that speed limit. KDOT looked at the 85th percentile and it was a state highway.
Mayor Amyx said if enough people were hurt or killed, those were the warrants.
Soules said there were warrants for accidents.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
After
receiving no public comment, Mayor Amyx asked if 23rd and
Soules said no. He said staff would like City Commission direction on which project to submit.
Commissioner
Schauner said he thought the 23rd and
Soules said staff could submit that project under that 5 Year Plan.
Commissioner
Schauner asked if Soules had a recommendation between Economic Development and
the 5 Year Plan for 23rd and
Soules said the 5 Year Plan would be a better idea. He said it would be hard to justify to KDOT the economic development portion for that intersection because it was a capacity issue.
Mayor Amyx asked about the recommendation in funding for this project.
Soules said if the City Commission would like to see a more favorable response from KDOT, the Commission should submit more than 25%. He said staff could submit 25% which was the minimum.
Commissioner Highberger said he would like to proceed, but bid it less than 50%. He asked if 35% would be enough to interest KDOT. He asked about the project cost.
Soules said he estimated the project to be approximately $3.5 million.
David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said concerning the capital budget, the City could do about $5 million a year in capital projects to keep the mill levy stable in the bond interest fund.
Mayor Amyx asked what all had been promised in the upcoming years.
Corliss
said in 2008 they were likely to proceed with
Soules said those projects were for fiscal years; and the geometric improvement was for the fiscal year of 2010; and the economic development would also be fiscal year 2010 but calendar year of 2009. The KLINK project would be for calendar year 2008.
Corliss said they did not have commitments beyond 2008.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to see a specific proposal from Soules about 2008 and 2009. He would feel more comfortable making a decision with a report.
Vice Mayor Hack
asked if the Commission would take Soules’ advice and take
Mayor Amyx
said the first action of the City Commission was to address the 5 year KDOT
Plan. What was suggested was the
application for KLINK geometric and economic development because the Commission
had between now and August 1st to address that application. He asked if the Commission concurred to change
the
Commissioner
Schauner said he was very serious about trying to find a way to improve
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the submittal
of the project request form for improvements to 19th and Louisiana
Streets and inclusion into the 5-Year Plan with KDOT, as requested by staff. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
Mayor Amyx said under the application for KLINK geometric and economic development, he would also like projects that might be coming up so staff could prepare as part of that capital improvement savings account and the City Commission could have a better take on funding projects over the long term.
Moved
by Hack, seconded by Schauner to defer for one week the KDOT Applications
for KLINK, Geometric Improvements, and Economic Development. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Receive staff report concerning proposed
improvements to
Chuck Soules,
Public Works Director, presented the staff report on three benefit districts
along
1.
Improvements to GWW from
2.
Improvements to GWW from
3.
Improvement to GWW from
Benefit
District 1 – GWW south of
Benefit
District 2 – The final/ultimate lane configuration for GWW north of
Benefit
District 3- GWW north of
He said with benefit districts No. 1 and No. 2, those resolutions proposed the City-at-Large contribute $100,000 for each of those improvements and those benefit districts pay for 100% of the remaining costs because the City had already contributed a large amount to the development of 6th Street.
Mayor Amyx said the City Commission was establishing a public hearing date for those improvements. He said if the City Commission made a change in the body of the resolution, he asked if they had to reset the date.
Corliss said their direction would be whether or not to proceed with the resolutions. Staff would place those resolutions on a future consent agenda and set a public hearing date. At that public hearing, the City Commission could do anything they cared to regarding composition of the benefit district as far as the cost of the project within reasonable concerns. The Commission could reduce the size of the benefit district or change the portion of the cost between the benefit district and the City. The City Commission could not enlarge the benefit district unless the Commission started the process over, which followed from the rule there had been no notice to the property owners who would be included in a larger benefit district.
Mayor Amyx asked if the resolutions were to set the public hearing date.
Corliss said staff needed direction on what resolutions they wanted staff to place back on the consent agenda to set the public hearing date. Staff did not have the resolutions ready to adopt.
Commissioner
Rundle asked if Soules would acquire the right-of-way for the lanes north of
Soules said as those areas were platted the right-of-way would be acquired.
Corliss
said the plats were pending for Oregon Trail Addition, which was the property
on the east side of
Mark Andersen,
Barber Emerson, on behalf of the property owners on the north side of
He said he received a call on Friday after the City Commission agenda was posted from those property owners explaining that the resolutions that appeared did not reflect their understanding of what those benefit districts should have reflected. For whatever reason, the owners’ expected the development policy of the City would be followed which stated the property owners were responsible for the first 31 feet of right-of-way and two curbs. The way that it was designed from 6th to Overland, it would be 4 curbs if there was a center median parkway and the asphalt would exceed 31 feet. North of Overland Drive, he was not sure it exceeded 31 feet if it was only going to be a two lane street.
Soules said the estimate included four lanes, but it was staff’s recommendation that only two lanes were needed.
Andersen said if that was limited to two lanes, then the two lanes would be 31 feet or less.
Soules said it would not exceed 31 feet.
Andersen
said the real issue would be the benefit district from
Mayor Amyx said there was no reason to proceed in setting up the public hearing.
Andersen
said if they could not have some understanding of who would be responsible for
the excess there would be no reason to proceed.
He had not been involved in this issue long enough to meet with staff to
have any meaningful discussions, which he would like to do. He expressed his interest in why there would
be any expectation for the property owners to pay all but $100,000 for the cost
of the benefit district. He said what
Soules said about intersections was accurate, and that it had been the precedent
and tradition of the community that intersection improvements were assessed to
the development community, they were not challenging that idea. He said apparently they could break out what
those intersection costs were because those costs were in the City Commission’s
packets and those costs would be allocated to the developer. He said what he was discussing, were the linear
street improvements and the cost in excess of 31 feet for those
improvements. He was not aware of
anything in the development policy or any precedent that said if the City and State
contribute to improvement somewhere in the vicinity that would constitute
sufficient contribution to the street.
He did not believe that was done farther back to Stoneridge or Queens or
anywhere else back to the east. He was
under the assumption the City contributed to
Commissioner Rundle asked what year would be the earliest budget year the City Commission would be able to seriously entertain impact fee type discussion.
Corliss said as he indicated in a transmittal letter and as he had discussions with Steve Chin on trying to help move on ordinances, he would like to be able to work on that in the late summer or early fall. He said Steve Chin and Trevor Wood were doing extensive work on a memorandum that could outline options. He thought they had a good opportunity to change the development policy and decide if they wanted to proceed. He said one of the concern was at what point would they want to change the rules for the development process.
