January 16, 2007
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Amyx presiding and members Highberger, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner present.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve City Commission meeting minutes from January 2, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of December 7, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 325 vendors in the amount of $2,128,316.78. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the Drinking Establishment License to Henry’s on Henry Street, 11 East 8th; Abe & Jake’s Landing, 8 East 6th; and 8th Street Taproom, 801 New Hampshire. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Chris Keary to the Lawrence Alliance, to a vacant term which will expire November 30, 2008; reappoint Sandra Wiechert, Elizabeth Hatchett, and Donna Griffin to the Lawrence Arts Commission, to additional terms which will expire December 31, 2010 and appoint Thomas King to a term which will expire December 31, 2010; and appoint Stephanie Bishop, Michael Hajdu, and Steve Guinn to Lawrence Bicycle Advisory Committee to terms which will expire December 31, 2009. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize purchase of required easements for the Yankee Tank Sanitary Sewer improvement project from Alvamar, Inc. in the amount of $11,700 and North Tank, LC in the amount of $15,000. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the purchase of 31,900 pounds of Aquamag K-5 corrosion inhibitor for the Kaw River Treatment Plant, to Waterwise Enterprises for $18,049. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the purchase of 90,000 pounds of Nalcolyte 8186 polymer for the Clinton Water Treatment Plant to Nalco Chemical Company for $51,300. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8046, amending the public offense of illegal camping to include camping on public property within the CD zoning district. Motion carried unanimously.
(4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8060, establishing the office of the City Auditor, including responsibilities and duties of the office. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8072, establishing 30-MINUTE PARKING on the north side of 9th Street adjacent to 616 and 620 W. 9th and 846 Indiana. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance No 8070/Resolution No. 07-06, a joint ordinance/resolution of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan “Horizon 2020” pursuant to K.S.A. 12-747, by adopting text amendments revising Chapter Four-Growth Management contained in Horizon 2020, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 8071/Resolution No. 07-07, a joint ordinance/resolution of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan “Horizon 2020” pursuant to K.S.A. 12-747, by adopting text amendments revising Chapter Five-Residential Land use contained in Horizon 2020, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the request for rezoning from IG (General Industrial District) to RS7 (Single-Dwelling Residential District). The property commonly known as 759 Maple Street; North Lawrence Simpson’s Central Subdivision of Addition No. 7, Ann Whitely, Property Owner of Record; and, request placement on a future Planning Commission agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by to approve the request for rezoning from IG (General Industrial District) to RS7 (Single-Dwelling Residential District). The property commonly known as 769 Maple Street; North Lawrence Addition No. 7, Nancy M. Flowers and Margaret G. Bol, the Property Owners of Record; and, request placement on a future Planning Commission agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the request for rezoning from IG (General Industrial District) to RS7 (Single Dwelling Residential District). The property is commonly known as 775 Maple Street; North Lawrence Additions No. 6 & 7; Ray C. Newell and James B. & Denise R. Posey, Property Owners of Record; and, request placement on a future Planning Commission agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve request for rezoning from IG (General Industrial District) to RS7 (Single Dwelling Residential District). The property is commonly known as 785 Maple Street; North Lawrence Additions No. 6 & 7; Edward Flint Jr., Property Owner of Record; and, request placement on a future Planning Commission agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to approve the request by Pear Tree Cottages, LLC, located at 3000 Havrone Way, for a variance from 19-214 of the Code which requires each dwelling unit to be provided sanitary sewer service by an individual sanitary sewer service line. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to consent to the settlement agreements between the Kansas Department of Transportation and Westgate, Domino and Northland L.C.’s. Motion carried unanimously.(14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to receive quarterly report from Lawrence Freenet. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign Releases of Mortgage for Marsha Mace, 443 Arkansas Street and Maria Butler, 2137 Naismith Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Mayor Amyx pulled from the consent agenda, the approval of the 2007 Downtown Fire Sprinkler Incentive Program. He said he owned property in Downtown Lawrence and would abstain from the vote in case he wanted to participate in the incentive program as a property owner.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the 2007 Downtown Fire Sprinkler Incentive Program. Aye: Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Abstain: Amyx. Motion carried. (17)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said in the report, there were photos highlighting the retaining wall that was under construction for the Kasold Reconstruction Project and staff was looking forward to the successful completion of that project later this year.
He also formally announced the electronic recruiting tool available for City employment applications. The website would be more effective with potential City employees as City employment was considered, but it would also be more efficient in sharing applications with various departments in retaining the data about potential employees and sharing that information with those members of the applicant pool.
