July 18, 2006
The Board of Commissioners of the City of
Lawrence met in regular session at 5:00 p.m., in the
It was then moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to recess into executive session for 75 minutes for the purposes of: 1) discuss personnel matters of non-elected personnel and consult with the City Attorney on matters deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship; and then 2) preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property. The regular session will resume in the City Commission meeting room with the Commission expected to take a short recess for dinner and resume the regular meeting at approximately 6:35 p.m. The justification for the executive session is to keep confidential matters confidential at this time. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission resumed the regular meeting at 6:40.
Mayor Amyx
pulled from the consent agenda the Final Plat (PF-05-13-06) for Lawrence
Memorial Hospital Addition. Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to
defer the final plat until August 15, 2006.
Motion carried unanimously.
(1)
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the Public Health Board meeting minutes of May 15, 2006; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of June 1, 2006; and the Sign Code Board of Appeals meeting of June 1, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 330 vendors in the amount of $1,926,780.00. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment License to La Parilla, 814 Massachusetts Street 811 Massachusetts Street 846 Illinois Street
The
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Athco $22,590.00
Porter Athletic Equipment $24,975.00
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to award the bid from Athco in the amount of
$22,590.00. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the purchase of 80,000 pounds of
Nalcolyte 8186 polymer from Nalco Chemical Company in the amount of $52,320. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the disposal of obsolete Oce copy
machine through a recycling firm. Motion
carried unanimously. (4)
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission
recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR
(UPR-04-06-06) for a 150’ monopole cellular tower and equipment shelter, located
at
1.
Execution of a site plan performance agreement; and
2.
Provision of a revised site plan to correct the
street name from “
Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the site plan (SP-04-36-06) for
Lawrence Board of Realtors, for site improvements to
1.
Submittal of a Site Plan
Performance Agreement.
2.
Submittal and approval of a
photometric plan.
3.
Provision of a Cross Access
Easement for the southern access point and inclusion of the Book and Page
number on the site plan.
4.
Revision of the site plan to include the following:
a.
Clarification of the phrase “4-inch concrete walk”
at the south end of the existing building. The note should be altered to note
the pavement type and width of new walkway to match the width of the existing
walkway (5 feet wide).
b.
Replacement of the Broadmore Juniper with Nick’s
Compact Phitzer or Gold Tip Phitzer and replacement of the Little Princess
Spireas with Red Mentor Barberry, Anthony Water Spirea, Sunrise Forsythia or
Sunrise or Kalm’s Hypericum.
Motion carried
unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the proposal
from The Lawrence Art Guild Association for shared use of the
Commissioner Schauner pulled the Hierarchy of Plans approval from the consent agenda for discussion. He said in looking at the letter from the League of Women Voters it discussed the order in which planning took place and neighborhoods being planned in advance. He said he was not sure he understood the hierarchy or the exact plan well enough to understand whether that was a legitimate concern by the League, or a concern that had already been addressed regarding the planning sequence.
Commissioner Schauner said he was curious about the basis of the League’s concern and whether it was something that had been addressed by the Planning Commission and whether or not the Planning Commission decided not to move forward with it in that regard.
Commissioner Schauner said the part of that paragraph that concerned him the most was the last sentence that said, “There must be an overall map of the physical framework into which the ghost plats could be designed to fit that would allow the suburban developments effectively be re-subdivided as portions of future neighbors.” He said when thinking about the City’s urban growth area build out, it did seem to be a point well taken. He was not sure how that process could be effectively engineered, at an early stage, to accomplish the more seamless subdividing as the City expanded into the County.
Stogsdill said the build through plans would be recognizing where they had designated collectors in arterial streets in the urban growth area and that would be the basic framework that they would be asking a land owner to fit into so if their property was supposed to eventually have a collector street through it, their build through plan should accommodate that as opposed to going down to the local level where they would be designing someone else’s property.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was a matter of degree.
Stogsdill said she thought so.
Mayor Amyx said the options would be to defer the Hierarchy of Plans issue, which he was not sure he saw a need for deferral, or send the plan back to the Planning Commission if the City Commission wanted further explanation.
Commissioner Schauner said sending the plan back to the Planning Commission would satisfy him. He would like more information about their thinking in response to the League’s request. There might be an easy and quick answer from the Planning Commission or there might not be.
Commissioner Highberger said local streets were not private property but public property. He thought they needed to more active role in designing local street networks.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
After receiving
no public comment, it was moved by
Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to refer back to the Planning Commission the
Hierarchy of Plans, for a specific response to the second request listed in the
League of Women Voters letter dated June 25, 2006. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During
the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said there was
some interesting correspondence from one of the local contractors, Stephen
Glass, LRM Industries, regarding the impact of asphalt and oil prices. In this community asphalt and oil prices were
being monitored because of the amount of work being done on streets.
(9)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Direct staff concerning assessment method
for Resolution No. 6656, ordering the improvement of
David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said a spreadsheet that was distributed indicated the different costs on two properties that were in the proposed benefit district whether it was based on front footage basis or an area basis. The City Commission had up to 6 months, after the hearing was conducted, in order to adopt a resolution establishing a benefit district. Staff drafted the resolution based on a front footage basis, but staff could change how that area would be assessed if the City Commission desired.
Mayor Amyx said the total cost of the project was $675,000. The front footage costs was $337,500 per property and by square footage was $408,000 versus $266,000.
Corliss said correct, that was based on the estimated total project cost of $675,000. The total project cost was $725,000 and the City-at-large was paying $50,000.
Mayor Amyx asked whether, in this particular area, were there any parcels in the area that were considered in any other way other than front footage.
Corliss said the staff memorandum showed what the City’s practice had been regarding other benefit districts. He said the majority of projects and similar street projects had been assessed on a front foot basis, but some projects had been assessed on an area basis.
Mayor Amyx said the areas where square footage had been assessed, generally that property had been owned by the same individual on either side of the road.
Corliss said he thought that was a generally accurate statement where properties had been assessed by square footage had been when a property owner desired to include more property in the area that was being assessed. The statute was clear the City Commission had the ultimate discretion as to determining the method of assessment.
