August 15, 2006

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

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 449 vendors in the amount of $2,873,848.66.  Motion carried unanimously.          

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Dave Reavis to the Citizen Advisory Board to a term which will expire March 1, 2008.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to set bid date of August 29^th, 2006 for New Hampshire Street, 6^th to 9^th, Street Improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                            (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to award the Delaware Commons Sanitary Sewer Improvements, to Neighbors Construction Co. Inc. for $63,472.89.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                      (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to award the Delaware Commons sanitary sewer improvements, to Neighbors Construction Co. Inc. for $89,111.99; and, approve a variance request (City Code Section 19-214) allowing a common sanitary sewer service line to service multiple residential units at this location.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack approve the sale of surplus vehicles and equipment through Gov Deals.  The vehicles and equipment were were:

Unit                 Make                           Model                         Year                            Points

84                    Ford                             C.V.                             2004                            26.95

105                  Chevrolet                     Lumina                        1997                            29.25

147                  BMW Motorcycle         RT 75 P                       1995                            32.00  

148                  BMW Motorcycle         RT 75 P                       1995                            32.00

174                  Ford                             F250                            1997                            33.67

235                  Ford                             C.V.                             2002                            28.20

341                  Chevrolet                     C30                             1996                            38.06

363                  Clipper                         Concrete Saw             1991                            32.00

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                              (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack approve one year extension of contract (with option to renew) with Scotch Fabric Care Services and Lawrence Police Department for the laundering and dry cleaning of uniforms and non-uniform clothing for $42,410.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                            (5)

Ordinance No. 8025, adopting the National Electrical Code, 2005 Edition, with amendments, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                     (6)

Ordinance No. 8026, adopting and appropriating by fund the 2007 City of Lawrence budget, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                     (7)

Ordinance No. 8032, noting the necessity of appropriating/budgeting property tax revenues for 2007 in excess of that which was appropriated/budgeted for 2006, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                           (8)

Ordinance No. 8012, establishing solid waste service rates for 2007, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                          (9)

Ordinance No. 8029, establishing water/wastewater/extra strength wastewater rates for 2007, was read a second time.   As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                   (10)

Ordinance No. 8030, establishing electrical franchise fees, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Amyx, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-05-13-06) of approximately 1.40 acres, from RS-2 [RS-7] (Single-family Residence District) to RS-5 (Single-Dwelling Residential District)(the property generally described as being located near Bullene Avenue and LaSalle Street); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                      (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the replat of Homewood Gardens Addition (PF-06-14-06), a replat of lots 1-4, block 9 and lots 4-6, block 10, and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-ways subject to the following conditions:

1. Submission of public improvement plans prior to the recording of the Final Plat with the Register of Deeds Office.

2. Recordation of pedestrian access easement to the linear park by separate instrument.

3. Provision of revised plan with the following changes:

a. Book and Page Number of pedestrian access easement noted;

b. Note added granting ‘temporary right of entry’ for City to plant Street Trees.

c. 10’ utility easement along the front of the property reduced to 7.5’.

d. 10’ Westar easement required along the northern property line of Lot 1.

4. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

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

b. Provision of a revised master street tree plan. The notes concerning credit for existing street trees and protection measures must be listed on the Master Street Tree Plan.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-06-15-06) of approximately .85 acres, from RS-2 [RS-7] (Single-Family Residence District) to PRD-1 (Planned Residential District) (the property is located at 1511 Haskell Avenue); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                         (14)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-06-05-06) for Hanscom-Tappan Addition III, approximately .85 acres, property is located at 1511 Haskell Avenue,  subject to the following conditions:

1.         Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to include the following changes as noted by City Staff:

a. Revision to General notes Number 6 to be removed as not applicable to this development.

b. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to restrict occupancy of the homes to comply with the definition of family applicable to conventional single-family (RS) districts.

c. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to list all waivers associated with the proposed development.

d. Provision of a note that states “Conformance with the general architectural character of the surrounding area shall be required and building elevations shall be provided with the submission of the Final Development Plan for approval.”

2. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future intersection improvements for 15^th Street and Haskell Avenue.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (15)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to adopt the Hierarchy of Plans-Returned from the City Commission for a specific response to the second request described in the June 25, 2006 League of Women Voters Letter.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                       (16)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to approve and authorize drafting of an ordinance for TA-05-03B-06:  Revisions to Chapter 20, Development Code to make minor corrections and clarifications.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                                              (17)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Delma Hepner, 1615 Rose Lane.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                              (18)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack to authorize the Interim City Manager to execute an FAA grant agreement for $1,398,945 for the 2006 partial parallel taxiway project at the Lawrence Municipal Airport.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                (19)

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive request for annexation (A-07-02-06) for approximately 20.02 acres south of Peterson and East of 1130 Road; and refer the annexation request to the Planning Commission.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                       (20)

Commissioner Schauner pulled for separate discussion, the annexation (A-07-03-06) request for 9.3 acres at Kasold and 31^st Street.  He said concerning this annexation a question arose in his mind regarding the location and the possible infrastructure costs that could be associated with the annexation of that property.  He said it seemed they should have more information.  He understood the Commission was being asked to receive the request, but before they did anything with that annexation, he wanted the Planning Commission to take up the question of what the site would look like, what the density was, what the capital costs might be that were associated with making that corner usable for high density.  He said he understood the area was zoned multi-family.  He said it was an awkward corner the way it was built currently and it seemed they should have more information before they consider annexation.   He asked that this matter be deferred until they had additional information from the Planning Commission.

Corliss said the annexation was being referred to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Schauner said he understood, but what he wanted the Planning Commission to hear from him was what he would like specifically about that project.

Mayor Amyx asked if a normal annexation item that came back from the Planning Commission included a service plan that Commissioner Schauner might be asking for as the ultimate build out on that property.

Commissioner Schauner said he had not seen a site plan so he did not know whether it was an ultimate build out for that corner or if they were going to go further south to the power substation. 

Corliss said as he understood the request, the annexation request would be reviewed by the Planning Commission because they also had a concurrent request for rezoning and site plan for the property.  He thought the best path was to go ahead and refer the annexation to the Planning Commission, but take special note of the items Commissioner Schauner had detailed so the Planning Commission could get the benefit of a full review of those items and the City Commission would get an opportunity to hear the Planning Commission’s recommendation and get all the items again.  He said only the City Commission could approve the annexation by ordinance so the City Commission would have the benefit of all of that information after the information had been reviewed.  He said that was the City’s normal process, but he thought it was very helpful that Commissioners highlighted some of those issues because they wanted to make sure to respond to those issues.

Mayor Amyx asked how specific Commissioner Schauner wanted the infrastructure plan to be so the City Commission would not need to defer the annexation again when the action came back from the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Schauner said if they would build out the 9.31 acres at whatever level of their request, he asked what was the traffic issue associated with that build out and would that currently awkward corner accommodate the annexation without straightening Kasold and improving Kasold all the way to K-10.  He thought the City Commission should take a fairly broad look because if it was 30, 40 or 50 units at that intersection in addition to what was there now, they would need more than one driveway because there was only one driveway into the property at the moment.  He said he would like a broader look at it at the Planning Commission level so that when they get it back in whatever form, they would have the information with which to make an informed decision rather than saying they would like more information about infrastructure costs and send the annexation back to Planning Commission.

Mayor Amyx suggested that Commissioner Schauner meet with Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, to specifically request the type of information to be added to that consideration of the annexation.  He said he assumed the rest of the Commission would not have any problems with that suggestion because he did not want anything left out so the City Commission would not need to address this item two or three times.

As part of the consent agenda it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to receive request for annexation (A-07-0306) for approximately 9.3 acres at Kasold and 31^st Street; and, refer the annexation request to the Planning Commission.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                   (21)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said he highlighted in the City Manager’s Report information staff labeled “Good Neighbor Ordinances in Lawrence.”  He said staff disseminated the information primarily to the college community so they understood both the benefits and responsibilities of being good neighbors.  He said he had also had discussions with department heads to remind their crews with vehicles to be cognizant that kids were finding their way to elementary schools.                   (22)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Consider approving the following items related to Lawrence Memorial Hospital Expansion:

a) Accept dedication of easements and rights-of-way on the following plat for PF-15-13-06:  Final Plat for Lawrence Memorial Hospital Addition, containing approximately 23.860 acres generally described as being located at the Southeast Quarter and Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 12 South, Range 19 East; 325 Maine.

b) UPR-04-04-06:  Use Permitted Upon Review request for the expansion of Lawrence Memorial Hospital, located at 325 Maine Street.

