April 17, 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 Hack presiding and members Amyx, Dever, and Highberger present.  Commissioner Chestnut was not present for the start of the meeting but arrived at approximately 6:50 p.m.

Mayor Hack asked for a moment of silence for the victims of the April 16^th shootings on the campus of Virginia Tech University. 

With Commission approval Mayor Hack proclaimed April 15 -21, 2007 as “National Volunteer Week” and “Green Power Community Week”; and, April 22 – 28, 2007 as National Crime Victims’ Rights Week.”

Commissioner Amyx pulled from the consent agenda for future discussion, the joint City Ordinance No. 8097, and County Resolution No.____, replacing Chapter Seven – Industrial and Employment Related Land Use, in Horizon 2020 with a revised Chapter 7 entitled “Chapter 7 – Industrial and Employment Related Land Use in Horizon 2020, CPA-2004-02-Edition”, and repealing the existing chapter.                                                                                               (1)

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Public Health Board meeting minutes of February 19, 2007; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of March 1, 2007; and the Board of Plumbers & Pipe Fitters meeting minutes of March 21, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously. 
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 452 vendors in the amount of $1,953,568.54 and payroll for April 1, 2007 to April 14, 2007 in the amount of $1,675,766.01.  Motion carried unanimously.     
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Social Suppers, 3514 Clinton Parkway.  Motion carried unanimously.   

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to set a bid date of May 8, 2007 for the 2007 Overlay and Curb Repair Program, Phase 1.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                       (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to approve the sale of surplus equipment from the Parks & Recreation Department, Police Department, and Fire/Medical Department on Gov. Deals.  Motion carried unanimously.             (3)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for two ¾ ton 4x4 crew cab pick-ups for the Fire/Medical Department.  The bids were:

BIDDER                                  BID AMOUNT           

                        Shawnee Mission Ford                                $45,016.00

                        Laird Noller Ford                                          $45,090.00

                        Roberts Auto Plaza                                      $51,194.00

                        Crown Chevrolet                                          $52,178.30

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Shawnee Mission Ford, in the amount of $45,016.  Motion carried unanimously.    

       (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to approve the annual software maintenance for geographic information systems (GIS) software for several departments to ESRI for $34,637.07.  Motion carried unanimously.                         (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to adopt Resolution No. 6715, authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $150,000 for Traffic Safety Renovations.  Motion carried unanimously.                                  (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to adopt Resolution No. 6716, authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $450,000 for the milling and overlay of Iowa Street, 6^th Street to Harvard, and Irving Hill Road (overpass) to 23^rd Street (Clinton Parkway).  This amount has been funded in the Capital Improvement Budget.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                         (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve a Special Use Permit (SUP-01-01-07) for Nextel Communications cellular tower, located at 2101 Wakarusa Drive, subject to the following conditions:

1.         Execution of a site plan performance agreement.

2.         Execution of a land lease agreement with the City of Lawrence, prior to the release of the site plan for issuance of a building permit.

3.         Completion of the independent review per City Code section 20-529 confirming that the applicant has met the Burden of Proof regarding co-location prior to consideration of the Special Use Permit by the City Commission.

4.         Provision of a revised site plan with the following changes:

a.         Book and Page number for recorded access/utility easement referenced on the plan

b.         Note added referencing applicant’s agreement with City to mount security camera equipment and communication equipment on the tower for the City facilities on the site.

c.         Note stating; “The tower must either have a galvanized finished or be painted gray or light blue per Section 20-529(2) (v) of the Development Code.”

d.         Note stating “The tower construction will comply with Section 20-529 of the City Code so that if a failure does occur, the tower will collapse into itself.”

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                          (8)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Preliminary Plat (PP-01-01-07) for 1^st Step Facility, located at 3015 West 31^st Street, subject to the following conditions:

1.         Revision of the plat to include the following:

a.         Provide a note on the preliminary plat noting that the outdoor picnic shelter, though not a part of this plat, may be used as a site amenity.

b.         Add a note on the preliminary plat that states “Outdoor picnic shelter shall not be modified, altered or expanded until the property it is located upon is platted in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations.  Only routine maintenance shall be permitted.”

2.         Record a document with the Register of Deeds, Book and Page Number noted on the preliminary plat, which grants use of the outdoor picnic shelter.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                          (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-01-02-07) a tract of land approximately 7.73 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) and UR (Urban Reserve) to RMO (Multi-Dwelling Residential-Office).  The property is located at 3015 West 31^st Street; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance, subject to the following condition:

Recordation of an approved final plat at the Register of Deeds.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                        (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to reverse action to vacate rights-of-way for reconsideration of the Final Plat (PF-08-28-05) for Stoneridge East, vacating the west half of street right-of-way for Winthrop Court as shown on the Final Plat of Stoneridge East.  Motion carried unanimously.                                            (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a text amendment (TA-11-13-06) to Chapter 20, Article 7, Subdivision Regulations to correct and clarify the proposed regulations.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                   (12)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-02-01-07) for Camson Villas, located at 430 Eisenhower Drive, subject to the following conditions:

1.         Approval of proposed setback reductions;

2.         Provision of a note on the face of the preliminary development plan stating that it is a single phase development and including projected timing for completion of the development;

3.         Revise sidewalk and provide ramp at a 90 degree angle at the corners of building F and G so that pedestrians are not directed into the parking lot;

4.         Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to show additional screening and landscaping along the east property line of the office building; and

5.         Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary Development Plan that states “No patio or balcony spaces shall be allowed in the peripheral setback area along the east side of the development.” 

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                       (13)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a License Agreement for the use of Right-of-Way with Matthew F. Gilhousen to allow for the continued use of an existing asphalt driveway that traverses the unimproved right-of-way of North 6^th Street extended south of Walnut Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                            (14)              As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to receive the annexation request for the remainder of City owned property acquired for the Pump Station 48 Project, approximately 40 acres, located north of Folks Road extended; and refer the request to the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission for recommendation.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                           (15)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for M. Allissa Long, 714 North Michigan Circle.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                          (16)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Downtown Lawrence Inc., 2006 Annual Report.  Motion carried unanimously.              (17)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to approve a request from the Special Alcohol Advisory Board to change the term expiration dates from April 30 to June 30.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                       (18)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to approve a request from Lawrence Skate Association to paint a mural at the skate park at 600 Rockledge Road, pending final review by the Parks and Recreation Department.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                       (19)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

David Corliss, City Manager, said in his report was a summary of proposed changes to the fixed-route “T” and paratransit “T lift” services and fare policy changes which would be before the City Commission on June 1^st.  Those changes were important for the fiscal stability of that program.

Also during the City Manager’s report, Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, introduced the new City Engineer, Shoeb Uddin.  He said Uddin came to Lawrence from a Topeka engineering firm to join the City’s Public Works Department.                                             (20)

Mayor Hack said she wanted to make sure everyone knew the City Commission meetings were business meetings and it was important the Commission was efficient with their time as well as citizen’s time.  She said the Commission would implement a time limit on public comment for Commission items, but consideration of the extension of that time would be considered.  She also suggested that written comments be submitted prior to the meeting because it gave the City Commission the opportunity to review that information and also avoided the necessity of speakers reading their statements.     

Staff surveyed twelve largest cities in Kansas and Lawrence was one of two cities that did not use any type of efficiency measures in conducting City Commission meetings. 

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Receive staff report on proposed water and wastewater capital improvement information.  

David Corliss, City Manager, presented the staff report.  He outlined the action items for the City Commission. Those action items were:

a)       Authorize distribution of Request for Qualifications for the Design/Build of the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility.

b)       Adopt Resolution No. 6617, authorizing $88,000,000 in water/wastewater improvements.  

c)       Award bid for Clinton WTP expansion project to CAS Construction for $13,979,000 and authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract agreement for the project.

d)       Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract for construction phase engineering services.

e)       Authorize the advertisement of a Request for Proposals for instrumentation and control services.

He said the instrumentation and control services would be conducted in-house by the City Utility Department personnel, but staff needed to acquire the instrumentation equipment and wanted to go through an RFP process to obtain that equipment.  

He said as he indicated in their study session format, those projects were some of the most important capital improvement projects this community would undertake.  This was a wastewater facility that would take the City initially to a 150,000 population as a community.  It was also a Clinton Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project that would allow the City to treat all of the water the City had a legal right to out of the Clinton Reservoir.  Those projects were substantial and were the infrastructure backbone to grow the community.        

He said the Commission might want to discuss the structure of the design build and whether or not they wanted to have one design build proposal for both the facility and the conveyance system or whether or not they wanted a separate design build for the facility and a design build for the conveyance system.  He said the conveyance system was the pipeline essentially from 31^st and Kasold, the Four Seasons Lift Station, to the south and a pump station that would be located east of 59 Highway taking the pipes to the Wakarusa Facility. 

Commissioner Chestnut said in going forward, he wanted some time on setting the rates.  In looking at the capital plan, it was five years long and there were a number of other projects.  He said a summary description was discussed especially in years 2009, 2010, and 2011 because that plan, in total, was driving the establishment of the rates.      

Corliss said since staff received the rate model from Black and Veatch, staff had the ability to change the inputs as projects moved forward.  He said they were making some significant commitments on the City’s ability to fund the Utility Department.  He said as staff launched the RFQ process, staff wanted the Commission to understand the rate impacts as well.  He said the primary change in the rates from the 2003 rate plan, was on the water side, not so much on the wastewater side.  He said it was slightly counterintuitive with the largest projects on the wastewater side, but the major change in the rates was likely to be on the water side.  He said that was not cast in stone yet and the Commission was not approving any ordinances for another five months, but staff wanted the Commission to know as they looked at projects to look at the financial consequences.

Mayor Hack said the rate information was the bad side of the progress made and suggested the Commission have a detailed conversation on how to spread that rate information out.   

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Amyx said when discussing the design build concept and dividing the facility versus the conveyance system, he asked if there was an advantage either way on how that design build worked.      

Corliss said from a project coordination standpoint, it was better to do it in one package, in a sense that staff could watch that package and make sure the decisions that were made at one end of the project, complemented the other decisions.  There was obviously a necessity in a design build scenario where staff was actively involved in any number of aspects of the project and there was value.  There was also value breaking up into different projects and also able to encourage additional participation from other projects. The actual cost of the construction of the wastewater facility precluded a number of engineering firms and contractors from participating.  It was complicated because the size of the facility mandated certain crew levels and financial capabilities.  One of the things the Commission had required was ensuring the proposal that he sent back to the City Commission to proceed with design build was going to demonstrate adequate local participation from both the engineering and construction sides.  The reality very well might be someone that was not local.  He said he could not guarantee if the project was broken up with conveyance RFQ or facility RFQ, the conveyance RFQ people were going to be any more local than likely seen with a facility RFQ.  He said he wanted the City Commission to have a strong feeling this process was appropriate.  He said during the study session, he had indicated there was a successful design bid build for the Clinton Water Treatment Plant.  Before they did that project at Clinton, they did a modified design build.  He said staff was comfortable in a number of different delivery systems and thought that from a construction cost standpoint, and staff’s familiarity with the project, on a delivery standpoint, design build made the most sense for the Wakarusa Facility.  He said it was a matter of judgment call on how the Commission wanted to structure those, but staff would do it either way.                           

Commissioner Amyx said he was convinced the design build was the best way for this project.  He said with this project being an 88 million dollar water reclamation facility, which would be the largest public improvement infrastructure project in the State of Kansas, he wanted to make sure, because those roads were going to be paid by local citizens, that those citizens knew that local contractors had the opportunity for those jobs and the majority of that money would stay in this community.

Mayor Hack concurred.

Commissioner Amyx asked how much contingency was built in the 88 million dollar figure.

Corliss said 20 percent, but it would not stay that high when moving toward refining the project.

Commissioner Amyx said when building that project, he asked who would be the team that headed negotiations on change orders for this contract.

Corliss said staff needed to establish an internal team they were in the process of hiring and it would be the City’s team to review those items which would then be placed on the City Commission’s agenda for final approval.  He said one thing staff wanted to avoid on the design build scenario was a change order where it could be diminished because most of the risk was allocated throughout the project.   

Commissioner Chestnut said effectively it could be avoided by having a “not to exceed” clause. 

Corliss said correct.

Commissioner Chestnut said essentially there would be changes in the scope, but it would be covered under that methodology. 

Corliss said correct.

Vice Mayor Dever said he wanted to maximize the capabilities of utilizing local labor and companies.  He said even thought it might seem more difficult for staff and consultants involved, he thought it would be important to break up that big project into bites that hopefully could be digested by companies locally and the bonding might be a huge issue if the project was not broken down into smaller bites.  Again, he said his focus would be to try and utilize local participation and using as strong language as possible because if left gray, it ended up being a contractual issue and he did not want to get into that after spending that much money.            