Also, an article in the most recent Kansas Government Journal highlighted the City’s involvement with the Heart of America Computer Forensic Laboratory and the work of the Lawrence Police Department.
He also encouraged the City Commission to review the enhanced search engine added to the City’s Website and statistical information about the use of the website.
Finally, he said the Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and other City Departments deserved credit in their involvement in responding to the winter events of the past few days. He encouraged citizens to send any questions his way. He said the City’s website announced the City‘s winter snow removal plans in prioritizing the community streets.
Mayor Amyx thanked staff for their snow removal efforts for the community. (18)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Receive presentation from Lavern Squier, President and Chief Executive Office, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, regarding the Chamber’s future vision for the community
Lavern Squier, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, said approximately 2.25 years ago, then Commissioner Highberger discussed visioning for the community and those conversations had born fruit through time. He said the City’s effort to participate with the American Institute of Architects (AIA) efforts led to the SDAT discussions, which was an offshoot of that visioning commitment that Commissioner Highberger discussed as he came into the Mayor-ship. He said the Chamber helped fund that AIA commitment and through time had maintained a commitment to create a vision for the community. He said it was a work in progress and required broad based participation by many people involved. He said as they had been engaging such an effort in those SDAT discussions there were three major benefits of having a consensus vision for the community. 1) It would help create clarity about the collective goal as a community and it was their purpose to help build for those who came behind; 2) Establish a framework for setting priorities and assessing progress toward their goals. He said it would help to fabricate and measure those goals. 3) Establish a foundation for civil discourse about this community and how to make it the best it could be. He said those three principles would be great manifestations of a vision and off-shoots.
He said to advance this effort in addition to the SDAT process, the Chamber engaged in discussions involving sessions of members and nonmembers alike, entities such as the City/County, School District, KU, Haskell, etc. across the community. The Chamber came up with a vision as a work product from the year 06 efforts that they wanted to postulate to the City Commission to keep the discussions moving forward. He said they had double checked their results against the SDAT results and the tentative report was out and thought they were compatible. He said they recognized that what they were about to show would be modified and had to be discussed on a broader basis with the rest of the community.
Joan Golden, Chair, Chamber of Commerce, said she was asked by Pat Flavin, past Chair, to read a statement on his behalf, “The Chamber hopes this vision statement will be seen by those in the entire Lawrence community as a productive start towards articulating what Lawrence can, and should be, moving forward. In that spirit, we fully support the City Commission’s desire to create a consensus vision for Lawrence and as such, we offer this as a measure of our full support and partnership in that effort.”
Golden said it has been under Pat’s leadership that the Chamber, Board, and the rest of the groups who have worked on this have created this vision that I am very pleased to share with you this evening.
As Lavern has outlined, we fully support your efforts in creating a vision for Lawrence. Many of us also participated in the SDAT proceeding several months ago. Economic vitality is a main focus of the Chamber and having a collective goal from which to make our decisions is very important.” She said let’s look at the Lawrence Vision:
“To be a vibrant and economically healthy community that satisfies the most important needs and desires of our citizens and is recognized as one of the finest university cities in which to live and to work.
“Achieving this vision will require that Lawrence excel along three critical interdependent dimensions; distinctive spirit and atmosphere, superior amenities, and a robust and sustainable economic face. Let’s look at each one of these important characteristics.
The distinctive spirit and atmosphere – That’s composed of a diverse and engaged citizenry, committed to civil discussion, a forward looking, positive spirit of possibilities and empowerment, respect for Lawrence’s distinctive history and traditions, aesthetically pleasing community that valued open space and historical buildings, and strong neighborhoods with active, informed citizens.
We also would want superior amenities, accessible high quality health care, inclusive high quality education, affordable housing, superior recreational opportunities and facilities, consumer options that satisfied Lawrence citizens and attract others, a wealth of opportunities for arts and cultural enrichment and engagement, and a vibrant economically healthy and diverse sound town and finally, a robust and sustainable economic base, which would be made up of a thriving, competitive business environment that generated satisfying job opportunities for current and future citizens. A sound tax base appropriately balanced among all sources, wages and incomes that foster individual opportunity and choice and a well developed and maintained infrastructure. If we work on all these dimensions, we should achieve our goal to be a vibrant and economically healthy community that satisfies the most important needs and desires of our citizens and is recognized as one of the finest university cities in which to live and work.