Lisa Pool, Planner, presented the staff report.  She said the final plat proposed to combine several lots, dedicate easements, and vacate the right-of-way of the 300 block of Arkansas Street.  The master plan proposed to relocate the surgery addition as well as reconfigure parking lots to add additional spaces.  The 300 block of Arkansas Street, while proposed for vacation of right-of-way, the master plan showed it as being an open through street with two-way traffic.  Any future changes that were proposed to this roadway and any closures that might be considered by the hospital would need to come back as a revision to the master plan and the City Commission would be able to consider that action at that time. 

She said site plans would need to be considered with each phase of the master plan and were now administrative with the new code.  The Planning Commission recommended approval of the final plat with a 5-4 vote.  The City Commission deferred the master plan from the July meeting to consider both the plat and master plan together.  She said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the master plan with an 8-0 vote on July 26^th.

Commissioner Highberger asked if the final plat still called for a vacation.

Pool said yes. 

Commissioner Highberger asked if the road would be maintained as a private road.

Pool said yes.  She said although it was proposed for vacation, the hospital would maintain it, but the City would own it as the City owned all the hospital property.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Steve Braswell, Pinckney Neighborhood Association, said his Association was pleased with the hospital plan.  Originally, the hospital discussed possibly closing Arkansas Street, but a number of people were concerned about closing that street as far as access to the area and there were several meetings about that subject.  He said they were pleased that LMH listened to the neighbors and came back with a good idea.  

Mayor Amyx said he wanted to thank the neighborhood and staff because the project was complicated.  He said the hospital had a need for future expansion and there was a workable plan for those involved in the planning process.

Braswell said he was happy they were addressing the problem of growth as well as keeping the area open.   

Commissioner Highberger said he was still not thrilled with vacating the right-of-way although that area was going to be maintained.  He said his preference would be to keep the right-of-way and work out an agreement.  He said he was not going to stand in the way of this project, although he did not like the idea of giving away the grid even under those circumstances.  He said this project was a special circumstance in that it was a public entity and the City had title to a property so that if circumstances changed in the future, the City’s would still own that area.

Mayor Amyx said he shared Commissioner Highberger’s concern because he knew what could possibly happen in the future, but it seemed that because of the new development code, it allowed for expansion of the hospital and parking and there was still access, specifically to the north heading south.  The roadway was an important part of the circumferential routing into and around that hospital.  It seemed virtually impossible to ever deny access on Arkansas Street between 3^rd and 4^th Street.  He said he thought the plan was a very workable solution. 

Commissioner Schauner said if they vacated now with an understanding it would be a two-way street until whatever happened, what was the difference between the formalities of vacation versus the formality that might be required in the future to close the street after the vacation.

David Corliss, Interim City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the value of the vacation helped with setbacks from the right-of-way and the hospital would be able to do different parking configurations.  He said because the hospital was an instrumentality to the City, all of the real estate the hospital owned had been titled to the City of Lawrence along with owning the right-of-way because it was dedicated to the City.  He said the City Commission had the general police powers to close a street now, barricade it off and use it for other purposes, but that did not help the hospital comply with the City’s setback requirements.  He said if the City Commission would not want to vacate now, the hospital would not be able to do what they wanted to do with the parking and comply with the City’s setback requirements.  In the future the hospital could come before the City Commission and ask for vacation by a separate instrument.  Occasionally, the City vacated by separate instrument where right-of-way or an easement was vacated, and essentially that was an act the City Commission had complete power over unless there was an adjoining property owner who objected to that vacation.

He said this vehicle was as good as any because he did not think the hospital was going to physically close the street without the City’s permission because it was an instrumentality of the City.  He said the hospital would come to the City and say now it was coming to their need they had to physically vacate that actual use of the street, but he thought the hospital would still come to the City and that might need to be clear in the minutes or make it a condition of the plat. 

Commissioner Schauner said he wasn’t overly concerned about the vacation, but he wanted to use belt and suspenders to make sure there was continued ingress and egress to that neighborhood and the houses on the north end that otherwise had a difficult time without that street or something akin to it being there.  He said he would like to see the minutes reflect that only by official City Commission action could there be a physical vacation of that ingress and egress.

Mayor Amyx asked if he meant a physical vacation or the closing of that street.

Corliss said a physical closing of that street for vehicular use was what they might be after.  He said it might be better to have a place on the plat because that way the plat was the solid document that people would look at.

C.L. Mauer, LandPlan Engineering, said the part of the plat that no one had seen was there would be an access easement down Arkansas Street from 4^th to 3^rd Street.  He said that easement would still be there for ingress and egress for the public to cross.  He said that access had to be there because he could not have the public go across that private lot.  He said it virtually put it back into the City’s hands, but also gave the City control because there would be an access easement at that location.

Mayor Amyx said the instrument would be present until the site plan was changed.

Mauer said they would need to change the plat to remove that access easement.

Commissioner Rundle asked if a formal process was needed to vacate the easement.

Mauer said that was correct.

Commissioner Schauner asked if vacating the easement was going to be administratively done.

Mayor Amyx said it was the responsibility of the City Commission to accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way.  Therefore, by that acceptance, that would take care of Commissioner Schauner’s concern because they were accepting that access. 

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-05-13-06) for Lawrence Memorial Hospital Addition, containing approximately 23.860 acres, property is generally described as being located at the southeast quarter and northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 12 south, Range 19 East; 325 Maine Street; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1. Provision of the following fees and documentation:

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

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

c. A completed Master Street Tree Plan in accordance with Section 21-708a.3.

d. A Temporary Utility Agreement.

2. Pinning of both lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2 of the Subdivision Regulations.

3. Revision of the plat to include the following:

a. Notation of vacation of Arkansas Street right-of-way from 3^rd to 4^th Streets.

b. Notation of which easements are existing and proposed.

c. Additional utility easements to accommodate the sanitary sewer and water mains as shown on the City’s Geographic Information Systems map.

d. Notation of the 80-foot utility easement within the vacated Missouri Street right-of-way.

e. Additional drainage easements to accommodate the stormwater mains as shown on the City’s Geographic Information Systems map.

f. Notation of the off-site drainage easements along the northern and eastern sides of Woody Park.

g. Notation of the Floodplain Overlay District which touches Woody Park.

h. Notation of the long-term lease with Douglas County for the emergency vehicle storage facility at the northeast portion of the hospital site.       

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (22)

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-04-04-06) for the expansion of Lawrence Memorial Hospital, located at 325 Maine Street, subject to the following conditions:

1. Submittal of a Site Plan Performance Agreement; and

2. Recordation at the Register of Deeds Office of a final plat.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (23)

Consider approving UPR-05-08-06:  Use Permitted upon Review request for a Main Living Unit and three Rental Units, located at 805 Ohio Street.

Mary Miller, Planner, presented the staff report.  She said 805 Ohio was built in 1884 and was the Jacob House, a founding settler of Lawrence.  This home was purchased by a surgeon, Charles Simmons who used the structure as a hospital for approximately 25 years. Since then, the ownership had changed hands many times.  In recent history, the house fell into disrepair and was vacant until the applicant purchased the structure and renovated the structure using an Adaptive Reuse UPR granted in 1994.  The applicant was requesting a new UPR to allow rental units to remain (1 unit on ground floor and 2 units on 2^nd floor).  The applicant had indicated that funds derived from the rentals were needed to help defray the costs of maintenance and upkeep.

The applicant had agreed to the conditions placed on the UPR by the Planning Commission and the HRC with the exception of the condition restricting the number of lessees allowed per unit to one plus any minor children.  The applicant requested they be allowed to lease to couples, which they indicated would be required to do by the Federal Fair Housing Law.   

The Planning Commission approved the UPR with the revised condition to allow the applicant to lease each unit to a total of two people on July 24, 2006 with a vote of 5 to 3.

She said the character and zoning of the area was zoned RS5; there was a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet; the primary use was single family detached homes; the south end of the block (bordering 9^th Street) was zoned CS (Commercial Strip); and various commercial uses were located at that location such as a bank, gas station/convenience store, and offices.

There were several multi-family units in this area.  The 1966 zoning map indicated the zoning of this area was single-family at that time.  To be legal non-conforming uses, those units would need to have been in use as multi-family units at that time and since.

On the pro-side was the renovation of a historically significant structure which had been dilapidated when the applicant purchased that structure and renting out units helped the applicant with renovation costs.

On the negative side was the multi-family use in a neighborhood zoned single-family.  The character of the neighborhood was primarily single-family with several multi-family units and commercial uses at the south end of the block

The neighborhood association was in favor of the UPR as it had allowed this structure to be improved and be a quality feature contributing positively to the character of the neighborhood.

She said an Adaptive Reuse UPR could be approved in any zoning district.

The character of the neighborhood was relatively ‘mixed’.  The applicant has expressed the desire this structure return to single-family eventually, if possible.  The UPR was recommended for approval for 10 years, to coincide with the Historic Resources Commission time limit.  Originally the City Commission was leery of the Adaptive Reuse UPR and felt that it might be a ‘loophole’ to achieve higher density without rezoning.  There had been no Adaptive Reuse UPR’s since 805 Ohio.  The UPR had not been seen as setting a precedent, due to stringent, site-specific conditions which were applied.