Mayor Amyx asked Corliss what type of instrument someone needed to show, depending on the assessment method, that this obligation had been deferred and when and who had to pay that obligation.
Corliss
said in other situations, they had executed an agreement that was approved by
the City Commission, ran with the property, and deferred the assessments on the
property until the property redeveloped.
The definition of redevelopment was a change in zoning or change in
single family use, which was done on
Commissioner Schauner said the square footage difference between the MS Construction property and the Collister property was 600,000 square feet versus 390,000 square feet. He asked if Collister’s property was equally developable on a square foot basis as the MS Construction property or were there differences in what was developable within those two plats.
Corliss said he could not answer that question because he had not performed an analysis to the development potential on either of those tracts. He knew there were development proposals pending on MS Construction Tract. He was not aware on any analysis on Collister’s property as whether it could be developed to the same level of density to the other tract.
Commissioner Schauner said his observation was the MS Construction property was essentially 50% bigger than the Collister property in terms of square footage area. It seemed if in fact all of the property was developable at the same percentage of gross square footage, it seemed that a 50/50 share might not serve the Collister tract as well as it served the MS Construction tract. It seemed the MS Construction tract had 50% more land to develop, but not sharing the same percentage of the cost of the benefit district.
Commissioner Hack asked if they shared in the participation of the benefit district of Stoneridge south of where those improvements were in place.
Corliss said it was his understanding the street south of what they were going to improve was paid for by other property owners, including MS Construction. It was not paid for by a benefit district. There was no City-at-large participation and it had been paid for by other property owners, including MS Construction.
Commissioner
Schauner said regarding the lots that backed up to tract 2 on the east, he
asked if that was
Corliss said yes.
Commissioner Rundle said if considering fairness of having that small portion already having paid for a street, it seemed they should be taken out of the benefit district. The applicant had deemed they received value from this improvement, thus the applicant was included in the benefit district which would probably be supported by case law and statutes. If it was going to be in the benefit district, it seemed the City Commission should not be worried about what they had already paid.
Commissioner Highberger said if taking into consideration the other road improvements that the eastern tract had already paid and balancing out those per acre costs, the front footage made most sense and seemed most fair.
Vice Mayor Hack concurred with Commissioner Highberger’s comments.
Mayor Amyx said Commissioner Schauner brought up a good point concerning the 600,000 square foot area, versus the 400,000 square foot area that was to be considered in the benefit district. He said if they were to assess on a square foot basis, they would most likely see a petition indicating someone opting out of the benefit district and then the City Commission would need to decide how the benefit district was going to be paid for again. He said when looking at the square foot amounts being equal when looking at the map, they could always question the fairness. He asked if there was an equal benefit to the Collister tract and to the MS Construction tract. He said based on the law there probably was an equal benefit because access could be gained from that road and that would be a benefit to those properties. He said assessing on a front footage basis was probably the best way to assess as long as the property owner’s assessments, which would be deferred, had the necessary legal contract to show those assessments had been deferred until such time changes happened and those assessments were due.
Corliss said that was staff’s plan to recommend that idea for City Commission approval. He said Collister’s argument was that assessment would be an encumbrance on her property, but the assessment would be picked up by a future property owner or perhaps by Collister if there was a change in use on that property.
Commissioner
Schauner asked if the Collister property sold their access on
Corliss said KDOT acquired right-of-way and access rights for the northern portions of the Collister tract.
Commissioner
Schauner asked if the only access to tract 1 would be off of
Corliss said he did not know, but he believed there was a driveway. He also did not know if they had bought access off of George Williams Way.
Commissioner
Schauner asked if part of the property that Collister owned extended to
Corliss
said yes, that was why Collister was in the benefit district for
Commissioner Schauner said he knew there was a policy and if that policy could be cast in more objective terms in some way, it might be a difficult challenge, but it would make it easier.
Corliss said staff could try and cast those terms in a more objective way. One of the items on his table was rewriting the development policy to reflect a number of items. He said staff wanted to talk with the development community and others about that draft in the coming weeks. Staff could try to write language that would be more expressive. It would still be a policy a future City Commission could alter. He said each property was somewhat unique in benefit districts, but they there was also a very important value because of the dollar amounts in wanting to be consistent.
Commissioner Schauner said there could be a policy that stated all assessments in benefit districts would be based on square footage or all on front footage. Or they could take the two and average them.
Corliss said some benefit district, for example, would be different than streets. On street districts, front footage basis made sense. If going on a number of other public improvements, it did not make sense at all.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Corliss was aware of any cities that took front footage and square footage and averaged the two.
Corliss said he could not say that he had seen that approach, but he was sure it had been accomplished somewhere. He said if they were going to assess on area, he asked what area would be included.
Commissioner Schauner said to some extent, those were self selected benefit districts.
Corliss said in this benefit district, they took half of Collister’s tract and all of tract 2 the applicant submitted.
Commissioner Schauner said they could have cut tract 2 off at essentially the back property line of those lots which back up to tract 1 on the west side of Stoneridge Drive.
Corliss said tract 2 could have been drawn to where it had 392,000 square feet. The problem was it would likely go across lot lines and property lines. There were arguments with tract 2 that the entire tract was obviously benefiting. If that area was not benefiting with the improvement, it should not be included in the benefit district.
Commissioner
Rundle said at the last major discussion on this general topic during a
discussion of
Commissioner Highberger said in this instance he did not see that idea as fair. If looking at the cost being paid for the already constructed portion of the street those costs were going to be allocated to the lots on the east side and there was another local street on the east being born by the development also. He said if averaging all those costs out, they would be closer by assessing on a front footage basis on this particular proposal.
Commissioner Rundle said it seemed the developer would not have included that portion if they were not ready to make those particular lots pay for both assessments.
Mayor Amyx said at the public hearing concerning this item, Collister said she had not received the information about the assessment being deferred. He asked Collister if the contract provided indicated that the assessment would be deferred based on the following reasons and what had to happen to bring that due.
Collister said she received a sample draft agreement, but she had questions about the language in the sample agreement.
Mayor Amyx asked Corliss if he would provide the information to Collister on what that sample language would be.
Corliss
said staff provided Collister with a draft agreement for
Mayor Amyx asked if it would be the same identical language.
