December 12 , 2006

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

RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:

With Commission approval Mayor Amyx presented The League of American Bicyclists Friendly Community recognition.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to approve City Commission meeting minutes from November 28^th, 2006.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to approve claims to 402 vendors in the amount of $3,389,240.04 and payroll from November 26, 2006 to December 9, 2006 in the amount of $1,633,036.62.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle,  to approve the Drinking Establishment License to Wa Restaurant, 740 Massachusetts; Fatso’s, 1016 Massachusetts; It’s Brother’s Bar and Grill, 1105 Massachusetts; and Local Burger, 714 Vermont; and the Retail Liquor License to Texas Jack’s Liquor, 3020 South Iowa Suite. B.  Motion carried unanimously.      

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Hubbard Collingsworth to the Community Commission on Homelessness, to a term which will expire December 31, 2007; reappoint Shon Qualseth and Amy Lemert to the Grant Review Board, to terms which will expire December 31, 2009; and reappoint Lori Tapahonso, Deb Taylor, and Sarah Terwelp to the Lawrence Alliance to terms which will expire November 30, 2008.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to authorize payment to the Clerk of the Douglas County District Court for the following easements for the Pump Station No. 48 project: a) Kmart property (Lot 2 of the Kmart Center Distribution Center No. 2) for $29,600.  (Condemnation Tract 32), and b) Penske Truck Leasing Co., LP property for $29,000 (Condemnation Tract 33).  Motion carried unanimously.                          (1)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for comprehensive housing rehabilitation for the 1312 Summit and 1140 Pennsylvania.  The bids were:

BIDDER                                  BID AMOUNT           

                        Penny Construction                                                 $24,751.00 (1312 Summit)

                        Staff’s Estimate                                             $22,560.00 (1312 Summit)

                        Penny Construction                                     $31,851.00 (1140 Pennsylvania)

                        Staff’s Estimate                                             $34,586.00 (1140 Pennsylvania)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle,  to award the sole bids to Penny Construction, in the amount of $24,751 for 1312 Summit and $31,851 for 1140 Pennsylvania.  Motion carried unanimously.                                            (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to authorize City Manager to enter into a contract with Asphalt Improvement Company for $44,008 for the construction of additional parking at the Kaw Water Treatment Plant.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                 (3)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for Alvamar Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project for the Utilities Department.  The bids were:

BIDDER                                  BID AMOUNT           

Engineer’s Estimate                                       $903,221.00

                        McLouth Excavating, Inc.                                $880,031.00

                        Heartland Midwest LLC.                                  $912,334.00

                        Nowak Construction Co.                                 $1,006,800.20

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to award the bid to McLouth Excavating Inc. in the amount of $880,031.  Motion carried unanimously.  (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8058, amending the franchise fee for Worldnet, L.L.C.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                             (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8059, amending the franchise fee for the World Company.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                         (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8041, a joint City Ordinance/County Resolution follow-up to the previously approved update to Chapter 9, Horizon 2020, Park, Recreation, Open Space Areas and Facilities.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                       (7)

Ordinance No. 8051, increasing fines and court costs assessed upon conviction of a traffic violation in municipal court, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adopt the ordinance.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                        (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adopt Resolution No. 6693, declaring the boundaries of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to approve a request for a variance to section 19-214B of the City Code for the final plat of Maple Lane Addition No. 2 to allow placing a private sanitary sewer service line in the public right-of-way.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                          (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle,  to adopt 2007 Legislative Priority Statement with revised language from the December 5^th, 2006 City Commission Meeting.  Motion carried unanimously. (11)

            As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to approve renewal of Excess Workers’ Compensation Insurance coverage with Midwest Employers Casualty Company for a two year contract for the policy years of January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2009 with the 2007 annual premium of $40, 961.  Motion carried unanimously.    (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to authorize the Mayor to sign Releases of Mortgage for Kristin Adrian, 815 New York Street, and Gary Smith, 1234 Connecticut Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                               (13)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said the Administrative Services Department was working on a detailed report and recommendation to change the City’s 457 Deferred Compensation Plan record keeping, investment management and administration services and which would be presented to the City Commission in January 2007. 

He said other highlighted information include the Audit Schedule for 2006; November Building Permits Report; and the number of visits to the City’s website in November.

Finally, he said concerning the City’s water quality, the Kaw Plant was now back online.  There had been some taste and odor concerns, but never any health concerns.  He said as the water worked its way through the system, staff thought those complaints would disappear.   (14)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Consider approval of the Aberdeen preliminary development plan, Stoneridge and West 6^th Street, subject to conditions and use restrictions:

a)  PDP-01-02-06:  Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6^th Street.  This proposed multi-family planned residential development contains 108 proposed apartment units and including four duplex units on approximately 9.59 acres.  The property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of W. 6^th Street and Stoneridge Drive. 

Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report.  She said staff looked at this property for a rezoning request back in August of 2005 and recommended approval for a Planned Unit Development.  A Planned Unit Development was submitted to the Planning Commission early this spring, having gone through a number of different revisions at the staff level and then through the Planning Commission a number of different times through revisions.  She said it started out with a recommendation for denial in March after following discussions about transition and trying to provide some mixed type of housing uses on the property, but given some of the density and height restrictions of that zoning, it became very much of a challenge.  The Planning Commission, following that action, directed the applicant to go back and have additional meetings with the neighborhood to try to address more concerns and ended up with a project that included duplex units on the eastern portion of the property that fronted the residential street with a balance of the apartment units being to the interior. 

She said another revision to the project included moving the activity area; the pool and clubhouse more to the central portion of the property.  She said it had gone through a number of different discussions both at the staff level, with the applicant and with the neighborhood.  She said the City Commission had a project that was recommended for approval subject to five conditions.  She said she thought that was a demonstration of the work that had gone on in the background before it came to the City Commission. 

She said the subject property was part of the West Lawrence Neighborhood.  She said there was a drainage easement that came through the property and divided it into an east and west half.  The primary access to the project would be coming from Stoneridge Drive, which was the collector street.  She said there was no direct access to West 6^th Street, which was consistent with their access management policies and there was a secondary access for emergency purposes only that would be located in a gated structure, but could be accessed in emergency purposes.  She said there was a bridge that crossed over the drainage and provided minimal connectivity on the pedestrian level either through sidewalks back through to the rest of the neighborhood.

Todd Thompson, attorney for the applicant, said even though this project had a long history, he had only been involved for a few months and in that short time they had seen the project make great progress from a project that had approximately 20 conditions associated with the project to one that was presented to them tonight with only five conditions, all of which had been agreed to.  He said all other conditions had been resolved. 

He said this project had a number of visits to the Planning Commission and had been studied very thoroughly by the Planning Commission.  He said as Planning Commissioner Haase said at the meeting last month, the applicant had done everything that had been asked of the applicant and it was time to move this project forward, which the Planning Commission recommended approval by a 9 -1 vote. 

He said Sandra Day discussed some of the changes that had been made to the plan.  He said those included moving the pool and the club house into the center of the project so that it was not bordering on the neighbors.  He said it included changing and raising a berm in a detention basin to assist with the screening of the project from the adjoining single family homes on the southeast.  He said it involved the replacement of an apartment building with duplexes to reduce the scale.  He said they also prepared elevations and discussed with staff, the materials that would be used for the construction and enhanced the visible areas of the buildings, in particular, by adding more brick and stone veneers. 

He said what they had was a project that had a long history; the plan had been studied extensively and repeatedly by the Planning Commission.  He said last time the Planning Commission looked at it they were pleased enough to vote 9 – 1 to recommend the City Commission approve this plan for which zoning was already approved by a unanimous vote. 

Paul Werner, architect for the project, said they had been through several plans.  The complex consisted of one and two bedroom units and a small clubhouse.  He said they were consistent in four sided architecture, meaning they were finished on all four sides with similar materials, unlike an older project which would dress up the front while the other three sides were a little different.  The smallest buildings, 8-plexes with one bedroom units, were all along the south portion that abutted the adjoining property.  This plan also showed the two duplexes in the southeast corner facing Stonecreek Drive so there was not an abrupt change to a different building type.  The overall grading had been studied extensively and a great deal of work had been done with the retaining walls along the north to lower the buildings as low as they could go so they were not imposing to the neighbors.  He said there was a great deal of grade to the site and a fairly significant amount of work.  He said the idea was to lessen the impact to the adjacent neighbors.

He said storm water was a significant issue on this side.  He said right now it was not controlled at all.  He said they had two detention ponds on both sides of the drainage channel on the south portion of the site.  He said this had been studied by LandPlan and approved by Matt Bond, the City Storm Water Engineer, and he thought the best thing for the site was to have it site planned and have a storm water control since right now it was not controlled at all.

He said they had not studied the west side too extensively, where those four buildings were located, only because their client also owned the property to the south.  He said they were much freer to grade, add berms, and work on the other property to the south.  He said they studied the east side of the drainage channel which LandPlan had reworked the detention area instead of just having it graded, they took on the added expensive of retaining walls so the detention area could be more vertical which would give them more space for the berms and added landscaping between the adjacent property owner and the first small building.

The clubhouse had been moved to the entrance of the project.  He said there was a concern the pool would be an issue adjacent to the neighbors so the pool was moved.

He presented and explained a detailed drawing of the area.  

Commissioner Highberger asked if the drawing was to scale.

Werner said absolutely.  He said they had gone through a number of changes and a lot of effort had been put forth on this plan.  The plan was brought to the City Commission with recommendation from the Planning Commission with a 9 – 1 vote.  

Commissioner Schauner asked what happened to the topography as one moved to the south or southeast.

Werner said it sloped significantly to the south from 6^th Street.  He said everything led to the drainage channel.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Werner had any sense of what the drop was in elevation from their property to the north and west of the house and the lowest point in that development to the south.

Werner said the first floor would be level with the grade at the back of that house.  He said they felt fairly accurate the first floor grade was essentially the same grade plus or minus a couple feet of the daylight basement grade of that person’s home.   

Commissioner Highberger asked what the approximate square footage and height was for each building.

Werner said those buildings were 2 stories, 9 foot plate heights and to the plate was 19 feet.  He said they had gone to low slope roofs that were 5-12 pitches, to keep that height down, which was the lowest they could go.  The actual way to measure that building was through a portion of that roof.  He said they lowered everything as much as they could, but they were stuck with the drainage channel that would take a lot of water off of 6^th Street.

Mayor Amyx said in August 2005 the City Commission approved rezoning for this property.  A lot of work had been done with this project not only by the applicant, but staff and the Planning Commission, which was probably one of the reasons for staff’s recommendation with those five conditions along with the 9-1 vote from the Planning Commission.  He asked if this development was the type of development the City Commission envisioned for this property.

Commissioner Schauner said in reviewing the City Commission minutes from August 16, 2005, one question asked by the then Mayor Highberger was, “If the zoning was approved before any construction occurred, the City Commission would need to approve a site plan and under that site plan review, the Commission would have the authority to determine whether the proposed uses were compatible with the adjacent uses.”  He said then Assistant City Manager Corliss said, “Correct, when the Commission was reviewing a site plan, they did have that general authority given those performance type languages in the site plan condition.  He said one of the criteria for approving the site plan was compatibility and the Commission could respond to something like that on height.  He said height was specifically mentioned in the site plan criteria, but that would be later in the process.”  He said as he had driven that area and thought about all the houses that were down the slope from that 8-plex, it seemed what people in that area saw as they looked up the hill was not significantly taller buildings, but buildings of significantly different massing than single family residences that neighbor that area.  He said his concern was whether that massing or scale of those buildings was consistent with what the average person would think of as a compatible neighbor.  He said he did not know if there was a right or wrong answer, but his suspicion was those who lived closest would be the last to believe it was compatible.  He said that issue was a question he would like to have some discussion about in whether the size, massing, height, and density was appropriate when all taken together. 

Mayor Amyx said if the City Commission was seeing something different than was anticipated at the time of rezoning, he asked if there was a feeling this item might be returned to the Planning Commission.  He said this rezoning was dealing with density on that particular piece of property.  He said if density was a problem, density was a completely different item than dealing with the development plan and was a different discussion.  He said what was before the City Commission was the development plan.  He said if the proposed uses were not compatible, the City Commission needed to give direction for whatever reasons, regarding compatibility.  He said the City Commission needed to be specific, if this was going to go back to the Planning Commission, on what was expected for this particular piece of property.

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with Mayor Amyx, in terms of the City Commission not discussing density, because there was a zoning density permitted, but at the same time in order to maximize the density, the structures that were created were of such mass that those structures were not compatible neighbors from an appearance point of reference.  He said there was some connectivity between the concept of “density” and the concept of “compatibility.”  He said he was not talking about density, but the affect the density had on the size of the building.

Commissioner Rundle said this led him to bring up an old issue which was the need that the development plan would come at the same time as the zoning.  He said he thought it was hard to envision when approving the zoning, exactly what was going to come back on their preliminary development plan.  He said they could see now, what they could not see then, in terms of exceeding a compatible density.  He said they certainly could see what that density resulted in and it would have been good to have that density at the time.  He said he also had a concern about compatibility.