Commissioner Rundle asked if it was possible during the next fiscal year.
Corliss said it could be possible. The Commission could consider enacting something later this year and they would have funds to start spending next year and the following years, but they were going to need to plan those corridors out. One of the keys for impact fees was designating a certain street corridor and intersection corridor and collecting impact fees as the developments come online for particular corridors and segments. He said an important issue to remember was the Commission indicated they did not view the development policy as an entitlement. If a project requested City funding, they would want to look and see whether or not if they wanted to budget City funds in the capital budget for that project. He said they had tried to do that on future projects if that was a change in how they had done things in the past.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to
defer the consideration of resolutions establishing public hearing dates for
the improvement of George Williams Way, from Overland Drive north to City
Limits; George Williams Way south of 6th Street to Ken Ridge Drive; and
George Williams Way north of 6th Street; until such time as staff
and the Mayor meet with certain property owners on the north side of Sixth
Street. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Andersen said
putting in this street would allow the first phase of Mercado to proceed. The
increased valuation to the Mercado development in their first phase of their
retail development, including the increase in land value and property values
would result in build out valuation that translated into ad valorem property
taxes of approximately 2 million dollars which was the first year following
construction. He said that was more than
the total amount the City would be asked to contribute to that benefit
district. He said that would completely
ignore the retail sales taxes that would be generated and the jobs that would
be created.
Receive request from Thomas Fritzel
concerning the
Bob Schulte, Vice President Fritzel Construction, presented the request. He said in response to the City’s RFP for a public/private partnership to find a site for the new library, they contacted US Post Office officials about the possible relocation of the distribution center. The post office officials were interested in a location near the turnpike for the distribution center, but did not wish to continue negotiations or dialogue unless the City expressed to the Post Office, in writing, the City was not opposed to possible relocation of that distribution center. He said they were requesting the City Commission authorize the Mayor to sign either the draft letter provided or modify the letter and sign a revised letter. A letter signed by the Mayor would not require the Post Office to relocate its distribution center nor would it obligate the City to any future financial commitment whatsoever. The letter would simply allow them to continue their dialogue with the Post Office.
If their negotiations were successful and the City selected their site for the new public library, then they would be prepared for the construction of that public project, but if the City did not select their site, they would construct a private, multi-use building on that site. They were making that request because they needed to be proactive in their efforts to expand the Eldridge Hotel to better serve downtown. To do that, they would need additional parking, and they could build that parking in the new building that would be built on the post office site. If the City would choose the post office site for the new library, they could build additional parking for the Eldridge under a new building on the current library site. If the City chose to leave the library where it was, they would not have wasted any time in beginning work on the Eldridge redevelopment project.
Finally, he
wanted to assure the City Commission and everyone else even if the distribution
center would relocate a retail post office with walk up service and post office
boxes would still be located in Downtown Lawrence and perhaps even in the same
7th and
Commissioner Rundle said the post office was requesting a letter that the City was not opposed to the relocation. He said the request the City Commission received was for the City Commission to take a stand that they were in favor of the relocation.
Schulte said in thinking about it, it was a more accurate reflection of what they were asking them to do and not oppose the relocation. One of their goals was to continue discussions with the Post Office because they were going to need to know the City was not opposed when it came to furthering the discussion about the location of the library. If it turned out the library did not relocate, they intended to build a multi-use building that included parking that could be used for the Eldridge as they expanded the hotel. He said he thought that wording more accurately reflected what they were asking the City Commission to do.
Mayor Amyx said if they were asking him to be involved in asking any business, whether federal, state, or local, government to leave downtown, he would never support that recommendation. He had a concern about the number of people that work in the United States Post Office distribution portion who spent a great amount of money downtown. If they were simply asking the City Commission to sign a letter that the Post Office believed it was better for their business to locate somewhere else, but leave the retail portion downtown that was a decision any business could make. With the comments he heard from Schulte and his group, this in no way had any reflection on the movement of the library. He would not allow it and was sure none of the other City Commissioners would allow it. It was a decision that Schulte had made and a request from them essentially not getting in the way of the distribution center.
One of the things he had concerns about was a lot of times they did not finish what they begin. He would like to understand Schulte’s plans on where their ideas of where the retail portion of the post office could end up downtown. The Post Office was a place that drew people downtown. He said he would do everything he could to make sure the retail portion would never leave.
Schulte said they would, too. He said they were not interested in the Post Office relocating.
Mayor Amyx said he appreciated the commitment of Schulte’s company in Downtown Lawrence. He thought that if the letter was written in such a way that if the Post Office believed it was making a decision for their benefit, the City Commission would not oppose it.
Commissioner Rundle asked if Schulte’s firm had an agreement with the Tanger Mall property.
Schulte said yes. He asked if the City Commission would like them to come up with a revised draft or would the City want to come up with a revised draft and then they could discuss that revised draft.
Mayor Amyx suggested that Schulte come up with a draft and present it to Dave Corliss.
Corliss said it was along the lines of the position of the City not to oppose the relocation, but to strongly require that there be a retail presence in the downtown.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, said he favored a letter stating there would be a retail component staying downtown.
Commissioner Rundle said a statement was made this would benefit the downtown and there might be benefits, but there also might be benefits for keeping the entire operation at that location. He did not have a clear sense of where the balance was and might need some means to assess that idea. He requested the letter include this was a major planning item and needed to go through the planning process so staff could do research on the impact of having a distribution center in the area. He also said it was a given they had redevelopment and to have some process to decide how, what, and when that redevelopment was going to occur. He thought this type of proposal needed to have some kind of planning. He wanted the Post Office to know that while the City Commission did not oppose this, they also had not made an assessment of fully what the impact would be and would reserve the right to comment further.
Commissioner Hack said her concern was to keep a retail presence and post office boxes downtown and she had been assured the Fritzel Company wanted to do the same. She said they were not being asked to commit to any funding or design work on that location should the post office distribution center vacate. She appreciated the concern about jobs should a larger portion of it leave and a smaller, retail segment be placed somewhere else. This would become a tax generator which could also provide jobs if it became a mixed use building or if it was parking for a library; it would provide for additional people downtown.
They had put the Fritzel’s in this situation by asking them to do their due diligence on their locations. The only way the Fritzel’s could look at the post office site, was if the post office was not there. She thought that was all they were being asked to do. As far as saying they have to go to the planning process, if they were to start a new building in that location, that would have to go through the planning process. To have the distribution center move, she was not sure that was required under their development code or policy.