Corliss said yes, but if she had questions about the language, he wanted to respond to those questions and improve the language so there were not any questions. The agreement would come back to the City Commission as an agenda item for approval and if the City Commission had questions, staff needed to respond to those questions as well.
Mayor Amyx said the resolution was for ordering the improvement and establishing the method of assessment and the details would be worked out between Corliss and the affected properties. That item would come back to the City Commission after Corliss had those discussions with the property owners for the City Commission’s final approval.
Corliss said if the City Commission approved the benefit district, staff needed to know what the assessment method would be. That resolution would then be published. If there was not a successful protest within 20 days, it would be an established benefit district that would come back to the City Commission with the recommendations to which engineering firm to hire to design the road; staff would execute a contract with that engineering firm; establish the maximum assessments on the property that would follow one of those two schemes depending on the method of assessment; and that ordinance would be adopted. He said they would bid the project, construct it, and execute a deferral agreement with Collister. Finally, they would construct the road and assess the properties, but defer the assessments on the Collister tract per the agreement.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a successful way to have a protest petition since there were only two property owners involved and tract 1 had less than 51%.
Corliss said in order to have a successful protest, there needed to be a resident property owner that signed a protest petition that included 51% of the area and 51% of the property owners.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be doable in this case.
Corliss said he needed to check the statute, but there were also other protest opportunities and he would need to research that and see how it played out on this property as well.
Mayor Amyx asked if Collister understood that process and the item she would receive needed to meet both her and the City Commission’s satisfaction. He said the City Commission would approve the agreement once both sides agreed.
Collister said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said he would vote against front footage as the assessment method. He said it was not because he was sure it was the wrong thing to do, but because he thought there was information they did not have. For example, how much of tract 2 was being assessed in the benefit district for Stoneridge Drive and was it shared with other property owners. It seemed they were doing this benefit district in a piecemeal way that they never really get an answer of whether or not they get a truly equitable distribution of those improvement costs. He did not know if there was a better way to do it, but he could count three votes in favor of front footage. He said they needed to clean up the process and needed a little different algorithm to figure out how this might have been done better.
Commissioner Highberger said if their goal was to be as fair as they could each time, given the different circumstances in each situation they had to deal with, he was not sure there was going to be a formula that was going to work. He said if they could find something better that would be great.
It was moved by Hack, seconded by
Highberger, to adopt Resolution No. 6656, ordering the improvements of
Consider accepting dedication of
easements and rights-of-way on the following plats:
PF-04-10-06: Final Plat
request for Elsie Hemphill Addition, a replat of Tract D, Evergreen Addition,
located at 1900 Learnard. This proposed three-lot residential subdivision
contains approximately 1.591 acres.
He said this
item was heard before the Planning Commission on June 28th where
they approved the final plat with a 7-1 vote.
The action for the City Commission was the acceptance of the dedication
of the road right-of-way and the utility easements. This plat would dedicate an additional 10
feet of right-of-way to
The Final Plat had been approved by the Planning Commissioner and the utility easements were as shown on the final plat. It would be pertinent to accept the dedications of the right-of-way and utility easements at this time.
Commissioner
Highberger asked where access to
Patterson
said access would be at the extreme lower portion of
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was a low water bridge.
Patterson said no.
Commissioner Highberger asked if Planning Commissioner Eichhorn’s vote in the negative was that the lot layout was out of character with the neighborhood.
Patterson said that was what the Planning Commission minutes reflected. It was a non-standard type of lot arrangement due to the existing drainage of Burroughs Creek.
Mayor Amyx said with the drainage easement in that area, he did not know any other configuration that would work.
Patterson said this configuration was the best the applicant and applicant’s engineer were able to utilize for this property.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-04-10-06) for Elsie Hemphill Addition, a replat of Tact D, Evergreen Addition, a proposed three-lot residential subdivision containing approximately 1.591 acres, located at 1900 Learnard; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1.
Provision of the following fees and recording
documentation:
2.
A current copy of a paid property tax receipt;
3.
Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County
Register of Deeds; and
4.
5.
Execution of An Agreement Not to Protest the
Formation of a Benefit District for street and sidewalk improvements to
6.
Execution of An Agreement Not to Protest the
Formation of a Benefit District for sidewalk improvements to
7.
Submittal of public improvement plans to Public
Works prior to the recording of the final plat, for the extension of sanitary
sewer main to serve Lots 1 and 3.
8.
Provision of the following notes on the face of the
plat;
9.
“Building permits shall not be issued until LOMA
has been approved by FEMA.”
10.
“
11.
“The owner shall install a driveway turn-about on
Lot 2 and on
12.
Provide Register of Deeds Book and Page number
reference for the existing easements that have been filed by separate
instrument.
13.
The lot lines between Lots 2 & 3 shall be
redrawn to the middle of the drainage easement.
Motion
carried unanimously. (11)
Consider the following items associated
with Prairie Wind Single Family Homes, 2620 Haskell Avenue:
a)
Consider approving, subject to conditions
and use restrictions, PDP-05-04-06:
Preliminary Development Plan for Prairie Wind Single Family Homes. This proposed planned residential development
contains approximately 3.04 acres and proposes 17 single-family detached
homes. The property is generally
described as being located at
b) Consider
adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning request, and authorizing drafting
of ordinances for placement on future agenda for Z-05-12-06: A request to rezone a tract of land
approximately 30.4 acres from RS-2 (Single Family Residential) District to PRD-1
(Planned Residential Development) District.
This property is generally described as being located at
There was
considerable concern from the neighbors about storm water drainage. The properties to the south currently were
experiencing storm water issues and the City Storm Water Engineer was requiring
the applicant to provide drainage swells along the south and the east to direct
the storm water into the detention basin and into the inlets along
The applicant would need to provide adequate, common open space in the interior of the development because right now they did not have that space, but the applicant would work with this plan and provide enough adequate, common open space.
Mayor Amyx asked if the requirement for drainage on this particular property was going to be adequate enough to give ample protection for other properties.
Miller said the City’s Storm Water Engineer believed that it would give ample protection for other properties. At first the engineer was not aware the properties to the south were having problems. Therefore, the engineer scheduled a meeting with the neighboring residents to the south and was requiring more of a ditch than what was originally required.