Corliss said it was his intent the City Commission would see how staff arrived with those firm’s that staff wanted to proceed with and when the City Commission saw the guaranteed maximum price, the Commission would see the local participation as well so the Commission understood whether or not they were meeting that guideline.  He said there were no residency requirements for contractors. Therefore, it was difficult to know to what extent was local, but he understood the Commission wanted to maximize local participation and staff would meet or exceed that participation or it would not be approved.        

Commissioner Highberger said he would second Commissioners Dever and Amyx’s support for local participation as much as possible.  He said the City was getting ready to spend a large amount of money to accommodate growth and thought they needed to move forward.  He said allocating cost needed to be done as fairly as possible as they discussed the budget.  He said as they looked at rates, they needed to change the rate structure for water from a declining rate to a flat rate and do everything to encourage conservation.  He said he did not want to guarantee an increased rate structure for water, but they could deal with that at another session.

Mayor Hack asked if Commissioner Highberger had a preference on splitting up the design build or keeping the design build together.

Commissioner Highberger said he thought staff had recommended keeping the design build together.  He said he shared the concerns of Commissioner Amyx about the local participation.  He said it seemed logical that it might create more opportunities for local participation so he could support that.

Commissioner Chestnut said from a process standpoint, he was trying to understand what the City Commission was acting on as far as design build and if they were moving forward with the opportunity to look at splitting the design build and if that was a decision that needed to be made now. 

Corliss said it would be better for the City Commission to make that decision now because staff wanted to send out the RFQ based on the scope of the project.  He said the City Commission was not committed to that decision and all the Commission was giving staff was authority to send out that RFQ.  He said if the Commission wanted to split the design build, now was the time for that forecast.  He said staff needed to give as much definitiveness to the entities that were going to respond to the RFQ.  He said staff needed to work on how they were going to manage design build project.   He said the conveyance system, a 25 million dollar project, would be one of the most expensive capital improvement projects this community had undertaken.  He said if the City Commission wanted to separate the design build, it would be best to advise staff now.  Staff saw the value of a coordination side making sure it all worked together, but if the Commission wanted staff to balance that against the value of increased local participation, which was something staff was not ignoring, then the Commission could give direction and staff would make it happen.         

Mayor Hack asked if they would be making a mistake by separating the two.

Corliss said no.  He said it was a matter of judgment.  If the Commission wanted the design build, it would not be a mistake, but would probably add cost and might add certainty that seventy million dollars was the appropriate cost and in the design build was a judgment call and not the fair market determination.  He said it was a judgment on delivery systems.  He said other staff members felt strongly that design build was a superior method.  He said what would be a mistake was if they did not move forward on this project and they still had an expectation they were going to meet some of the community’s growth expectations.  He said if they did not get this operational within the timeframe the City’s Master Plan had stated, there would be consequences for this City to grow in certain areas.  The community needed to understand that and staff was committed toward meeting or beating the deadlines.  Design build, in his mind, gave the City a superior product and helped on construction cost.  They would not have the engineer/contractor friction, change orders, and in some cases the inferior product that could result from that.  He said they could also go with the other method and get a good product as well.  He said staff was committed toward making either of those delivery systems work.

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Dever, to authorize distribution of a Request for Qualifications for the Design/Build of the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility and direct staff to split out the Design/Build projects for the plant and conveyance systems separately.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                           (21)

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt Resolution No. 6617, authorizing $88,000,000 in water/wastewater improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                       (22)

Commissioner Amyx asked about the instrumentation and control services and if that was an “add-on item” or a “must be done item” to make sure that both facilities worked together.

 Corliss said this was a “must item” because it was the controls that made the facility work.  He said this was even a different delivery system for getting the instrumentation in the facility.  He said staff was doing the work on the instrumentation and control, which was not typical, in the facility, but the City needed to buy the equipment that would be delivered and this was an RFP to send out.

Dave Wagner, Director of Utilities, said the RFP specifically was for design help services for the programming portion, the actual $500,000 encompassed a lot of the equipment that went along with the instrumentation and controls.  There were some variable frequency drives that drove the motors that were in the original specification, but decided to procure on their own as well as all of the subcomponents, panels, and relays that went into that $500,000.  The $400,000 was parts that were in the original specification.            

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Chestnut, to award the bid for Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project to CAS Construction for $13,979,000 and authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract agreement for the project.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                   (23)

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract for construction phase engineering services.  Motion carried unanimously.         

    (24)

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize the advertisement of a Request for Proposals for instrumentation and control services.  Motion carried unanimously.

     (25)

Consider request from Recycling & Resource Conservation Advisory Board to change its name to Sustainability Advisory Board and to adopt new bylaws. 

Daniel Poull, Chair, Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board (RRCAB), presented the request.  He said he assumed the City Commission looked over the bylaw changes and the name change.  He said their board wanted to increase their scope to include more environmental issues.

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Mayor Hack said it seemed appropriate to move forward with the board’s request.  She said this was an opportunity to have the name of the advisory board reflect their good work.  

Commissioner Highberger said this was long overdue.  He said he was especially supportive of the broadened mandate for the group to take a broad look at all aspects of environmental preservation and conservation and help keep the City on its toes in becoming a green city.     

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8101, amending the name and mission of the Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                           (26)

Lawrence Community Shelter land use items:  

a) Consider Planning Commission recommendation to approve, subject to conditions, SUP-01-02-07, a Special Use Permit for the Lawrence Community Shelter, located at 944 Kentucky Street. 

b) Conduct public hearing regarding the structure located at 944 Kentucky Street and make a determination based on a consideration of all relevant factors that there is/is not a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed conditions of approval for the Special Use Permit for the Lawrence Community Shelter.  The Historic Resources Commission approved (HRC Item 8; approved 3-2 on 2/15/07) the item, but the property owner is appealing a condition of approval (DR-01-06-07). 

Mayor Hack called a public hearing regarding the structure located at 944 Kentucky Street to make a determination based on a consideration of all relevant factors that there is/is not a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed conditions of approval for the Special Use Permit for the Lawrence Community Shelter.

Lisa Pool, Planner, presented the staff report on the Special Use Permit for the Lawrence Community Shelter located at 944 Kentucky Street.  She said the property was zoned RMD (Multi-Dwelling Residential Office District).  She said some of the associated cases related to the Lawrence Community Shelter were:

●          UPR-09-06-05: A request to extend the Use Permitted upon Review for the Lawrence Community Shelter. [The City Commission approved the UPR for one year on March 7, 2006, subject to conditions.]

●          On January 16, 2007, the City Commission voted to extend UPR-09-06-05 to April 17, 2007 to allow for Planning Commission consideration of the new LCS Special Use Permit extension request in March 2007 with City Commission consideration of the Planning Commission’s recommendation on April 17, 2007.

●          On February 15, 2007, the Historic Resources Commission approved the LCS Special Use Permit (DR-01-06-07), subject to conditions.

She said site plans were required with the SUP applications and the only thing that would change on the site plan was to update the plan based on the City Commission’s determinations.

She said a summary of the subject SUP was as follows:

·           During 2006, the shelter served 15,202 guests during the daytime and 7,526 guests overnight. 376 separate individuals were served from July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006.

·           In 2006, 21 people found jobs, 27 people moved into housing, and 11 people entered a detoxification or rehabilitation facility.

She said the applicant was requesting a 5 year approval of the SUP and staff had recommended a one year approval, no site plan changes were requested, and a police report was included in the City Commission’s packet which indicated an increase in police calls in cases over the past 4 years.

She informed the City Commission of the conditions of approval for the SUP which were revised for the Planning Commission.   

She said a protest petition was filed with the City Clerk’s Office within 14 days of the public hearing.  She said 12.8% of property owners within the 200-foot notification area had submitted petitions, but after further review it was actually 18.17% based on re-verification of the petition.  Petitions were only valid when at least 20% of the property within the 200-foot notification area had signed petitions. 

If the Commission chose a one year approval or any of the conditions were revised, the ordinance would be brought back to the City Commission at a later meeting. 

Lynne Braddock Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, said she was present for the appeal of the 944 Kentucky Street HRC review.  This determination by the HRC for the Special Use Permit was a bit different than determinations made in the past.   The HRC did approve the SUP with an associated site plan, but one of the conditions for that approval was the removal of a canopy and fence and the applicant was appealing that determination for that condition. 

She said the 944 Kentucky structure was listed as a non-contributing structure to the Oread Historic District which was listed on the Historic Register of Kansas Places and was pending National Register listing.  The structure was also in the environs of several properties listed on the National Register.     

The HRC reviewed property for State law review and the City of Lawrence had an agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office to conduct State law reviews on the local level and the HRC was the body that did those reviews.   She said for those reviews for properties listed on the National or Kansas Register, the HRC must use the Secretary of Interior Standards for that review.

The HRC did approve DR-01-06-07 with the conditions that were listed in the staff report and the applicant was appealing the determination because of the removal request for the carport and the fence.

Per K.S.A. 75-2724, the City Commission must hold a public hearing and determine if there was a feasible and prudent alternative to the project.  If no feasible and prudent alternative was available, the City Commission must determine if all possible planning had been done to minimize harm to the listed properties.

The City Commission looked at this appeal with separate standards than the HRC looked at the review process.  The HRC looked at whether or not a project damaged or encroached upon a listed property. The City Commission had more leeway with their determination because the City Commission could determine whether or not it was feasible and prudent and they could also look at economic factors as well as whether or not it encroached upon the listed property.

The HRC recommendation was to approve the SUP, but remove the non-compliant carport and the fence.  Planning staff and the Historic Resource Administrator recommended the HRC findings stand and the carport and fence be removed.  If the applicant wanted some type of shelter, they suggested the applicant go through the process and find something that was compatible with the historic district.      

Commissioner Amyx asked if a feasible and prudent alternative existed if the applicant took down the carport and fence.

Zollner said that would be a feasible and prudent alternative and another feasible and prudent alternative would be to construct a shelter that was of compatible material with the district.     

Mayor Hack said Pool indicated that Planning Staff recommended a one year SUP.  The applicant wanted a five year SUP and the Planning Commission split the difference and ended up with a 3 year SUP which was depicted in Ordinance No. 8100. 

Pool said yes.  She said she listed the three year and one year SUP for the City Commission.   

Mayor Hack said regarding the one year SUP, Ordinance 8099, if the City Commission decided to approve that ordinance, she asked how the approval could be done.

Corliss said if it was not substantially different from the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Commission could approve the ordinance by a simple majority vote, 3 votes.  He said the City Commission could also send the ordinance back by 3 votes or overrule the Planning Commission recommendation of the 3 year SUP with the conditions that were set out by a supermajority vote which was 4 or more Commissioners. He said if there was a majority of the City Commission that wanted a one year SUP, if there was not a supermajority, the City Commission could send it back to the Planning Commission with 3 votes.

Loring Henderson, Director of the Lawrence Community Shelter, said he was present to ask for City Commission approval of the Special Use Permit as it was approved and forwarded by the Planning Commission.  He said homelessness was a complicated issue and the Shelter had done a lot in the recent years, to begin to deal with this problem.  He said the need for immediate emergency shelter had been roughly met for individuals and the Shelter would be coming to the City Commission later in June from the Community Commission on Homelessness and their proposals for other phases of dealing with transitional housing and supportive housing.  Without the higher level of services, the Shelter was re-institutionalizing people who were released from hospitals and were on the street and there was no place for those people to go besides the shelter.  At the Lawrence Community Shelter, they dealt mainly with current homeless folks and with individuals who were frequently mentally ill or addicted to drugs or alcohol.

In the past year, LCS had met the conditions of the UPR.  They developed the good neighbor agreement and currently had 45 signatures which was a work in progress and more signatures were coming in.  He said the agreement was done in collaboration with the Community Cooperation Community, a subsidiary of the Community Commission on Homelessness.  In addition, the Shelter developed a small postcard that was being delivered to downtown businesses along Massachusetts or the central business district.  Again, he said this agreement was done in cooperation with the Community Cooperation Committee and some discussions with representatives of Downtown Lawrence, Inc.  He said the idea was the post card had phone numbers on it, including his cell phone, and he was available if there was a situation which was the focus of the Good Neighbor Agreement, as well, to promote communication so if there was an incident, they could call him and not wait for a lot later time to come before the City Commission to say something when he did not have specifics.  He said that was what they were working for in their outreach efforts in various ways. 

He said the police logs and hazard logs were kept and continued to be kept.  He said it was important to note the day calls were up about the same percentage and volume with the number of people coming to the Drop-In Center after the Salvation Army closed during the daytime.  He said the number and percentage of night calls was down.  He said dealing with police calls was certainly sensitive and involved a lot of fears on the part of individuals in the community at large, but it was important to note that people experiencing homelessness wanted everything everyone else in the community wanted which was safety and a sense of community.  He said this was an issue that worked and affected homeless people very much.