Commissioner Rundle said they needed some way to assess the impact of the move. He said it might be more beneficial to stay at that location, but he did not know one way or the other.
Vice Mayor Hack said she thought that was the difference in saying that they favored the move versus they would not oppose it. She thought the terminology of “they would not oppose it” would be less problematic.
Corliss said he heard Commissioner Rundle stating he wanted more information on whether or not moving the distribution center was beneficial to downtown.
Vice Mayor Hack wanted to know if they would have to know that information before the letter.
Commissioner Rundle said not necessarily.
Corliss said he thought that could be put in the letter.
Commissioner Rundle said he wanted them to know that they were still getting their mind around the whole project and concept in assessing the impact.
Commissioner
Highberger said he thought they all wanted to do what they could in supporting
the Eldridge Hotel since it was a
Commissioner
Schauner said he did not oppose having the Mayor sign a letter that stated the
Commission was not going to oppose the relocation of the distribution
center. He thought that there should be
further discussion between the private parties and the Post Office about the
relocation of the distribution center.
He did not think they should get into the business of suggesting or
supporting particular relocation of the distribution center. In his mind, the first point of the letter
needed to be they believed with all the emotion they could muster that a retail
facility in downtown
Corliss said that was quid pro quo for a non opposition to the move as it would be a viable retail post office. As he understood it, a retail post office would be post office boxes, walk in service, and to be able to mail letters and packages.
He said when it came to the post office owning property and the City having land use controls over them, post office officials were quick to point out Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. They had the heavy artillery with the Supremacy Clause. They would not be able to zone the Post Office or tell them where to plant shrubs on any future facility. He thought what they were learning was that they did place value on community input on where they would locate.
Mayor Amyx
asked who paid for the improvements of the drive up on the west side of the
facility at 7th and
Corliss
said the City did through the State as part of their improvements on 7th
and
Commissioner Schauner said he would prefer Corliss draft the letter.
Commissioner Hack said it would be helpful to have a group writing project.
Commissioner Rundle said he did not support the letter and would vote to oppose this because he was not sure where his comfort level was on this issue.
Commissioner Schauner said when he talked to people about this issue, his concern was that if they had this to do all over again, he thought the library project would have been a nice thing and looked at a wider redevelopment of Vermont and/or New Hampshire along with that, which would have included the movement of the Post Office distribution center. He said they were past that point and to back that far up would be difficult. He did share Commissioner Rundle’s concern about making sure this move would fit into the redevelopment of the area, but he was not sure they had the tools at the moment to do that.
It was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner,
to direct staff to prepare a letter not opposing a move of the Postal distribution
center and containing strong indication of keeping the post office retail
presence downtown. Aye: Amyx, Hack
Highberger, and Schauner. Nay:
Rundle. Motion carried. (21)
The City Commission recessed at 6:29 p.m.
The Commission
then met in regular session at 6:50 p.m.,
in the
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval, Mayor Amyx proclaimed the week of June 25-July 1 as “Citizen Review Board Week.”
REGULAR AGENDA
ITEMS (cont’d):
Conduct a public hearing to consider the
vacation of a 25’ gas line easement in Lot 2,
Mayor Amyx called a public hearing to consider the vacation of a 25 foot gas line easement in Lot 2 Brackett School Addition.
Chuck
Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said the public hearing was for a 25’ gas
line easement in
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
After 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 approve the Order of Vacation of a 25’ gas line easement in
Consider authorization for the transfer
of City owned lots to Tenants to Homeowners, Inc.
He said the proposed replat was the first glimpse at the new development code in action. Tenants to Homeowners originally approached the City staff hoping to get about 8 lots out of the project with the new development code going into effect July 1st. In the proposed replat, Tenants to Homeowners had been able to minimize their front lot footage down to about 40 foot front lot footage, 5000 minimum square foot lots and therefore, could they could get 10 lots instead of 8 lots.
City Staff met
with Rebecca Buford, Executive Director, Tenants to Homeowners, after they had heard
about their project. She had initially requested
a possible transfer of the City owned property.
Their initial concerns were access to the future Burroughs Creek and
Rails to Trails project because the adopted plan the City Commission adopted
noted this area would be a key access point because
If the City
Commission approved the transfer, as part of the purchase contract that legal
staff would prepare, they would acquire the necessary former rail rights of way
to the center line of the old Baldwin Spear Line. They would make sure that they would acquire
the necessary land entrance for the future of the Burroughs Creek Project
adjacent to all the lots that Tenants to Homeowners now owned. They would also make sure that they would
reserve the same interest in the City owned lots and the platted
The complication came from the adoption of the Burroughs Creek Plan, which he was not completely involved in that process. The plan did recommend this area for City acquisition and not Tenants to Homeowners acquisition. He believed the plan wanted to preserve access to the future Rails to Trails Project and the plan itself did not weigh out the reasons for the recommendation of those lots.
A couple of the neighborhood associations were in support of this infill redevelopment project that provided affordable housing to the community.
Commissioner
Highberger asked if they were transferring lots and the
Wagner said
yes. It included the transfer of the
Commissioner Highberger said they were not keeping the pedestrian easement at that location.
Wagner said staff initially asked for that pedestrian easement from TTH, but when it was discovered there was a pedestrian access easement on another lot, staff asked to acquire 30 feet of additional access. He said if that was a concern, they could apply for more. Tenants to Homeowners had a very large lot and they could certainly apply more from them because they were willing to participate on the access issue.
Commissioner Highberger said he would prefer access points as close as possible, but he did not want to stand in the way of the project.
Mayor Amyx
asked if it was approximately 300 feet from the current
Wagner said that sounded about right.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
After
receiving no public comment, it was moved
by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to authorize transfer of City owned lots to
Tenants to Homeowners, Inc. Motion
carried unanimously. (23)
Consider items related to the proposed
Salvation Army facility to be located on the west side of
David
Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said they were in
receipt of correspondence and other recent concerns about the planning concerns
and appropriate planning process. He did
not have a very strong comfort level with staff’s ability to answer all those
questions. He was not satisfied staff
could provide good answers to all those questions.
The
zoning district, under the old code, was industrial to general industrial to
the west side in 1-A (light industrial) to the east side. There were two
buildings the Salvation Army would build on the property. On the east side they were looking to build a
Salvation Army Church and Family Resource Center, 21,284 square feet and on the
west half of the block, they would build a residential rehabilitation center,
13,361 square feet. The accesses to the
property were from Homewood Street to the south were two access points; from Bullene
Avenue to the west there was one access point.