Mayor Amyx said the drainage ditch in the depressed area that was going to hold the water would go to the other end of the property. He asked if the water would be in a catch basin that would be carried out through a pipe and where was water going to go.
Miller said
the water would go down to the inlets by
Mayor Amyx asked if the other inlet area would hold the water for 24 to 48 hours.
Miller said yes, it was more of a detention basin or a dry bottom pond and was approximately 3 to 4 feet deep.
Alan Belot,
representing the applicant said the utility plan was a separate plan and was
not their plan, but just a planning document.
The utility plan had a catch basin on one side of
Mayor Amyx asked if they were going to control the water on this site.
Belot said they were going to control the water.
Belot said at the end of the Planning Commission meeting it came up that a fence be built around the property, which seemed odd because they were trying to build neighborhoods within neighborhoods which they had done and placed sidewalks on both sides of the streets so they had that connectivity from neighborhood to neighborhood. He asked why they would wall this neighborhood off from everyone else. He said after the meeting took place, the neighbors indicated they did not want that fence and he asked if that condition could be removed at this stage.
Mayor Amyx said yes.
Belot asked if he could request if the fence requirement be removed. He said there was a neighbor along the northern boundary that had a daycare next door and that neighbor thought a fence would be nice. He said he would be glad to work with that neighbor, but because of that one request walling off the entire neighborhood did not make for a very good neighbor.
He said regarding the conditions that related to the existing trees, those conditions were unclear and in some cases could be conflicting and confusing. He thought those comments came before he was able to go out to the site and locate the majority of the trees and place them on his drawing. He said he had indicated which trees would and would not be saved. A note on his drawing indicated the existing trees would be protected and he would be glad to add a note, according to City standard. He asked that those two conditions be removed because he already fulfilled the requirement and he did not think they were necessary and could be confusing and conflicting in the process that he still had to go through.
Commissioner Schauner said the condition stated to: “list the measures to be used during construction for protection of existing trees.” He asked if Belot was suggesting a substitution for that language.
Belot said he had shown the existing trees that were going to be preserved and he showed the trees that were going to be removed. He already had a note that the land developer and home owner should make every effort to protect and preserve as many existing trees as possible during construction, including roots and existing grade within the drip line. If the tree was damaged or destroyed during construction, then replacement should be required. It was the same note he had for the Hanscom/Tappan project and it seemed to work well on that project. He said they had lost a couple of trees, but those trees were replaced.
Mayor Amyx asked if Belot had already met that particular condition because it was shown on the development plan.
Belot said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not sure if that condition was a reference to all the trees or just the trees that were left that were marked for retention on the plan. He was not sure what the difference was between what Belot was saying and that condition. That condition stated “protection of existing trees”, but it did not say just those trees the plan chose to leave. It just said existing trees and asked if there was a different set of trees.
Belot said there were a number of trees at that location and a debate could happen about which trees could or could not be saved. Someone who had to approve this could decide that a tree in a particular grove needed to be preserved. In order to comply with the plan, he would need to redesign the whole project. He said he had done his level best to preserve as many of those existing trees as possible because it was to his benefit. He would rather not get into a conflict, in the future, about which trees could or could not be preserved because he would need to redesign the project, after the public hearings.
Commissioner Hack said Belot’s request seemed fair. She said Belot had marked all the trees he possibly could within the confines of the plan and would do everything he could to preserve every tree he could.
Belot said there were a significant number of trees that were volunteers that had grown up to a good size and were not the kind of trees you would necessarily save. He also had a provision for the homeowner to add an additional shade tree to each lot after the homeowner completed the home, not in addition to the street trees. He said they would have trees all over the place on that subdivision.
Commissioner Schauner said he assumed the trees that were in the back lines of the back property were substantial trees as opposed to a 2 inch or 2.5 inch caliper tree which you would put in someone’s front yard.
Belot said the new trees would be smaller.
Mayor Amyx asked what kind of language they would need if it was already drawn on the development plan.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to hear from staff in what they understood that language to mean when it discussed “during construction for protection of existing trees.”
Miller said Belot said he would try to protect as many trees as possible and thought it meant fencing a certain perimeter around the base of each tree within a certain distance. She said measures like that were passed on to the developer or whoever was building those homes that they see why they had to preserve those trees.
Commissioner Schauner said what he liked about that ideas was that people would be doing the actual physical work and might not have seen the plan or heard any of their conversation. The more physical protection they could provide for an essentially non-replaceable item was something he wanted to see.
Belot asked if he could resolve that with adding a note “per the City standards.”
Commissioner Rundle said he thought they had established standards since this had come up before. He thought the standard was for them to fence up to the drip line.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to see that happen so there was less confusion on the work site about what and what was not to be saved.
Mayor Amyx said they needed to be clear in the language so that everyone understood.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not sure the language said exactly what Miller would like. He would like to see the language about existing trees fleshed out a little bit more.
Commissioner Hack asked if this language came from other previous plans they had done.
Belot said he did not want to get into a set of construction drawings for the trees, which was his main concern.
Stogsdill said she did not think that was their indication.
Belot said if that was on record, that was fine, but that was his concern.
Commissioner Hack said she could understand Belot’s concern. She said Belot indicated he wanted to save those trees, but what could the City do to ensure those trees were given the best quality care during the construction phase, which would conform to the layout.
Belot said without getting into a lot of detailed drawings and things about each individual tree and its grade and drip line.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not think they were on the same page. He thought Belot came up with a list of trees he wanted to save, which might be a different list than what the Planning Staff or landscape people might have in mind to save. He did not know the answer to that, but once a tree was gone, it was gone. He wanted to make sure they had some clearly understood agreement about what would be saved, how those trees would be marked for saving, and what protection would be installed to save those trees during the construction process.
Mayor Amyx said the agreement needed to say an agreement between the developer and the City that would include Planning Staff and the City’s Landscape Supervisor.
Commissioner Schauner said yes.
Mayor Amyx said that was the language that was needed. He said Belot needed to know exactly what trees needed to be left and he had to have an agreement with City staff.