He said he made an evaluation of staffing levels which was asked as a condition of the UPR last year.  Therefore, he developed a job description and hired a person he called an outside monitor.  That person was not someone who was bluntly a security guard, but someone who would be working outside and around the building given the situation with complex personalities the Shelter was faced with at that location. 

He was also asked to develop a monitoring list of how to keep the shelter safe and suggestions for community fundraising.  He said fundraising was a delicate area and anything the Shelter did was going to be private as well as public and were not looking to any single source. 

He said in the last 8 months the Shelter had dealt with 442 separate signed in individuals at the Drop-In Center and the community outreach workers funded by the City through Bert Nash about the same period of time, one month longer, dealt with 555 individuals.  He said those numbers gave the size that was fairly consistent with the survey done in January and issued and was a fairly good count of families as well as individuals. 

He said the future of where the Shelter was going was a continuation and expansion of the current programs, case management jobs, collaboration with outside agencies and alcohol and drug intervention.  He said the Shelter had continued partnerships with a list of agencies included in the materials the Commission received.  LCS was going to be an organization meeting multiple demands with limited resources and was both a shelter and drop in center. 

He said when a guest arrived, goals were set, a case worker was assigned, and the Shelter had actions and consequences which guests were given a copy of rights and responsibilities which needed the guest’s signature.  He said in entering the program, the idea was to get the guest out of the shelter.  He said an important part of the Shelter’s plan was the employment and job area in which they did three things.

1. The Joseph Project (dog biscuit project), was to develop small entrepreneurial projects and had 5 part-time people working, but the goal was to employ 10 people on that project.

2. Back to Work Program which was job coaching in which someone was taken individually from start to finish and worked with even after that person got a new job. 

3. Tour de Workforce which there were resources in Lawrence for employment assistance, job searches, but was underutilized by many people.  He said a group met at the Shelter and a Professor from KU would take people on the bus to the Workforce Center and go through all the materials and resources.   The Tour de Workforce was a new project, but complimented the Joseph Project and the Back to Work Program.  

Finally, he discussed the building search which was on a lot of people’s minds.  He said he never said the shelter should stay at that location because it was not handicap accessible, the building was too small, inconvenient in many ways physically, and adjacent to a neighborhood that was difficult.  He said he could not deny the obvious that any shelter for homeless people was going to put stress on a neighborhood.  It was difficult in Lawrence to find the other side of the tracks area where there might be empty warehouses or something of that sort that would be amenable to be converted.  He said maybe one suggestion would be for the City to say to a neighborhood if they took a shelter, they would give them X.  He said the Shelter had been looking at buildings and came to the former Commission with a proposal to look into the Lakeview Nursing Home and had looked at other properties since then and it was a continuing thing.  He said that was why the three year term was so important to him.  He said he was the only one, in one part of the work that was done at the shelter and it did not seem like it, but it was work load that kept him from meetings with donors.  He said it might seem counter intuitive somehow if the City Commission gave the Shelter three years, but it was giving the Shelter time to work with their own committee with neighborhoods, donors and other sources for creative financing.  He said that was why they were asking for three years. 

He said as far as the carport, what the Shelter called an awning, the idea was the awning was put there at the urging of the neighborhood, to draw people from the front of the Shelter to the back.  The Oread Neighborhood Association helped them to pay for that awning.  He said it was a cost effective measure and cost slightly less than $1,000 to put up and install.  He said the awning had worked and people did sit under that awning because it kept those people out of the rain and drew people from the front, but not totally.  He said the front was also used back and forth to LINK four days a week and was used in the wintertime when it was very cold because it was a south porch and had sun.  He said their shelter was a temporary shelter and when the shelter moved, they would take the awning down. He said at this time it was not feasible for Shelter to rebuild or reinstall something else if the carport structure came down, there would not be a replacement. 

He requested approval of the SUP as it was recommended by the Planning Commission. 

Peter Zacharias, Downtown merchant, owner of a house in the area, spoke against the three year SUP approval.   He said their neighborhood had a long relationship with the homeless in downtown which started innocently enough with one little agency being placed, and now there were over 40 agencies.  He said over the last 5, 6, 7 years the homeless population, in the downtown area, had gone from 100 to now 400 or 500.  He said it was not the right place for all of this activity.  He said there were hundreds of police calls to the Shelter and he had a house at 10^th and Ohio and had 6 incidents where homeless people followed other people to their home or apartment and accosted those people.  He said there was even a young mother who was scared away as a tenant with her baby.  He said to say it was a great relationship with the neighborhood was not true.  He said most of the people the Shelter served needed help and were down on their luck, but there was a significant number that were mentally ill, drug addicted and were either at the homeless shelter or at large downtown day and night.  He said it was his neighborhood and wanted to be able to live in his neighborhood with some safety, comfort, and with the knowledge they could go anywhere day and night all the time.  He urged that the City Commission grant a one year permit and that they urgently and quickly find a new location.  He said it was the wrong place for this number of people to be served in this way. 

Henderson said in support of what the last speaker stated, the Shelter needed to get out of that location, but it would take more than a year, no matter how aggressive the Shelter would be.  Van Go Mobile Arts did a groundbreaking this week for their expansion and renovation and it took Van Go a year and a half to raise the money.  Salvation Army had been raising money for some time and there were other considerations there, but it would take more than a year. 

Tracy Fields spoke in support of the three year SUP.  He said he lived in Lawrence for only a year.  He said he came to Lawrence in very terrible health with gout.  He said the first thing he did was check into the Salvation Army and then went to the Drop In Center where he received help to get the medication he needed to control his gout.  He said that enabled him to keep other things in line as far as his priorities as to what he needed to do.  He said through the Drop in Center, he became involved in the Change of Heart which was a newsletter which was a newsletter where he contributed through writing and in his art work which was another fashion to make money.  He said he was going to be involved with the project at the Lawrence Community Shelter.  He said if it was not for the Drop in Center where he received the medication he needed at the time he would not know where he would be today.  He said he appreciated the good help from all volunteers and Henderson who was compassionate and a tremendous asset to this community and hoped his speech would give the Shelter the three years they deserved. 

Phil Hemphill, Lawrence, said Henderson used the words a “sense of safety” and a “sense of community” which struck a note.  He said they had been trying as a neighborhood, for years now, to get the Shelter to respect the neighborhood by instituting some rules of behavior that would give their neighborhood that sense of safety and community.  He said the new plan the Shelter was adopting and supported by 85 signatures, did not do anything to address the behavioral problems existing in their neighborhood.  He said if he started tomorrow, he could come up with twice that number of signatures on paper.  He said their neighborhood saw the problems every day with things like trespassing and defecation.  He said the neighborhood problems were addressed after the fact.  He would grant when he had a problem, Henderson addressed the problem, but it was always after the fact.   The Shelter would not institute any rules of behavior, any measures the neighbors could use to stop the behavior.  It was a problem when dealing with the type of individuals that did need help and so on, but there had to be some measures that could be taken to address those problems before the fact.  He said he did not want to see an extension of three years and continue to have everything of being after the fact.  He said he would suggest a maximum of a one year extension and would sincerely respectfully ask that it be irrevocable and that this was the last time.  Unless the Shelter would readdress the concerns of the neighborhood, then that extension was it.

Kent Hayes, friend of the Lawrence Community Shelter, said he had been a homeless outreach specialist for Bert Nash and retired from Menninger Foundation.  He said after he retired and took the job as a homeless outreach specialist, he thought he had understood the needs of this community and thought he understood the issues and problems people had in this community.  He said he was truly educated when he started working with the Shelter and the Salvation Army.  He said one of the things he discovered was the Lawrence Community Shelter, with its dedicated staff and volunteers, did a terrific job with many issues walking in their door, day in and day out.  Many of the people who were creating the problems in the community that were just described were what the mental health system described as SPMI, Serious Persistent Mentally Ill people that were not getting help because they did not go for help.  He said Henderson and his staff and volunteers did an amazing job keeping those people occupied and in many cases taking them to different programs and getting them involved in programs that without the Shelter they would not get involved in.  It was one of the most amazing programs he had ever been connected with and would sincerely recommend the City Commission give them the SUP for three years.  He said he knew for a fact the Shelter was looking very hard for another location and a location that would begin to do the things they needed to do. 

Judy Sweets, Lawrence, said she became involved with the homeless community largely because her son was the editor of the Change of Heart publication.  She said she had gotten to know a few of the homeless people and felt what they were doing down at the Shelter was just wonderful.  She knew there had been a lot of frustrations in the neighborhood, but the Shelter had case managers who were trying to get case services to the homeless people.  The main problem in Lawrence was people were not educated enough about what it was to be homeless and how the homeless were the most vulnerable citizens who had mental illness, some were veterans, and an increasing number of families with little children.  She said housing and shelter for the most vulnerable citizens should be one of the top priorities. 

She said the Change of Heart publication was distributed on the streets of Lawrence for a donation of $1.00, and the homeless people kept 75 cents out of that dollar which meant a lot to the homeless in earning that money and the self esteem that came from earning that money was phenomenal. 

She said the entire community needed to pull together like they did for Habitat for Humanity and build a basic structure where people could have privacy and dignity and even have jobs on the site, such as learning how to cook or making a garden.  She said she wanted to commend Henderson, his staff and the volunteers that put so much time into what they had right now and asked the City Commission to approve the extension for three years. 

Sharilyn Wells said the City needed to help the Shelter find a solution otherwise the mentally ill with substance abuse problems and sometimes retarded people would be lying in the street and it was not tolerable. She said alternatives should be developed so the homeless could have permanent housing.

Herman Leon, Vice President of LINK, said this issue had been going on for a number of years.  He said the real issue which had been faced over the years, was the management of social pain.  He said what they were dealing with was not the problem of the homeless shelter, but a problem in this community with a population and many of whom had fallen through the cracks.  He said if there were no shelter, those people would be roaming around, conditions would worsen, and frankly a certain amount of spirit in the town of Lawrence that let people brag this was a special kind of town.  He said LINK represented about 45 different churches, synagogue organizations, youth groups from Lawrence and out of town, and for those unique people, LINK cooked food in their own homes and felt it was a service to offer a homemade lunch to LINK’s guests.

He said he would like the City to build Hemphill a nice fence around his property in order to alleviate trespassing, but Hemphill said a fence would get in the way.  He said there had to be some way to mitigate the pain of the community.  He said it was difficult, at times, to walk into the Drop in Center, but he recommended it.  He said those people wanted peace, safety and security and could not imagine what would happen if there were no such institution. 

Dustin Allen, LCS Volunteer and staff member, said he wanted to point out that he had never seen such a caring group of people that worked for the Shelter.  He said it was a very difficult population to work with and there were a lot of things that were not understood about the homeless.  He said it had been interesting in his classes to hear ideas in dealing with the issues of homelessness and the fact that Henderson was implementing those ideas from his textbooks.  He said Henderson was a great individual and the Shelter was performing something that no one else could do at this time and it was a tough issue.  He said there was not a set in stone way deal with homelessness, but thought the Shelter was doing the best job as possible.

Don Huggins, President of the LCS Board of Directors, said he wanted to discuss the police activity report.  He said what caught his eye in the report was an increase in calls between 2005 and 2006, but what was really seen was calls went down at the Shelter, and up at the Drop in Center.  He said he wanted to look at why they were experiencing a dramatic increase in the amount of daytime calls and cases.  He said Henderson already mentioned they were dealing with an increase in the homeless population that was served, in part due to Salvation Army closing their daytime services and also it might be an artifact of the kinds of services that were offered which attracted people that wanted to get some kind of help from the City.  He said when looking at the first set of graphs, which were the calls and the cases, he was a little bit taken back there was a 60% increase over last year.  He said there was about a 15% increase with the number of people that they served between 2005 and 2006.  He said estimated through their own logs was about 33% of those police calls were non clients, people who showed up and used the facility as a Drop in Center.  He said all his information was off the Lawrence Police Department internet site, so the information was available to anyone who wanted to go look at it. 

He said there were three primary groupings of the uniform criminal reporting classes, which was a fairly set kind of structure in terms of what constituted larceny and burglary with or without a weapon.  He said there was a category of administrative calls which was someone following up on a call, report writing, and the normal police administration thing that happened on property.  Another group was the criminal type of cases were fights, battery, theft and then finally, the public service, which was medical aid, traffic violations, welfare checks, that kind of thing.  He said when looking at 2005 and 2006, there was really no change in that breakdown.  There was a minimal increase of criminal calls, about 1%, which was not much.  There was a small decrease in the administrative calls and activities on the property.  He said the greatest increase was public service.  He said it was a fairly stable breakdown. 