Mayor Amyx said regarding zoning and the development plan being reviewed at the same time, he asked if the City Commission would be making decisions on every development plan without actually making an “aye” or “nay” vote regarding whether or not the zoning itself, was compatible.  He said the plans could always change.

Commissioner Rundle said it might lead to reducing the density as a part of the zoning approval.  He said years ago it was written as an ordinance to have the zoning and development plan together and it was a matter of practice over the years, but they had drifted away from that practice.

Mayor Amyx said if everything had a plan that came along with zoning, that would be one thing, but sometimes that was not the case and he would hate to buy into something because it looked good and then find out later that they approved something they might not be able to get out of.

Commissioner Schauner said in theory, he agreed with Commissioner Rundle.  He said one of the problems was the amount of investment it took to get a plan brought concurrently with the zoning request.  He said in a perfect world, he would prefer that as well, but thought there were some practical difficulties in bringing all those pieces together at the same time and that was why they struggled with that issue on a regular basis.  He said the issue then became how the developer, builder, or landowner created a plan that was compatible.  He said there had been a number of occasions, in the past few years, where neighbors indicated they would not have bought a particular property if they would have known what was going next to that property.  He said he did not know how to fix it and did not know if they had a tool to do it very effectively.  He said he thought it was another example where they had raw ground that was now being developed in a way that a number of people were not particularly happy about.  He said they struggled with their compatibility and what standard they used to come to that conclusion.

Vice Mayor Hack said in a number of ways this project was an infill project.  Infill projects were always difficult because someone was always on the edge of the existing property and then the newer development.  She said whether the expectations they had were accurate or not, people still had certain expectations of what things were going to be like in their backyard and beyond.  She said the old adage was, “If you do not own the view, you do not really have any control over it”, yet it was a matter of balancing that it was your property and that was your view. 

She said she heard concerns about density, but if the bar was set at 12 units per acre and this development fell below that bar, she did not think it was right to turn something down on the density issue when they met the goal they had.  She said transitional zoning was always difficult as well as the buffering.  She said with the size of this piece of ground, it made it difficult. 

She said she was not concerned about stormwater because enough people had told the City Commission that stormwater issues would be better with detention in that area.  She said she was also not concerned about the Winthrop Court issue because she believed for safety purposes for the neighborhood, there had to be a secondary access into that area when that property developed.  She said she liked the idea of the crash gate and that it was not a connection to Stonecreek Drive.

She said her reservation was the one 8-plex.  She said her concern was that section of property was going from single family to an 8-plex, which was a big jump.  She said she was not an architect or a developer, and did not know if that could be changed and if there was a way to make that different so it was not such an abrupt change, even with the buffering of the landscaping.  She said if there was any way to make that happen, that would be her direction to the Planning Department, developers, and neighbors to try and transition that segment better. 

Commissioner Highberger said he visited that site and found it was very illustrative.  He said he appreciated Commissioner Rundle’s concern about adopting plans at the same time as zoning, but he thought if they were going to plan, get out ahead of development, and provide some sort of certainty to anyone developing property, zoning had to come ahead of the plan.  He said if the City Commission approved a zoning that was too dense, there was no rational way to beat that upper limit of that existing zoning.  He said they could change it. 

He said he still believed multi-family use was the correct use for that property.  He said he did not think they wanted 6^th Street lined with the back sides of cul-de-sacs.  

He said he was hoping for a little better transition when he approved this, but certainly he hesitated going against the vote of the Planning Commission, even though the person who voted against the preliminary development plan was the person he appointed to the Planning Commission.  He said he would still like to see a little more improvement to this development. 

He said he thought transitions could be handled better and similar transitions against single-family properties needed to be addressed.  He said it would make more sense to scale down buildings that immediately abut single family homes and a little higher density toward the north end by 6^th Street.  He said he understood all the work that had been done, but he would like to see better transitions on the southern edge of the property.

Mayor Amyx said this discussion was important in order to have an idea of where the City Commission was headed.  He said there was no reason to go through two public hearings if this item was returning to the Planning Commission.  He said if this item was returning to the Planning Commission, he asked what type of City Commission comments they would like to see for the Planning Commission to consider.  He said he heard Commissioner Highberger’s possible increase in density along 6^th Street and graduate the density along the southern portion of the property, but to understand that greater density was to the north and less to the south.  Vice Mayor Hack and Commissioner Schauner raised concerns about the 8-plex, and the consideration of the height of those buildings.

Commissioner Schauner said the larger landscaping to begin with would be a quick way to provide a better sense of differentiation between multifamily and single family residences and that might be true along the south and north edge as well.  He said he knew larger trees had a higher death rate on transplant and he knew it took those trees a lot longer to get established, but on balance, those trees provided better screening sooner than smaller trees.  He said he would also second Commissioner Highberger’s comments because those comments were consistent with his own views.

Mayor Amyx said he voted in favor of the zoning and believed the zoning, staff’s recommendation, and Planning Commission’s recommendation were all correct.  He said if there were ideas to make this a more compatible project between single family neighbors to the south and the new development to the north, he did not have a problem with taking a look at the development.   

Price Banks, attorney representing the neighbors, said a number of residents in the neighborhood were ready to discuss this issue and it was his impression those residents might have additional ideas for the Planning Commission to consider.  He said the issue was analyzed on the basis of the golden factors because they were dealing with land use relationships.  He said recently, a judge indicated that would be appropriate in a case that involved the City of Lawrence.  He said the neighbors thrust was to see the cul-de-sac, on the east side of the drainage way, with single family residences and the neighbors were willing to go along with 8-plexes on the west side of the drainage way. He said the neighborhood would accept the City Commission’s guidance on this issue, but thought the neighborhood could provide some meaningful input at this point.

Cory Lange, resident in the Stonecreek area, said the drawings presented, based on his observation, did not seem to scale.  He said the surrounding property was zoned as RS-2 that included a church, Branchwood area which was zoned PRD-1, and single-family which included another church.  He said he found it hard to see how it was approved.  He said City maps indicated the area was a cul-de-sac. He said the project had been going on for 18 months and asked how long it took to make it correct.

Mark O’Lear, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said in talking about how this conformed to Horizon 2020, Chapter 5, Residential Land Use, mentioned there should be appropriate transition zoning.  He said there should be transition from the housing and the neighborhood did not feel it provided the transition necessary to go from single-family to multi-family.  He said his neighbor, Lange, would be right next door to an apartment building, which did not seem like an appropriate transition. 

He said also, the design should be consistent with adopted neighborhood plans in developing the neighborhood concept of the area.  He said if looking at the planning unit concept, it matched well.  He said he was not sure how it was not appropriate to have single- family in that location when it appeared there was low density residential on all of those arterials.  He said if this plan was allowed to happen, it seemed the whole area would be encircled with multi-family and not what Horizon 2020 planned.    

He said it seemed there was minimal buffering. 

He said a number of the neighborhood’s concerns had not been addressed and were not listed as conditions.  He said one of the Planning Commissioners mentioned, in their July meeting, that there was a clear indication the project was in contradiction to Horizon 2020 which compelled the Planning Commission with the duty of mitigation.  He said two trees were added which would not follow Horizon 2020’s guidelines, but the clubhouse was moved which the neighborhood appreciated.  He said it did not seem those two issues would clear up the entire contradiction to Horizon 2020. 

He said when the neighborhood met with staff hoping to come up with a resolution, it was not resolved.  He said staff indicated that under the new code, if there was any problem, like a tree dying, the City would replant that tree.  He said he thought this plan was planned under the old code and therefore the new code would not apply and he would like to make sure the new code applied to this plan.   

Mike Wallis, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said this development would economically impact their property and not on a positive respect.  He said if there were two pieces of property, similar in value, when they were ready to sell their property, the other property would go first.  He said furthermore, they would be faced with the economic impact of having to put in fencing to buffer their property from the development.  He said they were already in discussions with the fence company.  He said they would have to put in trees and shrubbery to buffer their property from the development.  He said as far as he was concerned, this plan was something that could not be ignored.

Mayor Amyx said Wallis moved in his house in November of 2005 and asked if Wallis questioned that vacant property.

Wallis said yes.

Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis received an answer.  He said the decision on the zoning was made in August of 2005 and asked if Wallis had concerns about that zoning at that time.

Wallis said he did not have concern about the zoning, but had concern about the property.

Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis questioned the person who was involved in the purchase of that property. 

Wallis said yes.

Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis was assured that nothing bad would happen.

Wallis said yes.

Vice Mayor Hack asked Wallis what he was told.

Wallis said the impression they received was the area was single-family housing.

Mayor Amyx asked if Wallis questioned the zoning on that property at that time.

Wallis said no.

Mayor Amyx said Wallis had a large vacant field behind or across the street from their house adjacent to a major highway.  He said he was trying to figure out if Wallis questioned what that area might be, but it sounded like Wallis did.

Wallis said yes, but knowing what he knew now, they would not have bought the property.

Kevin Loos, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said he did not think any of the neighbors were expecting this area not to have some component of multi-family.  He said one concern was the transition of going from high end single-family straight into 8-plexes and from a planning standpoint, that did not make sense.  He said he knew the issues with duplexes and the issues of ownerships with duplexes could cause other problems and he was not saying duplexes were the right answer either, but there had to be some type of better density transition that went from $400,000 single-family homes to 8-plexes that could be rented by anybody.  He said it was a very odd transition for him to support.  He said the other piece which seemed odd was single-family residences on both sides of the street, one lot of duplexes, and a church.  He asked if that was consistent with the character of a neighborhood.  He said he would challenge there was a better alternative for that piece of land specifically on making that something compatible with the neighborhood.  He said there had to be something other than a building that was going to make developers money, and forget anyone else who lived in the neighborhood. 

He said with the transition, trees and berms were not appropriate and thought there had to be a better density transition.  He said he thought most of them would agree that at some time multi-family was probably the appropriate thing, but it was odd to pull that zoning onto Stonecreek Drive.  He said they needed to be more creative as architects and planners than to just plop duplexes, in that area, as the answer. 

Veronica Howard, Stonecreek Drive resident, said she bought her property in July 2004 from Stephens Real Estate.  Stephens Real Estate owned that vacant property and she was told that property was zoned single-family.  She said she learned a huge lesson and should have researched that information further.   

Shannon O’Lear, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said when they bought their house, they also asked about the vacant property, but did not trust her real estate agent fully and inquired as to who owned that vacant property.  She said she had a long conversation with the City’s Planning Department and was told although at that point it was still agricultural, most likely it would be single-family homes comparable to their own and the person assured them with 99% accuracy that was what would go behind their house.  She said it was a long battle to get that actualized to single-family behind their homes.  She said one of the questions they raised was why that was not one of the lower portion of the cul-de-sac.  She said they were a little nervous that as soon as this went through, they were going to try to rezone that area.  She said they had gotten very close to their neighbors throughout this whole issue, but they were not making money off of this.  She said those were their homes and took time away from their weekends and kids.  She said they wanted to know what was going to go back behind their houses to keep their minds at ease so they could go on with their lives and work.  

She said there was a very busy speed trap on 6^th Street and brought that issue up because she appreciated Commissioner Schauner’s comments about the density and size of those buildings.  She said they watched those speed traps with great frequency and having a large apartment, in that area, would dominate what they would be watching from their house. 

Another concern, although they were very grateful that the Planning Commission required a crash gate if Winthrop was to be developed as a secondary access point, was that crash gate might be a stepping stone to an open street, especially with KDOT’s CORSIM Study estimating 6^th Street would fail as a corridor because of the over congestion on that end of town.  She said when those tenants moved into those apartments they might want to eliminate the crash gate which would open up traffic to Stonecreek Drive.

She said they still had concerns about storm water ever since they built Stoneridge across the ditch.  She said that ditch flooded now during heavy rains, which was just coming off of straight land that could absorb a lot of water.  She said once they put 245 parking spaces in that area it would enhance the storm water issue.  She said she appreciated the detention ponds, but she was still a little uneasy about it.  She said she was also concerned about the quality of water because the run-off water from the parking lots would have mechanical waste which would come into her yard where her kids play. 

She said concerning Commissioner Highberger’s comment about fences backing onto 6^th because it was not attractive, but those were single- family homes, she asked if those homes could graded so those homes were not staring over 6^th.  She said they have an architectural solution to that steep grade and it seemed it could be applied to single family homes as well. 

She said the neighborhood was not against development and agreed that some multi-family was appropriate, but they wanted to maintain the quality of the neighborhood because they liked their homes and the people in that area.  She thanked the City Commission for zoning that area PRD-2 because that allowed their input and appreciated that opportunity.

Kent Fisher, resident on Stonecreek Drive, said he had attended each of the meetings throughout this process and like his neighbors, shared numerous concerns.  He said regardless of the outcome of this project, he asked the City Commission to require Winthrop Court be used only for emergency purposes only with a crash gate and with no possibility of that gate being opened in the future.  Regarding landscaping, he said the applicant had a very poor history and track record of landscaping.  He said for example, 27^th Street Aberdeen Apartments, their tree spacing was very sparse and many trees had died without proper use of irrigation.  He said the best example of landscaping in Lawrence was Tuckaway Apartments on 6^th Street.  He said there was a wide variety of trees and the density was very thick and lush.  He said he would be proud to have that on his own property.  He asked the City Commission to require dense planting and irrigation as part of the buffer zone between the neighborhood and this project.