To restate why we feel this is so important, this vision allows us to have clarity about what they collectively want for the City of Lawrence. We will all be working toward a common goal. It can be the question we ask when we set our priorities and finally, it provides us with a foundation in which to have civil discourse.
The Chamber enthusiastically embraces this statement and the process and has concluded that it wants to move forward and begin using this vision and its characteristics as a model from which to begin discussions about the visions of Lawrence.”
Commissioner Highberger said he appreciated the work that was put into this process because it obviously it had taken a great deal of effort and thought. He said he discussed the future vision of this community and thought the SDAT process was a part of that discussion. He said he looked forward, once the City Commission received the SDAT report, to take what the Chamber had done and take the next step to include the broader community. He said he expected the final product was not going to look a lot different because the Chamber had done a great job of summing up what everyone was looking for in the City of Lawrence.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
There was no public comment. (19)
Receive request for extension of the UPR for the Lawrence Community Shelter. The current UPR expires March 7, 2007.
Sheila Stogsdill, Interim Planning Director, said approximately one year ago, the City Commission had granted a one year approval for the Use Permitted Upon Review for the Lawrence Community Shelter which would expire March 7th, 2007. Due to the timing of the Planning Commission’s meetings and with PlaceMakers work, this item could not be taken up by the Planning Commission until their March meeting. Therefore, staff requested the City Commission grant a one and one half month extension so that a renewed application could go through the Planning Commission process and would come to the City Commission on April 17th.
Mayor Amyx asked if the applicant had their application in time to meet that date.
Stogsdill said there was some miscommunication on staff’s end and staff had chosen not to take any items to the February agenda. She said staff originally thought the February agenda would have gotten the applicant to that date in time, but again, there was some confusion on staff’s end and staff should have advised the applicants to submit the application in December instead of January.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the purpose of this item was to extend the date of the one year review, slightly to accommodate the Planning Commission.
Stogsdill said yes in order for the applicant to continue to provide services until a renewed permit would get to the City Commission in April.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
Brandy Sutton, Lawrence, said she found this miscommunication interesting because on January 10th she called to see what date this item would be on the Planning Commission’s agenda and was told nothing had been filed at that point, but later that afternoon, the applicant filed their application. It appeared the application had been hastily completed, was not signed until January 10th, and did not appear to be a full application that would meet the requirements that were set forth by the Planning Commission. She said she doubted the fact the applicant would have been on time, had the application completed on time, but not for the fact the application had been brought to the applicant’s attention, the application had not been filed yet. She said she knew the applicant had to go through the process, but the applicant needed to be held to the same standard that she, as a business owner, would have been held which was getting her information in on time to make sure she met her deadlines. She said this was not a surprise, the applicant was present last year in December of 2005 and was given three months in which to come back, which was March of 2006. She said they were now in January of 2007 and the applicant was hastily putting together an application in which the applicant had 15 months to work on. She said she had real concerns about this process and thought the applicant should be held to the same standard that she would be held to.
Mayor Amyx asked staff if the current use permit conditions had been met.
Stogsdill said yes she believed those conditions had been met.
Mayor Amyx said at this time, the City Commission would be setting up an extension of time for one month, there would be a public hearing at the March Planning Commission meeting, and would come back to the City Commission before April 17th.
Stogsdill said this issue would be back to the City Commission on April 17th.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the City’s practice was with respect to notifying persons or organizations, on hold, about the ending date or conclusion of their special permit.
Stogsdill said she did not think the City had a standard practice, but conversations were held with the applicant last fall and it was a mistake. In looking at the calendar, the Planning Staff had indicated that if the applicant submitted the application in January, the applicant would be in time for the applicant’s March expiration as opposed to submitting the application in December. She said that was staff’s fault because they looked at the calendar and did not think that January was too late, but the way the dates fell, the March 7th date was too early for the Planning Commission to get something to the City Commission. She said staff basically had a process of trying to keep track of permits that would have an expiration date and try to notify people several months before the application had expired, but staff did not have any tracking system or software that automatically notified staff. She said it was a matter of looking at those applications and remembering to try and help the applicants out.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was some type of a tickler system that would alert Planning staff of the number of special use permits or UPR’s.
Stogsdill said staff did not have that type of system right now.
Mayor Amyx said the City responded and told Lawrence Open Shelter that by January, staff would be able to take care of the application.
Stogsdill said yes, staff had targeted the January 10th submittal date in either October or November when they had the first contact last fall. She said staff should have targeted the December 6th submittal date.