Conditions were also recommended for this UPR which would make it site-specific and prevent it from setting a broad precedent.

Mayor Amyx asked if all of the 1994 UPR conditions had been met.

Miller said no, all the conditions had not been met.  The garage and 3^rd floor attic/ballroom had not been restored, and the apartments had not been phased out.  Also, they had not submitted a completed application for listing on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places, and this condition was being placed on the UPR because the earlier condition for submitting a completed application did not have a time-limit.   

Dan Riedemann, applicant, said they were proposing to reduce the number of apartments at 805 Ohio Street from four to three.  They were planning to open the 2^nd floor grand hallway back up, take the apartment usage from four to three apartments by converting one of the two apartments into a larger apartment.  They were also proposing to eliminate one of the four off-street parking spaces in the back ally and extend the yard out with landscaping along with extending their retaining wall. 

He said they had been asked several times when they would foresee 805 Ohio going back to single family use.  He said at this time, they hoped 805 Ohio would be a single-family home in the next 10 year UPR.  When they came to Lawrence in 1993 and found 805 Ohio in its condition, they made an offer and signed a contract contingent on the City allowing the UPR.  They spent several months with the City in trying to find a use to revitalize 805 Ohio.  A ten year timeline was established which was achieved in 1994 and had lived up to the conditions of the UPR with an exception of a couple. 

He said one condition was due to the concerns of the Fire Chief which was the 3^rd floor ballroom attic.  The second condition was the garage where they had until the end of September to do the face of the garage.   

He said 805 Ohio was used in almost 70% of its existence as something other than single-family from a hospital, to a boarding house, to a fraternity home.  He said in 1906 Dr. Simmons realized when Jacob House went to sell 805 Ohio, it was not feasible then as a single- family home and it became the Simmons Hospital.  They were hoping, in the future, to see 805 Ohio go back to single-family, but right now due to economics it was not feasible.  He said that was why the request was before the City Commission.

He said 805 Ohio had worked out very well in 12 years as a four unit apartment and would then be a 3 unit apartment.  He said there had never been complaints from the neighbors.  Although there were neighbors who originally spoke out against their project in 1994, those neighbors were now supporting this project because the neighbors liked what they had done with the property and it had a low impact on the neighborhood being it was an 8,000 square foot home.

Commissioner Rundle asked if the restrictive covenants, requested in 1994 which was part of the original UPR, were recorded.

Riedemann said he believed those covenants were recorded.

Commissioner Schauner asked if staff had searched to see if they were found.

Miller said staff had copies and those covenants were recorded.

Commissioner Schauner said one of the early conditions was making an application for the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.  He asked if that had been done yet.

Riedemann said no.  He said they went into that process shortly after getting the first UPR and the original UPR stated that they needed to apply for state, federal and local.  He said they went to the Kansas City Historic Preservation Office and they sent them away saying that because it was a contributing structure and historic landmark, it automatically met the criteria.  He said they talked about getting signage, placards, and other items to display that it was a registered landmark.  He said recently they found out that did not include the Lawrence Register of Historic Place, but they would be happy to individually place it on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Riedemann learned additional lessons about the cost of operating that property as a single family residence that they were not aware of in 1994 or last year when they took this matter up again.

Riedemann said yes, he had learned additional lessons about the cost of operating a single-family residence.  He said there were so many variables to this property such as the mammoth costs of maintaining the property.  Their renovation, in a ten year period, they were hit by two “100 year floods” which cost them quite a bit of money.  He said going back to single- family with some of the conditions of that block had not been as easy as they thought it could be.  He said they were uniquely positioned in the neighborhood where the historic district reached out and grabbed their property because it was such a significant building in itself, but the house was at that southern edge where they were close to commercial and the block to the south and across the street had struggled and been one of the last blocks to come into single- family ownership and get out of the higher percentage of rental properties.

Commissioner Schauner said he was told there was a conversation in 1994, with the neighbors, in which Riedemann said that after the 10 year period it was his plan to take down the four-plex immediately, next to him, on the south.

Riedemann said that conversation could not have taken place in 1994 because when they closed on 805 Ohio, they did not think the duplex would come available for another 3 to 4 years.  At that time, they gambled on purchasing that structure at that time, but they thought the structure would sit for a while and would pick up 805 Ohio later.  He said he thought they bought the structure in 1997 or 1998. 

Schauner asked if there was an agreement with the neighborhood at any point in time.

Riedemann said no.  He said for years he did not think anyone knew they bought that structure.  He said they bought it directly from the owner and it was not listed at that time.  He said comments had been made over and over that the structure needed to be bulldozed.  He said they had only owned the structure 8 years and it was an expensive piece of green space.  He said they purchased it so they could control it because at the time of purchase it was Section 8 Housing and in pretty bad shape.

Mayor Amyx said there was an application request on this property by the former owner of the property to have a commercial use at that location and that conversation might have came down through that process.

Schauner said he was not recalling the conversation, but was an issue he had been told about.

Riedemann said that was to be a parking lot in the proposed use prior to their purchase which was a 16 room bed and breakfast and that was going to be razed and possibly the one next to it to accommodate 20 or more cars.

Commissioner Schauner said in looking at the minutes from the meeting in which this was taken up, it appeared there were 8 Planning Commissioners in attendance.  Mr. Haase stated in the last paragraph of the minutes that: “ he would not vote for it as it was in contradiction of every zoning principle recognized by the Planning Commission as he felt nothing would change in 10 years and this would essentially be a perpetual multifamily zoning.”  He said the motion to approve the UPR, based on staff report with conditions, was approved 5-3 and listed Burress, Eichhorn and Harris in opposition.  He asked if Mr. Haase voted differently than he spoke about in the last paragraph of those minutes or was the vote really 4-4.

Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said her written notes indicated on her vote sheet that she had listed Mr. Haase’s vote as yes.  She said those were draft minutes that would be approved next week by the Planning Commission and staff could verify everyone’s vote, but her notes indicated Mr. Haase’s did not vote no.  She said she did not know if she made a mistake during the meeting and that was reflected in the minutes or not.

Commissioner Schauner asked what would be the difference if the vote was 4-4 instead of 5-3.

Stogsdill said if it was 4-4 it would be failure for recommendation and there would have been potential for another motion on the floor to send something forward to the City Commission or it could have been sent forward to the City Commission with a failure to recommend.  Typically a failure to recommend was the same as a recommendation for denial. 

Commissioner Schauner said at this point staff was unable to verify the vote one way or another.

Stogsdill said all she knew was after the vote the chair said it was 5-3 and no one had indicated differently.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if that was the end of the conversation on that particular item.

Stogsdill said yes and they took a break right after that vote.  It was her assumption she placed the “N” for no in the wrong column as she was writing those votes down, but she did not know that for sure.

Commissioner Schauner said either Burress, Eichhorn, or Harris might have voted in favor, instead of opposition.

Stogsdill said potentially, yes.     

Mayor Amyx said if it was a 4-4 vote, he asked what effect that vote would have on the action of the City Commission.

Stogsdill said if it came forward to the City Commission as a failure to recommend, which was the same as a denial, it would need a super majority vote to approve it or they could sent it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration.

Mayor Amyx asked as of right now, staff did not know the outcome of the voting.

Stogsdill said not officially, since those were draft minutes.

Vice Mayor Hack said if it were a 4-4 vote, there would have been some follow up discussion and the Planning Commissioners would have known it was 4-4.

Stogsdill said that was a good point because they had several other split votes in that same meeting and if there was a 4-4 vote, then they move onto another motion and did not stop to take a break.

Commissioner Schauner said that might be true, but he did not feel comfortable about making assumptions about what they did or did not do.  He said he would like to take some action based on a higher comfort level in terms of what they did.  He said he would like an affirmation on that vote from the Planning Commission.  He said it was either 5-3 or 4-4 or whatever it was so the City Commission could act according to the rules they adopted. 

Mayor Amyx said he thought the plan was fine, but he wanted to make sure the City Commission had all the facts.  He said he thought one of the questions would be could this project be completed without being a rental property.  He said with the amount of work on this building, the extra living units probably would help pay for that property to become an adaptive reuse and an important part of the Old West Lawrence. 

He said he understood that if there was a 4-4 vote, it would require a simple majority vote and would leave that to the City Commission.

Commissioner Schauner said Planning Commissioner Haase had it right in that if the City Commission approved a 10 year UPR, this would essentially mean it would never be a single family residence.  He said there would be no motive in turning it into a single-family residence because the owner would continue to be able to pay a significant amount of upkeep and overhead of the property with rental income.  He suspected he could name other single- family residences in that area that would like the ability to cover their extraordinary expenses because of the age of their house with rental income. 

