September 25, 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, Chestnut and Highberger present.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION
With Commission approval Mayor Hack proclaimed the month of September as “National Preparedness Month”; Wednesday, September 26, 2007, as “Aaron Douglas Community Mural Day”; and, September 29, 2007, as “Experience the Rotary Arboretum Day.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of September 11, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to receive the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of August 20, 2007; the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of September 10, 2007; and the Health Board meeting minutes of July 16, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to approve claims to 390 vendors in the amount of $852,920.96. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Alvamar Country Club, 1809 Crossgate Drive; Conroy’s Pub, 3115 west 6th Street, Ste: D; the Class B Club License to Brandon Woods Club, 1501 Inverness; and Retail Liquor Licenses to Myer’s Retail, 902 West 23rd; and Riverridge Liquor, 454 North Iowa Ste: A. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Julia Mitchell to the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee, to an un-expired term which expires September 30, 2008. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to set a bid date of October 16, 2007, for the Weatherization Program. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
Ordinance No. 8157, allowing possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages on certain city property pursuant to Local Burger’s Sidewalk Dining License, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Amyx, Dever, Chestnut, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to adopt Resolution No. 6740, setting out the findings and ordering the improvements to the intersection of George Williams Way and 6th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to adopt Resolution No. 6739, setting out the findings and ordering the improvements to George Williams Way from 6th Street north to Overland Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to deny the request to establish “no parking” along both sides of 24th Street between Kasold Drive and Winterbrook Court and along both sides of Brushcreek Drive between 24th Street and Winterbrook Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to deny the request to install a “flashing beacon” at the intersection of Arrowhead Drive and Princeton Boulevard. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Angela Nascimento, 817 Alabama. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the Consent Agenda, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Highberger, Resolution No. 6741, establishing the maximum annual bonding amount of $600,000, plus costs of issuance and interest on any temporary financing, for public improvements pursuant to Charter Ordinance No. 27. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said Planning Staff was proceeding with the challenge on the census estimates and with the development of a Retail Market Report in accordance with Horizon 2020 and the Land Development Code.
Also, he asked Cliff Galante, Transit Administrator, to put together a calendar of transit activities. He said staff would be going through the RFP proceedings to select a new vendor because the contract with MV Transportation expired at the end of next year. He said staff was also in discussions with the University of Kansas as far as consolidation, merger and cooperation opportunities. There were also financial challenges in the transit system. As a reminder the City took money from the City’s Equipment Reserve Fund to fully finance the Transit System in 2008. The mill levy in Transit, next year, did not fully support the Transit Systems and there would be challenges in building the 2009 Budget.
Other items included a report that Planning Development Services drafted on Horizon 2020 Chapter update; sanitary sewer improvements that showed some efficiencies at 24th and Crossgate/Harvard & Wakarusa; Solid Waste stats from move-in/move-out week; and other issues regarding training opportunities and outreach and training opportunities in the community itself.
Commissioner Chestnut asked about the final review and issuance process of the Retail Market Report.
Amy Miller, Planner, said this was the first time staff updated that report. She said staff indicated it was a draft copy, pending its release to the public and the report was essentially completed. (9)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Conduct public hearing on maximum assessments for the construction of Stoneridge Drive from 6th Street south approximately 630 feet.
Mayor Hack called a public hearing on the maximum assessments for the construction of Stoneridge Drive from 6th Street south approximately 630 feet.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said the maximum assessments were based on the estimate. Staff had already taken bids for road construction and the signals were included in the north side of a benefit district.
He said staff met with the neighborhood to develop an entrance treatment to the neighborhood and anticipated the project would be completed before Thanksgiving.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Dever, seconded by Amyx, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8136, establishing the maximum assessments for the construction of Stoneridge Drive from 6th Street south approximately 630 feet, to include street, storm sewer, and waterline improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
Conduct public hearing to consider the vacation of a sewer easement located on a tract of land described as the north 40 feet of Lot 8 and the south 60 feet of Lot 9, Block 2, Oread Addition (1140 Indiana) as requested by Triple T, LLC.
Mayor Hack called a public hearing for the vacation of a sewer easement located on a tract of land described as the north 40 feet of Lot 8 and the south 60 feet of Lot 9, block 2, Oread Addition (1140 Indiana).
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. A five foot sanitary sewer easement existed at 1140 Indiana. The property was being sold to Triple T LLC and the contract buyer desired the easement to be vacated. He said it was a separate sanitary sewer easement dedicated in 1950’s which that easement has never been used and none of the utilities had raised any objection to vacating that easement. Staff was recommending the easement be vacated.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Mark Andersen, attorney for the contract purchaser Triple T LLC, said this sewer easement ran through the center east to west of that larger tract, in effect, creating a title defect on the property. Normally this type of easement would be cleared and go away in the platting process because the property was being redeveloped. The buyer did not want to close without assurance that easement would go away. The seller would prefer to close sooner than later and the seller did not want to wait until a replat of the property was approved. As an accommodation to the seller, they were willing to close soon, but only if they could have assurance that easement would be vacated. He said they were pursuing the vacation of the easement this way rather than through the replatting process.