Price Banks, Lawrence, said folks were beginning to wear out because this plan had been going on for so long.  He said their proposal was not new.  He said he remembered working with LandPlan to plan the area around Quail Run School.  He said the natural area now occupied by McGrew Nature Path was used as a transition between the more intense land uses to the southwest and the single-family home sites to the northeast which was done in many areas around town.  He said great care was taken in Alvamar West to attempt to avoid the shock factor that occurred.  He said what they were seeing was a shock factor where land adjacent to low density single-family homes was being developed with intense uses. 

He said when Eldorado was proposed at 15^th and Crossgate, the developer was required to provide the transition zone on the same subdivision.  The townhouses were adjacent to Crossgate and it transitioned to single-family before going over to Alvamar Estates.  The single-family homes along Colonial Court down near Clinton Parkway, not far from Wakarusa and Clinton Parkway, were buffered from the more intense uses along Wakarusa and even from the townhouses along Wakarusa by a natural area that included a drainage area.  The entire underlying purpose of the planning process was to improve and maintain the quality of life in the community.  He said when they had that kind of shock factor that was being proposed, it really flew in the face of that policy. 

He said Horizon 2020 stated that non-residential developments or intense developments should be developed in a planned manner with respect to adjacent uses that needed to be integrated in the surrounding neighborhood, which was not happening.  If the developer in this case were to provide his own transition and buffer instead of relying upon the neighbors to protect themselves somehow, they would have a much better situation.  He said the City Commission could provide that transition by requiring lower densities east of the drainage way.  He said they respectfully requested the City Commission send a message to the Planning Commission that east of the drainage way should be much lower density planned uses. 

Todd Thompson said he wanted to point out in the maps seen earlier, the area immediately to the south, which was now zoned single-family, was not to be single-family.  He said what he thought they had done was good planning.  He said they have moved the single-family and removed the peninsula on 6^th Street and made it part of the complex. 

He also addressed the adjacent issue.  He said Tuckaway Apartments was mentioned.  He said immediately to the west of Tuckaway Apartments and across the street from Brandon Woods were very expensive single-family homes.  He said he knew people tended to assume worst case scenario, but as someone who lived near a church and a dormitory, that did not necessarily determine the value of your property or the desirability of the neighborhood.

The landscaping would be on the berm which could be explained in detail if the Commission desired.  He said the landscaping would shield the house.  He said they had the one house that had any substantial border with this project. 

In discussing with Paul Patterson, Planner, on how they might both adopt some of what had been asked for and yet keep this plan on track, he said they would suggest a 6^th condition on the plan which would require the 8-plex to be replaced with two duplexes which would be a way in which this could move forward and have nothing but duplexes immediately adjacent to this one home.

He said that house, when they talked about scale, was a very large home.  He said compared to the short side of the 8-plex or to the duplex, those buildings were very comparable in size.  He said he did not think the compatibility issue was one of some giant structure towering over a neighboring, small residential home.   

He said based on the comments heard, he thought it was clear there would never be a plan that all of the neighbors liked.  He said he thought that was probably true in most projects, so they needed to move forward with this project because it had been on the burner a long time.  The Planning Commission had heard this plan many times and now the Planning Commission was happy with this plan.  He said if the City Commission were to add the condition that the one building immediately adjacent to the single-family home be replaced with duplexes, then this proposal would go forward, which was what they were asking the City Commission to do.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the ground immediately south of the four 8-plexes on the west parcel was going to be single-family residences.  He said if not, what was the proposed use.

Thompson said it was zoned single-family and it was the switch he was talking about.  He said that was owned by the same person and the owner believed they could deal with the screening because it was their own property.  More importantly, the multi-family complex would be there so that anyone buying the single-family lots would know in advance.  He said part of the deal was that a lot of folks were not as afraid of a multi-family complex being next door as others were.  He said he lived across the street from a dormitory so he had a lot of traffic and a lot of kids, but he also lived in a great neighborhood and it did not devalue his home.  He said they were quite confident that the single-family homes, when the market was ready, could be developed with presence of a multi-family complex.

Commissioner Schauner asked if someone could tell him what they had anticipated for the buffering screening for the residential property to the south of the west parcel.

Thompson said their client owned that same property and saw grading on that property, a bigger berm, and more trees.  He said they really had not gone to that much effort because they own that property. 

Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission was relatively comfortable with the plan to the west of the drainage area.

Commissioner Schauner said he was not.  He said he was at a house significantly south of the subject property and he heard from those neighbors a lot of concern about the amount of water coming south from 6^th.  He said he was not a storm water engineer, but what he heard the neighbors and others saying was that there was a huge amount of water that came down that water shed.  He asked Matt Bond, Stormwater Engineer about his comfort level about the drainage facilities making an improvement on the water run-off as compared with its current condition even with 245 parking spaces. 

Matt Bond, Stormwater Engineer, said the way it was designed was if it was single- family there would be no detention.  He said with multi-purpose the way it was planned now, it should not have any more run-off as if it was single-family right now.  He said the two detention ponds they provided meant that it would be the same run-off as if it were single family.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was going to be better than it was now with this development.  He said it seemed they only got one or two shots of making it better for people further downstream and he did not know if it was necessarily this property owner’s responsibility to fix downstream conditions.  He asked if the proposed property, with its detention ponds, makes it better downstream and not worse.

Bond said he did not think it would make it worse, but could not say it was going to make it any better because under the current guidelines, he was not putting anymore water than he was allowed downstream.  He said he could actually put more out than he was, according to the drainage study. 

Commissioner Highberger said he assumed Bond would review the bridge design before final approval.

Bond said yes.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if someone could elaborate on the berm if the sixth condition would be two duplexes.

Phil Struble, Landplan Engineering, said the drawing showed the density of the proposed landscaping.  He said it was probably three times the density of landscaping they usually did.  He said what came out in discussion was the cross section that made it look closer to Lange’s house. He said the cross section was deceptive at the angle that was cut, to show the buildings.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if that landscaping would be maintained by the property owner.

Struble said the property landscaping would be maintained by the development because it was totally on the development’s property.  He said none of the landscaping was on Lange’s property at all. 

Vice Mayor Hack said one of the questions that came up was the maintenance of the crash gate that would also be maintained by the development.

Struble said the crash gate would be maintained by the development.  He said he could not say the word “never”, but once the crash gate went up, there was no reason to go back and change it because all the people who were living in the apartments established their pattern of leaving.

Commissioner Schauner asked if those were all rental units on the east and west side of the development or where there some owned units.

Struble said it was his understanding those units were all rentals. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be a management agency.

Struble said a management agency would run the entire place.

Mayor Amyx asked if Struble anticipated the two bedroom units having small families.

Struble said typically those units rented to young professionals or small families looking to move to another location.  He said that was why they liked the one bedroom units because on a Friday night it would be relatively quiet compared to the three and four bedroom units.

Mayor Amyx said when talking about small families, he looked at open green space or playground areas, and if they were incorporated those types of things.

Struble said no, that was not the clientele those types of developments marketed to.  He said typically, there might be a student or small family in that type of environment.

Mayor Amyx asked what the City Commission was going to ask the Planning Commission to consider.

Commissioner Highberger said he would recommend to the Planning Commission to look at improving the transitions to the southern edge of the property.  He said beyond that, this plan could be left open for the applicant and the neighbors to work something out.

Vice Mayor Hack asked if the proposed sixth condition satisfied Commissioner Highberger’s concerns on the eastern side.

Commissioner Highberger said it might, but he did not think they could do a redesign by making one simple change.  He said he would like to see neighbor input and Planning Commission approval rather than snapping fingers, making one change, and it be okay.  He said he understood the applicant’s opinion about selling their lots to the south on the west side, but if it was rational to make a better transition on the east side, it seemed rational to him to look at the transition on the other side, too. He said the same concern would arise in the future although it would be easier if the apartments were built first.

He said for the record, his ideal neighborhood had a mix of units and arranging of housing, size, styles and incomes, but he was not sure that mix could be achieved with this plan.  He said duplexes near expensive homes did not bother him.  He said he loved to see mixed neighborhoods, but thought they could do a little bit better transitioning on the massing of some of those structures.

Commissioner Schauner said he concurred with Commissioner Highberger and thought Banks’ comments were well taken in terms of the transitioning issue on the south edge.  He said he was hearing that was the common thread running through the neighbors’ concerns.  He said the transition in his mind was different than buffering and the use transition rather than greenery or some other buffering issue.

He said the City Commission had a couple of those conversations in the past year and it seemed the beauty of this whole area was young families who cared enough about where they lived and it being the most important investment of their life, that they followed a process for 18 months and still come to a meeting on Tuesday night.  He said that was the strength of this process and strength of this City.  He said they were going to continue to have those types of disagreements, over time, unless everything was preplanned in advance and knew who your neighbors were going to be, which was not likely to happen.  He said he would like for the Planning Commission to read this transcript and take into account not just the summary attached to the report but the comments made.

Commissioner Rundle said one of the speakers spoke about the difficulty of compiling all of the concerns together.  He said he hoped that some effort could be made on the part of the neighbors to compile that information so the Planning Commission did have that information to accommodate as many concerns as possible. 

He said, at this point, it seemed the City Commission was pinned into a corner and was glad they were exercising some influence to try to mitigate the impact.  He said he hoped the Planning Commission was aware of what leeway they had in terms of improving the plan.

Mayor Amyx said the Planning Commission always had the ability to reaffirm the plan sent to the City Commission.  He said it was obvious in reviewing the minutes, the Planning Commission sent a piece of property to the City Commission with a positive recommendation for zoning and now sent a preliminary development plan with a 9 – 1 recommendation for approval.  He said it was apparent the City Commission was asking the Planning Commission to consider the southern end of this property and to look at increasing the density to the north to accommodate the compatible use that was to the south.

Commissioner Hack said issues of not having single families on that piece of property, stormwater issues, density, and the crash gate, were a given and had been considered and solved.  She said she would never support single family residences along 6^th Street because it was not a good transition.  She said she appreciated the sixth condition in changing the 8-plex to a duplex. 

She said she was willing to send the plan back to the Planning Commission, but had reservations as to whether or not the Planning Commission was any more able to design this plan and make it dense to the north and less dense to the south than the City Commission.  She said give that comment, she did not know what the City Commission would see when the plan came back, but was asking for a speedy turn around time in all fairness.  She said if they wanted to place a number of restrictions on this plan, those restrictions needed to happen two years ago as opposed to now.  She said transitions were easier when there was a larger piece of property, which this area clearly was not.  She said given that, she knew there were three votes to send the plan back and would join in on that vote, but was not sure they would see anything different when the plan came back.

Commissioner Rundle said he wanted to repeat what he said about the idea of having the preliminary development plan and zoning occur at the same time.  He said he picked up on the comment one of the neighbors made about being worn down coming back again and again to a process.  He said there were some communities that had this requirement and he had to admit (sarcastically) those communities were struggling to develop housing; had a declining population; had difficulty promoting economic environment; and were generally regarded as backwaters in this area regionally.  He said they were Olathe, Lenexa and Shawnee.  He said those were thriving communities that worked under those guidelines where the development plan came with the zoning application and he did not know why it could not work in Lawrence.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to send PDP-01-02-06, a Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Aberdeen on 6th Street, back to the Planning Commission, along with the City Commission minutes from this meeting.  Aye:  Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay: Amyx.  Motion carried.

Consider the following items related to the 800 Block Pennsylvania Improvement Project:

· Adopt on first reading, the following rezoning ordinances:

a)         Ordinance No. 8053, rezoning of (Z-12-80-05) establishing the 8^th and Pennsylvania Overlay District.

b)         Ordinance No. 8054, rezoning of (Z-01-01-06) 4.54 acres from M-2 (General Industrial) District and M-3 (Intensive Industrial) District to CS (Commercial Strip) District.

· Adopt Resolution No. 6692, establishing January 9, 2007, 6:30 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing regarding the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan.

· Receive draft Developer Agreement.

· Receive staff memo on additional NRA opportunities

Lynne Braddock Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, presented the staff report.  She said the City Commission did take action on this project on August 8^th and approved both of those items on a 4 – 1 vote.  However, there were a few things that needed to be worked out and rather than tabling those items and bringing those items back again, the City Commission requested staff work out a couple of the conditions for the zoning to be discussed at the first reading, which was why those items were on the City Commission’s full agenda and not the consent agenda. 

She presented a map of the area to the City Commission.  The conservation overlay district, the main item that needed to be addressed, was the parking which was to be discussed at the first reading of the ordinance.  She said since that time, staff had met with the applicant and discussed parking options and the applicant agreed three different parking options along with staff’s parking option which was incorporated into the design guidelines. 

The conditions of approval for rezonings for the historic district from M-2 and M-3 to C-5 were conditioned on filing of the final plat, which the filing was done and also restriction of certain uses that were typically included in the C-5 zoning.  The uses were included in the C-5 zoning that the neighborhood felt were not appropriate for this zoning area.  She said staff did not have the tools for a redevelopment in this historic area, so they were reusing the C-5 zoning and overlay district to come up with the best tool to allow what needed to happen for this redevelopment project.