From
This
particular property had been heard before the City Commission on May 25th,
2004 and approved by the City Commissioners at that point and time. It was then brought back before the City
Commission on May 17th, 2004, for a one year extension request, that
was granted; that previous site plan had expired. In March of 2006, a new site plan was
submitted under the old codes and they did have a complete application. Additional rights of way would be five feet
from Homewood, Bullene, and Lynn Streets and an additional 20 feet from Haskell
Avenue. There were 62 required parking
spaces and they were providing 105 parking spaces, with 8 of those fully
accessible. The staff recommendation
included 6 conditions, as listed. Those
conditions match the prior conditions on the prior site plan for the
project. There was a 7th
condition that the City Commission did discuss at the June 6th
meeting, listed for the City Commission with suggested verbiage in the first
parts of the staff report.
Also
attached were the minutes of the June 6th meeting dealing with the
rezoning potential of property and the items that were discussed in reference
to that at that meeting. They also have
suggested conditions based upon the site plan and the zoning ordinance. There was a separate attachment from the east
side neighborhood association with their conditions to a zoning ordinance. There was also a petition submitted June 9th
to the City Clerk’s Office and a memo of the east neighborhood coalitions with
some items they would like the City Commission to consider.
Mayor
Amyx asked Corliss about the comments he received earlier about questions that
had came forward.
Corliss
said he knew that Gwen Klingenberg and a recent letter from League of Women’s
Voters were asking questions about the process as far as the plat and plat
conditions on the property. He thought
Mayor
Amyx said the City Commission had received countless communications and were
down to considering a site plan at this time.
He suggested more general discussion among City Commission members as to
where they were at this point because they had not had time to discuss how they
wished to proceed with this item.
He
said they had been presented a site plan and had to trust that staff had made a
recommendation based on the former development code and that it met all the
criteria established from that code. He said
if for some reason there were particular uses the majority of this Commission
did not want to see on this site, via this applicant, he asked if the
conditions could be on the site plan or as a condition of zoning.
Corliss
said staff had done additional research on this item. Staff’s preferences, when staff wanted to
establish what uses were allowed on property, was through the zoning process. In this instance, they had uses that were
proposed, as they understood the site plan, that they believed were allowed
under the pre-July 1st zoning code.
Those uses were not expressly defined in that code. They believed they had the authority, with
the approval of the site plan, to condition those uses more expressly, the only
prohibition being those conditions be reasonable. He said to answer the question, could they
condition uses with use type restrictions on the site plan, the answer was yes.
Mayor
Amyx said as long as the conditions were reasonable.
Corliss
said that was correct.
Commissioner
Schauner asked what the enforcement mechanism would be on site plan conditions.
Corliss
said if someone had a site plan on their property and they were violating the
terms and conditions of that site plan, they would be in violation of the
zoning code and the City had essentially two enforcement actions. The first enforcement action would be to go
to Municipal Court and cite the property owner for violation. The other action would be to proceed under
the enabling statute and file action in District Court to get an injunction to
prohibit the prohibited action. The
former action was usually practiced, but they had the authority to do the
latter. The distinction between those
types of conditions and a special use permit or use permit upon review was the
zoning code allowed revocation of the UPR or what now was called a special use
permit, which would prohibit the use.
Mayor
Amyx asked why they would not consider the zoning prior to the site plan. He asked if the conditions would be one in
the same.
Corliss
said the conditions should not be contradictory. He said in this instance, they had property
that had been lawfully zoned under the pre-July 1st zoning
code. The City Commission had also
initiated rezoning of the property, before the Planning Commission in July, and
would be receiving those recommendations in August. The City Commission could condition the uses
in the site plan based on staff’s review of this law specifically. They had done extensive research and the City
Commission had been provided copies.
Commissioner
Schauner said there were two main areas of discussion. One area of discussion was process which had
to do with the platting question which had been raised, the question of whether
there were underlying covenant issues which the City Commission had no discussion
about as a City Commission.
The
second train of thought or analysis was the ability to condition, and if so,
what method such as a use permitted upon review, a conditioned site plan, or
conditional zoning. He heard Corliss say
he was not necessarily prepared to discuss the first leg of that analysis, at
least with the covenant and planning pieces.
He wanted to put on the record that was an issue that people had raised that
might or might not have some impact on what they did or did not do at this time.
The
second piece on how they conditioned uses seemed there was a majority of the
Commission that had an interest in protecting the neighborhood and there was no
interest on the part of the Commission to do something which would harm the
neighborhood. At the same time, he
thought there was a lot of interest on the Commission to make it possible for
the Salvation Army to fundraise and build their facility. The question was how they would find a
balance that protected those interests which might or might not be competing
with one another. What he thought he
heard was an interest by the neighbors in having reliable, enforceable,
consistent enforcement of restrictions on the use of the property that would
make it impossible to conduct either soup kitchen, transitional housing drop in
center and/or a parolee release operation.
Those were the three things that he heard neighbors talk about not
wanting in that location.
He
said his concern was how the state statute could require zoning be uniform and
yet they could somehow create a situation in which they were going to condition
zoning and uses, in this case, in a way that might make this zoning use
different than the same category of zoning in another part of the City. He did not want the City Commission to be a
test case. He did think there was good
code argument for the position that a use permit upon review (UPR) under the
old code or a special use permit (SUP) under
the new code would be achievable under either code for those uses and they
could condition those uses. He said he
had heard the Salvation Army representatives talk about the concern they could
not do fundraising if there was a use permit upon review imposed. He said his only history on this Commission
was that this Commission was very hesitant to revoke a use permit upon
review. He did not think there had been
any UPR revoked in his tenure and suspected there had not been one in anyone’s
memory who was there at that time. He
did not need a belt and suspenders to be happy with this, but at least needed really
good suspenders or a really good belt to feel comfortable about protecting the
integrity of the neighbors who were there and continued to be there. He would like some discussion about what
either of those things look like and what they could agree upon with respect to
uses. They had heard from all of the
parties a number of times about those issues and he would like to figure out
how to move from where they were, in his jargon, either getting a belt or
suspenders.
Mayor
Amyx said he tended to agree with Commissioner Schauner. He said the comments that had been heard over
and over again tended to relate to the uses.
He thought the program, as proposed by the Salvation Army of being a
family type of rehabilitation center nobody had a problem with that program. He said assurance was needed that it would
not be a transient home shelter. There
was concern about the lunch time open kitchen and feeding everyone who wanted
to come, but that was what the Salvation Army practiced.
He
asked Commissioner Schauner if conditioning the site plan or zoning could not
accomplish what was needed.