Belot said he had an agreement and if they ratified that plan, those trees had to be saved.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it showed what trees were not being saved. He wanted to know how many trees were there that were not going to be saved.
Belot said all of the trees on the Haskell frontage were to be saved. There was a line of trees that run down the driveway between the houses that were going to be saved. There were some trees in the back that were going to be saved, which were the larger, more significant trees. There were a number of volunteer trees and there was no way they could take time to locate each one those trees, but if there was a significant tree, he would save that tree. He was not in disagreement that trees were a benefit to a subdivision, especially mature trees because it made the property sell. It was not to his benefit to tear those trees out and he did not think he needed help from staff to preserve the trees on his property.
Commissioner Rundle said that experience had told them that if they had compaction in the drip line from heavy equipment parking or if a dozer scrapes the bark off of a tree, the odds of that tree being saved go down and sometimes it could almost be assured, although it was designated to be saved, if there was enough of those activities that occur, the tree was gone. He thought what they were saying to keep that drip line off limits from compaction.
Belot said he agreed, but some of the standards that were published and if he followed them to preserve a tree, there would be very little land left to develop.
Commissioner Rundle said he was not interested in unreasonably trying to make Belot preserve every tree. He thought the trees Belot designated seemed clearly to be the right trees
Mayor Amyx said he did not know the kind of language they were looking at.
Belot said he was concerned about creating a set of construction documents just for preservation of the existing trees.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not think there was any interest in that, but thought there was an interest in having the City’s Forester work with Belot and those construction people to fence off those trees which were marked on the site to be saved and directions from the Forester be implemented to ensure the greatest survival.
Belot said that was fine.
Mayor Amyx asked Stogsdill if she could come up with that language.
Stogsdill asked if the Commission cared for her earlier suggestion for condition C, which was “list the measures to be used during construction for protection of existing trees proposed to be preserved on this site.” She said it would clarify that it was not all the trees, only the trees that were identified to be saved. She still thought Condition 2 was applicable because the plan had not yet been reviewed following revision by the City Landscape Supervisor.
Belot said okay and now that they had an understanding that it would not involve construction drawings for preservation, he felt more comfortable about that, too.
Commissioner Highberger asked about the length of the cul-de-sac.
Belot said the cul-de-sac was 490 feet.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
Marcella Krones,
a resident that lived south of this project, said they met with Belot and were
satisfied with his comment on the drainage.
What they were really concerned about was traffic. She said there was only one way in and out of
that location and the traffic would be directed on to
She also said the sewer issue had not been discussed. She asked if the sewer was going to be able to handle the additional housing. She said on the northeast corner, there was one driveway for three houses.
Jerrold Schinze, Lawrence, said if a fire truck wanted to get into that area, they would need to call ahead to get a parking spot. He said a fire truck would not even be able to park on the street because they would be blocking someone’s driveway. He said it was a poor set up and people could get hurt or perhaps even die. He said he had a petition that was signed by 63 people, mainly the people surrounding this area and they took those signatures to the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission tried to sell the neighborhood on duplexes, but the neighbors talked the Planning Commission out of that idea. That was when the Planning Commission came up with the idea of 17 houses, but he could not picture 17 houses on 3.3 acres.
When the Fire Chief came out to inspect the area, the Chief indicated that No Parking signs were needed which was something Belot did not mention. He said he and the neighbors were against the plan. He said all they wanted was being zoned RS-1, but he knew it was probably too late because they were talking about trees and draining water. He asked if they could picture children playing in that area and asked what would happen if a child fell into one of the drainage areas. He said some of those people already had drainage problems.
He asked if it this plan had already been approved. He thought the City Commission should take a long look at this plan and find out if the Fire Chief would be able to get into that area.
He heard a rumor from a man who worked for Harris Construction Company that lived in his neighborhood that Belot had already sold the lots and made a proposition to Harris Construction to sell the lots for $50,000 because he figured they already had the zoning and it was fair game. He did not know if it was true or not, but Harris Construction Co. said there was a letter.
Earl
Stafford,
As far as the volunteer trees that came up on the south side of that property, those trees seemed to have come in 17 years ago and they all volunteered to dress in columns of about four and were not all volunteer trees, but were planted for specific purposes. He would like to see as many of those trees protected as possible and he recognized the fact that not all of them could be saved.
Mayor Amyx asked about the reason there was one driveway for three houses.
Belot said he
did not like garages on streets and one of his design considerations on this
project was to try to get as many of those gaping mouths off of the streetscape
as possible. He said at the corner, he
had taken the garage off of the private access so it was not part of the
streetscape. He said it was a 20 foot
wide driveway, which was basically the same width as the right-of-way of the
street. He said he could take one house
off of that driveway, but he would have to exit it out onto
Mayor Amyx asked if his next project would be done with alleys.
Belot said yes.
Commissioner Highberger asked Stogsdill if street access was prohibited by their current policies.
Stogsdill said Haskell was an arterial street and staff emphatically discouraged local streets from accessing that street. It would have been a subdivision variance requirement to have a local street intersect with Haskell.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the overall density of the project was barely higher than the RS-2.
Stogsdill said yes.
Mayor Amyx asked if there could be parking on that street.
Stogsdill said just on the fire lane side. A hammerhead was also there for access for a fire truck to turn around.
Mayor Amyx asked if there was not going to be any on street parking between the driveways.
Belot said not between the driveways on the western border on the left hand side of the plan, but he extended the access down so that there were three parking spaces down at the end. The no parking was at the curve and met the uniform fire code requirements. The Fire Marshall wanted that on the plan to make sure it got there.
Mayor Amyx said in looking at this project regarding infill development and wanting to encourage single family development, he thought the decision the City Commission needed to make was whether the preliminary plan met that spirit. He thought this was a hard piece of property to develop, especially with the constraints of drainage problems and if the drainage problems were addressed concerning the neighboring properties. He asked if the traffic moving through the area met the spirit of the single family neighborhood.
Commissioner Schauner asked Belot if this was a Homeowners Association, and if so, what would the covenants require the Homeowners Association to be responsible for in the area of common area maintenance.
Belot said it
was a public right-of-way up to the end of
Commissioner Schauner asked if the street would be built to City standards.