Mayor Highberger said a tickler system was something staff should look into because staff should know when those applications were expiring and providing notice to the applicants would be good practice. He said as a City, they did not have any interest in putting any type of business out of business on a technicality. He said the City would work with applicants to make sure they met the requirements and could still contribute to the City. He said he did not really share a concern with the timing problem and looked forward to the UPR in March.
Vice Mayor Hack said she agreed with Commissioner Highberger. She said it was a technicality and the City Commission was not necessarily approving the review of the UPR, and the City Commission was simply allowing that process to take place. In terms of notification, she was not sure 100% of that responsibility fell on this side of the ledger, either. She said as those applications were issued, notification should be made to applicants that applications would need to be in by a certain date. She said it was the responsibility of the permit holder as well. She said the City needed to be business friendly, but remember there was responsibility on both sides.
Commissioner Schauner said the question was if the City undertook notifying everyone who held a UPR or SUP, was the City somehow accepting some liability that perhaps should lie with the permit holder. He said he shared Vice Mayor Hack’s concern not to be punitive towards folks, but to expect that it was the applicant’s obligation to keep the application current. He said he would like a fuller discussion about what the City Commission’s role should be in terms of notifying people. In this particular case, he was not opposed to the 5 week extension, but thought the issue was a fuller discussion about what City staff’s role would be in contacting people.
Commissioner Highberger said he thought it was good government if the City required people to have a permit or license of any kind that expired, notifying the applicant the application was about to expire was good practice.
Commissioner Schauner suggested that it should be a policy decision about whether the City would notify, how many times the City would notify, or would the City notify, so the holders could know the City’s policy and the City could just follow their policy.
Mayor Amyx said if a person was in business and had a special arrangement with the City, that person should have the responsibility of filing in a timely manner. He said that was the reason he asked the question, if the City gave that information to the LCS, and it sounded like LCS had followed what the City had told them. Regarding his question about the conditions being met, if the applicant had not met the conditions, he would not have supported the extension. He said he knew people with businesses around that facility had concerns, but this was a full blown process and that was what this issue was about.
Stogsdill said to her understanding those conditions were met and clearly there would be a full review as part of staff’s analysis in evaluating the recommendation for the March Planning Commission meeting.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to approve the request for extension of the UPR for the Lawrence Community Shelter to April 17, 2007 as requested. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Consider approving SUP-10-04-06 for Krause Dining, 917 Delaware.
Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report. She said the rezoning for this property was tabled back in October. At that time, the City Commission directed staff to prepare a text amendment which was before the City Commission a number of times before that approval process and through the various ordinance processes established a private dining facility in a text amendment that allowed for a special use permit.
The subject property was 917 Delaware which was an existing residence and also included catering activities at the property. The property was currently zoned residential and included residential zoning both on the north and west sides. Part of the review of this project was to also look at the land use relationships of the subject property to its surrounding environment and also look at where parking would be located. The new regulations allowed for off-site parking to be on property other than what was under ownership of the particular applicant. One of the conditions of approval was the execution of a parking agreement that would establish exactly where that parking was to be located. The area to the immediate east side was zoned industrial as well as on the north side, and there was adequate area in that area to look at off street parking provisions.
This item was forwarded to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval both from staff and the Planning Commission. The difference in the two recommendations from staff and from the Planning Commission was related to item 3(g) which was the recommended provision from staff’s side to not allow any outside dining at all or beverage consumption and the Planning Commission voted to revise 3(g) which was reflected in the minutes, which did allow some food and beverage consumption on the outside.
Mayor Amyx asked if this special use permit only ran with the owner of the property.
Day said it was specific to its location, to its use, and to the property owner.
Mayor Amyx said if the property owner sold their property, would that SUP become null and void.
Day said it would become void and if there was another property owner to take it over that would want to do the same use, that new property owner would need a new special use permit.
Mayor Amyx said the new owner would need to reapply under any City codes provisions at that time.
Day said that was correct.
Commissioner Schauner said if the current owner retained ownership, but leased the operation or had some other operational arrangement, would that extinguish the SUP.
Day said she believed that it would extinguish the SUP. She said she might need to defer to counsel, but staff’s expectation would be that it was specific to the Krause’s.
John Miller, Staff Attorney for the City of Lawrence, said he wanted to take a specific look at the conditions. He said to anticipate the question if the City Commission wanted to put similar language as part of the condition of the special use permit, he thought it could be done. He said if the Krause’s wanted to lease their property, he thought based upon the information that had been provided by the Planning Department, he did not think the Krause’s could lease their property to another individual to be able to conduct the same business in that location.