He said he thought it would be unfair to look at their statistics unless putting it in front of them in a much larger perspective.  He said LCS was embedded in a number of neighborhoods and embedded in the City of Lawrence.  He said he went to the same data source and looked at the percent change from 2005 to 2006.  He said he picked a number of areas off of the Lawrence Police Department website, and that neighborhood map did not necessarily follow neighborhood organizational maps, voting breakdown maps, but worked for the police in how the police wanted to report out and tracking increases and decreases. 

He said he wanted to look across and see how the increase at the Lawrence Community Shelter compared to different areas.  He picked Lawrence and looked at the overall statistic for Lawrence, because that was where he shopped, looked at Pinckney because that was where he lived, looked at East Lawrence because that was where he wanted to buy a house, and looked at LCS because that was where he volunteered.  He said in looking at the bar graphs, there were up to two fold differences in the rate of increase in police cases depending on how the neighborhood units were looked at.  He said Lawrence overall had about a 33% increase in the Uniform Criminal Reporting Units.  He said he thought the Shelter reflected the general upswing of crime across Lawrence.  The Lawrence Community Shelter was included in the downtown unit the police reported on.  He said that downtown percent increase was about twice what the reported increase was for Lawrence.  He said if they looked at the number of increased cases from 2005 to 2006, there were about 22 additional cases, downtown Lawrence had 363, which made up of about 6% to that increase in the downtown area increases. 

He said lastly they wanted to be a good neighbor and wanted to look again at the percent changes between 2005 and 2006 with their neighborhood units.  He said he could not break them down any smaller than what the police reported.  He said they had about a 29% increase in the number of cases in the report, an increase in downtown was 54%, 6% of what they contributed to that overall increase.  The Oread Neighborhood had a 2% increase in crime and from 6^th Street to 9^th Street showed a very high increase, which could be because there was a mixture of residential, commercial and public buildings in that area.  He said a neighborhood to the south and west and encroached upon campus had a 15% increase.  He said his point was it did not appear to him exactly how much Lawrence Community Shelter had contributed to the rise in crime in the neighborhood, but certainly a number of the neighborhoods were well below the Lawrence average of the 33% increase and again the increase downtown was about 54%, if all 20 of their cases were a part of that 363, it was still only 6%.  He said his point was that LCS did not probably have the overall impact on crime that might be suggested by some of the other people in the room.  He said he tried to do analysis as scientifically and unbiased as he could and give what he saw as facts into that report.

David Lewis, Downtown business owner, spoke in support of the LCS and urged the Commission to approve the three year SUP.  He said he was a downtown business owner and lived about a block away from the Salvation Army so he had a little bit of experience of living and working around the homeless.  He said 10 years ago, the situation was worse because there were a lot of homeless people sleeping on roofs and other different places and in that respect, things had really improved.  He said he was a supporter of the shelter and it was difficult work.  He said like Henderson said, it was not an ideal location, but the City needed to support the Shelter.  He said the Shelter needed space and it was time for them to come off of probation.  He said the people who work at the Shelter were dedicated and as a business owner, he supported the LCS for the three year SUP. 

Brandy Sutton encouraged the Commission to give the LCS a one year Special Use Permit.  She said she did not think anyone was there to discount what LCS did because she thought the Shelter’s intent was good, but they were discussing a special use permit and the key word being “special.”  She asked if LCS was providing a benefit to which this neighborhood should be burdened with.  She said she was driving by the LCS and there was a group of people in the alley way and two police officers, and that was the picture she saw every day.  She said the statistics could be played with any way they wanted, but 944 Kentucky was one address that had 6% of the total calls for downtown Lawrence which was atrocious.  She said when they were before the Commission last year, they could play a video and people would have pretty much the same comments.  She said the shelter needed to do something to get the situation under control and to have some sort of actions and consequences.  She said she knew Henderson said they had actions and consequences, but when she reviewed the call logs, the police logs that LCS kept, there was no way to tell if the people were suspended from the LCS facilities, were they banned from the property and there was no way of tracking or telling this.  She said she knew the Shelter wanted a three year review, but if that was done there was no mechanism for which this could be brought back up to the City Commission by the neighbors or other concerns, it had to be brought through either the planning staff to the City Commission to go ahead and go back through a review process.  She said the annual reports that were required by a three year extension were meaningless and was just more paperwork.  She said they had to put some type of accountability and structure in this.  She said right now LCS worked on an output based model and they needed to work toward an outcome based model.  She said those people need to be making progress and needed help.  She said they could only help those who wanted to be helped and could only help those who wanted to help themselves.  There was a certain percentage that wanted to use drugs and alcohol.  She knew she called almost weekly the police department for people using drugs between her building and the Trinity Church.  She said it was a regular site to see someone over there shooting up or smoking illegal drugs.  She said she saw the same group of people there every day, but she did not know what those people were doing, but they were hanging in the alleyway.  She said one of the issues addressed last year was the Shelter was to use their best efforts to control those type of extraneous effects and keep people on the LCS property, that was the whole purpose of putting that structure in the back was to encourage people to stay on the property and stop hanging out in the alleys and blocking the alleyways.  She said she had not seen a change and saw the same number of people hanging out in the alleyway as a year ago.  She said something needed to be done to move forward and give the neighbors some type of impetuous to want LCS as a neighbor.  They knew that LCS did not have adequate facilities, but honestly who would want them in their neighborhood if they could not be a good neighbor in the facility the Shelter was at now. 

She said they looked at the cost to taxpayers and building a new shelter would be expensive, it was a tax on the citizens.  She said they were already being taxed by the number of police calls to that location.  She said every time a patrol car was over at the Shelter dealing with situations at the LCS that was one less officer this City had on its streets dealing with the population at large.  She asked the City Commission to only grant the Shelter a one year renewal and ask the Shelter to become accountable as neighbor’s and take action to curb the effects on the surrounding neighborhood and move toward an outcome based model so the Shelter could find a facility to expand into and a neighborhood to which the Shelter would be welcomed.

Marilyn Roy, spoke in support of the LCS and staff and urged the approval of the SUP for as long as possible.  She said she was listening to every thing that had been discussed and only came down to support Henderson and the LCS staff and to plead with the City Commission to give the Shelter an extension on their special use permit.  She said she wholeheartedly backed Sweet comments.

She said secondly she applauded Herman for talking about management of social pain because that was the problem.  She said it made her angry to hear so much judgment and if a person had never been homeless that person could not know what it was really like.  She said the reason why they had so many people bursting from the seams of the current Shelter was because enough was not being done.  She said if really wanting to commit to solving the problem, the community needed to come together, establish a community trust, build the building, provide the facilities, and get all those folks help.  The reason why people shoot up drugs in the alley was because Lawrence did not have a drug rehabilitation center and did not have a good place at the local hospital for people with those types of problems to go.  She said DCCCA was great, but that center was too far away. 

She said there were more than 400 or more homeless people in this community and the Shelter’s staff took care of approximately 60 people a day which was 1/6 of the homeless population.  She said the people doing the work were doing the best they could with what they had and the thing they kept dancing around was money to build this building and help the folks.  She said she thought the business community could come together with the City because if the business community wanted to help the homeless get off the street, then a community fund should be established so the building could be built and help the homeless out. 

Scott Shreders said he was present on behalf of Loring Henderson, the Lawrence Community Shelter, and numerous homeless individuals in the City.  He said in his completion of Eagle Scout’s, two years ago, he worked with the Lawrence Community Shelter building benches and painting parts of the building’s exterior.  Beyond getting his award from working at the Shelter, he gained many invaluable life experiences and met many wonderful people.  He said he learned the City’s homeless population comprised some of the most upbeat, caring and appreciative individuals one might find and additionally he met Loring Henderson.  He said Henderson was a compassionate man who worked exceptionally hard to help those in the society who were in most need of help.  Most of all, he learned the homeless population found it exceptionally hard to live and eventually get back on their feet without numerous hours of aid and volunteer work the many volunteers and Henderson put in at the Shelter.  He said he was strongly in favor of the three year time frame to allow Henderson and his volunteers to continue the crusade to help benefit the less fortunate individuals in this society. 

Rhonda Miller said she supported the three year SUP.  She said she was the mother of the Eagle Scout so she had the chance to meet Loring and become involved with the Community Shelter basically the same time her son did.  She said since then, she had the opportunity to volunteer, cook meals at home, and take meals in a couple of different times through the month.  She said she had been at the Shelter at noon, at 8:30 p.m. at night and left as late as 10 p.m. and the two year period that she had come and gone, she at one point saw a huge discussion on theology which she would have had more time to sit and take part in, but it was the scariest experience she had coming and going.  Those people were always very excited to see the volunteers and they helped the volunteers carry items in from their cars.  She said she could not begin to tell how many times someone had thanked them profusely, but also said this was the only meal they were going to have today. 

Carol Pilant spoke in support of the three year SUP.  She said the first thing she wanted to address was the protective structure, which was mighty ugly, but it served a wonderful purpose in the back of the building and addressed concerns of the neighbors and kept the people, the homeless guests to be out of the rain, out of the sun in the summer and kept the front streets much clearer.  She said that structure was visible from only one direction which was the parking lot. 

She said regarding historic requirements, she replaced a roof on her home and knew it was difficult to get approval of any kind of difference.  She said to get an inch pitch on the roof of her home she had to go to Topeka to the Historic Preservation Office.  She said it was ridiculous and did not think it was viable possibility, and the Shelter did not have the money. 

She said the idea of keeping people from the front of the building was very critical.  Also, regarding homeless people in the alleys, she Sutton, as being a lawyer would know the U.S. Constitution would not allow Lawrence Community Shelter to keep their guests in the shelter against their will.  She said the fact the homeless were in the alley that was not the Shelter’s issue in her opinion.  She said if those people were shooting up and smoking illegal drugs, then the police needed to be called. 

She said one of the neighbors mentioned that safety in the community was an important part of being a good neighbor.  She said saying the shelter had not taken appropriate measures to address safety or the sense of community in that neighborhood was in her experience not true.  She said they kept hearing about a passage way by a home or by apartments and the owner had done nothing to even put up a sign that it was private property and no trespassing.  She said she walked down the street and it looked like an inviting place and a place to pass through.  She said a sign would address the issue easily. 

She said food came to the shelter at 8:30 every night and there were numerous people in town bringing food all the time in the dark to the Shelter and felt protected.  She said it was false to say that there was a sense of insecurity.  She said it was not a dangerous place to be at night. 

Kami Day spoke in support of the three year SUP.  She said she volunteered at the Shelter and had done that for a few years.  She had thoroughly enjoyed being in the company of the guests and dedicated staff and never felt in any danger.  She said the guests who stayed there were human beings and the time she spent at the Shelter, she had come to see the only difference between her and those guest was they had not been as lucky as she had been in her life. 

She said if there was problem at the Shelter it was because the facility was not adequate.  If anyone had been in the Shelter, the people slept on the floor, the quarters were very close and had no place to keep their few belongings. She said part of the reason that the awning outside was so important was because there was no space outside and they had to get outside and move around a bit.   

She said she did not think the City should look at expanding the library or widening one more road until the money was found to build a shelter or find adequate space to renovate for a shelter so that there was adequate space for the homeless population and she said this City could not be called a good community until it was done.  

Bill Gollier, Bishop Seabury Academy Student Senate Advisor, spoke in support of the three year SUP.  He said the fact the SUP needed to be approved for three years he thought went without saying.  The Planning Commission already approved it by a wide majority, he was at that meeting and the Planning Commission was in support of the SUP. 

He said this issue dealt with funding and community issues and if the City was able to build an $8 million water treatment plant at the Wakarusa River so they could build more houses across the Wakarusa and if the City could build an ice skating rink, he thought there was no doubt they could come together as a community to build a proper shelter with proper facilities, proper medical help, proper medical care so the clients could be well taken care of.  He said Henderson’s work and staff’s work was beyond recognition.  He said Henderson needed the City’s help in two ways:

1. Approve the three years so the Shelter could make a plan; and

2. It was the responsibility of the City Commission to bring the community together to help with this issue. 

Christine Caffey, Junior, Bishop Seabury Academy, said she was speaking in support of the three year SUP.   She said she had been working at LCS picking up trash and realized this was a college town and all the trash was not made by the homeless community.  She said the Shelter was making an effort to work with the community and not just sitting back and let things happen. 

Julia Davidson, Sophomore, Bishop Seabury Academy, spoke in support of the three year SUP.  She said the LCS was going to have disgruntled neighbors no matter where they went; even if they moved to the middle of no where, someone would call about a problem with the shelter.  She said she thought cutting the Shelter back to a one year permit was setting them up for failure.  She asked if it was possible to achieve all things necessary to procure a building in just one year.  She said renewing the three year permit would give them adequate time to find a new building or update the current building. 