He thought the parties entered into this matter in 1994 in good faith with a 10 year UPR with the understanding being that they would be able to use the rental income to pay the costs of refurbishing the property which had obviously fallen into substantial disrepair.  He said it had now been 12 years and they were having the same conversation over again. 

He said he was not quite certain why the applicant had not asked why it was singly located on the Lawrence Historic Registry.  He suspected that there was a reason, but did not know that reason.  He thought at a minimum they should defer the matter until they heard with certainty that the Planning Commission had either approved their minutes or altered their minutes so the City Commission could act accordingly.  He said he would rather not take any action on this matter until they had some better and more reliable source of information on which to act from the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Rundle asked if this property was nominated to both of those registers, the property would be eligible for historic preservation tax credits or was the property already eligible for those credits.

Stogsdill said she understood because it was a contributing structure in the Old West Lawrence District, it was already eligible for those state and federal credits.  She said the Lawrence Registry would simply be adding it to the Lawrence inventory and did not have really any monetary affect and the environs for local was 250 and state was 500.  She said it did not affect anything beyond the property more and they wanted the local registry to reflect those landmarks.

Commissioner Highberger said if they looked at the overall process it had been a benefit to the City and the neighborhood because the property was saved from further deterioration.  He said if they look at the realities, there are not many people in the City who could maintain an 8,000-12,000 square foot single-family residence.  He said he had trouble enough maintaining his much smaller residence.  He said he understood the concern about setting a precedent and there were not many comparable structures and this had not created a change of conversions to multifamily use.  He said the future Commissions would be very reluctant to follow that path.

As far as the Planning Commission vote, he noted that discrepancy and really did not think whether it met the vote 4-4 or 5-3, but it was obviously a very important consideration and was not sure if it would sway his vote on this subject.  He said he would be comfortable to either deferring it until they verify the vote, but he would not proceed unless there was a supermajority vote.  He said if they took a vote tonight and the vote was 3-2, he would withdraw his vote and defer until they knew the Planning Commission vote for certain.

Commissioner Hack asked if the Planning Commission vote could be verified before next week’s agenda was set.

Stogsdill said the Planning Commission would meet next Monday and Wednesday.  She said she could e-mail the Planning Commissioners the next day to see whether they could verify before Thursday’s posting.  She said they would be taking an action next Monday to approve those minutes.  She said staff could provide the City Commission with an oral report next Tuesday. 

Vice Mayor Hack said she was familiar with the neighborhood because the first house she bought was 821 Ohio.  She said she knew it was an unusual block and this was a structure, in the mid to late 1970’s that was in terrible shape and the way it looked now was an incredible improvement.  She said the fact that they had not had a number of people contact the City Commission or express their concerns about the use remaining as it was and with the reduction of the number of apartments and parking, supported approval of the UPR.  She said it seemed to her that it was moving in the right direction. 

She said she would agree with Commissioner Highberger the size of that home would be difficult to maintain.  She said she did not think it was setting a precedent and did not believe it was a mistake to go ahead and extend the UPR for another 10 years.  She said if the City Commission could have some sort of verification of the Planning Commission’s vote on Monday this item could be placed on next week’s agenda.

Commissioner Rundle asked if there had been discussion on either of the UPR’s for submitting some type of plan for rehabilitation.  He said a lot of conditions were to allow staff to access the property annually to review the compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Properties Rehabilitation.  He suggested every couple of years the City Commission could receive an update on the progress of a plan or would that be making more work than staff needed.

Stogsdill said the City Commission could add a condition there would be a status report every three years or so to the City Commission.  She said if staff was going to be in that structure every year, it would not be additional work.

Mayor Amyx said it seemed it was the City Commission’s intent to defer this item for a week and receive information on the actual vote taken by the Planning Commission in case there was a vote mistakenly recorded.

            Moved by Rundle, seconded by, Highberger, to defer for one week considering the UPR (UPR-05-08-06) for a Main Living Unit and three Rental Units, located at 805 Ohio.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                          (24)

Consider approving CPA-2005-02: Planning Commission discussion on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 9 – Parks, Recreation, and Open Space.

Paul Patterson, Planner, presented the staff report.  He said this item had been before the City Commission twice before.  On October 18, 2005 the item was sent back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration and wanted the Planning Commission to focus on the park service radius distance from residences to neighboring parks.  He said the Comprehensive Master Plan had a half mile as being the minimum service radius standards for neighborhood parks.  He said the City Commission’s direction was to go to one quarter mile.  He said the Planning Commission heard this item and discussed it at length.  They took the information from the Parks & Recreations as far as the costs to go to a half mile to a quarter mile service frequent standard, which was approximately $1 million dollars at full build out for that size. 

He said the item came back before the City Commission on June 13^th of 2006 and at that point, they sent the item back to the Planning Commission for the reconsideration of the same issue, on a 3-2 vote.  It went back before the Planning Commission members on July 24^th.  At that meeting, the Planning Commissioners reconsidered and modified on a 5-3 vote the description of the neighborhood play lot, mini parks, and changed the service radius distance to one quarter mile as requested by the City Commission.  He said they changed the description of the neighborhood play lot and mini parks and description needs for the description of play lots and mini parks.  He said they went ahead and put in that one quarter mile for service radius distance. 

He said there were three actions the City Commission could take:  1) adopt Chapter 9 amendments; 2) revise this item; 3) or amend and adopt the item.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks & Recreation, said staff would work toward any type of policy the City Commission wanted to establish.

Commissioner Schauner said using Langston Hughes Park as an example, he asked DeVictor if he would envision that park as being a neighborhood play lot, mini park, or something else.

DeVictor said that area was approximately 40 acres and unique in some respects.  He said a portion of that park was a neighborhood park, but the park was an urban area as well.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the 40 acres included the entire terrain around which the ring might be built at some point.

DeVictor said yes.

Commissioner Schauner said if they did not consider the heavily forested area, but only considered the lot immediately east of George Williams Way, he said if they wanted to do work at that location, he asked if that could be considered, by itself, a neighborhood mini park or play lot.

DeVictor said that would be a neighborhood park because that area was 14 or 15 acres.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that park was still larger than the definition of a mini park or play lot.

DeVictor said correct.  He said with neighborhood parks they were talking in terms of 5-10 acres or more, but a minimum of 5-10 acres.

Commissioner Highberger said he realized this change would make their comprehensive plan in conflict with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.  He said this was an important change the City Commission needed to make.  He said if they wanted to build walkable neighborhoods with green space that was accessible by foot to everyone in town, a service standard less than a half mile was crucial.  He said he very strongly supported the change.

Vice Mayor Hack said she thought this was almost overkill and hated to say that in reference to parks because she thought they were important and the Parks and Recreation Department did such a good job.  She said she would rather see staff look at a half mile radius and the connectivity between those half mile radii made far more sense than isolated pockets of parks. 

Mayor Amyx said he agreed that a quarter of a mile was pretty close.  He thought that anytime they sat an iron clad quarter mile, it would not allow good planning. 

Commissioner Rundle said he thought connecting parks was compatible and he hoped that this would encourage that type of thinking and that would be completed with the spirit of what was being proposed.

Vice Mayor Hack said she did not want to see isolated pockets because that tended to further compartmentalize the neighborhoods.  She said she might be overreacting, but she wanted to stress that they connected the parks because she thought that was one of the things about walkability.  She said it was not just walking a quarter mile and stopping, but walking a quarter mile and having the option to connect.

Mayor Amyx said he did not disagree with Commissioner Highberger when he discussed working toward providing public green space and the Commission needed to determine if that would be something to work toward and a future Commission would be able to know what this Commission meant regarding a quarter mile.

Commissioner Schauner said Commissioner Hack made a good point about the advantages of larger parks.  He thought they did tend to develop a larger sense of community where you could see more people than the people who live within a quarter of a mile.  He said on the other hand, one of his concerns was that they could focus solely on parks and less on green belting of quality and good size then he thought they might be focusing on the wrong thing.  He said it seemed green belt spaces that might have a park component along with other sorts of flat green or roaming green area might be equally attractive to a homeowner or a developer and he hoped rather than having a hard and fast rule as Commissioner Highberger suggested, that they would not have a hard and fast rule and look at a way that combined the efforts so they have a larger area of green and not everyone of those green pieces had to have a park with a playground.  He thought that might be overkill.  He said he was willing to support the way the plan was proposed even though he had some reservations that were expressed well by Commissioner Hack.

It was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-2005-2) to Horizon 2020, Chapter 9 – Parks and Recreation, and Open Space.  Aye:  Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay: Amyx and Hack.  Motion carried.    (25)

Consider approving, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-01-03-06:  Preliminary Development Plan for Miracon Plaza, containing approximately 5.05 acres and proposes a car wash, convenience store, commercial/office buildings, and a restaurant, generally described as being located at the northeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Clinton Parkway.