Vice Mayor Hack said condition 3(k) indicated, “If the owner/operators of the private dining facility change in the future then a new Special Use Permit shall be required” and that not only covered the Krause’s, but if they would lease it to someone to run.
Miller said he understood the intent was to be specific to the owner/operators of the private dining facility. He said leasing to another individual would not be an owner/operator of the private dining facility.
David Corliss, City Manager, said he wanted to make the condition clear that if the ownership or operation of the private dining facility changes in the future then a new Special Use Permit shall be required.
Wint Winter, counsel for the applicant, said they appreciated the attention staff and the City Commission had paid to this matter throughout the rather tortuous history. The matter now was not to totally void the possible concerns, but it was a matter that had been through a process where the owners had been quite amenable to the input from the neighborhood and suggestions of the City Commission.
He said they were excited to be present because of the following: 1) Very careful and serious compliance by the owners with a set of restrictions on this SUP. He said he would agree with staff and the Commission if they wanted to clarify section 3(k). He said they agreed that was how it read now, but also agreed if they made that clarification suggested by Dave Corliss and absolutely was the intention of the owners. He said the applicants had no desire to do anything other than to own, operate, and live on their property; 2) were pleased to receive the suggested approval by staff of the SUP; and 3) the Planning Commission gave this matter its unanimous approval and was adopted on a 7-0-1 vote and thought it helped suggest to the public that the owners have been very willing to comply with all of the major concerns of this project.
He said finally, he had been involved in a few of those matters and had some experience in working with neighbors both informally and formally and to be working with people who had received approval of the neighborhood association. He said the Commission was well aware the Neighborhood Association held a meeting and a letter indicated they effectively withdrew any opposition and the Neighborhood Association saw no reason why this matter should not proceed. He said that letter reflected, in general, the willingness of the residents, Mr. and Mrs. Krause to be open to all the issues and concerns. He said they would urge the Commission to approve the SUP as approved by the Planning Commission with the one clarification to 3(k).
Commissioner Highberger said the last time the Krause’s were present, there was some discussion of the applicants purchasing the adjacent residence to the north. He asked if they purchased that property.
Winter said he received the preliminary title report from the title company issuing title insurance for the prospective closing and that was indication that it was moving forward. He said it was contingent upon approval by the City Commission of the SUP as it came to the City Commission from the Planning Commission, but it would absolutely proceed forward with the owner.
Mayor Amyx said in looking at the site plan with the arms length group of conditions, there was some fairly extensive improvements to the site and wondered if everyone understood the costs involved.
Krause said they understood. He said they had the numbers and there was no way around paying for bringing the house up to code and they were willing to pay that price.
Winter said living in the house and being able to provide private dining experience from the home where the Krause’s lived with their daughters and mother-in-law was an important lifestyle choice. He said it was not only characterized by how persistent the Krause’s had been working with the City Commission and neighborhood, but also the financial commitment they were making. He said it was a big deal and not a small thing from a financial standpoint.
Mayor Amyx called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Mayor Amyx said they had asked this applicant to go through a number of hoops and had setup additional language through the development code that would allow for such a dining experience to happen. He said by using the special use permit route it would allow this experience to happen in such a way that the ownership and operation were one in the same and if the owners were not running the operation, then it would need to go back through the process again. He said that was the only safeguard for that area. He said Planning Commission and Planning Staff had put forth much effort in making sure those safeguards were placed on the Special Use Permit so they would not allow something that was not expected in the future. He said he thought it was something he could support with the changes of the operations and ownership.
Commissioner Schauner said he had some concern with the changed language at the Planning Commission level which stated under 3(g): “No service of full meals may occur outdoors. Limited service of food and beverage accessory to the main meal service such as appetizers is allowed outdoors.” He said he was not enough of a restaurant person to know what that meant exactly. He asked staff if they had explored the difference in impact that proposed change would have on the surrounding neighbors.
Day said staff had not explored that language in a sense that was an action taken at the Planning Commission level. Staff initially explored, looking from a specific perspective, if it was appropriate to have outdoor activity when having a residential use immediately adjacent to whether it was owned or not by the applicant. She said it was the recommendation, in this particular instance, that would not be allowed. The overall text amendment did allow for that to be subject to the Commission’s discretion or action to allow it and they were still within that scope. The concern had always been the noise and activity and how it impacted the adjacent property. She said they thought the mitigation technique would be the addition of landscaping, landscape materials along the fence to help confine that sound.