Commissioner
Schauner said he remembered a discussion about a property at 6th and
Folks, a year or two ago, when there was a request from the neighbors to
condition the site plan for that development.
As he remembered, staff’s response was, “Well, I suppose it could be
done, but somehow it was not needed because of the underlying zoning.” He said he knew they had prior discussion
about site plan conditions that left him believing that was a less than
satisfactory approach. He said the
discussion was the Doug Compton, Folks extension to the south.
Corliss
said he thought that was a planned unit development and under the old zoning
code, the City Commission had expressed code language to establish conditions
on planned unit developments. They still
had continued to have the issue of whether they wanted the conditions in the
zoning ordinance that rezoned property PUD.
He did not know if there was value one way or the other because it was
not a UPR situation. Either way, they
still had to enforce it through the two methods that he indicated.
Commissioner
Schauner asked if the Salvation Army had brought this forward as a planned unit
development, was it a possibility and if they had, could they, with strong
assurance, condition that PUD.
Corliss
said the Commission could, and under the new zoning code the Commission had the
ability to, condition rezoning ordinances as well. There was express language in the new
development code that gave the City Commission that authority to condition the
zoning. He said staff felt comfortable
in their review of the matter that the uniform language in the state enabling
statute did not preclude the city or county’s ability operating under that
statute, to establish reasonable conditions on property at both the rezoning
stage and also at the site plan stage.
Commissioner
Schauner asked if it was analogous to creating use groups.
Corliss
said it was not.
Vice
Mayor Hack said she voted to approve the site plan when it was before the
Commission, voted to extend that site plan approval, and both times approved by
the majority of the City Commission. She
said she was concerned about the delays, last minute information, and questions
that seem to put up additional road blocks to a site plan that she believed met
qualifications.
She
knew Commissioner Schauner’s concern about their ability or willingness to
withdraw UPR or SUP. It seemed the
conditions on the site plan, which would allow for court action, might avoid Commissioner
Schauner’s concerns about the City Commission unwilling to do that on their
own. She said the City had good land use
attorneys and people who had multitude experience with land use, site plans,
and zoning regulations. She said she had
a problem saying that staff did not know what they were doing, staff had gone
around certain requirements, staff had manipulated information, and other things
the City Commission had been told. She
said those unfortunate accusations were untrue of those people who did know
what they were doing. If the City
Commission chose to deny the site plan, they would need strong legal reasons for
doing so, and she did not know if they did.
Her
feeling was if they were asking whether or not the City Commission would
approve the site plan with the conditions that had been placed by the Salvation
Army, which specifically stated there would be no contact with the Kansas
Department of Corrections. She thought
that needed to be off the table and not discussed anymore. The Salvation Army was concerned about
providing the kinds of programs the community had stated they wanted for people
who were homeless to be able to take advantage of and that was moving from
where they were to where they wanted the homeless to be. She thought allowing a site plan to go
forward allowed that fundraising, the center to be built, and was an important
contribution.
Mayor
Amyx said there was no reason to place the applicant or neighborhood through
another part of this process. He said if
the majority of the City Commission felt there was some other type of application
in the development code to make them feel better about the process was where he
was at this time. The City Commission had
not had time to discuss this issue as a group and had a lot of comments and
correspondence. He appreciated all of those
comments, but he was trying to get a sense of what the Commission felt at this
point.
Commissioner
Highberger said he concurred with Commissioner Hack on the point that the general
concept of a rehabilitation center had been approved and he was not willing to
backtrack on that approval. He thought
the neighborhood had some legitimate concerns about what might go on at that
location, but there were some concerns he did not share with the same
intensity. It was his understanding
there was near, if not agreement on what the limitations of the uses might
be. He said he would reluctantly go
along with restricting the facility as a transient shelter, for the lack of
better term, and he was not willing to support restricting use of that facility
to provide meals. He thought that was
what the Salvation Army did and thought a lot of people in that neighborhood were
potentially beneficiaries of that program.
There was a question in his mind as to what allowed uses were under the
current zoning and a rehabilitation center clearly was allowed, but a transient
shelter he was not so sure about.
Feeding the hungry was not listed as a use in the zoning code, but he
would like the question of which of the proposed uses were allowed uses under
the existing zoning. He did not realize
the platting issue was a situation before them and was embarrassed because he
thought it was one lot. He said he was comfortable with attaching conditions,
at least as an interim, to the site plan and not opposed to the UPR because it
provided them with procedures. He hoped
they could work this out smoothly, but he was concerned about the plat
question.
Commissioner
Rundle said he was comfortable with the information given considering the
source. He said Chin had the experience
and knowledge to give the City Commission reassurance. He had been looking forward in that being a
new tool the Commission could use. One
of the issues they often dealt with was they knew a current applicant could be
trusted to follow through as proposed, but when the property turns over, the
zoning had a lot more uses. The original applicant being able to condition
zoning was going to give assurance to the neighbors that in future restrictions
that were placed on a particular approval were going to continue.
He
said we rely on not-for-profit organizations in our community to deliver a
great many public services and those organizations did so without a lot of
public tax support. He did not want to
restrict program uses of those organizations if the City was going to let those
organizations take on their shoulders the responsibilities of the community’s
needs. However, he thought it was
reasonable to attach a use permitted upon review to those and thought it would
be a positive for the people who fund, to know this proposal was going to be
reviewed and monitored and the path they were funding was going to continue
forward, or at least people were going to be checking on it.
He
thought the gray areas and assertions that had been made were not fair, but he thought
they raised a lot of issues of gray area and those areas should be
resolved. If those areas were unfounded,
they should be able to clearly plot that out when people were responding to those
areas. He would rather get those areas resolved
before they made decisions they could not take back.
Mayor
Amyx said staff and the people who had been involved in this process could handle
the conditions on the site plan and zoning that came from the Planning Commission. He said those items needed to match one
another as far as the conditions for uses and the site plan. He said as this was a new use that was coming
into the neighborhood, he wanted to make sure both an applicant and the neighborhood
could truly succeed in this particular application, and he thought it could. There had been a lot of work done by the neighborhood
and the applicant, but also by every member of the Commission to make sure they
were able to take care of people’s needs.
He
shared concerns of the people in the Brook Creek area because this was a new
idea and how would they place safeguards.
He said the neighborhood needed to feel comfortable that if they had to
come back to the City Commission that there was a procedure in place that could
automatically be taken care of by the City Commission or taken care of by the
courts if something happened.