James Dunn, spoke in support of the three year SUP.  He said the awning protected the participants of the program and the fence helped to enclose the area around the awnings and felt that was important.  He said in visiting with the people that were his neighbors, he came to realize that people could find themselves in this kind of a situation easily with having a lot of problems and things happen in life and empathized with the people that participated at the Shelter.

It was moved by Amyx, seconded by Highberger to close the public hearing.  Motion carried unanimously.  

Commissioner Highberger said this was a difficult issue.  He said he thought it was very clear, from public comment and from what he had seen with the people who worked at the Shelter, that those people worked very hard and did good work and made a great difference in the lives of many, many people.  He said the City Commission needed to allow the Shelter to continue.  He said he understood the frustration because he lived three blocks from the facility, but he was not sure he had much more difficulty with college kids than homeless people.  He said a solution needed to be found which he had stated for the last three months.  He said even though this was going to be difficult budget year, he thought the City Commission needed to step up this year and make a commitment for a permanent facility.  He said he supported a three year SUP as recommended by the Planning Commission. 

Commissioner Chestnut said concerning the draft ordinance for the 3 year Special Use Permit, there were not a lot of milestones set out in the ordinance.  He said if they wanted to look at an alternate facility at some point, it should be discussed right now in order for to have that facility in a two or three year period.  He said the City Commission needed to understand was that would encompass in a total project, but if it was private/public sharing of some type, what the expectations were going to be as far as commitment from the City.  He said he would like to support the three year ordinance, but he would like to see a lot more of the milestones because they were talking about a 36 month period and what would be the expectations as far as after 12 months they would have site selection alternatives, moving in the direction of fundraising and a capital plan, and all the things that were going to be important to bring this together.  He said that was what he did not see in this ordinance.  He said he wanted to support a three year plan because he did agree the Shelter needed time to make this thing happen, but he shared some of the frustration he was hearing from the neighborhood not so much that they were not in total support of what LCS was doing and the people they were serving, but seeing that plan.  

Commissioner Chestnut asked Henderson if there would be a fairly comprehensive plan or what would the Commission expect to see.

Henderson it would be premature to say too much, but it was a plan that talked about implementing the Mayor’s Task Force Report, categories of housing, going from emergency to permanent and public discussions.  He said what this group saw under the different categories as characteristics, services, and other features, did not yet talk about a facility.  He said the facility was more up to the agency, the way it was designed and had to be worked out with Salvation Army, but it would be up to the agency to talk about the specifics of a building.

 He said he appreciated and would be in accord with milestones.  He thought the Shelter would not be out there doing some process independent even if there were no money.  He said checking in or reporting sounded appropriate in some way.

Commissioner Chestnut said the ordinance as drafted, he would like to see the milestones defined now versus an on going basis because he thought planning was a better part of execution and that was how they got things done.  He said he wanted to support what the LCS was doing and thought it was obviously a big need in the community, but he thought the Shelter needed to put pencil to paper a little bit more as far as some more quantifiable milestones during a 36 month period.

Commissioner Dever said he thought the way they could handle those milestones was by making staff and the Commissioners more accountable for discussing it on a more regular basis and making it a priority.  He said it would be very difficult to draft that language and put it in the ordinance, but thought if the City Commission were monitoring the situation amongst themselves and staff reminding them to do so, that was one way to possibly institute that kind of monitoring and milestones that might be required. 

Mayor Hack said during budget conversations suggested by Commissioner Highberger, was an appropriate time.  She said she believed they were waiting on that report from the task force.  She said she understood the concerns and brought that up yesterday morning of placing benchmarks along the way and there were some issues of public disclosure of the potential of locations that sent people into a tizzy on all sides of things that they could not throw out and see what happened.  She said they were fortunate to have people who were extremely concerned about individuals in the community and did complement themselves on being a caring and compassionate community, but at the same time this was an accountable community.  She said she would support the three year SUP. 

Commissioner Amyx said in the staff report, one of the staff findings asked a question about the appropriateness to place a time limit on the period of time the proposed use was to be allowed by special use permit, and if so, what period of time.  He said staff made a pretty good argument about a one year time frame for the permit.  He said when the City Commission looked at the current budget there were monies in the budget.  He said between CDBG and from outside agency requests, the Shelter was currently receiving about $70,000.  He said with the other agency being Salvation Army, he thought received a similar amount of money and thought that there were monies inside the budget.  He said one of the things the City Commission asked the Community Commission on Homelessness last year was to become involved with making a recommendation for requests of monies inside the City’s budget that dealt with homeless populations.  He said if the City Commission were to consider a one year time frame, he suggested looking at the monies available.  He said if they would be looking at making up grades or changes to the location, if they tied themselves into a three year commitment or program to that location, he thought it would be hard to move it to another location even with the City Commission’s help.                   

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Chestnut, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 8100, a three year special use permit (SUP-01-02-07) for the Lawrence Community Shelter.  Aye: Chestnut, Dever, Hack, and Highberger.  Nay: Amyx.  Motion carried.

Commissioner Highberger said he would be reluctant to overturn the Historic Resources Commission’s decision.  He said it was a 3-2 vote for a temporary structure and was provided by the neighborhood.  He said he would grant the UPR for the structure and the fence. 

Lynn Zollner said under that definition it discussed technical and economic issues.  They could look toward the temporary usage of that shelter and the economic issues involved as not removing it would not be feasible and prudent. 

Mayor Amyx said the City Commission required it to be put on their vote a year ago as part of the site plan.

Zollner said she thought it came out of that discussion of some way to look for shelter so that the population would not be on the front at all times.  She said she thought staff’s only concern was the lack of the building permit and the inspection by Neighborhood Resources to make sure it was installed properly.

Commissioner Hack asked if the City Commission could ask for that inspection because she would hate for something to happen in that facility.  She said if the inspection was part of their agreement, and the Shelter would agree to have Neighborhood Resources perform an inspection was a wise decision. 

Zollner said part of that planning to minimize harm could be that the Shelter seeks volunteers in the future to look at alternatives of more compliant structures.  She said they could add that suggestion with the City Commission’s decision.

Mayor Hack said she thought that it was wise to add that suggestion and perhaps ask Henderson to work with Zollner on what some of the alternatives might be to bring it up to some type of attractive structure.

Corliss said the approval also included the building inspection of the facility that would be inspected without building permit fee.  He said it was not like saying staff was not going to do an inspection, staff just did not conduct an inspection unless there was process, but the process was not followed. 

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to approve DR-01-06-07 subject to revised conditions (removing the HRC condition of approval for the removal of the noncompliant fence and carport) and, based upon a finding that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the existing fence and carport due to the technical issues of the project, a temporary structure, and economic issues, also determined that to include all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties, the LCS shall apply for a building permit for the carport (including waiving the building permit fee) to ensure that the structure is properly installed, and that the LCS continue to work with volunteers, donors, and planning staff to identify an appropriate replacement structure that will meet the needs and financial constraints of the LCS while meeting the standards and guidelines for compatible structures within a historic district.    Motion carried unanimously. (27)

Mercato/George Williams Way/Sanitary Sewer Improvements

Consider approving, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-08-08-06:  a Preliminary Development Plan for Mercato. The plan proposes a mixed use development containing 337,700 square feet on 10 lots and approximately 45 acres. The property is generally described as being located north of Highway 40 and East of Highway K-10.

Consider accepting dedication of easements and rights-of-way for PF-06-15-06, a Final

Plat for Mercato Addition 1^st Plat, North of Highway 40 & East of Highway K-10.

This proposed residential lot contains approximately 49.995 acres.

Corliss presented the staff report.  He said the City Commission had conceptually approved the rezoning for this property.  He said in many cases they approve zoning, but did not formally enact the ordinance that zoned property until certain conditions were made and completed.  In this case, one of the conditions was tied to the preliminary development plan.  The City Commission already approved the zoning for the property at the northwest corner of George Williams Way extended and 6^th Street.  The preliminary development plan was the document that set up the configuration of the site, layout of the buildings, layout of the interior roads, parking lot, and staff reviews for compliance with the various requirements under the zoning code.  In this case, this property was reviewed under the previous development code, which was called the zoning code as opposed to the new land use development code that became into effect July 1^st, 2006.  This project was approximately 45 acres and had roughly 337,000 square feet.  The City Commission had staff reports and also had added the City Commission minutes that were discussed last year for review and history.  He said the market studies and traffic studies were part of the previous record as well.

Jane Eldredge, attorney for the applicant, said they asked for this issue to go first because the public hearing was held in November and it was simply the vote that was deferred and they were going on the basis that this one would simply be up for a vote, since the public comment had been had and if they took care of that first, the others ought to fall in line more easily.   

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

Kirk McClure said it was his job to study, analyze and forecast the behavior of real estate markets.  He said he was sure most of them were aware economics was referred to as the dismal science.  He said he would be happy to bring them good news if he had it, but unfortunately the news he was finding about Lawrence’s retail market was not especially happy.  He had pulled together information from the City’s inventory and pulled through over 1100 retail buildings, analyzed them for occupancy, corrected some information where they could to make sure they had the best available information on the retail market, when the building came into being, what its size was.  Similarly, they looked at the demand side.  The Kansas Department of Revenue sales tax revenues were the best indicator of the behavior of demand and the answer was pretty simple.  From 1995 through 2006, demand grew only 11% after inflation in Lawrence, Kansas.  The supply grew during that same time period 43%, almost, but not quite a factor of four differentials and that was the pace they were overbuilding retail.  He said the result was simply that they had a large surplus stock, vacant space, space converted out of retail, blighted space, and an inordinate amount of lost value.  The vacancy rate for the City was now at 8.3%, well above what was considered a normal, acceptable market condition, if they took out North Lawrence, which was at 42%, which was a crisis level.  In the past, they were able to say the high level of vacancy was being contained in North Lawrence, but the problems were spreading.  He said that was no longer the case that it was just north of the river.  South of the river the general merchandise category of retail, which was well over half of all retail, had a vacancy rate of 10%.  He said it was germane to this particular development proposal because it was in that general merchandise category the applicant was seeking to add space.

He said what they had now was a market place where they saw a lot of space converted into office use that spread the harm of the overbuilding of retail into the office market which was why they had empty office buildings on Wakarusa and why the second and third phase of that development was never built and why they saw developments taking on office space because they simply could not fill them with tenants.  It was why they had downtown buildings that were still running unoccupied.  They had conversion to other use such as hotel space, what was to be their signature downtown anchor had been converted into hotel which had disturbed some of the redevelopment plans for elsewhere downtown.  Most importantly, they had lost value.  There was a lot of existing space that was now not earning the kind of revenues that it should and because of that, it was suffering from under maintenance.  That deterioration then breeds blights and hurts the value of properties nearby.  He said it was something they needed to stop. They could not attract shoppers to Lawrence by duplicating the services they had at home.  There was nothing about that proposal that was going to make any new destination shopping.  People from Johnson County were not going to drive to the 6^th and SLT because they had all that stuff in Johnson County.  People in Topeka were not going to drive to Lawrence for this and were going to stay in Topeka and shop on Wanamaker Road.  The only unique destination shopping that Lawrence had was right in downtown and they needed to protect and preserve downtown.  The unique nature was what imported dollars and those imported dollars was what was going to help their retail grow.  He recommended the City Commission not allow this process to move incrementally forward.  It was the instrumentalism of just building one more was how the City had gotten itself into the problem of chronic overbuilding.  The market was not self correcting and knew that it was a common belief that somehow the market would adjust itself, but the market would not.  He said in many areas of real estate, especially in retail, overbuilding was a chronic condition that needed to be stopped.  The incremental problems were what were hurting the city.  He said they needed to not confuse growth and supply with progress.  Progress, in fact, was growth in demand; the population, their jobs, their income, that was the progress they saw.  They needed to let the supply be a response to the growth and demand and not build more space than needed. 

Richard Heckler, Lawrence, said any developer coming before the City or Planning Commission made their projects site plans good looking and the economic impacts were above average.  The symptoms of retail saturation were everywhere.  This governing body must remember there were only so many retail dollars and Lawrence was surrounded by very large established commercial competition, also known as KCMO, Johnson County and Topeka Metro.  He said they were told to generate economic growth.  He said many people often get dollar signs in their eyes at the prospect of chain stores coming to town.  However, this might not be economic development; it could be more like economic displacement.  Unlike industrial facilities which generated added wealth, new retail stores simply displaced sales at existing, often locally owned businesses.  Those businesses in turn would experience reduced sales tax revenue, job losses and potential failure.  Several studies confirmed the end result of new chain store development was at best, marginal in overall improvement in taxes and jobs and at worst, a decline.  He said on top of this, communities realized a tremendous economic benefit of local ownership.  He said citizens opposed to sprawl generally site these major reasons; negative impact on local economy, negative impact on their “quality of life”, it was expensive, it increased the cost of community services tremendously, thus bringing on tax increases.   