Mayor Amyx asked if they were talking about the area the limited service of food and beverage would be allowed in the small court yard area.
Stogsdill said yes that was where it was allowed.
Mayor Amyx asked if the food and beverage consumption was specific to that area and no other place.
Day said the way the property was laid out with the improvements, was the entire area. There was a small opening between the garden room, which was a detached structure, and the garage and house there was a small area in there. She said there also the primary patio area and another small, lower patio area moving toward the front house. She said it was so physically constrained, that was essentially the area they would be talking about.
Commissioner Schauner said in looking at the site plan, the area that would be available for outdoor food and beverage would be that part of the property which immediately abuts the property to the south as well as the outdoor detached room. He asked if that was correct.
Stogsdill said yes. She said staff always expected activity to occur in the detached garden room which was an enclosed structure.
Commissioner Schauner said the difference was they did not recommend outdoor eating, dining activity in the abutting portion.
Stogsdill said in the open air patio area.
Commissioner Highberger said he lived in a mixed use neighborhood and was concerned with the serving of appetizers where people would gather and talk outside late at night. If the applicant was not going to be in control of the adjacent property, he would have a real concern and might not support that idea, but given the fact the applicant would be in control of the adjacent residence, he could live with the language, especially given the fact it was an SUP and the City Commission could revisit the SUP if there were any problems and hoped the mitigation of the facts would take care of that.
In general, he appreciated the Krause’s willingness to go through the process and thought what they were doing was going to be better for the community and neighborhood in the long run to have the SUP without changing the zoning. He said he appreciated the neighbors who had taken the time to go through all the means it took to get this SUP to where it was and hoped it could be an asset to the neighborhood. He said it was obviously a business that not everyone in the neighborhood was going to patronize, but thought the improvement of the structure would benefit the neighborhood. He said this was a nationally recognized business and brought a number of people to Lawrence and overexposes them to the beauties of East Lawrence and thought it would be a benefit for the community and neighborhood. He said he would support moving forward with the SUP.
Commissioner Rundle said it was a valid concern, but he placed himself in some private parties at residences just in the last 6 months and thought the level of noise was not going to be a concern and the City Commission could revisit the SUP if it became a major problem.
He said the comments made by the Mayor, concerning the planning process, were very good. He said he appreciated people’s patience and hoped that people watching and thinking it was overly cumbersome, recognized that any planning or land use decision had to balance the impact on adjacent properties as well as allow the use for the existing property. He said they should be thankful the City had this process to go through.
It was important to support this business because of the conversations they had as a City Commission regarding sales tax revenue and any time they could boost that revenue, he thought they seriously needed to support those proposals.
Vice Mayor Hack said this has been quite a long process and she appreciated everyone hanging in there along with the East Lawrence Neighborhood and the way they all had come together with staff. She said there were a very narrow definition of the use and the operation of this particular venue. She said she was excited for the Krause’s because the risks of going into business were huge and admired their courage and thought they would be very successful. She said she thought that it would benefit the East Lawrence Neighborhood, not to mention there was a company that would be designing new neighborhoods and a mixed use model and now there was an opportunity that was already in existence.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger , to approve the site plan (SUP-10-04-06) for Krause Dining, 917 Delaware, subject to the following revised conditions 3(k) only:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.
2. Completion of conditions of approval and release of a permit from the Historic Resources Administrator prior to the release of a site plan for the issuance of a building permit.
3. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following notes:
a. Service to no more than 30 guests per seating;
b. One seating per service day;
c. 5 service days in a standard 7-day week;
d. Service shall be provided to the general public by reservation only;
e. Drive-in and carry-out facilities are prohibited;
f. Private dining shall be an accessory use to an owner occupied principal residence.
g. No serving and consumption of any food and/or beverage may occur outdoors.
h. Activity shall conclude by 11:00 P.M. on weekdays and by 12:00 P.M. Friday and Saturday night.
i. Outside lighting associated with private dining events is extinguished by 11:00 P.M. on weekdays and by 12:00 Friday and Saturday night.
j. There shall be compliance with applicable building code requirements.
k. If the ownership or operation of the private dining facility changes in the future then a new Special Use Permit shall be required.
l. Property shall be inspected annually by City Staff for compliance with the Special Use Permit.
m. Owner/Operator shall submit an annual report prior to the scheduled yearly inspection stating they are the owner of record of the property and demonstrating compliance with the conditions of approval.
n. Note the Deed Book and Page reference of the executed off-street parking agreement on the face of the site plan.