He
suggested, because of the questions they had right now and because of the
complexity of the issue and last minute information, the site plan show a list
of the conditions that included the uses that were going to be allowed on the
site plan; how everything worked together; and address questions that needed to
be answered in one package. He was sure Planning
Staff could put all that information together so the City Commission could see in
one package, both the zoning and the site plan conditions. He also wanted to make sure the City
Commission, the neighborhood, and the applicant understood who was responsible
and what could happen in the event there was any change, no matter how small,
to a conditioned site plan and zoning.
Commissioner
Schauner asked Trevor Wood, Stinson Morrison Hecker, if he would discuss the
basis for their opinion that the City Commission could condition the site plan.
Wood
said the relatively limited question they were asked was to provide response to
the City on the City’s authority to condition a site plan. In the context of the framework of the City’s
existing regulations that were in effect prior to the effective date of the new
regulations, they looked both at the enabling legislation for zoning in the State
of Kansas, the existing zoning code, zoning law in case law in the State of
Kansas and case law outside the state of Kansas where there was similar
prevalence on this question related to conditions attached to a site plan. What they found were the site plan provisions
and the overall purpose of the zoning regulations the City had enacted was
there was ample authority to condition a site plan. Section
20-104 of the old code made it clear the City Commission was acting
legislatively in it’s zoning capacity and Section 20-302 which provided for an
overall purpose of the zoning regulations and zoning scheme provided the City
could implement land uses in order to promote the health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the City of Lawrence to secure safety from fire, panic and
other dangers and to avoid undo concentration of the population.
There
were a series of references to use in the site planning provision of the code
itself including Section 20-1430 which provided the city could approve a site
plan with or without conditions. The
interesting position was the use proposed for the site which was mentioned in
Section 20-1448, he thought the language was halfway house and went on and there
was no definition for that use so it was appropriate, in their understanding of
the case law in Kansas, regarding the authority of a municipality, to act in
the zoning capacity to limit the use so the use that had been agreed upon by
the professional planning staff for the City of Lawrence could be contained to
the use the applicant had proposed and it would be appropriate to condition
that on the face of the site plan. He
believed the applicant had listed a set of conditions. One of the other provisions in a site plan
reference suggested stating the use of the property on the face of the site
plan. They did not see where there would
be any problem with conditioning the use, particularly in the light of the fact
it was an undefined term per the code.
Commissioner
Schauner said he wanted to make sure they were not boot strapping this
conditional authority by virtue of having the authority to adopt zoning
ordinance. In other words, they had a general
enabling statute that required that zoning be uniform. A new
zoning code had been adopted and it stated in that zoning code the City
Commission could condition uses. He
asked if they were giving themselves some conditioning authority by virtue of
having adopted a code that was inconsistent with the enabling statute’s
requirement that the zoning be uniform.
Corliss
said they had to keep separate, the issue of the ability to condition uses on
this particular site plan given its definition questions. He said the more
general question was still going to be on a zoning ordinance, which was where
the uniformity language was talked about in the enabling statute, that they had
the ability as a municipality to establish reasonable conditions through the
zoning. He was not sure that the term
site plan was mentioned in the enabling statute. Site plan was a separate creature of the
City’s code and a number of other municipality codes that further define the
structures, access, amenities, and all of those things that would be part of a
piece of property when there was a use that was allowed per a zoning
ordinance.
Commissioner
Schauner said if they zoned property A-X and if each of those zoning
classifications had a list of permitted uses, or use groups that would seem to
be a uniform application of use groups across the same zone throughout the
City. Where he wondered if they strayed
was if somehow they were now trying to place conditions on a use otherwise
permitted within that zoning category and whether that strayed from the
enabling statute’s requirement of uniformity.
Corliss
asked if they were talking about zoning issues, not a site plan issue.
Commissioner
Schauner said correct.
Corliss
said part of the analysis now had to understand that in the zoning code, each
one of those zoning categories was expressly limited by the fact the
municipality had the authority to establish conditions on those uses.
Commissioner
Schauner said and added to, or subtracted from, uses permitted within that
zone.
Corliss
said yes. He said each one of those
categories had that ability and was part of that argument. He said they were not comforted by the fact
that conditioning uses were wide spread.
They had a strong comfort level, particularly now, in that they had it
expressly in the new development code. He
said with each zoning ordinance they passed, the City Commission had the ability
to condition a use which was part of the uniformity of each of those uses.
Commissioner
Schauner said if a halfway house was permitted in the new zoning and they had
the same use permitted in another halfway house in another part of town, would
they have the same site plan conditions applied.
Corliss
said no, because that use was limited by the conditions that were set
specifically in the particular zoning ordinance for each piece of
property. They never granted the full
use and always withheld the ability to condition those uses under the new
development code. He said there was a
court case that could be pointed to in
Commissioner
Schauner said he was less concerned about being the test case than he was
making certain that they could provide an acceptable level of certainty and
predictability for the people who lived around the proposed development.
Corliss
said all of this discussion was not much comfort to people who had the concerns
that had been raised.
Commissioner
Schauner said the memorandum from Chin was unable to identify any
Mayor
Amyx said his goal was to make sure everyone knew there was one document that
showed the list of conditions so they all had the same piece of paper they
could speak from if they wanted to make additions or deletions. He did not want those people trying to guess
what the City Commission proposed and he wanted to see it packaged together
that if possible, they could consider both the site plan and zoning at one time
so they had consistent conditions throughout.
He asked if this item should be before the City Commission in the next
several weeks.
Mayor
Amyx asked if they could look at the entire package at one time.
Corliss
said if that was the Commission’s direction, then it would happen. He said the Commission needed to decide how
to proceed such as deferring the site plan until the City Commission received
the rezoning recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Mayor
Amyx said that was what he wanted to do.
Corliss
said the argument from the applicant would be they submitted a site plan before
the development code became effective and they were operating under the
transitional provisions of the development code. The City Commission would need to act on the
site plan accordingly and they spent the past few minutes discussing the City’s
legal authority to lawfully condition the site plan and the uses that would be
allowed under that side plan. If the
City Commission was going to consider a rezoning, that rezoning essentially
would be the law of the land on that piece of property once the site plan had
expired. The site plan still gave the
property owner the ability because they submitted the site plan before the
development plan had been effective.
That would be the governing land use document on that piece of property
until that site plan expired. He said they
had new arguments about the transitional code with some information they
received the day before posted on the website that he had not had a chance to
study. He was not conceding they were
correct, but just stating they made some arguments and he had not had a chance
to work on it. He said that was going to
be the situation in August in that the applicant was going to say they had the
ability to pull a building permit for one year, after the City Commission
approved the site plan with the conditions and the zoning would be an effective
ordinance, but it would not be the law governing the uses on that property, it
would be the site plan.