He said the problem with big box and large corporate entities was that they would represent a form of economic displacement, not economic development.  He said taxpayers needed to ask the governing bodies how they knew this was retail economic development or were the governing bodies sure this was not retail economic displacement.  The bottom line was how did the governing body know what tools were used to reach conclusions.  It was definitely the boldness of a governing body to determine whether or not their decision was creating economic development or economic displacement.  He said they could not afford to assume.  He said it was definitely the business of the governing body to implement market capacity studies and economic impact studies as a matter of policy to assist in answering the question of retail saturation.  It was definitely the business of a governing body to decide whether or not an application was an efficient use of land.  He said it was definitely the business of a governing body to perform cost of community service studies to determine what intervals of growth were not paying for themselves.  He said implementing market capacity studies and retail impact studies and economic impact studies would be a revolutionary approach in Lawrence.  He said those studies were important because Lawrence, Kansas could not afford to lose one dollar of tax revenue in any retail business sector, not downtown, not at 31^st and Iowa, not at 6^th and Monterey Way, not at Clinton Parkway and Kasold or 6^th and Lawrence Avenue.  He said for what was lost, was not made up elsewhere.  He said Lawrence could not afford economic displacement. 

Gwen Klingenberg, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said one of the items the City Commission might not know about was the cumulative impacts of development, otherwise known as VISSIM which was done by KDOT which showed the traffic flow if development was not curtailed.  She said traffic volumes along US 40 were significantly increased which resulted in average travel time increasing from 3 minutes to over 14 minutes in the evening rush hours along US 40 between K-10 and Folks Road.  She said traffic volumes along City streets within the corridors were significantly increased and would occur as motorists seek alternative routes to avoid congestion on US 40 or 6^th Street.  The only place to go was south through her neighborhood to Harvard.  There were three schools within the corridor, students walking or biking to and from Free State, Langston Hughes, and Quail Run would likely experience increasing safety issues as development occurred due to the high traffic volumes in the corridor.  Emergency response time for police, fire and ambulance services would likely be significantly longer in the corridor than they were today and people wanting to shop at existing stores located on US 40 and Wakarusa would experience difficulty entering and exiting the parking areas for those businesses.  She said access to and from the proposed commercial development along US 40 would likely be even more difficult than today. 

She said two scenarios were done.  One scenario was 1.2 million square feet where the developers told them that they were interested in developing along that site. 

In the second scenario, the amount of retail development was divided in half proposed by the developer.  This scenario held constant the amount of office and residential, so only commercial was cut.  Thus, reducing the amount of retail to what was close to what was permitted in the corridor based on adopted land use plans.  She said this approach was agreed to by City Staff. 

The City of Lawrence should consider the need to study other traffic impacts of new development on the corridor including pedestrian/bicycle safety, emergency response times, and economic impact to business should the corridor become heavily congested.  As said earlier in the report, it was critical that both KDOT and the City deliver a consistent message about a joint plan for the corridor and the joint desire to protect the public investment on US 40 corridor for the foreseeable future.  She said she wanted to let the Commission know if they read the minutes, there was some discussion as to whether this was a real KDOT item because it did not have the fancy markings on it and it said “draft.” She said she had 91 e-mails that she kept in her e-mails and get the toggle and deleted it, so she asked the Planning Department to send her a copy and they did.

She said the City Commission might also want to know about the golden rules, or criteria, for evaluation of zoning and use permitted upon review.  Two of those rules that needed to be taken into consideration were the character of the neighborhood and relative gain to public, health, safety and welfare by the destruction of the value of the petitioner’s property as compared to the hardship upon the individual land owners.  She said they were looking at 1.2 million square feet of commercial in one mile on both ends of this neighborhood with no place for the traffic to go except through the neighborhood.  If looking at a map of Lawrence, the town was not east of the shopping area, but south and east of the shopping area. 

She said she noticed in the newspaper how they were talking about how they wanted to try to draw other shoppers from other areas outside of Lawrence to come to shop at this area.  She said as it had been stated before, they were not going to get Topeka or Johnson County to come to Lawrence for something they could already could get, which meant specialty shopping was needed along the corridor.  She said specialty shopping at 6^th and George Williams Way would draw from the downtown. 

She said as for regular shopping for people who might live in Lecompton, it was two minutes on the SLT down to regional shopping district where they got their Targets, Wal-Mart and JC Penney’s.  If the City kept building the amount of commercial the developers would like to build, they had one more street in the neighborhood that was not opened or planned to be opened, which was Branchwood.  The only way they could deal with any of the traffic that was going to be driving through the neighborhood was open up all the streets including Branchwood.  She said VISSIM showed that when it was totally built out, the traffic would be backed up from down George Williams Way, around the roundabout at Diamondhead, down the roundabout at Harvard, and all the way back up to Stonecreek, which was about a quarter of a mile of Harvard.  She said they were looking at traffic in front of the schools, by the school, where their kids were trying to get across the street to go to school. 

She said another concern was the City was not overbuilt, but the City’s retail was in the wrong place.  She said there was retail at 6^th and Wakarusa which had never been filled. That retail area had many vacancies and just when it was about to get filled, that business would leave.  She asked if it was a good place for retail, 1.2 million square feet.  She said if the City built that retail, people would come to Lawrence, but that was not necessarily so, not when this City was overbuilt.

Commissioner Amyx asked if the VISSIM mentioned the service level of 6^th Street (US 40), if so what was the service level 6^th Street/Highway 40 designed for.

Klingenberg said in 20 years, 6^th Street/Highway 40 was designed for service level “D”. She said when that area was built out it would be at an “F.”

Commissioner Amyx asked how far traffic was going to be backed up on George Williams Way.

Klingenberg said it would be from George Williams Way down to Harvard, and Harvard up to about Stonecreek, past the new area of the neighborhood; two roundabouts. 

Commissioner Amyx asked about how far the traffic would be backed up.

Klingenberg said the traffic would be backed up a quarter mile, but it might be less.

Commissioner Amyx asked if Klingenberg’s statement took into account south Iowa Street.  He said there was a lot of traffic on Iowa and thought that particular roadway was probably a service level “D” and at the intersection of 23^rd and Iowa was a service level “F”, or probably in some cases, beyond that service level.  He asked during busy seasonal times, if that roadway did not work. 

Klingenberg said she believed that roadway had backup problems and did have the double turn lanes at that intersection.  She asked if something that huge would be done at George Williams Way.  She said that area was already built and they were rebuilding it and asked if the area would rebuild it again.

Commissioner Amyx asked if Klingenberg was talking about the south side of the street.

Klingenberg said the entire intersection.

Commissioner Amyx said that was one of the items the Commission was discussing at this meeting.  He said 23^rd and Iowa did not have the dual turn lanes and a lot of people would suggest those dual turn lanes were needed now. 

Klingenberg said 23^rd and Iowa, when she worked at Eudora and would get off of work at 3 p.m., by the time she made that corner it already failed with that one turn lane.  She said a person needed to make sure they were on the right side so they could get around the traffic that was backed up to turn. 

Commissioner Amyx asked if that same study took into account the extension of 15^th Street into the SLT.

Klingenberg said the study did not take into account any extension or any areas that might connect to the SLT.

Bill Martin said at one time he lived in a small County Seat in Western Kansas and was a lawyer and banker.  He said he was on the City Council and very active in the community and economic development issues, retail issues, and he always watched what was happening in Lawrence over the years because he was a KU graduate.  He said he was well aware of the struggles that small Western Kansas towns face and the very issues that Lawrence faces were different.  He said those towns had issues with loss of population which led to loss of jobs and retail businesses.  He said literally all the towns in Western Kansas were slowly dying.  He said the county he lived in had the highest percentage of people over 85 in the country.  He said there were no young people and people his age, around 50, were the youngest people who live there anymore.  He said his wife was from Goodland, Kansas and they faced the same issues there.  He said when development came in, the loss of retail in downtown was staggering and continued to this day. 

He said he was retired, his wife worked in Lawrence and his children went to school here.  He said he had no personal or financial stake on what happened on this development, but lived in Lawrence because Lawrence was a treasure.  He said Lawrence was different from other communities.  He said he did not have the expertise to know what Klingenberg talked about regarding traffic statistics and did not have the expertise of what Kirk McClure cited about retail studies and percent of vacancies in downtown.  He said he knew when he drove in downtown Lawrence, he was stunned by the amount of vacant buildings compared to what it had been over the years when he would come into Lawrence to drive to every football game and go downtown and now he was stunned by the loss of businesses downtown.  He said to him, Lawrence’s treasure was downtown and they could talk all they wanted about development and economic development, but downtown was what made Lawrence different and what was part of the town.  Downtown was what drew people from Topeka, Wichita and Johnson County to come downtown, not because of the big box stores. 

He said anyone could see the vacant buildings driving down 6^th or 23^rd Streets and it did not take a rocket scientist to figure out what had happened.  He said Lawrence had overbuilt retail.  He did not know anything about it from numbers, but he could tell as a common sense approach, there was too much retail.  He said that traffic in that area would explode greatly.  He said people from Topeka, he read in the paper one of the Commissioners indicated, that it would be a great community gateway and they could draw more dollars from people out of town.  He said people in Topeka had Wanamaker and they were not going to drive to Lawrence to go to a big box store.  He said he believed Lawrence should build on what this community had and not try to duplicate Johnson County or in Topeka because following that road would only create more retail blight and a lower quality of life.

Jane Eldredge, attorney, said she thought there were a couple of things that needed to be said in order to set this record straight.  She wanted to start with the facts of this proposal, which was recommended by staff and supported by the Planning Commission on a 9-1 vote.  The City Commission who heard this item in November all said that it complied with the rules and regulations.  She said Commissioner Highberger noted it complied with the commercial design chapter of Horizon 2020, with the nodal plan, with all of the rules and regulations and noted further, that if he wanted a different product, he needed different rules.  They did not have different rules.  She said there was an opportunity to raise additional questions about retail study and that opportunity had not been exercised.  She said the retail market information and the traffic information were both required at the time of the zoning. A retail study was presented and reviewed by the staff and approved.  She said those were their rules and regulations and were followed.  She said the same was true for the traffic.

She said in November Klingenberg brought up her traffic concerns, but she pointed out that Klingenberg was reading from the draft and it was not on letterhead as the e-mail that she put on the ELMO showed what she received from the City was a draft and the Planning Department suggested that she contact KDOT if she was to have anything other than a draft.  No “official document” had been presented, it was simply a draft.  She said it was not a proper time to be raising those issues, but she thought it was important to look at the quality of the information. 

At the November 7^th meeting, Commissioner Highberger had a concern about some numbers he had seen recently dealing with retail studies.  Those numbers came from Transportation 2030 Committee meeting.  She said this was the information that was presented to the Transportation 2030 Committee meeting on November 6^th.  The information as shown in the minutes from that meeting came from John Haase, who was a Planning Commission member.  She said Haase drafted the assumptions in parameters that he wanted used in land use.  She said when Harris and other Planning Commissioners asked how the figures and formulas in the spreadsheet developed Haase stated that they were his judgment.  And yet, when she queried McClure, he acknowledged that he had drafted those statistics.  Those statistics, which Commissioner Highberger was relying on, quoted the Lawrence population in 2000, retail square foot per capita in Lawrence in 2005, which would be difficult to calculate using year 2000 population figures and 2005 retail figures.  She said it was calculated 65.5% from a database this Commission and the staff said was an error.  If that database had been corrected, she was unaware of that correction and did not know if it had been presented to the City Commission. 

She said he further quoted retail square foot per capita from Blue Springs, Lee’s Summit, Independence and Johnson County.  She said when they called Blue Springs, Lee’s Summit and Independence, there were no members of any of those Planning Departments that had any retail database that know how any of the calculations were made.  She said asking Johnson County was easy because their website from the Appraiser’s Office had all of the retail figures in Johnson County; they did it by city and by township.  She said based on the Johnson County Appraiser’s Office and the 2005 population estimates, the entire Johnson County had a net lease-able retail square foot of 64.8 square feet.  She said when looking at incorporated cities per capita square feet range could be seen from 41.9 squares feet in Prairie Village to a maximum of 150.7 square feet per capita in Mission.  She said to make statements that Lawrence was 2, 3 or 4 times higher than any other suburban communities was factually incorrect and misleading. 

She said she thought most people had heard PlaceMakers and other consultants stated that no one tried to do what Lawrence tried to do in terms of calculating square feet and that it was very difficult to compare apples and oranges which was why they could only show the Johnson County figures.  She said she did not think those figures had anything to do with the decision tonight.  She said their decision tonight had to do with the rules and regulations of 35 conditions the City staff asked these owners to meet and the owners met in order to present to the Commission a very fine preliminary development plan that would serve the community for a long time to come.  She said they asked for the City Commission’s support and asked to let this project move on because the project had been delayed long enough. 