4. Provision of a revised site plan to provide additional landscape material added along the existing fence per staff approval. Material may be a mixture of installed plants or containers to provide additional buffering.
5. Approval of a City liquor license if alcoholic beverages are proposed.
6. Execution and recording of an off-street parking agreement with the Register of Deeds Office to include parking on an approved site planned property.
7. Publication of an ordinance per section 20-1306 (j).
Motion carried unanimously. (21)
Consider adoption of Resolution No. 6697, establishing goals for coordination of certain long-range planning efforts in the City’s growth areas.
David Corliss, City Manager, said at the December 12th City Commission meeting, they received a draft resolution that allowed for improved coordination of a number of long range planning items that were underway. He said pursuant to City Commission direction on the 12th, he took that resolution along with Dan Warner in the Planning Department to the Mid-Month meeting of the Planning Commission and with the members in attendance, six members indicated their support for the resolution and thought that it was appropriate they try to coordinate efforts and provide additional language regarding annexation that was included in the draft resolution. He said subsequent to that meeting there had been a number of communications from interested members of the public and it was clear they needed to slow down the consideration of this resolution and talk with those members to make sure they understood the purpose.
He said it was unfortunate that some of the discussion was this was an attempt to have the resolution on par with the comprehensive plan. After 16 years of drafting ordinances and adopting the comprehensive plan, he knew that was not the case, but an element to try to coordinate all the different planning efforts so that if the City needed to amend the comprehensive plan, those elements would have some indication there was a coordinated ability to make sure that what they were doing in one area, such as long range transportation planning, was going to make sense with trying to design traditional neighborhoods. He said whether they were talking about utility installations into areas outside the community was also going to be available for future growth.
He said there were also comments they needed to discuss with the development community about annexation. He said very little of the annexation had occurred except at the decision of the City Commission. The Planning Commission provided as an advisory role not because it was statutorily required, but because the City made that decision for annexation for larger than 10 acres. Almost all the annexation requests had come before the City Commission and the Commission decided whether or not they wanted to pursue that annexation or not. He said they needed to have a discussion of that because it had been the intent of this City Commission that before the City annexed property, they know how the property was going to be serviced by City services and utilities, but also some indication on how it fit into the City’s long range planning efforts for land use was concerned because it was important to coordinate.
He said approximately 18 months back, the City received a request for annexation west of K-10. He said it was not from someone who was familiar with the development process or not one of the local developers. He said this City Commission indicated they felt the annexation request was premature and should not proceed. He said the City did not have a policy that there was a moratorium against annexation, but instead the Commission indicated they did not want to proceed with annexation west of K-10. He said he wanted to make sure this community would grew west of K-10, but also wanted to make sure the City had plans in place to grow that direction. He said it was essential the City coordinate all those different planning efforts to make sure that happened. He said what the City did with that property was to tell them to come back some day in the future. He said what he wanted was to have a coordinated plan so the City could tell property owners who wanted to have their property developed when the City would have all of those different elements in place.
He said he thought they needed to step back because there have been a number of comments and people have entertained those. He said he had received a flurry of e-mails that indicated it was a moratorium on growth and somehow taking annexation powers away form the county. He said the City needed to respond to those comments rather than proceed on. He said staff could respond to those comments tonight, but the last thing he wanted to do was create a sense staff was not listening to important members of this community and did not think it was accurate, but sometimes they had to wait for a conversation and thought they needed that conversation.
Mayor Amyx said most of the communication he received was that staff had taken this item to the Planning Commission on Wednesday morning and that it was a non-public type of hearing and most people did not have the opportunity to respond and ask questions. He said he wanted everyone to understand that he did not believe there was any type of moratorium. He said in looking at the City Commission goals and discussing annexation and how the County was going to be involved, he thought Corliss’ recommendation to step back was a good recommendation. He said they could either send it back or set up any type of education process. He said his personal feeling would be to send it to the entire Planning Commission so they had the opportunity to respond.
Corliss said he did not have control on how many Planning Commissioners would show up last week and he hoped all the Planning Commissioners would have participated. He said he would suggest conducting meetings with the people that indicated interest in this item. In the meantime, it probably would not go to the Planning Commission until March to make sure it had that opportunity for that level of discussion. He said he thought it was very important they coordinated those items and was concerned they would end up with a number of different studies that would not be implemented. He said the City was paying good money and spending a lot of resources, but most importantly, the community depended on good planning and the left hand needed to know what the right hand was doing.
Mayor Amyx asked if there was a feeling this item needed to be send back to staff or through the Planning Commission process.