Commissioner
Schauner said they had not approved a site plan and so at this point there was
no ability to pull a building permit.
Corliss
said that was correct.
Vice
Mayor Hack asked if Corliss was stating there were two separate issues.
Mayor
Amyx said they needed to handle the zoning and site plan separate.
Vice
Mayor Hack said they had to address the site plan as presented and the platting
question would be dealt with by staff.
Corliss
said he had to respond to the questions that had been raised.
Vice
Mayor Hack said they had a set of conditions provided by the Salvation Army and
they had a couple of questions she thought they had Commission comment on
regarding the transient soup kitchen and the meal situation. She said that if they asked for comments on
those things, it might clear up some of the condition issues.
Corliss
said he was not suggesting the procedures that were mentioned would not work
well because they were going to deal with this issue again after the zoning
recommendation came from the Planning Commission. If the City Commission wanted some
consistency on the conditions, the conditions needed to be harmonized.
Mayor
Amyx said he wanted everyone on both sides of this issue to discuss this issue
from the same list of conditions, whether it was on the zoning or site plan. He said he wanted everything to be
consistent. He thought Corliss was
absolutely right when he discussed the issues that had been raised regarding transient
housing, kitchen area, and the times it would be able to operate, whether it
was going to operate at all, but those were the types of things the Salvation
Army did. He said if they were able to
condition site plans, he asked if those conditions would stand up.
Commissioner
Schauner said assuming the site plan conditioning was something the City
Commission had the authority to do and enforce, one of the things that the
neighbors seemed to like about UPR’s or SUP’s was they would get an opportunity
on a regular basis to visit that performance and that had value. Having to ask the City to institute
litigation or ask for some other administrative compliance was a step or two
removed from that public review. He was
not sure they were finished with that discussion.
Commissioner
Highberger said he thought they needed to answer the question of whether they
could do that on the existing site plan.
He thought they did not have a mechanism to impose a UPR for the
rehabilitation center. Some of it was
based on whether ancillary uses, such as the housing transient population and
feeding the hungry were permitted uses under the existing code or whether they
required a UPR. He said he was not crystal
clear on that idea.
Commissioner
Schauner said that would be a good piece of information for staff to provide on
which of the proposed uses were permitted use groups under the old or new code.
Mayor
Amyx said they were not ready to proceed with this item until they get the
answers to those questions. He thought
they were placing the conditions on the site plan and thought they needed to do
that prior to considering this item. At
this point, they understood what was required of the City Commission in dealing
with the site plan as a separate instrument of the zoning. He said as much as he would like to package
this all together, it could not be done because those were two different items.
Corliss
said in looking at the City Commission’s calendar, that was not a likely
outcome. If the City Commission deferred
the site plan this evening and asked staff to answer the questions, he was not
certain it would come back when the zonings came back. He said he was not able to get at this issue,
but Woods could help with some of the items.
Some of the other items were the City’s practice in articulating the
items staff needed to do the work on and meet and come up with conditions.
Mayor
Amyx said he did not think the City Commission was ready to proceed at this
point. He wanted to make sure that
everyone understood that it was a very complicated item and the City Commission
wanted to make sure they had everything covered before they proceeded at this
point.
Vice
Mayor Hack said the only comment she had was regarding the conditions. She thought they had a set from the Salvation
Army and then they had some concerns raised on two or three issues from the
neighborhood and the Department of Corrections was off the table, but had
questions about the meal program and the transient issue. She said her question was what set of
conditions would the City Commission use.
She asked if it was appropriate to start with the Salvation Army’s
conditions because those conditions were in general agreement with a couple of
exceptions from the neighborhood, or start with the East Side Coalitions
conditions.
Corliss
said staff would try and organize those conditions by theme or topic and look
at the language from both sides. They
would then have staff suggest conditions that they would try to respond to the
Commission’s discussion so far. His
preference was not to spend too much time wordsmithing because it was not
usually the best use of the Commission’s time.
He
said there was a restriction on some of the lots in the Homewood Addition and
he needed to find out whether they were plats or deeds.
Commissioner
Schauner said he appreciated that Mayor Amyx took the lead on this issue and
thought they needed to move to some clearer, broader understanding of this
issue.
Mayor
Amyx said he wanted everyone to understand the City Commission needed questions
answered by staff, provide a site plan, and provide a document of conditions. He thought it was time for the City
Commission to have discussion with staff and attorneys to be able to get some
ideas because they were in a transition time between an old code and a new
code. He wanted it understood the
Commission wanted to make sure they did it right and the concerns of the
neighborhood and the ability of the applicant had all been considered.
Betty
Alderson, League of Women’s Voters, said in reviewing the minutes, she had to
go over them several times because staff recommendations were not clear, that
in fact, staff had not recommended the property be replatted. She said for the League, this had been an
extremely serious issue historically.
The code definitely required that property be platted and the lot lines
be accurate, but there had been a history in
A
site plan was not recorded, in spite of some of the claims, as a legal
instrument with the Register of Deeds indicating property ownership and
measurement and boundaries. It was only
a plat and historically land had been platted to ensure this. It was such a critical instrument in their
planning process that for the staff to allow only a site plan on a
non-conforming multiple lot property was not understandable to the League. It must be an exception that was quite rare
because in most instances, the staff had required lots to be platted,
especially if the configuration of the lots were different from what the
underlined plats had been, which was their complaint. She said it was extremely important to the
League, for the code and policies to be uniform and not to vary from one
request to another. It was against the
constitution and against the law to variably interpret the planning laws
because they were laws just like any other law in the City and they had to
treat them that way. They could not
treat one person one way and somebody else differently.
Mayor
Amyx asked Terry Campbell, Barber Emerson, if he was the counselor for
Salvation Army.
Campbell
said yes and they would appreciate receiving any copies of any correspondence
that people intend to send to the City Commission. They would not want someone from the
Salvation Army to miss an opportunity to see items presented to the Commission.
Vice
Mayor Hack asked if
Campbell
said he did not.
Mayor
Amyx asked Corliss if he understood what he was asking for.
Corliss
said yes. He said the City Commission
was going to approve a motion to defer additional consideration of the site
plan until the recommendation from the Planning Commission on the rezoning came
to the City Commission in August. In the
meantime, Mayor Amyx was asking staff to look at the conditions that had been
proposed and create a document that would establish conditions for the use on
the site plan with reference to both what had been produced by the Salvation
Army and by the neighborhood so the City Commission could see thematically how staff
had attended to that. The City
Commission also wanted staff to respond to the correspondence regarding what
Klingenberg and others had produced as far as questions to the City’s planning
process. There was the issue of the
specific code authority for the proposed uses and to make it clear as to how
the pre July 1 code’s specific uses were allowed under the zoning code and the
enforcement issue.