An additional zoning condition that was brought up this afternoon by legal services was to allow for low income or moderate housing so the neighborhood could have some assurance that would take place in the future as part of this process.  She said that idea had been added to the M-2 to C-5 area which was the small lot, not the entire historic district.  She said legal services provided some language in addition to the zoning ordinance. 

Mayor Amyx said in the event that condition came into question, he asked what kind of action needed to be taken by the City Commission.

David Corliss, City Manager, said one thing he wanted to make clear was they were not rezoning all of the property on the west side of Pennsylvania, it was only the property currently owned by the applicant.  The bulk of the property on the west side was not currently owned by the applicant and that property was not being rezoned.  He said he envisioned working out an agreement the City Commission would see with the applicant’s acquiescence and City staff’s recommendation on how it would be structured to make sure the affordable housing component was met.  He said they needed to talk in detail on how that would work to make sure that was a continuing requirement on that property.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the zoning condition would go with the land.

Corliss said that was correct.

Zollner said those were the final issues that needed to be worked out for the first reading of both ordinances.  She said other items they had for consideration tonight were the developer agreement and NRA.   

Commissioner Highberger said there were some concerns about the requirements and restrictions in the overlay agreement and asked if those concerns had been addressed.

Zollner said all of the issues that were conditions of staff’s approval earlier had been taken care of which were all the changes of the design guidelines, clearing up some type of typographical errors, changes in language, all those issues had been changed and were in the guidelines in the current ordinance. 

Commissioner Schauner said he sat in a couple of meetings where the parking requirement was considered.  He asked if they ended up with a parking agreement that was between the two bookends that was something greater the applicant wanted and something less than the initial request from planning.

Zollner said the applicant submitted their parking, then they had what the old code required for C-5, staff recommendation, and used the smart code.  She said the applicant’s request was for the least amount of parking spaces, next was the smart code, staff recommendation, and finally, what was under the old zoning code.

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was the smart code staff agreed upon or some other number.

Zollner said no, it was the staff recommendation which was somewhere between the smart code and what the developer had proposed.

Commissioner Schauner asked how many fewer spaces were in staff’s recommendation than C-5 in the old code. 

Zollner said she did not remember, but staff could look that number up. 

Phil Collison, resident on Pennsylvania Street, said he was the new East Lawrence Neighborhood Associate President.  He said he had been involved in the 800 Penn discussion since last March. The process had been very nice and felt their comments were taken seriously. 

He said concerning the parking, he thought it could become a site plan issue and there was one more aspect to the parking that came out of the charrette, and he understood what was agreed to at the charrette process in August, was all of the parking along the west side of Pennsylvania Street, behind the five buildings, would be allocated to residents of those five buildings.  He said some of the earlier plans showed there was commercial parking on either end, behind, on the west side.  He said this was abutting the alley, not necessarily exiting to the alley.  He said during the charrette process, they came up with all of the parking behind those buildings would be allocated to those residents and he did not think that agreement came to the City staff.   He said their thinking was that it was important for all of the residents for those five buildings to have reasonable access to dedicated parking.  He said he was supportive of the recommendation from staff regarding two parking spaces per two bedroom units, but he would like to see it go one step further and suggested one parking space per bedroom.  He said the one parking space that could be either on street or off street was a little scary.  He said all of the residents of those five buildings needed to have reasonable and proximate access to dedicated parking. 

He said a second issue, which he thought was addressed with the late zoning addition, was they also intended the lower income requirements would be tied to the UCD so if the UCD passed and the rest of the development fell through, the next developer would also have low income housing integrated into their plans.     

Hubbard Collingsworth, Lawrence, asked if part of the development of the Poehler  Building was going to be low income rental.

Commissioner Schauner said no, the low income rental was on the west side of the street.

Mayor Amyx said regarding the question about parking raised by Collison, he asked if the recommendation from staff took care of that concern.

Zollner said yes because the issue of parking came up with each individual site plan.  The applicant submitted a site for the Poehler Building which needed to meet the parking requirements that were laid out in the design guidelines. When the applicant came back with future site plans for additional building, each one of those site plans needed to meet the parking requirements as identified in the design guidelines.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be an aggregate number of parking spaces that would be required of that entire project if developed as anticipated.  He said if the answer was yes, he asked if spaces would be counted against that aggregate number on square footage, number of apartments, or bedroom basis as that development continued so in the end all the parking requirements were met so there was no project at the end, that would be short two or three spaces.

Zollner said the developer had a proposed number of parking spaces that were laid out similar to a master plan, but again, individual parking requirements came with each site plan.  She said if the applicant could not meet their parking requirement then the applicant needed to seek variances.

Commissioner Schauner said that was his concern that variances being requested of another body that might ultimately be a different total number of parking spaces anticipated in their current discussion.

Zollner said when the applicant counted in their master plan, total number of parking spaces that number would exceed any of the requirements of those four groups spoken of earlier.  Even if the strictest standard were used, which was under the old code, the number of parking places that were planned in their master plan exceeded that number. 

Zollner said directly behind the Poehler Building was currently designated as a very large parking lot and would hold the majority of spaces for the development.  There was also a development in the area that had quite a bit of parking and as the west side of the Pennsylvania was designed, it would be designed so the parking would be dedicated for those residential units, but staff would not know for sure until the site plan was received.      

Commissioner Schauner asked if that designated number would be consistent with the number that was between staff’s recommendation and in the old code.

Zollner said correct.  She said the number had to be based on the design guidelines, if adopted by the City Commission.

Mayor Amyx commented to Harris and his team and said the neighborhood and Neighborhood Association had followed this plan for years and was an exciting time for East Lawrence and the community to see the process work in the reuse of buildings and new buildings that would be added.        

Commissioner Highberger said he was satisfied there was more than adequate parking in the design.  He said this was a development where not everyone in the Lawrence area needed or wanted a car.  He said he thought the provisions were adequate and thanked every East Lawrence Neighborhood member who had participated in this process.  He said he knew it had been long and hard and knew that they had been very dedicated to their neighborhood and it showed.  He said he was really excited about it and even though there were some concerns, he thought it would be a great thing for the neighborhood because they were adding buildings, putting some retail closer, and some new houses that would be moderately priced.  He said he was excited they were going to use a new financing mechanism that he thought had some promise, not for just the development, but for the whole neighborhood.          

Commissioner Rundle thanked Harris and thought Harris was an exemplary developer in the Lawrence community in comparisons to all of the other developers.  He said he appreciated Harris’ perseverance in changing, meeting all the demands, and bringing forward a good project.

Vice Mayor Hack said participating in this charrette process was exciting because people worked together for what was best for this community.  She said Harris grew up in this neighborhood and did not want to harm the neighborhood.   The reinvigoration of that part of the community, with the connection of downtown, would be wonderful. 

She said the Neighborhood Revitalization Act would hold a tremendous promise for this community, not only for older neighborhoods, but for retail areas that were a little less than polished which would give them an opportunity to smooth out those areas without killing people with property taxes.

Commissioner Schauner said not many developers would stick it out through this process, but the products Harris produced, for example, the Hobbs Taylor Lofts, was a great example of the type of work Harris produced.

He also thanked staff for doing a good job with the Neighborhood Revitalization Act piece and thought it had great potential.  He said he wanted to make sure they did not have a Neighborhood Revitalization approach that somehow skipped benefiting owner/occupied property.  He said he would much prefer to see that was used in a way that was going to benefit properties that were owned and occupied by the same person.  Otherwise, they would invite development and gentrification that might not be in the long-term best interest of some of those neighborhoods. He said with those comments, he thought the City Commission should move forward.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8053, rezoning (Z-12-80-05) the establishment of the 8^th and Pennsylvania Overlay District.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                              (16)

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8054, rezoning of (Z-01-01-06) 4.54 acres from M-2 (General Industrial District) and M-3 (Intensive Industrial District) to CS (Commercial Strip District).  Motion carried unanimously.                    (17)

David Corliss, City Manager, said regarding the adoption of Resolution 6692, staff had been working on the use of the Neighborhood Revitalization Act, both as it pertained to this plan and elsewhere in the community.  The general theme of law was to adopt a plan for a particular area that was geographically described.  He said the property taxes would then be rebated that would essentially increase because the property was improved.  He said he liked to remind many citizens, the City was not the only entity that levied property taxes in the community the County, School District, and a State mill levy as well.  The State was not a participatory body under this law, but the City, County, and School District could all opt in to participate in the rebate of all or a portion of the property taxes that increased because of improvements to a property if the appropriate procedures were followed.

He said as the act pertained to this redevelopment, this project required the developer to install a number of public facilities and improvements.  The building of Delaware where it did not currently exist between 8^th and 9^th Street, storm sewer and stormwater improvements in that general area.  Also, there were improvements to 8^th and 9^th Street regarding sidewalks and some off street parking and re-bricking or rehabilitation in brick from the 800 block of Pennsylvania.  The re-bricking of Pennsylvania was a project that would proceed as the residential work on the west side of Pennsylvania proceeded.  The other public improvements were geared toward the rest of the redevelopment. 

He said the applicant made an initial request the City participate or fully fund those public improvements.  He said the City would respond with this Neighborhood Revitalization Act where the City would rebate back property taxes the City would otherwise receive from the redevelopment up to a maximum amount of the cost of those various public improvements.  He said the City Commission was seeing a draft developer agreement.  He said they had meetings since they posted it on the agenda with the applicant and the phasing of the project and the timing of when property tax increments would be available needed to be worked out in a finer detail than what they had in this agreement.  He said they were committed to having that in good form when they would conduct the hearing that Resolution No. 6692 would establish for January 9^th.  He said state law required the City to conduct a hearing and that was the action. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any sense of the County and School District’s level of willingness to participate in this project.

Corliss said he had briefed the County about this issue and talked about the merits of the project, how the project evolved and changed, had discussions with the neighborhood.  He said he pointed out in discussions that the City’s mill levy was less than the County and School District mill levies.  In order to receive a larger rebate amount, he thought it had merits for the County because it provided new redevelopment and the school district because it was being over a long range and would see redevelopment in that area where they wanted to continue to see families and others.  He said he thought there was value for both of those entities, not just from the developer standpoint.  He said developers and others needed to make those advocacy points to those entities and only those entities would decide whether to participate or not.

Commissioner Schauner said his recollection told him it was about $2 million in public improvements that would be rebateable.  He asked if that was the rough number.

Corliss said it would be $2 - $2.5 million.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the understanding that if the county and school district opted not to participate, the City would independently rebate the entire $2.5 million or would it be shared amongst the three taxing amenities if all agreed to participate. 

Corliss said one of the key issues was they agreed there would be a cap and the rebates would not exceed the total dollar amount.  One of the issues that needed to be discussed on January 9^th was whether or not there would be a termination date for those rebates regardless of whether they meet that cap or not.  He said that would need to be a City Commission decision.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the answer to his question was they did not know yet.

Corliss said that issue would be the City Commission’s decision. 

Mayor Amyx said if the school district and county did not agree, he asked if the City would be picking up the entire amount or was that a City Commission decision.

Corliss said he would not recommend going beyond 10 years.  He said the statute did not have a cap and envisioned that it would be for 10 years.  He said he did not know if they would be able to reach that full dollar amount if it were only the City’s taxes.

Commissioner Schauner said if there was a 10 year limit on the rebate project, he said whatever the amount of that rebate, in terms of the increase property tax, the assessed value increase, that would be the City’s entire obligation if they agreed to a 10 year cap.  He said they might reach $2.5 and they might not. 

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt Resolution 6692, establishing January 9, 2007, 6:35 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the date and time for a public hearing regarding the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan.  Motion carried unanimously.

Corliss said regarding the draft Developer Agreement, that agreement was in draft form and eventually it was going to outline the developer’s requirements for building projects that were outlined and the City’s commitment on the rebates and it would be finalized this week as an NRA.  He said it was important to have an agreement with the developer so the developer would follow through on their commitment to do those public improvements and the development as it had been approved.

Corliss said highlighting the NRA opportunities, the Commission indicated an interest in pursuing those opportunities in other parts of the community.  The next step, in that regard, was to draft a request for proposals that would go to a very wide audience.  He said it would go to Neighborhood Associations where staff would discuss with those associations about the possible application for the use in neighborhoods and following up with Commissioner Schauner’s comments about owner occupancy and stressing owner occupancy as one of the requirements for that use.  He said he talked about its potential downtown, but they had to be careful with mixing this tool with others tools, such as TIF, where they were taking the tax increment to finance public improvements.  He said with the NRA they were taking the tax increment and rebating it back to the property owner.  He said he also saw opportunities in the interior part of the community where they saw distressed or under utilized commercial facilities.  He said they have not seen a lot of movement and might want to encourage its redevelopment along the lines of traditional neighborhood design for their commercial design guidelines and provide that incentive to the development.  He said since they would be increasing the value of the property, the City would be willing to rebate a portion of that increased value.  He said the City Commission needed to be wise in choosing their projects.  He said he was trying to put the City Commission in the driver’s seat and have the map, but what they were also recognizing they were not necessarily the people that could choose the projects.  He said the development community and others that were making those investment decisions might be able to be creative and come up with ideas as well.  He said he was asking for authority to work on a request for proposals and try to forecast what he thought would be a wide dissemination.  He said it would be two different RFP’s; one for commercial distressed property and one for neighborhood home occupancy where they could encourage that as well.  He said he saw that as two potentials for this vehicle.  He said it would be good to have some policy guidelines and not have it be written in an entitlement situation, but rather the City Commission decide on certain criteria where to apply it and where not to.