It was moved by Chestnut , seconded by Amyx , to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the Order of Vacation for a sewer easement located on a tract of land described as the north 40 feet of Lot 8 and the south 60 feet of Lot 9, Block 2, Oread Addition (1140 Indiana). Motion carried unanimously. (10)
Receive staff memo regarding the adoption of the International Codes. Consider adopting on first reading, Ordinance No. 8180, adopting by reference an amended Chapter V of the City Code and Ordinance No. 8055, adopting the International Fire Code, 2006 Edition.
Victor Torres, Planning and Community Development, presented the staff report. He said approximately 6 months ago the City Commission direct staff and the trades boards to draft the appropriate ordinances to adopt the International Family of Codes which was completed. The International Codes included Fire, Building, Residential, Plumbing, Mechanical, Fuel/Gas, Energy/Conservation, and Property Maintenance Codes and the effective date was January 1, 2008. Staff anticipated providing training to contractors, developers and architect and engineers in the interim period between the effective date and approval of ordinances by International Code Council who would provide that training.
He said one issue existed that was not resolved which was the actual sizing of mechanical systems duct work along with the actual conditioning system. The recommendation of the board was to provide those calculations at the time the building permit was applied for. He said currently, staff received plans and conducted inspections on different residential construction projects. He said for commercial construction, staff typically received calculations which were submitted to City offices and the effect would be that staff needed to look at the systems at the time of construction. He said it was essentially a layout design or blueprint which showed things like the size of the unit and ducting and the City’s inspectors would be looking to make sure those ducting systems and units installed was what was submitted in the plans at the time of the building permit application.
During staff’s review of this issue, staff considered other jurisdictions in the Kansas City area and those jurisdictions adopted most of the International Codes, but that requirement was not included in their adoption process. The jurisdictions staff visited were Gardner, Johnson County, Leawood, Lenexa, Olathe, Overland Park and Shawnee to find out how they handled the codes and those jurisdictions indicated they did not follow up and it was the responsibility of the contractors to install the systems as defined by the code which was what City staff presently did.
He said during that same time, dealing with the International Codes, the sign code was amended which dealt with the constitutional concerns about some of the amendments in the code and the fees.
Overall, the impact of adopting the International Codes on the department, were not major. The Energy Code would result in inspection staff performing one additional inspection on projects. He said obviously the training of contractors, engineers and architects would be included and was already in place. He said Johnson County Contractor Licensing provided continuing education for local contractors and most of the contractors had been exposed to the International Codes and a number of those contractors worked in the Kansas City area.
He said the codes that staff were currently under were the 1997 Uniform Building Code, 1997 Uniform Fire Code, 2005 National Electrical Code, 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code, and 2000 Uniform Mechanical Code. He said a number of years ago those codes, especially the Uniform Building Code, were created by a group called the International Conference of Building Officials. He said that group had since dissipated and was formed into a larger group called the International Code Council (ICC). The ICC had developed a large part of the codes that he had identified for different organizations and jurisdictions across the country. There was another organization named the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) that also created a family of codes.
Early in 2003 City Commissioner Dunfield asked staff to consider looking at their current codes. He said City staff mimicked the City of Mesa, Arizona, International Codes process and developed a Code Review Committee with the first meeting held in July 2003. That committee was composed of staff, trade board members, local architects, homebuilders and the Fire Marshall’s office. That committee was charged with looking at the two different codes; the NFPA and the International Codes. This group did not look at the technical aspects of those codes. The actual charge for this group was to look at what they had to offer; what training they had, what the process was for adopting new codes, how those codes were actually adopted, and life and safety issues.
On January 14th, 2004, the Code Review Committee voted, without opposition, to recommend to the City Commission that the International Code family be adopted by the City of Lawrence. The final report was submitted March 30th, 2004 and the City Commission at that time voted 3-2 to accept the recommendation of the Code Review Committee to designate the family of codes from the International Code Council as the base of all codes for the City of Lawrence. He said since March 30th, 2004 a lot had happened. The Board looked at a number of codes, uniform codes, and international codes.
On March 13th, 2007, the City Commission directed staff and trades boards to work together to draft the required ordinances to adopt the International Family of Codes. At the same time, the City Commission received an updated report from Matrix consultants in which they also recommended the adoption of the International Building Codes. He said there were a number of advantages in adopting those codes. One advantage was only one code book was needed for single family home construction, the International Residential Code, which included electrical, plumbing, mechanical and building codes. Another advantage was the International Code had been adopted by most jurisdictions in the Kansas City metro area, so contractors, architects, engineers could work in this area under the same code and not have separate codes as they move from city to city in this area.