Commissioner Amyx asked about the phasing of the project.

Tim Herndon, LandPlan Engineering, said the initial phase included the largest retail building on the property which would also include a primary entry drive into Mercato.  Subsequent phases would along the perimeter of the entry drive and then later the secondary office buildings.  He said this plan was broken down into 6 phases and an estimate based on today’s market and what they believed was absorbable and constructible within a foreseeable time frame.  They expected Phase 1 to be completed between 2007 and 2009.  He said Phase 6 was expected to be the capstone of this project between the year 2010 and 2014.  He said he could give them some breakdowns in between, but to summarize they would start the project immediately and probably have the first significant phase completed within three years and complete Phase 6 between 2010 and 2014. 

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Chestnut said he spent a lot of time reading the transcript from the last time this item was before the City Commission.  He said there were a few questions he thought were still outstanding.  He said there was some discussion about the property because it was a commercial center and what would happen west of the SLT.  He said there was very little square footage left from a retail standpoint in that area that would be authorized and wondered if there was any more information.  He said he read the transcript several times and could not come up with the answer as far as looking at that whole nodal and what would happen west of that area. 

Paul Patterson, Planner, said Horizon 2020 identified the intersection of K-10 and Highway 40 at the commercial center 400,000 square foot of commercial retail.  He said 95% of that 280,000 square foot was on two corners on the east side that would be 5% of 20,000 feet on the west side.  He said the south west corner was owned by the Methodist Church, and to the east of that church on the southwest corner was earmarked for industrial office use in the future.  He said that meant 20,000 square feet of commercial retail would be allocated to that northwest corner. 

Commissioner Chestnut asked Corliss about the funds the City had allocated in the budget, which was $200,000 and would some of those funds be dedicated toward the improvements north of 6^th Street on George Williams Way.

Corliss said in the 2007 Capital Budget, the debt budget, the Commission allocated $200,000 for improvements to George Williams Way.  The resolutions established three different benefit districts and hoped to bid those projects as one project.  He said there were improvements south of George Williams Way, north to Overland Drive, and then north on George Williams Way north of Overland Drive.  The way staff drafted the resolutions was that the City would divide $200,000 evenly.  He said the Mercato developers made a good argument the City put City at large funds at George Williams Way at 6^th Street already and that if they were going to limit their amount of money of what to get into the road improvement, it would be fair, from the standpoint of allocation of City dollars, that the $200,000 be placed in the George Williams Way construction north of 6^th Street.  He said staff did not have any objection and staff wanted to be consistent with what they presented to all the property owners over time.  He said the City Commission would adopt resolutions for those benefit districts that would have one improvement including signalization at 6^th Street and George Williams Way which would be shared on a 50/50 basis between the north and south side.  He said the Commission, at this time, would be setting a public hearing date for the benefit district on May 15^th where the City Commission would adopt resolutions creating the benefit districts.

Mayor Hack said one of the things they continually stressed as a community was consistency and fairness in the development process.  She said when a retail market study and traffic study complied and was approved by staff and presented to the Planning Commission which approved the project on a 9-1 vote, and the project was phased in, she thought they were not being consistent and fair if they did not support the project.  She said she was supportive of the project for a number of reasons and this situation was the other end of the bookends for 6^th Street with the other bookend at the intersection of 6^th and Wakarusa.  She said it provided two retail areas that would meet the City’s retail needs for a long time.  She said she did not want to see a series of strip malls from Wakarusa out to the South Lawrence Traffic Way and this would essentially prohibit those strip malls. 

She said she would vote to support the preliminary development plan as well as the dedication of easements and rights-of-way.

Commissioner Amyx said his support continued for this project.  He said there had been a number of things that required a lot of extensive work through the development code process, not only by applicants, but by staff who made sure rules were followed.  He said this community expected more than average communities.  He said the plan met the spirit of the code and was an item that needed to proceed.

Commissioner Highberger said he made the motion to table this item for six months.  He said one of the reasons was he did not want to rely solely on Professor McClure’s advice and wanted to get verification of that information elsewhere and he was able to get that information.  He said he also thought if the City Commission was going to say “no” at that time, the Commission owed the applicant the ability to say “no.”  He said he thought better criteria needed to be established for retail market studies.  He said he was led to believe the type of market study the City Commission received was easily cookable and if wanting a market study that stated they could absorb the retail space, they could get one.  He said he did not have a lot of faith in the documents provided on that issue. 

He said it was not an easy question and there were multiple sides to it.  He said he would be interested in seeing more background in the figures presented.  He said the vacancy rates spoke for themselves and he was concerned about adding more space.  He said the reason why Lawrence had a viable downtown was because Lawrence resisted inappropriate retail development on the City’s fringes and would hate to see that precedent change. 

He said in terms of this particular plan, he wished the plan could be done better.  He said he wished this project could be delayed until they have the smart code on the ground and find a way to do this plan in a way that would serve the community better for the long term future. 

He said KDOT indicated that one thing the City could do to prevent the meltdown of 6^th Street in the future was build a street grid system in the area and this plan really did not do anything to address that.  He said he realized there were some constraints with 6^th Street on one side and KDOT’s access management standings.  He said he realized there were some limitations to the site, but still thought the plan could be done better. 

Commissioner Dever said regarding the area the City was trying to influence they were not trying to attract people from Topeka or Overland Park, but people who lived around Lawrence to shop in Lawrence so retail dollars could be generated in Lawrence.  He said if building something that looked and met the current design standards, it was good and it was better than it needed to be.  He said it was important to have a standard and when changing to a higher standard, he considered that a positive influence on the community, especially when those standards were recently written.  He said he was comfortable with the way the plan looked and comfortable this community could handle additional retail space.  He said he read the information provided to him and believed the City needed to try and attract retail dollars to Lawrence and if that was through the rehabilitation of existing structures, so be it.  He said he also believed there should be a multi prong approach to solving a problem and thought this was one prong that Lawrence could use to try and solve some of the problems they had right now.  He said as to retail leakage, they were some of the lowest rates they could imagine as far as the numbers of people who were actually shopping in Lawrence.  He said this plan was one attempt to gain some of the people going to Topeka to come to Lawrence and there were hundreds, if not thousands of people in the surrounding communities that would come to Lawrence.  He said they would attract people to come to Lawrence and was a place if there was a destination shopping opportunity, people would come to Lawrence to shop and he believed wholeheartedly the plan as it stood was an excellent plan and exceeded or met at least the most current design standards in place right now.

Commissioner Chestnut said he was also in support of the project.  He said he reviewed all the information and thought that it certainly was a gateway the community could be proud of. 

He said he agreed with Commissioner Highberger on one element which was that a standard was not established on how to conduct that.  He said he understood from Horizon 2020, there was a discussion in there about market studies, but not necessarily a lot of specifics about how market studies were performed.  He said one thing he would like to see going forward was that as a community, they get on the same page on evaluating what was going on because it was difficult to judge.  He said he was convinced this plan was a good project for the City and something he looked forward to move forward on.

Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Dever, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-08-08-06) for Mercato, a mixed use development containing 337,700 square feet on 10 lots and approximately 45 acres, property is generally described as being located North of Highway 40 and East of Highway K-10, subject to the following conditions and use restrictions:

1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for municipal utilities  street improvements to Overland Drive between George Williams Way and the frontage road; George Williams Way from West Sixth Street to Overland Drive; Mercato Drive; and Mercato Way; (to be executed by all property owners within the PCD).

2. Loading area for Lot 3 Block One may be unworkable. It must be confirmed that adequate room exists for truck traffic and maneuvers without affecting vehicular or pedestrian traffic or the loading area must be relocated.

3. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan to include:

a.         note stating that all property owners of all properties waive their right to approve or disapprove any alterations or modifications to the preliminary development plan per Section 20-1011(f) of the City Code, if that is the intent of the applicants;

b.         note stating that a ‘Use of Right-of-Way’ permit must be obtained from KDOT before any work may be done within the highway right-of-way. KDOT has requested that the following information be provided on the plan: A condition of the permit will be that the developer takes financial and physical responsibility for closure of the frontage road;

c.         note which identifies ownership and designates responsibility for maintaining the open areas;

d.         a note stating that no other buildings, beyond those specified for retail commercial use in Phase I and II on this plan’s summary table are allowed to be developed with retail commercial uses;

e.         note that additional pedestrian connections to the development on the west will be added when the property to the west has developed;

f.          note 16 must be revised to read: No building permits will be issued until the completion of either George Williams Way or Overland Drive to the subdivision;

g.         note added to the plan identifying the building with more than 40,000 GSF which will be a single store building;

h          note added that all rough grading will be completed to the degree necessary to facilitate stormwater management and installation of utilities in Phase I.

i.          correct current zoning designations;

j           the phasing schedule must include a time schedule for applications for final approval of all phases;

k.         revised phasing schedule to show that the detention basin will be constructed with Phase I of the development;

l.          Mercato Drive and Overland Drive must be revised with 3 lanes of traffic with center turn lane. If a revised TIS shows 3 lanes are not warranted, this condition will be removed.

Staff recommends the submittal of additional TIS data that analyzes turning movements on Mercato Drive. This information will assist Staff in making the determination on the number of lanes required on Mercato Drive.

l. Execute an Agreement Not to Protest the Formation of a Benefit District for   Mercato Drive for future expansion in the event the road is constructed with 2 lanes and the future traffic data demonstrate a need for a middle turning lane or left hand turning lanes

m. Shared access easement between Lots 1 and 2 of Block One, and Lots 2 and 3 of Block Two, to provide access in the event of property ownership change.

n.         The driveway between Lot 3 Block One, and the shared driveway between Lots 2 and 3, Block Two must be offset;

o.         fire hydrant locations must be added to the plan per Fire Inspector’s requirement;

p.         pedestrian connection from the southern boundary of the development to the walkway along W 6^th Street, if possible with the grade change;

q.         open space summary must be revised to reflect the amount of common open space, rather than all pervious surfaces per lot;

r.          the common open space must be marked on the plan and the total area noted;

s.         Lot 1, Block Two must be reconfigured to remove the parking area and dumpster from the peripheral boundary; and

t.          the 10’ pedestrian/bike path must be extended from its point of exit on George Williams Way southward along the west side of George Williams Way to the W 6^th Street and George Williams Way intersection to allow bicyclists to connect to the 10’ path along W 6^th Street.

u.         15’ drainage easement located in northwest corner of parking lot in Lot 1, Block One must be removed or relocated, per City Stormwater Engineer’s approval.

Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, and Hack.  Nay: Highberger.  Motion carried.

Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-06-15-06) for Mercato Addition 1st Plat, North of Highway 40 and East of Highway K-10, a proposed residential lot containing approximately 49.995 acres; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:

1.          Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:

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

b.         Revised Master Street Tree Plan with Patmore Ash replaced with Zolkova, Japanese. The name Acer Rubrum must include “Autumn Blaze’ or ‘Red Sunset’.

2.          Provision of the following revisions to the final plat:

a.         Note stating that the developer will remove the W. 6^th Street/K-10 frontage road and access south of Overland Drive, when Overland Drive is constructed and links up with the K-10 frontage road.

b.         Note stating that the developer will improve the K-10 frontage road, north of Overland Drive to the north property line, when Overland Drive is constructed.

c.         Note that states that a ‘Use of Right-of-Way’ permit must be obtained from KDOT before any work may be done within the highway right of way. A condition of the permit will be that the developer takes financial and physical responsibility for closure of the frontage road.

d.         Note that states that sanitary sewer improvements will be provided per approval of the City Utility Department. Any easements, benefit districts, etc. will be decided at that time.

e.         Final plat must be revised to incorporate the revisions shown on the incomplete plat.

3.         Public Improvement Plans for utilities, sidewalks, traffic calming devices along Graycliff Drive, improvements to K-10 frontage road and other improvements must be submitted to Public Works Department before final plat can be recorded.

4.         The Final Plat can not be recorded until a special assessment benefit district or districts for the improvement of George Williams Way from West 6^th Street to the north boundary line of the Final Plat, including intersection improvements at West 6^th Street, has been successfully established.

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

6.         Submittal of a Temporary Utility Agreement.

Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, and Hack.  Nay: Highberger.  Motion carried.

Receive staff report on the recommended George Williams Way Improvements.

David Corliss, City Manager, said there were three resolutions for benefit districts to improve George Williams Way to the south.  He said there was a commercial development on the west side of George Williams Way and Cambridge Drive that had been through City land use approvals that would benefit by those improvements.  The benefit district on the south would also pay half of the cost of the traffic signal improvements that were planned at the intersection; the next benefit district improved George Williams Way to the north up to Overland Drive and eventually tapered down to where Overland Drive would be a two lane collector street facility; and the third benefit district was to the north, to the end of this project where the plat could be seen to the City Limits.  He said pursuant to the discussions with the applicant, the City’s $200,000 participation in this road, would be in Resolution 6664, which was 6^th Street to Overland Drive.  There would be no City at large participation in George Williams Way south to Cambridge Drive, which was Resolution 6662. 