Lisa Pool, Planner, presented the staff report.  She said the development plan included a convenience store with four gas pumps, a commercial and office building, as well as a restaurant.  The development plan conformed in the site’s existing PCD-2 zoning which permitted 12,700 square feet of commercial space and did not permit uses within use groups 13, 14, and the majority of uses in use group 15. 

The plan was reviewed for its consistency with the commercial design guidelines, although the plan was submitted prior to the adoption of those guidelines.  She said the plan included several elements such as defined walkways across driveways and drive aisles, site finishing, and landscaping in excess of the minimum requirements.  Additionally, the building was brought up to the street corner.  Due to topographical constraints, as well as the existence of residences along the north and east side, the remaining buildings were not able to be brought up to the street front with the parking to the rear. 

She said the City Commission denied any associated rezoning requests to allow additional commercial uses and increase commercial space with a 3-2 vote in May.  The Planning Commission recommended approval of this preliminary development plan with a 7-1 vote in July.  The Planning Commission recommended a revised set of conditions with a revision to condition 3d to state that public and permit plans should be provided for approval prior to recording of the Final Development Plan.  She said staff still supported its original recommendation for that condition which was that the public improvement plans be provided for review and approval with submittal of the final development plan application.  She said this condition was a bit unique with regard to public improvement plans because of a 24” water line that was located along the east side of Wakarusa Drive and the possible need for relocation or lowering of the waterline which would be a substantial cost to the applicant.  She said they would like to get those issues resolved prior to filing the Final Development Plan.

Schauner asked if there was a drive thru associated with the office building.

Pool said yes.  She said there were bank bays as well as an unidentified drive thru along the north side.

Commissioner Schauner asked if a Traffic Impact Study was required and did it meet City standards.

Pool said yes and it was approved by City staff.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the square footage application conform with the Horizon 2020 guidelines for that intersection. 

Pool said this was the preliminary development plan and a rezoning or new zoning was not being considered.  The issue of the square footage amount on this intersection was exceeded when the existing PCD-2 zoning was approved for this site.  She said it did set a maximum commercial square footage of 12,700 square feet.  She said it did exceed what Horizon 2020 recommended, but the plan was in conformance with the existing zoning.

Commissioner Schauner asked how much this plan exceeded the Horizon 2020 recommendations.

Pool said the intersection included approximately 100,974 square feet of space and Horizon 2020 recommended 100,000 square feet for neighborhood commercial centers.  She said this plan proposed 12,700 square feet. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be approximately 12% greater than what was allowed under the recommended Horizon 2020.

Pool said yes, but that square footage was previously approved.

Commissioner Highberger asked if the 100,000 included a fairly large self storage unit.

Pool said yes.

Commissioner Highberger asked if the storage was 40,000 square feet.

Pool said approximately.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Horizon 2020 also referred to limiting the development to only two corners of that intersection.

Pool said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be the third commercial corner at that node.

Pool said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked how this plan was different than the one they saw back in May.

Pool said they did not consider a development plan before it was a rezoning. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a project proposed with it with square footage numbers.

Pool said yes.  She said it was 18,866 square feet.  She said that depended on how much commercial should be at this intersection.  Horizon 2020 actually had recommended it for one corner.

Tim Herndon, LandPlan Engineering, said as time marched on, they had put in quite a few hours working on this project.  He said the loud and clear message that was given to them by the Planning Commission and the City Commission in the previous hearings was they would not be granted the zoning request they submitted to allow an expansion of some uses and square footage, but they were directed to operate within the existing zoning that was approved in 1998 that allowed 12,700 square feet of commercial zoning.  He said that was what they did with the plan and came to the City Commission with a 7-1 vote for approval from the Planning Commission, staff recommendation for approval, an extraordinary high quality plan, a plan that was subjected arguably inappropriately to the commercial design guidelines that were adopted by the City exactly one night before the deferred plan came to the Planning Commission and they were glad to oblige some of the requests that were made upon them.  He said they provided pedestrian crossings, ample green space, just for examples to some of their questions about the differences between the previous plans. 

He said the green space that was proposed on this commercial development was over 50% of the site and it was required in Planning Commercial Districts to provide a minimum of 20%.  He said they had proposed 80 trees on the property when only 38 were required by the code.  He said they proposed in cooperation with the Public Works Department and in accordance with the approved traffic study, a northbound right turn decel lane and an outbound right turn only lane, a southbound left turn lane, and a northbound left turn lane to ensure this corner operated at its maximum ability.  He said they would be fixing problems that this project did not create in the process. 

He said he came to the City Commission optimistically with the significant changes made to this plan.  He said some of the questions he just heard, he felt like he needed to in his client’s best interest and his obligation to him, state very pointedly that of the 113,674 square feet of commercial property that had somehow found its way into the calculation traced back to Horizon 2020, about 50,000 square feet of that was mini storage and he believed that it was unfair to hold this project somehow responsible because of 50,000 square feet of mini storage that was in no way compared to commercial retail activity either in traffic generation or in the square footage that was occupied by people.

He said another question regarded Horizon 2020 and its recommendation that only two corners of this development or one corner was to be developed on the intersection.  He said the fact was that 2 corners were completely built out and one corner had been zoned Planned Commercial District for 10 years.  He said the standard of development and whatever the intersection was classified as had already been established and this project had no impact on that.  He said he thought those were very compelling facts and hoped the City Commission would agree, but primarily he was there to ask the City Commission to honor the Planning Commission’s recommendation and planning staff’s advice and their sincere request to approve this proposed planned commercial development and allow them to move ahead with final development plans and public improvement plans and other work that was going to be generated by this project.

Commissioner Schauner asked Herndon if his client would have an objection to extending northward the median and prevent left turns across Wakarusa southbound lefts.

Herndon said yes.  He said the project would not work by preventing southbound lefts across Wakarusa nor would Wakarusa Court, which extended to the west because it would shut down every business down that cul-de-sac.  He said that was why the four-way intersection was designed the way it was.

Mayor Amyx called for public comment. 

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Schauner asked Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, if left turns southbound met or failed traffic recommendation standards.  He said he drove the intersection frequently.  He said the intersection was heavily traveled and the traffic was fast.  He said he was curious if there were any standards set that the City might be in violation of by permitting lefts across four lanes of traffic.

Soules said it took into account the distance, even though he could not give him an exact number, it met the requirements and might exceed the distance back from an intersection.  He said it lined up with Wakarusa Court.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Wakarusa Court was residences. 

Soules said no. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if the proposed curb cut was directly across the street from Wakarusa Court.

Soules said yes.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that was where the mini storage was located that did not create much traffic.

Soules said yes he believed so.

Mayor Amyx asked if it was Commissioner Schauner’s concern that they had a dedicated left turn south out of the project.

Commissioner Schauner said it did not elevate his concern about left turns southbound out of that project.  He said if those types of turns were successful, there would be a lot of vehicular traffic.  He said they did not want a lot of traffic in and out of there if it were to be a successful development.

Commissioner Hack said that intersection at Clinton Parkway had traffic lights and one of the City Commission’s goals was to look at Wakarusa as an entire traffic corridor.

Commissioner Schauner said at some point it would be the major westernmost arterial in the City. 

Commissioner Hack said the lighting would be coordinated to handle that area.

Commissioner Schauner said he traveled that intersection a lot and thought that area was highly questionable.

Sheila Stogsdill, Acting Planning Director, said on the GIS it was approximately 465 feet from Clinton Parkway to Wakarusa Court.  She said as a comparison, the access restrictions along US 40, 6^th Street was 300-350 feet back before there could be an intersection either north or south.

Commissioner Hack asked about the access restrictions.

Stogsdill said the access restrictions were north and south of 6^th Street and when the project was widened, KDOT acquired access restrictions back between 300-350 feet.  She said it was about 100 feet further than the closest one on 6^th Street.

Commissioner Highberger asked staff about Condition 3(d), concerning the Planning Commission approving the language that stated, “prior to recording a final development plan” and asked if staff still recommended that language.

Pool said the information staff was given from Public Works for support of that condition did not include enough detail in staff’s opinion for the Planning Commission to make a decision that supported their recommendation.  She said they were given more details of the project at a mid-month study session about a week later and some of them stated that if they had received that information at the meeting, they would have gone with their recommendation.

Commissioner Highberger said if adopting staff’s recommendation, he asked if they would be changing the Planning Commission’s decision.

Pool said yes, on that item.