Moved
by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to defer additional consideration of
the site plan (SP-03-27-06) for a Salvation Army Community Complex to be
located on the west side of
Consider authorizing Mayor to execute a
joint City/County letter to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
concerning environmental responsibilities at the former Farmland facility.
David
Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the joint
City/County draft letter had been updated to reflect some changes the
Mayor Amyx asked if the language in the letter asking the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for cleanup based on the proposed uses of the property.
Corliss said in the letter it indicated, with respect to future land uses of the Farmland site, the City and County had said for several years they would like to see the Farmland redeveloped into an industrial or business park. Staff believed this was relevant to KDHE because it might play a role in the nature and extent of site remediation. Staff thought advising KDHE as to what staff thought the potential uses and property value was was relevant.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Corliss had any sense of what authority KDHE would have to interpose itself in the bankruptcy proceeding and to get the assurances asked for in the letter.
Corliss said he had been advised that KDHE had the cleanup money. Those that would want the property would want to have access to that money.
Commissioner Schauner said the parties that might want the property would identify their end use and KDHE would make money available in a way to assure the property could be used for that end use.
Corliss said they wanted to make sure the entity that was going to receive this money was going to do the cleanup work and not take the money without accomplishing the job.
Commissioner Hack said the concern was they were leasing it to someone else and they had to trust those who were leasing that property to clean that area up. They were asking that KDHE remain the controlling entity of the cleanup.
Mayor Amyx said they wanted the cleanup money to remain in the hands of KDHE and the cleanup was going to be done at a certain level throughout the area. He asked if the City Commission was comfortable with the draft letter.
Commissioner Highberger said he could not speak for KDHE, but as a City Commissioner he was comfortable with the language in the letter. He said the only concern with the letter was that it stated their long standing position that this area should be an industrial site. He said he would not like to be precluded, if they did acquire this site, having the same flexibility to consider the possibility of some housing on the peripheral clean areas as a way to help finance the project.
Corliss asked if he wanted to change the sentence in the letter.
Commissioner Highberger said he did not want to change the letter.
Commissioner Schauner said if Commissioner Highberger wanted the letter to state the Farmland could be redeveloped into a variety of uses including industrial and business parks.
Commissioner Highberger said he just wanted the record to reflect that he did not intend for this letter to preclude their future options.
Mayor Amyx said he did not want someone to come in next week and say a commercial center too because he thought the area was industrial property.
Commissioner Rundle said it was important to acknowledge that it might be necessary to accomplish that goal to have some flexibility.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to authorize the Mayor to execute a joint City/County letter to the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment concerning environmental responsibilities
at the former Farmland facility. Motion
carried unanimously. (25)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
|
07/18/06 |
800 2007 City Budget Discussion (continued from 06/20/06) Charter Ordinance concerning bidding public improvements |
|
07/25/06 |
Commission authorizes publication of proposed 2007 Budget |
|
08/01/06 |
City Commission Meeting cancelled (the first meeting of the month was
cancelled to allow for vacations, etc., before school starts. There will be a meeting on the 5th
Tuesday, 08/29/06) |
|
08/08/06 |
Final public hearing on 2007 Budget |
It was then moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to recess the meeting until 6:15 next Monday, July 17th at Fire Station No. 5.
The City Commission reconvened in regular session on July 17, 2006 at Fire Station No.5 at 6:15 p.m. with Mayor Amyx presiding and members Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present (Commissioner Highberger arrived later in the evening). It was then moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to recess into executive session for 30 minutes to discuss the possible acquisition of real estate. The justification is to keep possible terms and conditions of acquisition confidential at this time. The City Commission will reconvene in regular session in the Jayhawk Room at 6:45 p.m. Motion carried 4-0 (Commissioner Highberger arrived later in the evening).
The Commission returned to regular session at 6:45 at which time it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to extend the executive session for 15 minutes. The City Commission will reconvene the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission reconvened in regular session at 7:00 p.m. at which time it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED
_____________________________
Mike Amyx, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1.
Contract with New Horizons Computer Learning Center
to provide training.
2.
Bid date of July 25th for Alley
Reconstruction, 10th-11th Street, between Mass and NH.
3.
Bid- Repair of Riverfront Plaza and New Hampshire
Parking Garages.
4.
60 month lease/purchase agreement with Lighthouse
Technology for printer/copier.
5.
Agreement with University of Kansas PRI for
economic development research.
6.
Design/build services contract w/CAS
Construction/Professional Engineering Consultants
7.
Decline participation in Mid America Council of
Public Purchasing for City vehicles.
8.
Ordinance No. 7993- 2nd and Final Read,
rezone 37.58 acres from A to RS-2.
9.
Ordinance No. 7994- 2nd and Final Read,
rezone 35.211 acres from A to RM-D.
10.
Ordinance No. 8010- 2nd and Final Read, rezone
4.6 acres from M-2 to O-1, 2001 Haskell.
11.
Ordinance No. 8011- 2nd and Final Read, rezone
.28 acre from RO-1 to RM-3 640 Arkan.
12.
Ordinance No. 8020- 2nd and Final Read, industrial
revenue bonds for expansion of LMH.
13.
Bike lane markings on Naismith Drive from 19th
to 23rd Street.
14.
Execute documents if Lawrence-Douglas County
Housing Authority acquires Clinton Place
15.
License agreement with Brook Creek Neighborhood
Association.
16.
Release of Mortgages for various residents.
17.
KDOT 5-Year Plan.
18.
Submittal project request form for improvements of
10th and Louisiana Streets.
19.
KDOT Applications for KLINK, Geometric
Improvements, and Economic Development.
20.
Staff report on proposed improvements to George
Williams Way north & south of W 6th St.
21.
Request from Thomas Fritzel concerning US Post Office
building at 7th and
22.
Public hearing on vacation of 25’ gas line easement
in Lot 2, Brackett School Addition.
23.
Transfer of City owned lots to Tenants to
Homeowners, Inc.
24.
SP-03-27-06:
Salvation Army Community Complex located on west side of Haskell Avenue
between Lynn Street and Homewood Street.
25.
Joint City/County letter to Kansas Department of
Health and Environment concerning environmental responsibilities of former
Farmland facility.