The resolutions established the public hearing date of May 15^th, for Commissioners Dever and Chestnut, at the public hearing the Commission could do a number of different things and were not obligated to proceed with the project.  If the project proceeded, the Commission would adopt a resolution establishing a benefit district subject to a protest petition of property owners within the benefit district after 20 days of publication.  He said if it was not protested, then the benefit district was legally established.  He said at the time of the hearing, the City Commission could reduce the size of the benefit district, make reasonable alterations to change the scope of the project and the allocation to the City’s participation, but the benefit district could not be enlarged.  The City went a step beyond what was required in the special assessment statutes and notified by mail, the property owners that would participate in the benefit district.  He said they had had all the property owners in various discussions over the months about the configurations of the benefit districts and there was a strong consensus this was the way to proceed both north and south on the road project. 

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

Jane Eldredge, attorney, said they concurred with the staff report and the staff had been great in working with the design issues as well as the funding issues.  She said as the new Commissioners might or might not know, there was a policy about City participation and this street, particularly George Williams Way north, would have the least amount of public participation, even with the $200,000 than any other minor arterial in the City of Lawrence.  She said all of the property owners on both sides of the street recognized that and were happy with moving forward with their projects.  The property owners wished the City was not quite so strapped financially, but they were very appreciative of the work the City staff did to make this as economical project as possible.  She said particularly since Westar had a nonexclusive easement, they would notice in their staff report in the design of this street on the west side of the street, it would be 40 feet of right-of-way and 20 feet of permanent easement.  She said the 20 feet of permanent easement was coincidental with the Westar easement, meaning the moving of the transmission lines would not be necessary the entire length of George Williams Way, but would be necessary somewhat at the intersection where there were 7 lanes to accommodate. 

Commissioner Amyx asked if the improvements of the intersection south of 6^th Street on George Williams Way had to be made at this time along with signalization.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said the south side of 6^th Street at George Williams Way, they were looking at a single lane going straight through, dual left turn lanes, a right turn lane, and two incoming lanes.  He said one lane would go into the north development and the other would come through into the roundabout.  He said the traffic studies recommended those improvements be done at the same time. 

Corliss said one of the major problems was the reconstruction of arterial streets.  He said he marked his time with the City of Lawrence the number of times 33^rd and Iowa was reconstructed.  He said it was important that if they knew through the City’s planning process that they were going to need to construct a street at a certain capacity that it should be done at the final configuration and not have the public inconvenience of the road constructions and also the discussion with the property owners about who paid for that construction.

Mayor Hack said she concurred with Corliss.     

Commissioner Highberger said he had some serious questions about the design of the intersection they were building.  He said if they looked at the design projects, he asked if a person would let their 10 year old child walk across that intersection.  He said 100 feet of pavement would be hard to try to build a neighborhood around it.  He said he was not going to oppose moving forward with this issue.

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt Resolution No. 6660, ordering a public hearing on the advisability of the construction of George Williams Way from the intersection of Overland Drive north approximately 1,326 feet to the north City limits, including property acquisition, traffic control/calming devices, sidewalks on both sides, intersection improvements, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, powerline relocation, stormwater improvements, and other necessary and appropriate improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                             (28)

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt Resolution No. 6662, ordering a public hearing on the advisability of the construction of George Williams Way from the intersection of West 6^th Street (U.S. Highway 40) south to Ken Ridge Drive, approximately 671 feet and a  roundabout at the intersection of George Williams Way and Ken Ridge Drive, including street construction,  property acquisition, traffic calming/control devices, traffic signals at 6^th Street, intersection improvement, bicycle facilities, sidewalks on both sides,  subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, roundabout, waterlines within the public right-of-way, utility relocation, and other necessary and appropriate improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.

    (29)

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt Resolution No. 6664, ordering a public hearing on the advisability of the construction of George Williams Way from the intersection of West 6^th Street (U.S. Highway 40) north approximately 1227 feet to Overland Drive, including property acquisition, traffic calming/control devices, traffic signals at 6^th Street, intersection improvements, bicycle facilities, sidewalks on both sides, subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, roundabout, waterlines within the public right-of-way, powerline relocation, and other necessary and appropriate improvements.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                                       (30)

Receive staff report regarding sanitary sewer improvements serving property west of Queens Road, north of West 6^th Street (Baldwin Creek Interceptor)

Corliss said this issue was related to the Mercato development, but not solely because of their interests.  He said this issue had been a topic of discussion with all the property owners north of 6^th Street and the west of Queens Road.  He said as the previous Commission was aware, there were sewer capacity issues in the northwest part of the community.  One of staff’s responses was to construct Pump Station 48, which was underway and would be completed this summer.  He said this provided a gravity line from the existing Pump Station 45, which was located essentially from St. Margaret’s Church north 1000 – 1500 feet to the City limits, and was a pump station that currently did not receive any sewage discharge, St. Margaret’s Church drained by gravity to the south.  He said it was constructed several years ago with a County benefit district.  The capacity was roughly half of the area that was currently within the City, so additional capacity was needed in this area.  He said to provide that capacity, staff’s recommendation was to construct a gravity line north from this location and also from the far northwest regions of the Mercato development because it was downhill and might be able to, by gravity, get up to Pump Station 45 and reconstruct two gravity lines they saw in the map with the attachments and it would get to Pump Station 48.  He said what was proposed and what was seen in some of their discussions on the wastewater capital improvement plan, was the City would finance the construction and as property owners hook on the property owner would pay a proportional share.  The other properties would pay additional costs in addition to hooking onto the gravity line and would also pay a proportion of the share of hooking on to Pump Station 48.  Those property owners on Mercato, Oregon Trail, and Prairie Holdings, immediately at the intersection of Overland and Queens Road, those properties and some other properties were already paying for the initial sewer work and the proportion of its share for the rest of the gravity line.  Staff was proposing to follow the design/build process for this gravity line.  Staff thought they had good success in that area for that type of delivery system and were proposed to proceed with that as well.  Staff did want to get this project started.  The Oregon Trail Addition residential development had been final platted by the City Commission and established a benefit district to pay for a park and stormwater improvements, so that project was proceeding.  Stoneridge Drive was proceeding; Overland Drive was proceeding and the City Commission now just approved George Williams Way proceedings so they would have the arterial street grid system.  He said staff needed to proceed with the sewage improvements in order to accommodate the growth.

Mayor Hack said one of the reasons why there were no questions from the Commission was because the information was complete as discussed during the study session held earlier in the afternoon.  She appreciated that because she did not think that lack of questions should be interpreted as lack of interest of what was going on.  She said Corliss provided the City Commission with everything they needed to know and the Commission was appreciative.

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

Eldredge said she did not think she could be too repetitive in saying once again all of the staff have worked very hard in finding a good resolution to this and staff was working on an ordinance and had been kind to let her review it and make comments.  She thought there was agreement on how the project would go and it was appreciative.

Corliss said the ordinance Eldredge referenced was an ordinance similar to what staff did for Pump Station 48 that required payments when either a connection was physically made or a building permit was pulled that would be in anticipation of a connection and staff needed to work through to accommodate the development interest but also to ensure they would get paid the appropriate share. 

He said they were not doing a benefit district and had a bit of a challenge in forming the appropriate benefit district from many of the property owners but concerns about bond counsel because they were establishing the method of payment for the property owners based on their sewage contribution.  He said it made a lot of sense to everyone in this room, but did not make sense to bond counsel because it was not explicitly provided for in the special assessment statutes.  He said this project would be done through the City’s home rule powers and would accomplish the same thing.

Commissioner Dever asked if that happened often.

Corliss said not often.  He said it was done with the Pump Station 48 project.  The City had an ordinance that was based on the City’s home rule authority for other sanitary sewer connections, but not frequently. 

Commissioner Amyx asked if someone could explain to him on Pump Station 45 the flow participation in gallons per minute compared to the develop flow and go to Mercato it was 400 gallons per minute as compared to develop flow at 575.  He said it seemed close and there was no development and asked what flow could be at that location.

Philip Ciesielski, Engineer, Utilities Department, said he believed Commissioner Amyx was referring to the table at the bottom of his memo.  He said the two columns, the PS45 flow participation was as the original benefit district was laid out and was assessed on a square footage basis without regard to land use.  He said each area paid based on the number of square feet in that benefit district.  The Mercato property encompassed, their proportionate share of that entire benefit district allocated based on the dollars they paid 400 gallons per minute in the existing Pump Station 45.  As looking at the land uses that were being proposed and trying to design a sanitary sewer to accommodate the development being brought forward, they actually needed a capacity of 575 gallons a minute based on the land uses they were approving. 

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Dever, to authorize the advertisement of a Request for Proposals for engineering and construction services for the West Baldwin Creek Interceptor.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                           (31)

PUBLIC COMMENT: None.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

5/01/07	· Discussion of land use items at the northwest corner of 6^th and Wakarusa
05/15/07	· Mayor Hack plans to be absent from the meeting.
TBD	· Salvation Army Site Plan and Rezoning; · Retail Marketing Analysis Code provisions · Neighborhood Revitalization Act proposals for target neighborhoods and downtown; NRA policy statement

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adjourn at 10:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                            

APPROVED:

_____________________________

Sue Hack, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2007

1. Bid Date Set – 2007 Overlay & Curb Repair Program, Phase 1, May 8, 2007. 

2. Surplus Equipment Sale – Parks & Rec, Police, Fire/Medical on Gov.Deals.

3. Bid – Two ¾ ton 4x4, crew cab pick-ups for Fire/Medical to Shawnee Mission Ford, for $45,016.

4. Annual Software Maintenance - GIS software for several depts. to ESRI for $34,637.07.

5. Ordinance No. 8097 – 1^st Read, City/County replace Chpt 7 “Industrial & Employment Related Land Use in Horizon 2002, CPA-2004-02-Edition”  

6. Resolution No. 6715 – GOB for $150,000 for Traffic Safety Renovations.

7. Resolution No. 6716 – GOB for $450,000, milling & overlay of Iowa, 6^th to Harvard, & Irving Hill Rd to 23^rd. 

8. Special Use Permit – (SUP-01-01-07) Nextel Communications cellular tower, 2101 Wakarusa.

9. Preliminary Plat – (PP-01-01-07) 1^st Step Facility, 3015 W 31^st.

10. Rezone – (Z-01-02-07) 7.73 acres, from RS10 & UR to RMO, 3015 W 31^st.

11. Final Plat – (PF-08-28-050 Stoneridge E, vacating W ½ of street R-O-W for Wintrhop Ct.

12. Text Amendment – (TA-11-13-06) Subdivisin Regs to correct & clarify proposed regs.

13. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-02-01-07) Camson Villas, 403 Eisenhower Dr.

14. License Agreement – Gilhousen for existing asphalt driveway, N 6^th, extended S of Walnut St.

15. Annexation request – Pump Station 48, 40 acres, N of Fokls.

16. Subordination Agreement – M. Allissa Long, 714 N Michigan.

17. Downtown Lawrence Inc. – 2006 Annual Report.

18. Special Alcohol Advisory Board – change term expiration from April 30 to June 30.

19. Lawrence Skate Assoc. – Mural at skate park, 600 Rockledge Rd.

20. City Manager Report.

21.  Request for Proposals – Design/Build of Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility.

22. Resolution No. 6617 – 88,000,000 in Water/Wastewater Improvements.

23. Bid – Clinton Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion to CAS Construction for $13,979,000.

24. Contract – Construction Engineering, Water/Wastewater.

25.  RFP – Instrumentation & Control Services, Water/Wastewater.

26. Ordinance No. 8101 – 1^st Read, amend name & mission of Recycling & Resource Conservation Advisory Board.

27. Special Use Permit – (SUP-01-02-07) Lawrence Community Shelter, 944 Kentucky.

28. Resolution No. 6660 – Public hearing George Williams Way, intersection of Overland N approx 1,326’ to N City limits.

29. Resolution No. 6662 – Public hearing George Williams Way intersection of W 6^th S to Ken Ridge approx 671’  

30. Resolution No. 6664 – Public hearing George Williams Way intersection of W 6^th N approx 1227’ to Overland.

31. RFP – Construction Services, W Baldwin Creek Interceptor.

32. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-08-08-06) Mercato, 337,700 sq ft on 10 lts, 45 Acres, N of Hwy 40 & E of Hwy K-10.

33. Final Plat – (PF-06-15-06) Mercato Add 1^st Plat, N of Hwy 40 & E of Hwy K-10, 49.995 acres.