Herndon said it was standard procedure in Lawrence with class and development plans that the public improvement plans would accompany things such as waterline plans, street improvement plans, storm sewer plans, sidewalk plans for walks and public right-of-way.  Those plans were submitted for review by the Public Works office and as with every other project, they did not object to doing so.  He said LandPlan Engineering did that work and that was the next step in their process.  He said in the interest of his client, to isolate this one project to say there was a waterline, so they wanted this applicant perform a land survey and hire an engineering firm to engineer their public street with a southbound, northbound left turn lanes or right turn decel lane, or right out lane, etc, and not even have the assurance the final development plan was approved, was putting the cart before the horse.  He said that was front loading, as they said in his business, a project financially and it was unfair.  The City had a process that said before a final plat, in this case before a final development plan, was recorded the public improvement plans were to be submitted so that Public Works could review those plans and make sure everything was in place and jived with the easements and the actual physical utility placements.  He said if they did not jive, then they needed to make adjustments to those documents before they took those documents to the Courthouse to record.  He said that would still be in effect here, but he did not think it was fair to pull this one project and tell this one applicant that he was going to do all his stuff first.  He said it was inconsistent and unprecedented.

Commissioner Schauner asked Corliss what risk was there financially or otherwise to the City by following the procedure Herndon suggested.

Corliss said he thought the risk was one where the applicant would say that he received all the necessary land use approvals and that he wanted to build and point to problems with public improvements, in this case, the waterline that would dramatically change the cost of those public improvements, and they did not have the necessary information and they were in the process to make the right decision so they were making the decision later.  He said staff was struggling with this issue of how to work this issue out and he thought staff could meet with the development community to iron it out.  He said one of the concerns staff had was the language approval of guarantee that they could have other public improvements in place for that site, even though they had not done the necessary engineering for those public improvements.  He said for example, if the property was platted for single-family residence, did it mean that it was going to be sewered even though they had not done the necessary sewer plans yet.  He said what staff had learned was that before they got that deep into the process, that they had those questions appropriately answered such as, whether that property could be sewered or whether the street could be built at a certain location. 

Corliss said another question was who would bear that burden in making that determination.  He asked if staff was going to do all the work to determine whether or not the waterline was located at the right depth and all the engineering work done or was that burden going to be placed on the applicant.

He said in this situation the key was if the waterline had to be relocated in the plans that the Commission was considering had to be altered, because of that relocation, that the public did not bear that burden.  He said that was the principle he would recommend and if that principle was nailed down, then staff just needed to find a way to work out the process accordingly.  He said he did not know if it mattered so much that the final development plan was approved and then the applicant had to come back to the Public Works and Utility Department and make sure the City’s needs were appropriately satisfied, which might mean the applicant’s  plan might need to be altered.  He said staff did not have enough information about the depth of the waterline and whether or not the necessary work would necessitate a change to their plan somehow or would be cost prohibitive.  He said one big issue was that plans that were submitted were not particularly helpful because they needed to have approved plans.  He said he did not think it was so much of an issue with this plan, but it had been an issue in a number of situations.  He said that if the City approved a plat, did that mean the applicant could pull a building permit and would not have to care about the sewer, waterline or street.  He said that was a continuing concern and staff was going to work on that issue and come to a good resolution.

Commissioner Rundle asked if the sewer and engineering work was something that could be done by staff and was that work always the burden of the applicant.

Corliss said it should be the burden of the applicant to pay for those costs.  He said staff could have an engineer do those lines, but staff did not have a city survey crew to do that work.  He said the City had a lot of great engineering talent and the City had people that could do that engineering, but he thought it was appropriate for the applicant to come back with sewer plans that stated how they could get the public improvements in and how they could lower the waterline.  He said the issue the applicant had was the timing.  He said his concern was if their final development plan was approved, was the applicant going to come back and say they did not know about the extraordinary costs of the waterline and did not want to pay. 

Mayor Amyx asked what made this piece of property different.  He said it had an approved development plan and the waterline was already established.

Corliss said the waterline had been there for a long time.

Mayor Amyx asked if there was a development plan or some kind of plan approved on that site that had been there for a long time.

Herndon said that was the case.

Corliss asked Herndon if that development plan had expired.

Herndon said yes.

Mayor Amyx said there had been a development plan and from everything he read there did not seem to be a concern about the waterline at that time.

He said that plan was approved in 1998.  He said with 24 inch waterlines along that site, he asked what made the project different today.

Commissioner Rundle asked if Soules concurred the waterline had been there before the first plan.

Soules said he assumed so since it was a main waterline.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought the difference was there was a different expectation about who would share or pay the costs for those infrastructure projects.

Mayor Amyx asked if staff needed to find the language that was necessary to place it as a condition on the development plan and who was going to be responsible for paying that bill.

Herndon said he wanted everyone to understand he was not present to be obstinate about this matter.  He said if they changed the language to say “submittal and approval of the public improvements plan for Wakarusa Drive prior to recording a final development plan,” that would be okay, too.  He asked the City Commission to let them submit their planning document and get to work so they could get their first tenant in place so they had some reason driving the engineering project they would embark upon immediately afterward.   He asked if they changed the language that way, would it get the staff where they wanted to be.

Corliss said he did not disagree with the recording of the final development because they would not be able to sell lots or transfer the responsibility for making sure the public improvement plans were in place if they did not allow the applicant to record and let them go through the rest of the land use approvals, he did not think that was a problem in this particular instance. 

He said, concerning the question of the change on the water line, he did not know.  He said hopefully staff was being wiser to catch those types of conditions to make sure it was not a concern.   

Commissioner Schauner said he thought they found out in the past few years the way things were done in the past were not the best practices and thought they were trying to be more upfront in decision making now, than they had historically been.

Mayor Amyx said he did not disagree with that at all.  He said if language could be put into place that said who would be responsible for the corrections made to the waterline, he did not care what part of the process was done as long as the language was very clear on who was responsible and how it was to be done.  He was sure the City Manager had the ability to write that language to make sure that was covered and everybody knew who was going to pay for those improvements.

Commissioner Rundle asked if it was acceptable to the applicant that they had the statement on who was going to be responsible for those costs.

Herndon said it was acceptable to him, because in this business when you start digging stuff up there were potential surprises, for the very same reason the City wanted to safeguard itself in this deal.  He said he thought it would be overstepping his bounds or not be wise to agree to such blanketed comment.  He said they might find something that was placed by the Public Works Department in 1940 that should not be the responsibility of the applicant.  He said there were contingencies that they should not predicate by some blanketed statement.  He said he would again suggest they changed the language to providing public improvement plans for review approval by the Public Works Department prior to recording of the final development plan, that way they could have their way with those plans before they have a final development plan in place that would enable the issuance of building permits.

Corliss said Condition 3(d) stated: “A note, stating that public improvement plans showing the construction of all required geometric improvements will be provided for review and approval prior to recording of the final development plan.” 

Herndon said that language was asked for at the Planning Commission level.

Commissioner Schauner said geometric improvements would not include their waterline.  He said as long as it was understood that it was included, it would be fine.

Corliss said if the applicant wanted to bear a cost to that, they would be back.

Commissioner Schauner said he could not imagine the City would want to approve this or any other development and somehow bear the risk the developer had borne by buying the property in the first place.  He said that was shifting that risk of purchase.  He said when buying a piece of ground to develop, there were certain inherent risks. 

Commissioner Rundle said they could come back with open discussions if the costs were not going to be reasonable. 

Mayor Amyx said he thought the City Commission could proceed with the language recommended, but as long as it was understood that if there was a cost that was coming back to the City, he wanted to make sure it ended up on his desk and if they were saying that was what the language said, he did not have a problem.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought Mayor Amyx was talking about two different things.  He said if there were unexpected costs, then the applicant had to come back to have another conversation on who would pay those costs and that was not in the City taxpayer’s best interest.  He said if the waterline had to be moved, that would be the developer’s cost or any other geometric improvement.  Those costs would belong to the developer, not to the City which was a different matter.  He said if they did not come back for more discussion, then it was the applicants cost and they paid for it.

Mayor Amyx said he thought Corliss stated that those geometric improvements included that waterline and it was understood that cost had to be borne by the developer.

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed, but he did not think that was what Mayor Amyx said a minute ago.

Corliss said it was very common that utilities or stormwater had to be relocated and the burden was borne by the applicant for the public improvements, whether it was the City or whether it was a private applicant.  He said unless there was direction to change that general rule that was how staff would proceed.

Commissioner Highberger said regarding Condition 3(d), if the City received the plans and it involved additional costs to the City, the City could say no, until something was worked out on site plans for new recording of site plans.

Corliss said correct.  He said until the City signed off on the final development plans, which then the City knew what was going to be constructed and how those costs were going to be born, that plan could not be recorded.

Commissioner Hack asked if that was the City’s standard practice.

Corliss said the City’s standard practice was asking for those plans before it was approved.