Commissioner Schauner said he recommended that staff propose a process plan by which this was discussed with stakeholders and take it back to the Planning Commission and have a full hearing.
Vice Mayor Hack said she thought that would alleviate some of the angst this item had caused, but on the other hand plans had not been coordinated and the City had gotten into some serious problems and was what the City Manager and staff had been trying to not have happen. She said there was no ulterior motive other than being efficient and making sure things were done in the right order. She said they were headed in the right direction, but she did not object to a full public process.
Commissioner Schauner said he wanted Corliss to know that putting this off into a different process was not in any way an indication of the Commission’s lack of support about this item on the agenda. He said there was full City Commission support for moving forward and having an open discussion. He asked that Corliss not take moving this item off the agenda and putting the item in a different process was anything other than an interest in having a full play of discussion about the issue. He said they have been talking about how to coordinate plans for over a year.
Mayor Amyx said he thought that this was one of the items that people would buy into.
Commissioner Rundle said he thought it was fine to make sure that everyone was reassured about this item. He said planning effort needed to be taken seriously and followed. He said he was going to be an advocate for both process and for those planning guidelines. He said those goals did represent a lot of community effort and would want those goals to pay off by adhering to those goals. He said he noticed that Corliss had been out in the community initiating conversation and dialogue and soliciting input from a wide variety of groups and individuals so they could keep moving forward with stakeholder interests at heart and that no one was left out of the process in the community. He said they hoped that this extra time would alleviate concerns.
Commissioner Highberger said he appreciated bringing this item forward and thought that more time for more conversation would get more understanding and acceptance to buy into it.
Mayor Amyx said staff would be developing a process where everyone would be able to voice opinions and the trademark of the City Commission and staff was to make sure everyone had the opportunity to be heard on any item.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to defer considering Resolution No. 6697, establishing goals for coordination of certain long-range planning efforts in the City’s growth areas until such time as staff develops a process for additional public discussion on this topic. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
|
1/23/2007 |
· Implementation Report for Matrix Report Recommendations on Development Process · Staff Recommendation on the Reuse of Old Fire Station No. 2 (Mass. Street) and Old Fire Station No. 4 (Grover Barn / Lawrence Avenue). Staff is recommending that both facilities be kept in public use. · Continued Hearing on Neighborhood Revitalization Act
|
|
TBD
|
· Salvation Army Site Plan and Rezoning; · Retail Marketing Analysis Code provisions |
(23)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED _____________________________
Mike Amyx, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Purchase Easements - Yankee Tank Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project from Alvamar Inc. for $11,700 & N Tank LC for $15,000.
2. Purchase Aquamag K-5 - Kaw River Treatment Plant from Waterwise Enterprises for $18,049. .
3. Purchase Nalcolyte 8186 polymer - for Clinton Water Treatment Plant from Nalco Chemical Co. for $51,300.
4. Ordinance No. 8046- 1st Read, amend public offense of illegal camping
5. Ordinance No. 8060- 1st Read, establish office of City Auditor.
6. Ordinance No. 8072- 1st Read, 30-Minute Parking, N of 9th St. adjacent to 616 and 620 W. 9th & 846 Indiana.
7. Ordinance No. 8070/Resolution No. 07-06 - 2nd Read, joint City/Cnty revising Ch. 4 Growth Management in Horizon 2020.
8. Ordinance No. 8071/Resolution No. 07-07 - 2nd Read, joint City/Cnty revising Ch. 5 Residential Land Use in Horizon 2020.
9. Rezone- 759 Maple - IG to RS7.
10. Rezone- 769 Maple - IG to RS7.
11. Rezone- 775 Maple -IG to RS7.
12. Rezone- 785 Maple - IG to RS7.
13. Variance - Pear Tree Cottages, LLC, 3000 Harvone Way.
14. Settlement Agreements – KDOT & Westgate, Domino and Northland L.C.’s.
15. Quarterly Report - Lawrence Freenet.
16. 2007 Downtown Fire Sprinkler Incentive Program.
17. Mortgage Releases - Marsha Mace, 443 Ark. St. & Maria Butler, 2137 Naismith Dr.
18. City Manager’s Report.
19. Chamber of Commerce - future vision for community.
20. UPR Extension - Lawrence Community Shelter.
21. Site Plan – (SUP-10-04-06 ) Krause Dining, 917 Delaware.
22. Resolution No. 6697- Goals for long range planning in City growth areas.
23. Future Agenda Items.