Belot said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if curb and gutters would be the same.
Belot said yes, it was called out on the face of the plan. It would all have to go through engineering review before they could start.
Commissioner Schauner said he continued to be concerned about assessing to Private Neighborhood Associations significant responsibilities that in the end would come back to the City for a financial fix. He said 17 property owners being asked to share significant infrastructure burdens or if it was built to City standards, maybe the City would fix it if it was broken.
David Corliss, Interim City Manager, said City staff would maintain that street because it was a public street.
Commissioner Hack said the Homeowners Association was taking care of the public space outside of their own private homes and the public street.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the responsibility of the Homeowners Association.
Belot said they would be responsible for gutters, commons areas, and the driveways.
Commissioner Schauner asked what common areas would there be. He asked if there was anything else besides the basketball court.
Belot said the access drive and both ends of the roadway.
Commissioner Schauner asked if those would be the responsibility of the 17 homeowners.
Belot said yes, that portion, but not the street.
Commissioner Hack said infill development was always difficult, but it was the direction the community wanted to go because they discussed not wanting sprawl. Yet, infill development continued to be a difficult hurdle to go through. She said Belot had done a good job of designing this plan with single family homes. She knew that Haskell and access to Haskell was a concern and she did appreciate that. One of the things they talked about in the agenda review was ultimately they were going to have to look at some additional signalization on Haskell as they grew to the south and she thought that was something that was not part of Belot’s situation, but was something they would have to look more closely at in that corridor just as they had others. She thought this plan had come with very strong Planning Staff and Planning Commission approval and she felt that it was the right way to go and she supported the plan.
Commissioner Schauner said he found the staff report interestingly contradictory. He said on the one hand it said that Horizon 2020 discouraged concentrations of high density multi-family infill in neighborhoods in policy 3.3e and defined low density residential as 6 units per acre or less and medium density residential at 7.15 units per acre. RS-2 permits 6.22 units per acre, which was the high side, this was 6.56 units per acre in a largely residential RS-1 area that at least abuts it. They were asking the neighbors on 26th Street to accept a significant increase, or change, in their neighborhood character. He appreciated that it was a difficult three acre parcel, but he did not think they should pray on the altar of high density just because it was a popular thing to do. He did not think it was good policy, on this location, to ask those neighbors to accept that sort of increased neighboring obligation. It was always troubling when a development comes in and needed three variances or more because it pushed the envelope on two or three issues. Those were always signs that they ought to step back and take a real hard look at it. He thought this was one plan that if they stepped back and took a very hard look at it, this development would not pass the test because it was too much. If this was 9 units instead of 17 units, they could provide significantly better elbow room.
He was also very concerned about the obligations created on the Homeowners Associations even though there was not street obligation in this place, but they did have common area, drainage, and retention basement obligations. He would bet a significant amount of money that the people who bought a house would not understand they had an obligation to any kind of infrastructure maintenance. If this was planned as a low, affordable housing unit, his suspicion was the people who buy there would not have enough money in their budget to come up with an assessment in 10 years to fix what infrastructure was their responsibility. He did not think it was a plan which, despite all the work, it was too much in too little of space and pushes too many envelopes. He did not think it was good planning and did not think it was a development in 10 years they would look back on and say it was a good idea.
Commissioner Highberger asked staff to describe the zoning in the surrounding area.
Stogsdill said to the south and east the properties were zoned as RS-2 or RS-7. To the north and the west across Haskell, those properties were zoned what was RS-1 or RS-10. To the northeast, there was RM-D, which was now RM-12D, duplex zoning, and the lot that would be directly to the southwest corner and the properties to the south of 26th Street were zoned RM-1, which was now RM-12. The majority of the single family zonings were in the RS-2, 6.2 maximum, but the ones along the north were of a slightly lesser density.
Commissioner
Highberger said he was struggling with this plan. He said he did not have a concern with the
density and he did not think it was greatly incompatible with the surrounding
uses. He did not have a strong concern
about the slight increase from RS-2. He
did not like the cul-de-sac. He
appreciated the fact the garage doors were offset. He said they all still drove cars and some on
street parking would be essential for people to come over and visit and it
would impact other people. He said he trusted
the storm water engineers that the retention facilities would at least not hurt
people now and maybe help. He wished
there was a way to provide better street connection, but looking at the
surrounding map, he did not see it. He said
he realized this plan would add more cars on
Commissioner Rundle asked if all of the surrounding areas were developed at least to the density they were zoned or were any of them significantly lower in density than zoning would allow.
Stogsdill said she did not think staff actually did that study.
Miller said the lots to the west of Haskell were larger, but staff could check on that.
Commissioner Schauner asked how many square feet were in .15 acre.
Stogsdill said 6,734 square feet.
Commissioner Rundle asked if this project was comparable to the density of the Woods project.
Stogsdill said she could not answer that question in respect to the Hanscom/Tappan. She said Hanscom/Tappan had some lots that were at a minimum of 4000 square feet, but she thought the Woods had some that were close to 4000 square feet, but more of the lots might have been 5000 square feet.
Belot said this project was very similar to Hanscom/Tappan project. There was one 4000 square foot lot and that was on the western border, so it was not of the similar type. The lots in this area were 5000-6000 square feet each. He said it was all zoned RS-2 and it disturbed him that the Commission, especially Commissioner Schauner, did like it because it was zoned RS-2 everywhere.
Commissioner Schauner said it was not all zoned RS-2.
Belot said if he was going to take what the Commission set as a goal and encourage infill development before they went out for urban sprawl, which he took to heart, it would be tough to develop infill. He did not have any control over whoever sold that 22 foot section out of that property 30 years ago. He was left with what was left over, which was why he has to ask for the waivers, not because he was trying to be greedy or could not design around it, but because the 22 feet made the difference in being able to have a 35 foot set back or a 30 foot setback. He did not have anything to do with that, but he was just taking infill properties, which the City Commission said they wanted developed, and to try to come up with something that was pleasant to the market, to the people who wanted to buy it, and to the surrounding neighbors. He was not saturating the area with more density, but it was tough to do those projects because they had to try and fit so many parameters in that had already been determined by other people over history. He wished the City Commission had some sensitivity to what he had to go through to do this kind of development. It would be much easier to go out west where he had a clean sheet of paper and had four outside boundaries and he could pretty much work within those boundaries and do whatever he needed to do. He did not have that option here.