Stogsdill said the standard condition had been submittal of public improvement plans not submittal and approval.  She said several years ago staff required submittal and approval as a standard and then staff was encouraged to modify that language so that there were just submittals so that the applicant did not have to go through the multiple resubmission process with Public Works and actually have approval before they were filed.  She said there was a Catch 22 in that the City Engineer would not sign those plans until a plat was filed.  She said they could not be approved before the plat was filed.  She said this was different in that it said review and approval and it was certainly where staff would like it to be in terms of the level of detail on those public improvement plans. 

Mayor Amyx asked if the plans were to be signed before the final filing of the development plan.

Stogsdill said yes, it was a condition.  Until staff had word from Public Works that those public improvement plans were approved, they would not take that development plan to the Register of Deeds for recording.

Commissioner Highberger asked if this was a staff recommendation and not what Planning Commission approved.

Commissioner Schauner said Condition 3(d) was staff’s recommendation.

Stogsdill said that was the action the Planning Commission took.  The Planning Commission revised condition 3d.  The original staff recommendation had been to have those submitted with the submission of the final development plan so that there was a concurrent review of the public improvement plans while the final development plan was going through the planning process.  She said that was changed at the Planning Commission level.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that was still staff’s recommendation.

Stogsdill said after their conversation with the Public Works Department and Planning Commission at their mid-month meeting, they heard the Planning Commissioners indicate that they did not understand that and there was a reason to vary from the normal process.  She said Corliss had indicated staff could be comfortable with that condition and clearly the fact they had to be approved gave staff the assurance that staff did not always have.

Corliss said the distinction he made was the developer could not proceed with the project because they had not recorded the final development plan, but they also could not sell any lots and be recorded with the final plat, which he thought was significant.  He said he was comfortable that they were going to be able to ensure the public improvement plans would be able to be built and the project would not proceed ahead of the ability to approve public improvements with the language the Planning Commission had agreed on. He said it was not just the Public Works Department, but it was also the Utilities Department.

Commissioner Schauner said the way Corliss was stating it, was that it would not be concurrent but two separate steps as opposed to the recommendation of Stogsdill’s office which would be a simultaneous filing.  He said staff’s recommendation was provided for review and approval with the final development plan.  He said he read that to mean “at one time” rather than step one and then step two to follow.

Corliss said in order to get back on a Planning Commission agenda, the applicant needed to submit public improvement plans under the wording of past practice.

Stogsdill said under staff’s recommendation that would be true.

Commissioner Schauner said but not under how the Planning Commission amended it.

Mayor Amyx said the Planning Commission’s recommendation came from Herndon’s recommendation as two different steps. He said the Planning Commission made a change from the Planning Staff’s recommendation based on what Herndon and others said to make it a two step process.

Corliss said the distinction was the developer was essentially taking on a risk.  He said they were assuming they were not going to have to substantially change the development plan because of the public improvement plans.

Commissioner Schauner said he was okay with modified language as long as having a final development plan in the pipeline did not give any weight to an argument the City ought to chip in something for infrastructure or geometric improvements because they already had a final development plan.  He said he did not want to get whipsawed on the costs down the line with the argument they had already done all the final development plan work.  He said he did not have a crystal ball, but he thought he could predict that situation.

Mayor Amyx asked Corliss to explain how the improvements would be made to the development process.

Corliss said the language that came from the Planning Commission, the public improvement plans showing the construction of all required geometric improvements would be “provided for review and approval prior to the recording of the final development plan.”  He said what he interpreted that to mean was that they were going to come back and show staff what they were going to construct as far as public improvement plans.  He said it would go through a review process, several submissions, and then they would sign off as a City both the Utility Department and Public Works Department as to what could be constructed, and then the applicant would be able to record the final development plan that was previously approved.  He said there was no requirement the City would participate in any of this plan because it was not in the budget.  He said it was a requirement of the developer.

Commissioner Highberger asked if the City was in a position to where the City would be sued for failing to grant building permits even though there was an approved development plan because they had the valid means of administrative review.

Corliss said the plan was not recorded until everyone showed certain public improvements were to be made and that there was language in the code they would not grant building permits until public improvements were substantially completed.

Mayor Amyx said they were down to the point of discussing the project and how it fit into the planning of the corner of Clinton Parkway and Wakarusa Drive.

Commissioner Highberger said there was a question about whether the existing zoning complied with Horizon 2020.  He said this project was consistent with the existing zoning.  He said he was not going to belabor this issue.  He said it was a difficult site, but complied with the zoning and he would vote to approve the plan.

Commissioner Rundle said he was ready to finally approve this project.  He said he duly noted, along with other Commissioners, the extra time and effort it had taken to get an approved plan and get development underway.  He said he understood that planned unit developments grant some flexibility in the application requirement so that they could conserve such things as extra green space and he did not see anything inconsistent there.  He said he thought he understood the Planning Commission was trying to encourage people to comply with the Commercial Development Guidelines with other projects prior to their approval officially.  He thought this corner was coming in as an additional commercial corner and was taking flexibility with Horizon 2020.  He said he hoped they were making a good compromise and could get the project underway soon.

Commissioner Hack said she appreciated the work they did and along with answering concerns.  She said she looked forward to the development of this corner.  She said it was difficult and right now it was not the most attractive spot in town.  She said with the looks of their plan, it looked like it would be improved tremendously.  She thought improvements to that intersection would be very welcome and when she looked at the things she highlighted in the Planning Commission minutes and things she wrote down, they were in compliance with so many of the things, not only the zoning that had been in existence for so long, but she appreciated their creativity in the design guidelines as well as the additional green space and trees.  She thought it would improve that corner tremendously and she supported the project the last time it was before the Commission and continued to support .

Commission Schauner said maybe he was too much of a literalist.  He said Horizon 2020 said one corner and then it was two, and then it was three, and now it would be four.  He said he continued to ask the question out loud what Horizon 2020 meant.  He said flexibility was one thing, but he did not think that Chinese acrobats were this flexible.  He said he thought it was an improvement over the prior plan, but it was still a project on a corner that their guiding principles did not permit.  He said on a smaller scale, this was like 6^th and Wakarusa all over again.  He said it was the last corner not to be developed.  He said he did not understand what Horizon 2020 meant.  He said he thought the next issue they would face would be when the nursery across the street was sold for a higher and better use than selling trees and would come back to the Commission about how much traffic could that intersection bear.  He said he knew they were not there to consider that tonight, but he thought if they were going to think in a broader policy way, than Horizon 2020 policy was arrived at, as he suspected as a compromise, yet they were compromising the compromise.  He said he was confident that it would be an attractive corner, but he did not think that was the question.  He said it was like the house at 805 Ohio.  He said it probably looked better now than it did 20 years ago, but he was not sure that was the right measure for making public policy decisions and granting various requests.  He said in good conscience, he could not support the project based on that rationale.

Commissioner Hack said she thought it was an unfair comment to put the nursery for sale when it was not ready to be sold.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not say it was for sale, but at some point in the future, putting commercial activity on a corner was a better return than selling nursery stock.

Commissioner Highberger said he thought they were correct that it did not comply with Horizon 2020, but if there was a compromise made, it was made 10 years ago.  He said if Commissioner Schauner thought this was an inappropriate use, the appropriate response would be to initiate rezoning rather than voting against a proposal that complied with the existing zoning.  He said he was not overly thrilled with this project either, but the project complied with the existing rezoning.

Commissioner Schauner said what he thought he was hearing Commissioner Highberger say was the tyranny of those incremental decisions was guiding or controlled their decision.

Commissioner Highberger said if they did not approve this project, then what would they ever approve at that location.

Mayor Amyx said there was a gorgeous plan that was approved for this site, but expired.  He said the decision for commercial development on that corner was made quite a few years ago.  He thought in this particular case, not only the public, but the applicant realized there was going to be a development on this corner and one that had been both the Planning Commission and the City Commission for approval in the past.  The City Commission had taken up action on a rezoning that happened in May and decided that was not it.  He said they wanted to work within the bounds that had already been laid out.  He thought the decision was made a long time ago.

Commissioner Rundle said he did not really like this issue any more than Commissioner Schauner did that this project was proceeding ahead in violation of their comprehensive plan.  He said it was not the first time and hoped this was among the projects they could count down as being the last time they had those major discrepancies between their long range plan and what they actually did.  He said right now, they were under process of reviewing their development approval process and staff was proceeding forward with performance management.  He said he thought the budget showed that in the future they were going to provide adequate staffing, training and funding for maintaining the public infrastructure.  He thought all of those were significant changes that he hoped would bear fruit.  He said ultimately, they should not be there with those kinds of items that took two or three hours and involved those strange compromises and discussions.  He thought once they further the development approval process and all the other things he mentioned fall into place, they should be functioning and hopefully continue to function as a growing community more efficiently and shorter City Commission meetings.