Mayor Amyx said any of those additional NRA opportunities that come forward, if they came to an agreement and wanted to proceed, the City Commission had to go through the same process of establishing the public hearings.

Corliss said yes, but in some cases it did not need to be a neighborhood, it could be a single piece of distressed property.  He said he thought the City Commission might want to see what was out there and see the interest and then concurrently work on a policy to discuss those.

Commissioner Rundle said he would be curious regarding other communities who had actively used those opportunities for the NRA and if they targeted those in any way.  He said the way the RFP proposal was written, they might be intending it to be more targeted than it sounded if it was just going to be an open RFP for anyone’s idea of if they were going to try to use it to foster some missing commercial use or some need that was perceived in the area.

Corliss said there had been communities that had declared almost the entire city a revitalization area and others that had been more pinpointed. 

Commissioner Rundle said he meant if they were doing an RFP to redevelop for a specific way or just wide open.

Corliss said he would agree and thought if statements could be made, for example, the discussions about North Lawrence wanting a grocery store.  He said if someone wanted a grocery store in North Lawrence and met their criteria, he asked would they try to have an incentive or not.  He said it might be just as broad by saying if in a certain neighborhood, they wanted to encourage property owners to keep the property owner occupied and they also might want to provide them with a tax rebate if they did improvements to their home.  He said the City Commission did not want the RFP to be wide open because that would lead to unintended consequences, but he thought staff could work out some language.  He said he wanted to forecast that idea to see if that was a work item the City Commission wanted staff to spend some time on.

Commissioner Schauner said it seemed this was a matter of a horse and a cart and the horse was the policy question.  He said what did they want to accomplish with neighborhood revitalization activity and then if they had that policy in mind, then it might be the time to put out an RFP for proposals that would be consistent with or move them toward the fulfillment of the policy calls.  He said to ask for the RFP’s in advance seemed to be out of sequence because he suspected there were a number of ideas about if they were going to rebate the assessed valuation tax for as long as 10 years.  A lot of people may think that would be a great idea, but those ideas might or might not be consistent with whatever policy they adopt.  He said it seemed the policy ought to go first.

Commissioner Highberger said that made sense and they should use this in a focused way.  He said when they first started discussing this issue he realized it was a possible vehicle for revitalizing specific distressed commercial property.

Commissioner Schauner said he always thought it a more neighborhood context than commercial context.   He said they probably had some commercial property that needed some help, but wanted to make sure that everything was consistent with their overall strategy.  He said if they had a more specific policy statement, it would be easier to evaluate the proposals as those proposals were received. 

Mayor Amyx said that was not a problem to have that as part of their discussion.

Corliss said the policy issues, the focused use, and then understanding the next steps might be to disseminate an RFP.  He said he would work on all those items and give the City Commission something that met everyone’s interests.                                                       (18)

At 9:15 it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to recess for 10 minutes.  Motion carried unanimously.

The Commission returned to regular session at 9:25 p.m.                                                  

Receive draft Resolution on long range planning efforts.  Consider directing staff to forward the draft to the Planning Commission for comment prior to City Commission adoption.

            David Corliss, City Manager, presented the staff report.  He said staff could provide background information and to try to understand the value staff was stressing with that document.  He said there was a number of long range planning efforts underway and the major planning efforts were indicated in the recitals of the resolution.  He said the PlaceMakers, a consulting firm, had been retained by the City to work on a traditional neighborhood design product which was going to be a major planning emphasis in the new year. 

The Planning Department was talking about not having Planning Commission meetings in February to concentrate their efforts on that work product and it was going to be a significant undertaking for the community. 

He said staff was anxious to receive the SDAT final report. 

He said the preparation of the community’s Transportation Master Plan, Transportation 2030 was a major undertaking.  He said Commissioner Highberger was sitting in on that committee and steering that product.  He said it was going to be a major item as well and the update was due in the mid part of next year.

            He said the City Commission was familiar with staff’s work on the cost of growth study and staff received the first part of that report.  He said staff had been in communication with the consultant to get the second part of that report.  He said the report had not been as timely as they wanted, but thought it was going to be a valuable product once finished. 

Concerning the affordable housing opportunities issue, Commissioner Highberger was chairing that group and that group would have a work product given to the Commission as well. 

He said the City Commission was also familiar with staff’s water and wastewater planning efforts in implementation of those plans and the importance that staff stressed about ensuring as they bring property into the City, staff could tell those property owners how they could receive City water service and wastewater service. 

            He said they also had ECO² efforts both for enhancing economic efforts and also providing additional open space for the community.  He said given all of those efforts, he thought it was important to provide that status, but also try to focus efforts in areas that they anticipated future growth so they could try and have those area plans in place in anticipation of that growth as opposed to reacting to the applicant’s request.  He said staff could also forecast that they were likely to change some of the requirements for those areas.  He said they were going to have traditional neighborhood design code out of the PlaceMakers work.  He said after they received that document in February that needed to be initiated through the Planning Commission. 

He said staff would discuss impact fees and whether or not they wanted to pursue setting those fees and whether or not they wanted to try and change the rules for development costs within the community. 

He said what he was trying to do with the resolution was to indicate that those items were underway, wanted to coordinate those efforts with the Planning Commission, and wanted to identify areas primarily west of K-10 and south of the Wakarusa where more intense area plans could be developed.  He said essentially they wanted to devote their long range planning efforts in addition to all the other items towards developing meaningful plans in that area.  He said the resolution was a draft document and recommended comment from the Planning Commission before the City Commission proceeded with the document. 

He said that was the history and background of the document.  He said it was not meant to do a whole lot more other than recognizing staff had those things under way, forecast the fact staff wanted to have some coordination of those efforts, indicate proceeding with area plans and, and application for development in those areas needed to reflect this coordinated work. 

            Mayor Amyx said this was the first time he had seen all the work that was completed and all the work that was about to be completed in one resolution form.  He commended Corliss on that effort.  He asked if Corliss was suggesting this item return to the Planning Commission for comment.

            Corliss said he wanted comments, corrections, and whatever else was needed.  He said this was not meant to take the planning process from the Planning Commission, but meant to show there was some coordination with some of those efforts.  He said some of the items had been initiated by the City Commission and some items solely within the purview of the Planning Commission.  He said his concern was that it was not so much that the left hand did not know what the right hand was going to be doing.  There were so many multiple hands that staff wanted some level of coordination.  He said the City had able staff to make sure that could happen, but the real value was that if the City Commission could see that big picture and see how it was being coordinated.  He said this document was meant to indicate a number of things were underway, but they might want to change some of the rules in the future and they wanted to try to forecast it.  He said that was the general intent of the resolution. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was anyone in this building charged with being the person who would receive all of the reports, coordinate the various plan activities, other than Corliss.  He said he asked that because they were essentially short a manager.

            Corliss said they were short an Assistant City Manager and Planning Director, but staff was working on it.

            Commissioner Schauner said the City was short the position Corliss held before as an Assistant City Manager.  He asked if that role he described was appropriate for an Assistant City Manager or someone of that level.  He said there were a number of good ideas, but with a lot of good ideas, it was easy for one or more to fall off the stove, let alone stay on the front burner.  He asked who was in charge of shepherding those things back to the City and Planning Commission for review and consideration.

            Corliss said he saw that effort as his job and to the extent he wanted to hire another Assistant City Manager and wanted to have a Planning and Development Services Director and staff was working on that.  He said staff was trying to finalize some interviews with others so recommendation could be made.  He said he saw those efforts as his role, but it was the City Commission’s goals and desires on how they wanted things to happen.  He said staff could handle those things, but could not do them all at once.  He said a number of those things were taking a lot longer than they wanted, but staff would be able to handle those things and give the City Commission the superior product they expected.

Commissioner Schauner said all of these things could easily overwhelm a person.  He said those were not small projects and he wanted to make sure they had an internal management mechanism for handling those projects in a way that would give them a product in time so people who did want to do a project, did not need to wait 100 years to do a project and/or they did not end up still being in a reactive mode when someone did bring them a project because they had not finished another project. 

Corliss said he saw managing those projects as his job.

Commissioner Hack said those projects were not in any priority order, but a compilation of the big issues.  He said some of those projects were more in terms of a vision, theory, or hope in terms of economic development, ECO² issues, SDAT, and working toward a community vision of what they would like to see.  She said some of those projects were very specific, such as PlaceMakers and TND codes.  She said some of those projects would knit with others and then overlap because when one happened, it would cause other things to fall into place.  She said she appreciated Corliss’ efforts and she did not think an expanded subgroup was needed under each one of those projects. 

She said she would echo Commissioner Schauner’s concerns and wanted to make sure those projects were always in front.  She said as the City Commission looked at their goal setting, and City Manager targets, it would be important to keep that document in front because those projects could easily be goals they had in the upcoming years that would fit into the other goals that were established. 

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed, but he did not want the youthful enthusiasm before being able to shepherd all those various programs to overwhelm and to be impractical and unrealistic.

            Corliss said that was a very legitimate caution, but he did not want to promise something he could not deliver.  He said what he could promise was staff would give their strongest efforts to coordinate those projects and other things together.  He said they would be able to do it with the staff positions he mentioned and give the City Commission a report on Matrix for the first of the year and ask for direction on those staff items as well.  He said they would need those resources to accomplish that.  He said they have all devoted resources to this, whether it was their own time or funding the TND study.  He said there were means to accomplish those things.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the cost of growth study final report.

Corliss said staff would be having a conference call with the consultant later this week.

Commissioner Rundle said it was entirely appropriate that Corliss was monitoring all of those projects.  He said Corliss would not be doing the work single-handedly and it would take tremendous effort.  He asked if having those projects in a resolution form also elevated the various efforts to forecast they were going to rely on those, therefore it being resolved and should help ensure none of this would get thrown on the shelf and be lost.  He said resolutions were not ordinances, but they elevated issues.

Corliss said resolutions expressed the resolve of the Commission.  He said he did try and word the area plans which reflected the adopted effort of the various planning items.  He said staff might receive plans and items back that the City Commission would not adopt or want to endorse.  He said this was by no means a short-cut for all of the work of those items.

Commissioner Rundle said he thought it was very good they elevated those items in that way.  He said they had discussed area plans where they anticipated growth.  He said they had talked about trying to not just anticipate, but direct growth to areas in the USD 497 school district in contrast to others adjacent.  He said that discussion needed to take place at some point.  If not, they needed to be a little more focused about the area plans.

            Corliss said with the PlaceMakers work in February, their master plan was one of the two areas and one area was west of K-10 and the other south of the Wakarusa.  He said those would be the initial vehicles where they say this was where they considered directing growth.  He said they might come to find out the area initially selected was not the right area or they might want to modify the area.  He said the area still needed to go through the planning process after it went through the intensive charrette process.  He said that would be the City Commission’s initial look at a vehicle in wanting to direct growth.  He said both were in the 497 school district and with that in place along with the other items, he thought the City Commission would be further in their position of wanting to direct growth as opposed to solely responding to developers’ requests. 

Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission wished to make any changes or additions to this draft resolution. 

Commissioner Hack said she did not see any changes at this time.

            Mayor Amyx called for public comment.   

After receiving no public comment Mayor Amyx said the way the document was presented covered a number of projects.  He said the City Commission had stated as a group the priority was to direct development ahead of time in order to make other decisions and this was the first step in making that happen.     

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the draft Resolution on long range planning efforts and directed staff to forward the draft to the Planning Commission prior to City Commission adoption.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                      (19)

Receive staff memo regarding impact fees.