Commissioner Schauner said if it was easy, someone would have done it before.
Commissioner Rundle asked if Belot was comfortable in stating the price ranges of those houses.
Belot said it would be around $150,000 to $160,000.
Commissioner Rundle said he was very guarded on this project. He said he was willing to proceed, but he was hoping that traffic impacts were not going to be as bad as people were predicting. He said they would certainly want to monitor that traffic and have feedback on how things were working out. He said they were trying to do as much infill as possible. He hoped the project was a contribution to the affordable housing needs that had been identified. He said he was not sure that price range was identified.
Commissioner Highberger said he was leaning that way too. He said it went back to their conversation on local streets and if this area had been designed with more of a master plan of how the future grade was going to work, they would not be in this boat of trying to build a 500 foot long cul-de-sac. Given everything that was discussed, he was willing to support the project. There were things he wished could be different, but as Belot pointed out, infill was difficult. He wanted to make sure that as many of the trees along the side were saved and was made clear in the plans and he certainly did not support fencing the neighborhood off and asked that that condition be removed.
Commissioner Hack said the fencing condition would go against everything they were trying to do with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to express his disappointment the Commission was going to approve a project based on a wing and a prayer or a hope. He did not think it was a sound way to develop public policy or approve developments that would impact their neighbors. Once a development was built, the people who lived there would get to live with it and enjoy it, good, bad, or indifferent. He thought they should have a higher standard than just reluctantly approving and hoping it worked. He said infill was difficult, but so was living next to a failed project. He saw that 6.22 was the maximum for RS-2 and this was .34 units per acre more than the maximum. They always stretch the maximum. He said maybe they should have an approximate number and he asked why they had a precision number of 6.22 if it was not followed. He said it was frustrating.
Commissioner Rundle asked how many units would be lost if it were brought down to that level.
Commissioner Hack said three, which would make each one of them more expensive.
Schauner said maybe.
Commissioner Hack said no, it was not maybe. She said that was how the economics worked.
Schauner said the market would determine what those homes would sell for. He said he did not sell real estate, but the market did work.
Mayor Amyx said he thought he was hearing from Commissioner Schauner the question of question about infill development and whether or not they were going to have it. Some of those places were so hard to build, that they would need some kind of return to at least make it come up because of the process someone had to go through took so long. If this could not work, they would need to go to a grid pattern of a street, put in 8 buildings, and that was what it would be. He said if that was what they wanted it to be, they should lay the rules now.
Commissioner Schauner said part of his frustration was that he did not know what the rules were because they seemed to change.
Mayor Amyx said they were approving a planned residential development.
Commissioner Schauner said he realized they were calling it something different, but they were still giving it more density than what the typical development in that area permits and what RS-2 permits. He was frustrated by their changing the rules.
Mayor Amyx said under PRD, did they bend the rules.
Commissioner Schauner said obviously the City Commission could.
Commissioner Rundle said it was not that he had a weak hope that this project was going to work out. He said there was a difference of what people were predicting would come out of this project, but he was comfortable the developer had addressed the concerns of the neighbors and the impacts would be tolerable. He said there were other examples of this type of infill development that had been successful and it was definitely part of the City Commission’s proposal to try and curb rural sprawl.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to
concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary
Development Plan (PDP-05-04-06) for Prairie Wind Single Family Homes, a
proposed planned residential development containing approximately 3.04 acres
and proposes 17 single-family detached homes, property is generally described
as being located at
1.
Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan
to:
a.
include a statement as to the substance of the
covenants pertaining to the maintenance of common areas and grants of easements
or other restrictions to be imposed upon the use of the land; buildings and
structures, including proposed easements or grants for public utilities;
b.
provide a note that occupancy will occur after the
project is completed, or if the homes are to be occupied as they are completed
that all public improvements and site improvements must be complete before
occupancy may occur;
c.
list the measures to be used during construction
for protection of existing trees proposed to be preserved on the site;
d.
revise General Note No. 10 on the plan to include
‘maintenance of common drives’ as a responsibility of the Homeowner’s
Association;
e.
relocate the common open space from the access way
to an acceptable location in the interior of the site; revise the amount of
common open space in the General Site Summary, if necessary.
f.
show the required ‘
g.
designate responsibility for regulating playtime
for the basketball court in the northwest corner and other common play areas
with the Neighborhood Association and covenants.
h.
show the right-of-way dimension for
i.
show dimensions of individual easements separately;
remove any references to combined right-of-way and utility easement.
j.
note that the uses in this PRD are restricted to single-family
detached units.
k.
note that the existing water well will be plugged
to Kansas Standards;
l.
provide correct legal description by replacing
reference to 88 deg, with 89 deg;
m.
remove utility easement from detention basin;
n.
correct the reference in the Landscaping section to
read ‘Master Street Tree Plan that will be filed with the Final Plat,
rather than ‘has been filed’;
o provide sidewalks along both sides of
2. Approval of the
preserved tree list and protection measures to be employed during construction
by the City Landscaping Supervisor; and
3. Revisions to the grading
plan, submitted and approved by City Stormwater Engineer, to:
a.
define the drainage area along the south edge of
the property so it flows into the area inlet.
b.
define the drainage along the east edge of property
so it flows into the detention area; and
c.
overflow from the detention area must flow into
Aye: Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (12)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to concur
with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact
and approve the request for rezoning (Z-05-12-06) a tract of land approximately
3.04 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) to PRD-1 (Planned
Residential District) and, directed staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Aye:
Amyx, Hack, Highberger, and Rundle.
Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (13)
Conduct a public hearing and consider
approving the placement of the structure located at
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to direct staff to prepare an appropriate ordinance for landmark designation
for
(14)
Receive direction from City Commission
regarding the 2007 budget.
David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. He said staff wanted to give the City Commission a heads up on the budget issue for next weeks discussions and staff was not wanting the City Commission to approve the 2007 budget at this time. The City Commission would look at the information next Tuesday and direct staff to publish a budget. He wanted the City Commission to keep in mind the publication sets the maximum and at the hearing on August 8th, the Commission could reduce that maximum if the Commission desired.