Commissioner Schauner said if in fact the die was cast on this project 10 years ago when the rezoning took place, then what the City Commission ought to be looking at in the future was making certain that their zoning was consistent and complied with the long term plan.  He said he did not know how they would get there, but that should be a number one priority on someone’s agenda because otherwise they would continue to have those discussions or someone would.  He said he was railing as much against the inconsistency between the zoning and planning.  He said it placed everyone between a rock and a hard place.  He said he thought it was great that it was 6,000 square feet less than the other proposal and thought it was great for the neighborhood and traffic.

Mayor Amyx said they should zone the corners first.

Commissioner Schauner said or have transferable development rights or some other mechanism for ensuring every corner received some fair share of the development. 

Mayor Amyx said it sounded like a majority of the City Commission agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the conditions on the development plan.

Commissioner Rundle said on the basis of reassurance from staff that it would all work out, he said he was going to join Commissioner Schauner in a “no” vote just to add emphasis to the principles that Commissioner Schauner was discussing.  He said he did not think there was inconsistency with the positive things about this project, but people tended to disregard those types of concerns whenever there was a lone vote.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-01-03-06) for Miracon Plaza, a proposed Planned Commercial Development containing approximately 5.05 acres and proposes a car wash, convenience store, commercial/office buildings, and a restaurant, property is generally described as being located at the northeast corner of Wakarusa Drive and Clinton Parkway, subject to the following conditions and use restrictions:

1. Submittal and approval of a Downstream Sanitary Sewer Analysis.

2. Submittal of a waterline depth survey to the City Utilities Department, as the 24-inch waterline along Wakarusa Drive may need to be lowered or relocated due to the widening of the roadway.

3. Revision of the plan to include the following:

a) On sheet 2, replacement of “10’ u/e and a/e” with “10’ u/e and p/e”.

b) A note, stating that the detention pond will be privately-owned and maintained. The developer is responsible for establishing ownership and maintenance of the detention area via individual owner maintenance.

c) Retention of right-of-way near the main curb cut off Wakarusa Drive for a future transit shelter and pad.

d) A note, stating that public improvement plans showing the construction of all required geometric improvements will be provided for review and approval prior to recording of the final development plan.  The median on the north leg of Wakarusa Drive and Clinton Parkway shall be modified as necessary and all geometric improvements shall have proper lane alignment, lane configuration, and lane tapers as required by AASHTO and the MUTCD.

e) Site furnishings at retail entryways.

f) A note, stating An Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for the construction of traffic signals and intersection improvements at Wakarusa Drive and Wakarusa Court is required as a condition of Final Development Plan approval.

g) Revision of General Note #25 to correct the spelling of “easement”.

h) A note, stating that all site and public infrastructure improvements will be completed prior to occupancy of the first completed building.

i) Indication of the limits of site improvements for each building, as no phasing is shown for the project.

j) A note, stating that weather protection will be provided within 30 feet of customer entryways.

k) A note, stating that downspouts will be designed as an architectural feature of each building.

l) A note, stating that appropriate irrigation will be provided for landscaped areas.

Aye: Amyx, Hack, and Highberger.  Nay:  Rundle and Schauner.  Motion carried.         (26)

PUBLIC COMMENT:           

Dennis Brown, Vice President of Lawrence Preservation Alliance, said he wanted to say a few words about the proposed development at 8^th and Pennsylvania.  He said he wanted to state for the record, the newly formed Old East Lawrence Preservation Alliance was in no way affiliated with the Lawrence Preservation Alliance.  Last week, Janet Good was present from the East Lawrence Improvement Association speaking about all of the complex issues she was trying to deal with and there were several comments made about the Preservation Alliance.  He said that was not his group because they were two separate groups.  He said he was a little disappointed in that regard that they chose that name. 

He said they might wonder why LPA had been silent on the proposed development to date.  He said it was not for lack of study and he personally attended both public hearings at the HRC.  The neighbors upset with this proposal did attend the second hearing and it was in deference to these neighbors that they had remained silent.  Their board had not taken a vote on the issue and he knew they had at least one board member who was very concerned with the gentrification issues and he suspected there were other board members who would have some concerns as well. 

He said on the plus side, they had a developer present proposing an infill development that included the creation of the historic district.  He said it showed the state tax credits were working and it was a great outcome for the Poehler Building and the other buildings in the historic district.  He said the same developer had hired a respected preservation consultant to advise him from the very beginning of the design process and he thought that was also very impressive.  He said what had since transpired was that the neighbors who were upset with this proposal wanted the entire proposal to be denied, but their fallback position included a number of demands that included the redesign of the block directly across from the historic district.  He said it concerned him that the first redesign proposal from this group with the word preservation in their name was deemed by the preservation consultant and their own Historic Resources Administrator was probably having a negative effect on the historic district. 

He said with that news, the discussion last week seemed to revolve around a) maybe the preservation consultant and the HRA were mistaken; or b) maybe another redesign could be found that could sneak by or circumvent the responsibility they had to the district.  He said he thought Commissioner Hack hit the nail on the head when she said in so many words that it was not just the issue of the tax credits to the developer, but new construction next to the district must not overpower it in height, scale or mass.  They had a responsibility and that was what historic districts were all about.

He said speaking personally, he believed at this stage tinkering with this design was acceptable, but total redesign was not.  KT Walsh read through some 80 pages of pretty dry reading and came up with 10 very important changes she would make regarding the language of the document. 

He said Janet Good had a list of mitigating agreements for the City and developer to agree to and while he thought the list was long, there were some very good points regarding gentrification, mitigation, and traffic that should be strongly considered by the City Commission. 

He said allowing a small group of neighbors who dislike the entire proposal to redesign one side of a City block bordering on a historic district seemed risky to him.  He said the Lawrence Preservation Alliance cared deeply about the City’s architectural heritage and valued its historic districts as economic resources.  He said he would strongly encourage his board to support any redesign that enhanced the adjacent historic district and oppose any plan that affected the district negatively.                                                                                                (28)

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

08/22/06	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 2007 Budget Implementation Memorandum
09/05/06	Commissioner Rundle absent.

                                                                                                                                        (28)

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 8:50 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                         (29)

APPROVED                                                                _____________________________

Mike Amyx, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 15, 2006

1. Bid date – New Hampshire improvements, Aug 29.

2. Delaware Commons storm sewer & sidewalk improvements to Neighbors Construction for $63,472.89

3. Delaware Commons sanitary sewer improvements to Neighbors Construction for $89,111.99.

4. Surplus vehicles and equipment sale through Gov Deals.

5. Contract – LPD uniforms to Scotch Fabric for $42,410.

6. Ordinance No. 8025- 2^nd Read, National Electrical Code, 2005 Edition.

7. Ordinance No. 8026- 2^nd Read, 2007 City of Lawrence budget.

8. Ordinance No. 8027- 2^nd Read, Appropriating/budgeting property tax revenues for 2007 in excess of what was appropriated/budgeted for 2006.

9. Ordinance No. 8012- 2^nd Read, Solid waste service rates for 2007

10. Ordinance No. 8029- 2^nd Read, Water/wastewater/extra strength wastewater rates for 2007.

11. Ordinance No. 8030- 2^nd and Final Read, Electrical franchise fees.

12. Rezone (Z-05-13-06) 1.40 acres, RS-2 to RS5, near Bullene Ave & LaSalle St.

13. Replat of Homewood Gardens Addition lots 1-4 block 9 & lots 4-6 block 10.

14. Rezone (Z-06-15-06) .85 acres, RS-2 to PRD-1, 1511 Haskell Avenue.

15. Prelim Dev Plan (PDP-06-05-06)  Hanscom-Tappan Addition III, .85 acres, 1511 Haskell.

16. Adopt Hierarchy of Plans Returned.

17. Text Amendment -TA-05-03B-06:  Revisions to Ch 20 Development Code.

18. Annex – (A-07-02-06) (A-07-03-06) 20.02 acres, S of Peterson & E 1130 Rd; 9.3 acres at Kasold & 31^st St.

19. Subordination Agreement, Delma Hepner 1615 Rose Lane.

20. FAA grant agreement; 2006 partial parallel taxiway project at Lawrence Municipal Airport.

21. City Manager’s Report.

22. Final plat (PF-05-13-06) Lawrence Memorial Hospital Expansion, 23.860 acres.

23. Use Permitted Upon Review (UPR-04-04-06) Lawrence Memorial Hospital Expansion.

24. Use Permitted Upon Review (UPR-05-08-06) - Main Living Unit and three Rental Units at 805 Ohio.

25. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-2005-02) Horizon 2020, Chpt 9, Parks & Rec open space.

26. Preliminary Dev Plan (PDP-01-03-06) Miracon Plaza, 505 acres, NE corner of Wakarusa & Clinton Pkwy.

27. Public Comment.

28. Future Agenda Items.

29. Commission Items.