David Corliss, City Manager, said he recommended a draft 2007 budget and in that transmittal letter staff highlighted a number of items they wanted to study and work on.  He said when he presented the implementation report to the City Commission on August 22, 2006, he indicated he wanted to follow up on that transmittal letter and wanted to work on impact fees and study those fees.  He said he wanted the Commission to study the possibility of impact fees for certain capital improvements and directed additional research on this item and sought Commission direction on conducting meetings with stakeholders on this issue.  He said this item would require a balance between several competing interests.  He said he and John Miller, Staff Attorney, had been in discussions with Steve Chinn who had a national reputation for knowledge of impact fees and similar exactions in land use.  He said staff had been exploring the City’s authority in both impact fees and the area of excise taxes.  He said what the City Commission had on their agenda was a status report and also some of the background material that Steve Chinn and Trevor Wood had put together so the City Commission could see some of the complexities and issues that existed regarding impact fees.  He said what staff was recommending was establishing some stakeholder meetings and discussions with interested parties in the development community and neighborhoods with City staff to talk about impact fees and whether or not they wanted to move forward with these recommendations.  The memo indicated some of the resources other communities had that the City of Lawrence did not have.  He said when they talked about the 2007 legislative program staff included in that program their desire for authorizing legislation for excise taxes.  He said he was very concerned that other communities that were their competitors, as far as growth, had that as a financing tool for infrastructure and the City of Lawrence did not.  He said they talked about the fairness of that.  He said fairness was sometimes three votes here and sometimes four votes in the legislature.  He said they would like to pursue that.  He said a number of communities had successfully implemented impact fees and Lawrence was one of them.  He said Lawrence enacted impact fees almost a decade ago when they created a system development charges for the water and wastewater system.  He said they had been a fair deliverer of those resources they received from development regarding enhancing water and wastewater facilities.  He said he thought it might be appropriate to look at them.  He said particularly when looking at what they were doing in the area of parks in establishing a higher standard for local parks than what they had right now.  He said it was appropriate to look at additional resources in addition to the sales tax resources that they had for Parks and Recreation facilities.  He said as they looked at arterial streets, one of the concerns they had as they audited their infrastructure was how they were going to pay for some of the reconstruction of streets that already existed.  He said one of the ways to pay was through debt.  He said that might challenge their ability to use debt to contribute to new arterial streets that were required for development.  He said they have had that struggle when talking about George Williams Way and how much the City should contribute to that facility.  He said a number of communities had successfully implemented arterial impact fees so that when development occurs, that development was paying its fair share of arterial streets in addition to some of the other requirements. He said he was sensitive to the fact they could push fees too far and they could push impact fees too far and he wanted to engage in that discussion.

Mayor Amyx said at the agenda meeting, he, the Vice Mayor and City Manager discussed that it was important before any decision could be made that a group be put together of stakeholders to include members from the building community and Neighborhood Associations, to look at all possibilities.  He said he knew there were other communities that were similar to Lawrence, Kansas who did not use impact fees, but might be doing the job right and that comparison needed to be looked at too and was part of the puzzle.  He said he was not a big supporter of impact fees, but going through the process it was important to have those discussions so that people who were in the home building business and development business who worked with the City as essentially a partner in a lot of development throughout this community, understood the limits the City Commission had on some of the things when going forward in the future.  He said they just got done with a draft resolution that talked about long range planning, which he thought spoke about a lot of things.  He said there were other communities out there that were doing it different than Lawrence or communities in Johnson County.  He said sometimes it was good to look at Johnson County, but Lawrence was not Johnson County. 

Commissioner Schauner said Leawood, Lenexa, and Overland Park had not only had impact fees but excise fees for a very long time and they were in fact the economic engine that drove the state’s economy.  He said those cities might have other vehicles as well as far as infrastructure and parks, but he would not want to see either the long range planning become distant planning, i.e. take forever, or this discussion around impact fees to be equally distant in time.  He said it was fine to look at other options and he was very much open to other options, but wanted to make sure they would not continue to have discussions about it and put off making some decision about it.  He said there were only a limited number of options available and what the City Commission heard consistently from constituents was continued reliance on property tax was less and less acceptable.  He said sales tax had an upper limit, they had a growing list of wants, and he was not sure how they made the two competing pressures meet.  He said they either scale back what they do in order to hold down property taxes and say no to good ideas more regularly than they did now, or they find additional mechanisms.  He said to the extent of looking at alternatives to impact fees and produce alternatives was terrific, but he did not want to put this discussion off so long they essentially did not do anything.

Commissioner Hack said she was not going to have a conversation, at this time, about how she felt about impact fees or what the alternatives were.  She said she thought what the Mayor was saying was the City Commission had not had any discussion at all.  She said they had had a study and were getting information.  She said she knew they had some public comment they needed to listen to before the City Commission gave their thoughts on it.  She said it was important to have that conversation.  She said she thought that was all that the Mayor was asking for and all the partners deserved the opportunity to have a discussion.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought they should have that conversation.  He said as an example, the cost of growth study had been in the works for almost two years, which was completely unacceptable.  He said if it did not mean starting over again, they should fire those people and start over.  He said he had no idea what those conclusions were because he never saw the report, draft or otherwise.  He said if anyone in this audience was contracting to build a house and it took two years to do it, they would have a pretty unhappy customer on their hands and the City ought to be unequally unhappy about that.  He said he did not want them to have such a prolongation of those conversations that they did not ever get to make a decision of some kind. 

Commissioner Rundle said he would not hesitate to look at other examples.  He said he picked up on the phrase of communities doing things right, and to him when he looked at Lenexa, they had a healthy building industry and he thought their planning and fees supported the continued and orderly progression of that growth.  He said he thought putting at risk their building industry as they appeared to be doing when they were not sure about sewer capacity in the northwest was very concerning.  He said they crossed over that bump in the road, but he did not see those kinds of bumps in the road that Commissioner Schauner was talking about that used impact fees and also did not think they saw development communities suffering in any way.  

Mayor Amyx called for public comment.

Dave Reynolds said his comments supported staff recommendation of a dialogue with the stakeholders.  He said his comments were strictly related to the content of what had been proposed.  He said he recognized it was in draft form, but there were some significant issues with the proposed resolution regarding if it could be implemented.  He said he was not going to belabor the point of whether he was for or against it.  He said he thought it was beside the point because his position would always be that they were unwarranted, but thought they had to deal with what had been proposed.  He said this seemed to have many problems with the articles that were written and if the City Commission was going to pursue impact fees, the content of the articles needed to be significantly addressed.

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

Reynolds read a statement.  He said regarding the parks impact fee, it stated the article imposed was on all new development, unless exempted.  He said he thought this was a very misleading term as expansion of existing homes in industrial, commercial and retail spaces might require the payment of parks impact fees if they were in the parks impact district.  He said it was not necessarily on new development, it could also apply to existing structures.  He said as an example, if an existing homeowner wanted to finish their existing basement or a business owner wanted to finish some existing space in an unfinished area, their building where they wanted to add on and the park impact fee could equally apply as well.  He said another case was if the parks impact fee applied nonresidential uses.  He said nonresidential uses had actually had no rational nexus to parks requirements.  He said if nonresidential use did not determine the city’s population, residences do.  He said he would like to come back to that point later.

He said the terms “developer” and “development” were defined in section 20X02.  Those definitions had absolutely nothing to do with the development process.   He said those definitions had everything to do with builders, individuals, existing homeowners, existing business owners, contractors and subcontractors.  He said those articles only applied at the building permit stage.  He said developers, in the true sense of a developer, acquired raw land and go through the development process that converted the raw land into buildable lots which was the platting approval and infrastructure installation.  The use of the term “developer” and “developments” was a very misleading term to the public.  He said this led individuals to believe that this did not affect them, but it greatly affected those individuals.

He said Section 20X05 spoke to dedications in lieu of payment of park impact fee.  He said a memo from John Miller, staff attorney, listed many fees, most of which were excise taxes.  He said Miller’s memo alluded to mimicking what was being done in various cities in Johnson County.  He said according to this article, what they would be doing in Lawrence was not what they were doing in Johnson County.  He said a great deal of further research needed to be completed upon this point.  He said an example was in Johnson County a developer could take land around the water detention area, area around natural streams, and area around natural unbuildable areas and create the required acreage to dedicate the parks and greenspace.  He said when done at the plat stage, the developers did not have to pay the excise tax.  If the raw land was flat, the developer could opt out and pay an excise tax, which the City could then use to buy park land elsewhere within the district.  In Lawrence, the proposed articles did not seem to allow similar types of dedications to offset the park impact fee.  Unless such dedications were applied at the planning stage, they become virtually impossible at a point later in time.  He said examples were under this article, if a builder bought one, two or three lots, it seemed the structure of the articles would be keyed toward major players, i.e. a developer that would control the entire process like in Kansas City in Johnson County.  He said most builders in Lawrence were scatter lot builders.  He said what they were doing was going in and share picking and buying lots in multiple subdivisions.  He said there were very few builders that had a whole subdivision.  He said they have not had one in Douglas County, but there were a few popping up now.  He said the commercial development on Wakarusa had been out there for years and a number of lots still were not built.  In this article if a builder bought one, two or three lots, they could not dedicate any land space or if an existing homeowner wanted to finish a basement or add a room, they could be subject to the park impact fee because there was no dedication available the same was true for an existing business owner.  If an individual bought a lot and wanted it to develop that lot once this resolution was in place, that individual would pay the tax with no dedication.  He said if an individual bought an existing home where a park impact fee had already been paid and they wanted to finish the basement or add on, they would have to pay more for a park fee based on the way the resolution was written.  He said that was double dipping and not the way they wanted to treat the citizens in this community.  He said this was not a true developer who were paying the park impact fees, but it was both new, existing home and business owners.  He said anyone supporting this article as a way to pass cost to the developers was kidding themselves.  All those park impact fees would be borne by the existing and new business owners. 

He said indirectly, those articles raised property taxes for all home and business owners.  He said prices of new homes were part of the basis for setting assessed evaluations of existing homes.  He said impact fees were paid by home and business owners, the same as retail sales taxes.  A big problem with imposing impact fees was the way they concentrated the cost of impact fees and taxes in so few homes.  He said the impacts were greater for existing homes.  He said for example, if the Parks Department needed to raise $900,000 in one of the new parks districts and there were 150 homes built, then the parks impact fee raised the price of each home by $6,000.  He asked which was better for the home and business owner.  He said community support for community projects or private development for parks used by the public. 

He then discussed proposed Section 20X04(b)(3), parks impact fees on non business uses.  He said (b)(3) set up an equivalent use category using square footage as a basis.  He said there was no logical nexus between any non residential use and requirements for parks.  He said it looked like a tax, smelled like a tax, acted like a tax, it was an excise tax and according to state statutes they were not allowed.  He said during the interim session, regardless of their wishes, the legislative committee said they would not act on excise taxes for at least a couple of years and they wanted to know how this process worked. 

He asked if it was appropriate to assess those fees to nonresidents and if they planned to assess these fees against the school district.  He said if not, why not.  He said Section 20X04(d) referred to CPI index to adjust inflation or value of a property.  He said it might be nitpicky at this stage, but there were a whole lot of different CPI’s.  He asked what they were going to use to set their values. 

He said as for 20X05(e), the timing of the dedication, the accrual of benefits to the developer assigned to third parties, i.e. a developer could go do something like that and prepay those things, and then have them pre assigned to a builder that would take out a lot.  He said in some cases, the assignments of credits to a specific builder by name might be impossible 

He said 20X05(f), sale of properties by city, the use of the term “within the City and to the extent feasible” when they were trying to get rid of a piece of ground, they would then sell it and buy a piece of park land later.  He said this went against the law in terms of using impact fees, not to the direct benefit of the fee payer.  He said they would be taking money or parks impact fees and would be paid in trying to find them elsewhere in the City. 

He said they already had a sales tax that parks implemented in 1994.  Earlier this year the City Commission implemented an ordinance requiring parks be located at quarter mile intervals, doubling the requirements for parks.  He said this was done despite the concerns of Fred DeVictor, Parks and Recreation Directors, who expressed concern for lack of funds and affordability.  He said he believed those additional parks were done in the spirit of a livable community.  He said increasing taxes for livability was not very livable.  He said implementing a parks impact fee created many problems and much confusion.  He said an example was how they would justify a parks impact fee given they had a parks sales tax.  He asked what were the funds the current park sales tax were used for, what was the distinction and purpose of the sales tax versus the impact fee.  He asked which one was subordinate to the other and how the existing new home or business owner get credit for the sales tax when they pay the parks impact fee. 

He said as for Section 20X06, what were the legal issues.  He said the list of questions and concerns were long and distinguished.

He said the traffic corridor impact fee was next.  He said his earlier comments about definitions and the impact on existing and individual homeowners and business owners applied to this article as well.  He said for tonight his comments were in the form of questions versus specific details.  He said he knew the City faced many challenges in this area and his comments were cognizant of them.  He said the specific purpose of this impact fee needed to be identified.  He said implementation of the impact fee confused current city code and specific city demands and exactions at the time applied.  He said an example was current policy stated the cost of the first 27 feet of asphalt for any street in serving the development be paid by the development; the city at large paid the rest.  He said streets being within 27 feet move traffic from one region of the city to another.  The use of these arterial streets was to move traffic through neighborhoods versus drive within the neighborhoods.  He said those arterial streets were detrimental to the local neighborhood and those arterial streets benefit the city at large.  He said their current policy said neighborhoods pay local, but to the extent those main arterials move and serve the city at large then most of the cost should be borne by the City at large.  He said this seemed to be a very good long standing policy and asked what was flawed with that policy. 

He asked at what point the City as a whole benefits from new development and new infrastructure and thus should pay for that benefit.  He said the current cost study, which they had been debating earlier tonight, ignored the asset value and long term income value returned from the investments and assets the home and business buildings built within this city provided.  He said if they took the current cost study they were looking at they did not recognize there was a benefit to the community for having those structures.