Mayor Amyx said he thought the final piece of information was going to come from Chuck Soules, Public Works Director. He said Commissioner Schauner indicated that he wanted to make a change, if possible, in the level of funding on street maintenance for 2007 and discuss expanding the economic development role. He thought they were all in agreement with the Health Care Access. He thought the budget was close in making that publication date.
Corliss said he received some additional information requests and those request would be discussed tomorrow. The rest of those informational items would be seen later after the budget was finalized, unless otherwise directed.
Commissioner
Hack said she had a question concerning the
Commissioner Hack said she was just curious to know how much was going to scholarships and what the other uses were.
Commissioner Schauner said concerning the economic development conversation that took place last night, he assumed that once the City Commission received updated information from Soules the Commission would be able to have more dialog.
Commissioner Hack said they also needed information from the Chamber of Commerce.
Commissioner Highberger said he wanted to put on the record that he did not expect to be convinced to pull back on the City Commission’s commitment of street expenditures this year. It had taken them a long time to get to this point and he wanted to move as aggressively as they could on it.
Mayor Amyx
said he thought it was important that they finish this budget process for the
2007 budget, but after this budget process, he wanted to visit with the City
Commission about a plan that would help them invest in the community so they
could relieve the burden on future year’s property taxes by additional money
streams in which he talked about the sales tax at last night’s meeting. He thought it was important to look at
additional funding resources that would help take burden off of property taxes
for years to come, but it was not part of that budget process yet. He said additional funding resources could be
part of the process if they understood they were still going to have the commitment
to the street projects for years to come and wanted the Commission to understand
they might not do it in a three year period, but instead, a four year period. (15)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Adam
Mansfield, speaking on behalf of Lawrence FreeNet, said they were trying to get
the downtown project moving, but they ran into a snag with the downtown
improvement project. In February,
Lawrence FreeNet went before the Historic Resources Commission and they said
they needed a policy for mounting wireless access points downtown, so that
request was sent back to Legal. He said
he received an email from
David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said a new staff attorney would be starting in August that would be able to spend more time on planning and zoning items. He said staff had been busy with other issues.
Commissioner
Hack said the City had been understaffed in the legal areas, but that issue was
being taken care of. She asked
Corliss said it would be likely the new staff attorney could work on in the first few months of employment, but he did not think it would come with a positive staff recommendation as far as placing the devices that had been proposed on the poles downtown, but that was something Mansfield would at least have criteria in which to judge and make a decision.
Corliss said he understood that staff was working on a policy that would allow Lawrence FreeNet to place devices on light poles.
Corliss
said it was his understanding that it always had to be on the light poles
downtown in order for it to work. From
what he had seen, he did not know if it was something
Mayor Amyx said it had not been the highest priority on his list since April.
Mansfield said he was not trying to blame anyone.
Mayor Amyx said it had not been a high priority because they had a whole lot of change and a number of issues to clean up. He apologized and said staff would get back to him.
Mayor Amyx
said if
Commissioner Schauner asked Corliss if he wanted to announce the new staff attorney.
Corliss
said John J. Miller was currently the Assistant City Attorney in Olathe and he
had accepted the position that started on August 14th. He was the Assistant City Attorney in
Mayor Amyx said that made for a great boss. He congratulated Corliss for hiring a new staff attorney and delegating that responsibility of attending the Planning Commission meetings.
Corliss said he thought it would be a value to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Amyx said the Planning Department would be adding an additional planner.
Stogsdill
said Joe Rexwinkle, the new planner, came to
Tammy
Kahle, Housing and Credit Counseling, said she knew the City Commission had
struggled with the long process of the City’s budget and the Credit Council appreciated
all the support they had received. She
said that she took about 26 phone calls concerning people and their air
conditioning in which 10 of those people were from
Commissioner Highberger asked how many hours she worked.
Kahle said she worked 16 hours per week, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. They had determined her work could be cut down to four hours a week with their current funding.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to make an offer that each Commissioner make available, two box fans for distribution through some agency the City could designate and contribute those to the cause. There were a lot of people who could not afford air conditioning or did not have air conditioning and it was a pretty lousy time to be without it.
Corliss said they would give 10 boxed fans to the right agency on behalf of the City Commission.
Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to contribute the money and not have it be a City obligation. (16)
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
|
07/25/06 |
Commission authorizes publication of proposed 2007 Budget Consider
approving and authorizing drafting of an ordinance/resolution for
TA-03-02G-06: Text amendments to 20-1107 of the Development Code regarding Standards
for Market Impact Analysis as part of site plan or zoning process.
(Item No. 19G; PC approved 7-3 on 4/19/06.) Charter Ordinance concerning bidding public improvements |
|
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 |
|
09/05/06 |
Commissioner Rundle absent. |
(17)
It was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED
_____________________________
Mike Amyx, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1.
Final Plat (PF-05-13-06) –
2.
Bid- Replacement basketball goals for
3.
Bid- Purchase of 80,000 lbs of Nalcolyte 8186 polymer.
4.
Bid- Approve disposal of obsolete Oce copy machine
through recycling firm.
5.
Use Permitted Upon Review (UPR-04-06-06) – 150’
monopole cellular tower and equipment shelter.
6.
Site Plan (SP-04-36-06) –
7.
Carnegie Bldg – Lawrence Art Guild Association
proposal for shared use
8.
Hierarchy of Plans - Planning Commission
9.
City Manager’s Report.
10.
Resolution No. 6656 – Benefit District, order
improvements,
11.
Final Plat (PF-04-10-06) – Final Plat for Elsie
Hemphill Addition, 1.591 acres, 1900 Learnard.
12.
Prelim Dev Plan (PDP-05-04-06) – Prairie Wind
Single Family Homes, 3.04 acres, 2620 Haskell.
13.
Rezone (Z-05-12-06) – 3.04 acres, RS-2 to PRD-1, 2620
Haskell.
14.
15.
Direction from City Commission regarding 2007
budget.
16.
Public Comment.
17.
Future Agenda Items.
18.
Commission Items.