He said he thought there was a policy question involved.  He said they should ask themselves if they should implement impact fees.  He said as leaders of the community implementations of those articles created burdens and distinctions between citizens.  He said an example would be why should an existing home or business owner that was not in a parks district be allowed to remodel or build a new building and not pay the fee while newer areas, which were included in the parks districts, had to pay the parks and impact fee.  He said a good example of that would be a Hobbs Taylor Loft.  He said that project would increase the density downtown.  He asked if that was in a parks district, would they be dedicating land and paying parks impact fees.  He said they were not going to pay any parks impact fees because even based on the examples the way park districts were set up, there were places carved out of this town that would not pay it.  He said so they created a desperate nature within their own city and set them against each other which indicated that one was welcome and one was not; one had to pay and another did not.  He asked what the fairness in that was. 

He said those two articles implementing impact fees did not appear to be very well thought out, even though they were in the preliminary stages.  He said if they were going to implement these impact fees, then they needed to do it correctly.  He said they agreed with staff that some type of stakeholder’s group to work with those issues was needed.  He said if this was going to proceed, he would volunteer to be a part of those meetings.

Bobbie Flory, Lawrence Homebuilders Association, said about five years ago they did a growth study called the Fiscal Impact of New Single Family Subdivisions on the City of Lawrence.  She said admittedly, that report needed to be updated, but the results of that report were that growth paid its way.  She said while they might disagree with that, something she thought they needed to do was to get to the bottom of the cost of growth study the City was doing right now.  She said before they could have the discussion about whether or not impact fees were justified, she thought they needed to finish the growth study they were working on and then try to figure out what was different between the City’s study and the homebuilder’s association study.  She said they said growth paid its way and phase 1 of the City’s study indicated residential growth was a little bit under the line of paying its way.  She said she thought the reason was probably because of the way the sales tax dollars were allocated, but thought that was a really good discussion point for a stakeholders meeting, which she whole heartedly supported and hoped the did have that type of meeting.  She said she really hoped that when the City Commission had the conversation with the City’s consultant that would be something that would get moved quickly.  She said they could not pass and support impact fees based on anecdotal information.  She said it was her understanding that was why the City was conducting that growth study in the first place which was to get some hard data that they could all agree with or at least try to understand and come to some sort of compromise about the real cost of growth and benefits of growth were to the community.  She said she hoped they would appoint a stakeholder group.

Ron Durflinger, Lawrence, said he was going to take a little bit different tact.  He said he would echo Commissioner Hack’s comments that this was a sea change in the way they were tackling financing for some particular aspects of their public infrastructure and thought that Reynolds hit on a lot of individual points, more than he could keep track of.  He said he was not against impact fees inherently because those types of fees had their place and he worked in other communities where they had those fees.  However, there was an old saying he relied upon and it was, “all real estate markets were local.”  He said until understanding local needs and local abilities, sometimes it could be dangerous to look to a neighbor to find out how they solved their problem because someone might or might not have the same strengths or weaknesses.  He said he fished a lot and one of the things he learned was conditions demand change and adaptability.  He said he built different types of structures and the one thing he learned was conditions demand the ability to adapt to that particular need.  He said he traveled a lot and looked at the way they build things in other places and what he learned was be interested in what they did, but do not try and mimic it until understanding if it was applicable to your place.

He presented graphs to the City Commission because he said a little education might be helpful as well as a little instruction.  He said if the City Commission had, as one of their goals in the community, a desire for affordable housing, they should probably be doing some thinking about it those graphs. 

Commissioner Highberger asked about tracking average square footage on the graphs he showed and asked if those numbers were production or sales cost.

Durflinger said it was sales cost and it was what people were paying for their houses, but he did not include square footage because of his limited time. 

Commissioner Highberger asked if it was fair to say the average house sizes had not gone down in the city for the last three years.

Durflinger said not really because the public did not want those houses to go down in size. He said when taking that total sales volume and broke it down into $100,000 segments with their starting point with at products that were under $200,000, which they would need to be under $200,000 to be in the affordable range, as an example, a $50,000 dollar family income would basically qualify that buyer with minimal outside debt, at a 5% down payment, and $3,000 worth of closing cost. That family would need over $10,000 in their pocket and that would get them a $150,000 house.  

He said in 2003, 47% of the dollar volume of sales products was under $200,000.  He said only 6% was for products over $400,000.  He said when getting to 2006, 19% of sales products were new construction and under $200,000.  He said 25% of the dollar value of sales went to products that were over $400,000. 

Commissioner Schauner said when Durflinger suggested that the fewer units sold under the $200,000, was he suggesting the market of people that could afford to buy houses had shifted to the upper sales level.

Durflinger said that was not what he was suggesting.  He said what he thought that graph suggested was that there might be an inability to produce the kind of valued housing at that price point that the consumer valued. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if he thought there was more demand for the under $200,000 than could be produced under current circumstances.

Durflinger said in new construction, absolutely.  He said they had neighboring communities that had single-family homes that were currently listed under $140,000 for about a 1500 square foot unit that had a little bit of basement.  He said it was a real estate form that was not generally accepted as well in this community as the traditional ranchers or two stories.  He said they were over there and not far away.  He said there were a lot of reasons why that was and that was why a stakeholders group was important because they needed to know why they could produce that and this City could not.  He said it was not a simple subject and one they could talk about in a few minutes.  He said when they looked at the number of units in 2003 under $200,000 there were 213 units or 62% and 9 units or 3% that were over $400,000.  He said when talking about the number of units sold in 2006, 33% of the total number of units was devoted to houses under $200,000.  He said 13% were now over $400,000.  He said there were amazing shifts in markets in a very short time period.  He said when they looked at what was available under the $200,000 range the product line available, based on sales, would show that in 2003, 38% of people bought single family homes because there were enough single-family homes in that price point and 62% bought below.  He said basically the shift changed from $130,000 was the shift point between $130,000 to $140,000 with town homes below that and single-family detached above.  He said in 2006 if one was to buy something under $200,000, they had one chance in four in being a single-family average house.  He said there were few opportunities to produce that kind of product. 

He said based on those figures, as like to like comparisons between 2003 and 2006 and those units were the same units with minor architectural changes, and minor amenity changes.  He said they sold a number of those units in 2003, 2005 and 2006.  He said the sale price went up 17% during that time period because other things had gone up during that same time period.  He said construction interest from January 1, 2003 and today, he was paying double for his money.  He said it was not just while they built it, but also why they held it, which had been a huge impact on the business.  He said concrete labor had gone up considerably, building permits had gone up 41%.  He said everyone could see the challenges they faced and had been facing.  He said while they were interested in affordable housing and giving amenities to the community, the City needed to have an interest to learning about how those things interact.  He said the City needed to understand what tool to pull out of their tool box to accomplish goals. 

He said he agreed with the previous two speakers and with staff.  He said he encouraged them to have a stakeholder meeting so they could learn more about this issue because they had some trends that were greatly disturbing.  He said the last he checked, the median income in this town would not support the continued type of price escalation for the general product line.  He said what would probably happen was they would see total sales volumes fall and tax revenues fall as well. 

He said he knew there were a lot of complaints about property tax as a funding mechanism for social needs.  He said sometimes he thought they were a little bit spoiled for a million reasons because they had a lot of amenities, great resources, a ton of fun to be had, but they also had a really low mill levy.  He said his grandmother lived in Winfield, Kansas, and he received a copy of the escrow account that showed the tax bill.  He said when he was looking at that tax bill he wondered what her house had escalated to.  He discovered her valuation was not that great, but they had 159 combined mill levy.  He said in Gardner where he had a project, it was 134 mills this year.  He said at 134 mills, that was a 16% difference in their taxes.  He said they could afford an increased valuation.  He said if they had a $150,000 house in Gardner, they would be taxed the same as a $174,000 house in Lawrence and if they had a $200,000 house in Gardner they would be taxed the same if they had a $232,000 house.  He said that was a tough sell to the public and he did not envy the City Commission’s position because it was almost impossible.  He said if someone believed their taxes were too high, then the taxes were too high.  He said if they could go forward and look at some of the other alternatives that would be available, to accomplish the same needs.  He said more importantly, if they did find that impact fees were the vehicle of choice for the governing body, at least cut a deal.  He said they should have a quid pro quo so that the people of the development community had some degree of reliability, the money their customers were going to have to pay was going toward infrastructure that had a time line and reliable so they could make investments that were of huge magnitude in order to keep this business, which was a major driving force, one of the three major driving economic forces in this community, which he would like to see change.  He said he would like development to take a back seat to other types of industrial development or economic development.  

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

Bill Yanek, Lawrence Board of Realtors, said he would like to make three quick points.  He said first, certainly, the Commission and City staff ought to finish the study that was in process before they took such a drastic step.  Secondly, as other speakers had eloquently put it, any decision such as this must be taken with the general economy in mind and definitely a softening housing market in mind.  Lastly, as a member of housing needs task force, while they were looking at some innovative solutions for affordable housing, they needed to ask themselves at the same time they were looking at extending housing opportunity or making housing more affordable were they working at cross purposes when looking at impact fees.  He said as they compared different cities across the state, they saw it in Topeka and when the state legislature compared different communities, sometimes they were comparing apples to oranges because mill levy rates were different, different communities had different development policies and sometimes it could be deceiving when other communities levy impact fees or excise taxes.  He said the Lawrence Board of Realtors would like to be part of the stakeholder group as well and would appreciate that opportunity. 

Dave Reynolds said regarding Commissioner Rundle’s point about looking at other communities, one of the things the City Commission needed to consider was when looking at Lawrence and Johnson County the profile of the community had to be considered.  He said the tax base in Lenexa and Olathe had a great deal more business and retail than Lawrence ever thought about having.  He said whether or not they considered the viability that they had a question of increasing impact fees help things or not, they had to look at the general economy of the profile of that city and what was really benefiting it and what was driving it.  He said they had more people wanting to live there because they had more opportunities for jobs and better jobs there than they ever thought about having in Lawrence. 

He said the second issue was Lawrence was currently fighting a significant image problem and impact fees did not help that image.  For example, regarding his business, about 2 years ago, he would not take a job outside Douglas County and today there was little work in Douglas County.  He said their business was currently pricing a project for a client in Topeka who had moved from Maryland, had a high profile job at a significant company in Topeka and they indicated they could not afford to live in Lawrence.  He said they were renting in Lawrence while they were building in Topeka. He said he just finished a significant project for a client who moved from L.A., California into Leavenworth County.  He said if looking at the total percent of dollars he produced in the city limits of Lawrence, it was insignificant this year.  He said they minor remodel jobs in Lawrence, but major construction elsewhere.  Again, Lawrence had an image problem and was not helping that image with impact fees.   

He said in terms of long range planning issues, he thought one of the key things was missing was not having a long range financial plan for this community.  He asked why they should even be talking about this.  He said this City had no idea what their financial needs were going to be 10 to 20 years from now.  He asked how they were going to finance it because they were struggling right now on figuring out how to pay streets, which was why they wanted to put corridors in.  He said the City was playing games because they were putting impact fees on development to pay for new streets.  He said the City needed a significant long range financial plan for this community and could solve a lot of their ills and he would love to participate in that.  He said about a smooth plan everyone could count on that had a significant driving mechanism and they had a financial goal in this community and were solving it.  He said they were financing short term infrastructure with long term bonds and the City was upside down in its debt.

Sid Ziegler, builder and developer, said most of his development had been infill project development.  He said as a growing trend, if lot prices continued to rise, which would be affected by impact fees and all the other things that the City kept proposing, the base line was houses, in general, would continue to rise because they were basing the value of the older, dilapidated homes, on what the ground was worth under them.  He said when he first started building on the east side of town he could have bought houses up and down the street for $25,000 a piece, which was not more than 6 years ago.  He said now, they could not buy one for less than $100,000.  The reason was because the house was still worth $25,000, but the lot it was sitting on was now worth $50,000 and it just kept going up.  He said since that time, when he constructed his first development in East Lawrence, the street cost was about $100 a running foot, now it was over $300 running foot.  He said it was infrastructure improvements the City wanted them to implement on how they develop, how they did those streets, and other stuff that kept raising the street cost.  He said obviously oil prices are a big factor, but oil prices, even at their highest, were not three times as much.  He said it became a factor of when they were going to say enough was enough on what they put onto the lots because it was ultimately raising everyone’s house values to the point of a young man trying to start out on his own was never going to be able to buy his first home.

He said another trend was everyone thought affordable homes was an easy thing to come by, but it was not.  He said when they started developing over in East Lawrence, he was trying to stay under $100,000 per house and once getting past 9/11 and the interest rate went down, he could not sell those houses because people were qualifying for more money.  He said then the market was $180,000 because everyone was going to try to maximize their dollars, especially in the first house they buy.  He said that might be partially accountable for the reason they saw increases in the house values to another degree, because people were qualifying for more and wanted to maximize what they were getting into at the low interest rates.  He said if they see a fluctuation in the interest rates and it started escalating, people were not going to have an option to buy.  He said if it went back to 10% tomorrow, they would not find anything to qualify for, because they would not be able to afford it.

He said his caution was that they really had to consider what impact fees and things they were going to do in the long-run for people starting out and buying their first home.  He asked if a person was going to be able in 10 years to be able to buy a first home or was it going to be something that was totally off the wall. 

He said if they talked to all the developers and builders in this town, they were not the money hungry mongers that people played them off to be.  He said they knew that if they could make a house that people could buy, then they could make a living.  He said it was getting the point with all the restrictions they had between how hard it was to find land that could be developed at an affordable price to purchase it. 

He said there were a lot of other things that play into this particular community that did not apply to other communities.  He said they have rivers, flood plains, hill sides, and unbuildable areas that by the time they buy a piece of ground, they might only get 50% that was usable.  He said if they pay an over inflated price and only get to use half of it, it compounded the problems to make an affordable lot. 

He said his biggest concern was impact fees would keep raising the lot costs, the infrastructures they were requiring the new developments to have in them was raising lot costs.  He said it was compounding the problem over and over again to the point in a few years they might be at $100,000 a lot and there was no way they could get that back down to a reasonable rate.  He said they have already seen that habitat had gone to the point of being their own developer because it was the only way they could minimize the cost so they could afford to build their own efficient homes. 

He said he heard there were some people who wanted developers to give up 10% of their lots for low income housing. He asked how that was going to help.  He said if they took 10% of what they were trying to do, they were raising all the other 90% an additional chunk of money.  He said it would go back to the basic home across town.  He said if the lots were worth $50,000, the lots were worth $50,000 extra.

He said he hated it when things kept compounding on top of each other and making the system worse.  He asked the City Commission to be cautious with the City’s future plan.  He said next time someone wanted to change the infrastructure laws on streets and other things think about what that would do to those lot costs in the long run and keep in mind that it affected everyone’s home values.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to extend the meeting to 11:14 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.

Mayor Amyx said it seemed that a majority of speakers were in favor of the stakeholder meetings.  He said he would suggest that a couple of the City Commissioners be involved in the stakeholder meetings and he would be happy to be one of those individuals.

Commissioner Rundle asked if it would be a task force or public meetings that would be announced.

Mayor Amyx said they needed to work those issues out.  He said he wanted that cost of growth study somehow. 

Vice Mayor Hack said they might want to have a variety of stakeholder meetings and a different representation of Commissioners at each meeting.

Mayor Amyx said the City Commission could act as a panel along with staff to hear the various comments.  He said he thought they could come back with some recommendation and go from there.

Vice Mayor Hack said they could spend time at the agenda meeting on Monday working out recommendations.

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Schauner, to receive a staff memo regarding impact fees and direct staff to prepare information on stakeholder meetings.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                     (20)

Receive staff memo and draft ordinance establishing the office and duties of an Internal City Auditor position.

David Corliss, City Manager, presented the staff report regarding establishing the office and duties of an Internal City Auditor position. He said this item was following up on a 2007 Budget item.  He said in their 2007 budget, the City Commission funded a position of a City Auditor.  He said it was the Commission’s decision whether or not the position was an internal or external auditor.  He said he drafted an ordinance that he thought was important to create the position.  He said he drafted the ordinance so that position reported and was supervised by the City Manager.  He said their work plan, which the auditor would develop, would be presented to the City Commission in an agenda setting and the reports were received by the Commission once finalized.  He said information was provided from the Institute of Internal Auditors and some language from other communities as to how they structured that position.  He said he was excited to get the position and work underway.  He said it was up to the Commission on how they wanted to structure that position.  He said funds were budgeted for the position and needed to determine the structure of the position as the job description was finalized. 

Commissioner Schauner said there was a fair amount of discussion during the budget preparation. He said he really supported the internal auditor approach.  He said supervised by the City Manager was fine, but at least in the beginning, he would like to see this person report to the City Commission.  He said at the same time, the City Manager would get the same report. He said in his own employment, he was supervised by an Executive Director, but worked for a Board and that had worked pretty well over time, especially as they have had from time to time ethical issues and internal conflicts.  He said he thought that separation worked well in his own experience and this auditor was in a hot seat much of the time and must feel some comfort level in being able to present an unvarnished report that was reasonable.  He said he would like to take a more conservative approach to start this process.

            Commissioner Rundle said he would prefer that it would be an appointment and report to the City Commission.  He said he did not want it to be supervised by the City Commission and did not think any of the cities they presented information about had the position supervised by the Commission.  He said he thought the whole point was the independence and as those rules were played out, it was more of a teamwork that evolved because staff and management team could use the auditor to help do the research and justify things they wanted to do, too.  He said that independence was heightened and effectiveness of the position.

Mayor Amyx asked if the City Commission or the City Manager was going to hire for that position.

Corliss said Commissioners Rundle and Schauner were suggesting that it was hired by the City, and the City Commission would interview the candidate and select the candidate.
            Commissioner Rundle said that was the way all 5 cities hired which was to appoint or hire by the city commission.

Commissioner Schauner said he would expect the City Commission involved in the hiring process, but the hiring process needed to be done by City Staff.  He said unlike the Planning Director who worked for the City Manager, what he would prefer this person work at the pleasure of the City Commission.

            Corliss said that meant the City Commission selected that person.

Commissioner Schauner said ultimately, yes.  He said someone would make a recommendation to the City Commission and they would say they would want to hire that person.

            Corliss said the Kansas City, Missouri City Council was involved in the recruitment and interview and selection. He said he thought that would work and was committed to whatever system they wanted.  He said he was excited about having that person and making those contributions.  He said what they saw in some of the ordinances, they established an audit committee of the governing body and that person was that first layer liaison with the auditor that was appointed by the governing body.              

Commissioner Hack said she understood that external auditor would report to City Commission and an internal auditor would report to the City Manager. 

Corliss said that was the distinction he would make. 

Mayor Amyx said before he considered some change to the internal auditor position, he wanted to see it in writing how it worked rather than guessing.

            Corliss said he would suggest a different ordinance.  He said he thought it was an important enough position to establish by ordinance and if they did it that way, they would need to set out how the Commission would select and retain that individual and go through all the different scenarios.

Commissioner Hack said she was very excited about the opportunity to have an auditor because the performance measures had been geared to being efficient and doing the best job they possibly could.  There was a great working relationship with the City Manager and thought they had a transparent relationship with their City Manager.  She said she would like to see Corliss be responsible for the hiring of this individual, but certainly one of the Commissioners could be in on that hiring process.  She said she was not comfortable with the City Commission’s expertise in the area of auditors in terms of being able to go out and hire an auditor.  She said having said that, it did not make much sense to delineate between someone who reported to the City Commission or reported to the City Manager, because ultimately they were reporting to both.  She said Corliss was not going to change the report in any way, but it was going to come directly to the City Commission.  She said it seemed to her that reporting to the City Commission clouded it somewhat and it seemed it was a City employee that should report to the City Manager and the City Commission would receive those reports.

Commissioner Schauner said he agreed with the Mayor that it was too important to try to decide this late at night.  The issue was auditors were not the best liked people in the building.  Those auditors look under rocks and figure out what was wrong or right.  He said what that person needed was the greatest sense of independence that could be provided.  He said he would normally believe that would not be a problem with Corliss, but if they were going to establish an ordinance, Corliss might get a job offer some place else and make three times the money and leave tomorrow. 

Commissioner Rundle said all those ordinances presented tonight, had reporting to the City Commission.  He said he thought Vice Mayor Hack’s reaction was common.

Vice Mayor Hack said she was not going to fall on her sword either way and understood what Commissioner Rundle was saying.  She said she was fine either way. She said she did not want to be that group that hired that auditor. 

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to defer the receipt of the staff memo and draft ordinance establishing the office and duties of an Internal City Auditor position until such time as staff met with Commissioners Rundle and Schauner.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                                                  (21)

PUBLIC COMMENT: None                                                                                                      

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

12/12/06	800 Block Pennsylvania and related items; City Auditor Position discussion; Long-Range Planning Resolution; Impact Fee discussion
12/19/06	Library Consultant Report Subdivision Regulations
12/26/06	City Commission meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will consist of consent agenda items and bill paying.
TBD	Salvation Army Site Plan and Rezoning; Staff Report concerning assembly licensing ordinance
12/12/06	800 Block Pennsylvania and related items; City Auditor Position discussion; Long-Range Planning Resolution; Impact Fee discussion
12/19/06	Library Consultant Report Subdivision Regulations
12/26/06	City Commission meeting will start at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will consist of consent agenda items and bill paying.

                                                                                                                                         (23)

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Commissioner Rundle said the City Manager circulated a memo about establishing domestic partner benefits for City employees and considering a domestic partner registry which was sometimes necessary for private businesses who wanted to offer those benefits.  He said they either have to verify the partnership by an extensive collection of records or have some kind of registration.  He said he would like to put that on the agenda sometime in January.

Mayor Amyx asked Commissioner Rundle to provide background information along with staff. 

He said regarding the meeting tomorrow night with those individuals who were interesting in changing the minimum wage.  He said he assumed that this meeting would be well attended, as probably should be.  He asked if the City Commission had any thought and if that item came before this Commission, did the City Commission want to establish time and their intent to have this item on the agenda sometime in the first quarter of the year.

Commissioner Highberger said it was something he would not like to move on to the agenda.  He said he certainly understood the basis for that item, but had some serious concerns about that issue.

Mayor Amyx said he was not asking for anyone’s support one way or another.  He said he was starting to look at the number of items the City Commission had to address and he was trying to get a handle on staff and Commission time. 

Commissioner Rundle said he thought prior to doing that, if it was possible to investigate how to get that median income up through other means and he thought that would be a higher priority in the realm of economic development.  He said he would certainly move on that idea. 

Vice Mayor Hack said she agreed.  That was the City Commission’s focus was to try and attract jobs to this community that pulled this City’s income up to a level that they were in better shape as a community on that median income.  She said they knew they had the economic development people pushing the bioscience, the possibility of Farmland, and the airport for better, higher paying jobs.  She said that was the direction she hoped the City Commission would pursue.

Commissioner Schauner said there was an article in the Topeka paper a couple days ago about Frito Lay and the City Council there was considering a proposal to pay to Frito Lay $2500 a year for each job they created.  He said those jobs paid a base rate of $17.30 an hour.  He said that would be significantly higher than any number he heard associated with some sort of minimum wage in the community.  He said he did not know if Topeka Council ultimately approved that idea or not, but it was an interesting concept he struggled with as an idea.  He said it seemed to him the number of comments he heard that builders made tonight had to do with the ability of people who work in this community to afford the housing in this community.  He said without getting into his personal opinion of those other pieces, the bottom line, at least in part, appeared to be this City needed more jobs that pay better wages.  He said he agreed that should be their focus.  He said other approaches tended to be artificial than genuinely improving a job base and wages that were paid.  He said he thought Congress would likely act on this issue quickly after the first of the year, based on what he was reading in the press. 

Mayor Amyx said he brought the issue up because he wanted to make sure to constantly have a handle on the agenda as the agenda has continued to grow.  He said they had a lot of things to do after the first of the year.  He asked if this issue was something the Commission wanted to have as a priority, but he thought he understood the direction.  He said he appreciated the comments about the jobs being created in this community. 

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 11:12 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                             

APPROVED                                                               

_____________________________

Mike Amyx, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                        

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2006

1. Payment of Easements to Cnty Clerk - Pump Station 48 Project to Kmart for $29,600 & Penske for $29,000.

2. Bid- Comprehensive Rehab – to Penny Construction, 1312 Summit for $24,751, and 1140 Penn for $31,851.

3. Contract- Addition parking at Kaw Water Plant to Asphalt Improvement Co. for $44,008.

4. Bid- Alvamar Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project to McLouth Excavating for $880,031.

5. Ordinance No. 8058-1^st Read, amend franchise fee for Worldnet, L.L.C.

6. Ordinance No. 8059- 1^st Read, amend franchise fee for World Company.

7. Ordinance No. 8041- 1^st Read, joint City Ord/Cnty. Resolution, update to Ch. 9 Horizon 2020, Park, Recreation & Open Space Areas & Facilities.

8. Ordinance No. 8051- 2^nd Read, increase fines & court costs upon conviction of traffic violation in municipal court.

9. Resolution No. 6693, declaring boundaries of City of Lawrence.

10. Variance -  Final Plat of Maple Ln Add No. 2, sanitary sewer in right-of-way.

11. 2007 Legislative Priority Statement - revised language.

12. Renewal - Excess Workers’ Compensation Ins. coverage with Midwest Employers Casualty for  2 yr contract.

13. Mortgage Releases - Kristin Adrian, 815 New York St; & Gary Smith, 1234 Conn. St.

14. City Manager’s Report.

15. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-01-02-06) Aberdeen on 6^th St., 9.59 acres at SE corner of W. 6^th & Stoneridge Dr.

16. Ordinance No. 8053- 1^st Read, rezone (Z-12-80-05) establish 8^th and Penn. Overlay District.

17. Ordinance No. 8054 - 1^st Read, rezone (Z-01-01-06) 4.54 acres, M-2 & M-3 to CS.

18. Resolution No. 6692 - Jan. 9, 2007, 6:30 p.m., public hearing for Neighborhood Revitalization Plan.

19. Draft Resolution – long range planning efforts.

20. Impact Fees. 

21. Draft ordinance - Office & duties of Internal City Auditor position.

22. Public Comment.

23. Future Agenda Items.