He said the International Code training was available throughout the Kansas City metro area, through the Heart of America Chapter, the Kansas City Metro Chapter, and the Johnson County Contract Licensing program. He said other advantages were that City staff was trained and currently certified under the International Codes and the uniformity of codes with other area’s jurisdictions.
He said as mentioned, the Matrix Consultant Group recommended the City consider adopting the International Codes because it made it safer, easier and cheaper to build in Lawrence. The Matrix Report noted the benefits of the ICC codes in that they were comprehensive, easy to use and flexible in adapting to local conditions.
He said 36 other jurisdictions in Kansas had adopted International Codes, including the State of Kansas; 5 jurisdictions adopted the Blended Code which was a blend of the uniform codes and international codes; and four jurisdictions under the Uniform Codes in the State of Kansas, which included Lawrence.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the proposed Building Code and Property Maintenance Code added any major substance and requirements that weren’t already present in the City’s existing code.
Torres said he did not think so. Staff looked at those codes closely and the International Property Maintenance Code had a few things staff was able to separate out. For example, the section on weeds in which the City already had an ordinance that addressed weed, and that section were struck from the actual ordinance. He was not expecting to see any additional requirements for local contractors.
Rich Barr, Fire/Medical Division Chief, said the Fire Code Board of Appeals started about 24 months ago reviewing the 2003 code and shifted to the 2006 code because the amount of time it took to review. Staff reviewed the 2006 Code and came before the City Commission March 13, 2007, with Ordinance No. 8055 to adopt that code. At that point in time, staff was directed to place that ordinance on hold until the other International Codes were prepared for adoption. He said there were 7 points to cover that were somewhat specific to some fairly significant changes in the Fire Code that would impact the community.
First, the International Fire Code required automatic sprinklers to be installed in all new residential. The change to that would be if the City adopted the International Residential Code, single family and duplex structures would be removed from that requirement, so sprinklers would not be required in new single family or duplex structures. It would be required in all triplex structures and above. He said it was more restrictive than it had been in the past.
Second, the IFC allowed multifamily occupancies to have sleeping rooms that did not have egress windows. The Commission directed them in March to put that back in the code, which was done with an amendment, so now sleeping rooms in all dwelling units would be required to have egress windows.
There were also going to be some changes in fire apparatus access. Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, already commented about access issues for fire and medical apparatus. There were four major issues or dead ends. Right now, the City’s policy required cul-de-sacs to have a 50 foot radius whenever there was a cul-de-sac that was more than 500 feet in length. The 1997 Uniform Fire Code stated 150 feet which was the City’s practice for the past 20 years so trucks could back out. One of the changes in the last 20 years was to respond to apparatus emergencies from the scene, many times primarily medic units, but sometimes fire apparatus units and their ability to turn around became very important. The Model Code stated 50 foot radius at the end of cul-de-sacs whenever greater than 150 feet in length and staff anticipated enforcing that.
He said regarding one or two family developments and a single access that had more than 30 dwelling units, they either had an option of providing another access point into that development, or all the buildings in that development needed to be sprinkled; multifamily residential developments with more than 100 dwelling units, two access roads were needed, if not, sprinkling would be required, but the code already required sprinkling so it was a moot issue; and commercial and industrial buildings exceeding 3 stories in height needed three access points. All those things would impact development.
He said in the previous code they had the ability to issue permits for a number of different things, but never had issued permits. The Fire Code Board of Appeals chose to keep the issuing of permits in the code to allow issuance of permits for things such as hazardous materials storage and hazardous materials processes. Staff currently issued permits for blasting, for open burning operations, and for fireworks displays. Permits for open burning and land clearing operations that occurred in developments on the edge of town was going to remain the same, but would be tightened somewhat. The Board of Appeals required an air curtain destructor whenever open burning occurred. What that air curtain destructor did was allow the material to burn much more completely and efficiently and eliminated a lot of smoke and product combustion which would be a significant change for the development community. He said open fire such as campfires did not currently require permits, the Board of Appeals said anytime there was a fire that was not in some type of appliance, staff needed to require a permit. There was no charge currently for those permits, but they needed to require a permit so staff knew where those fires were and educate the public on how to do those open fires properly.
He said lastly, the ordinance utilized the existing International Building Code for renovations and remodels in areas where they had a hard time determining when they applied the new code and when it was existing in construction. The existing International Building Code provided an excellent mechanism for them to utilize in determining whether a person had to comply with the current code and would allow folks to understand what they were going to do upfront rather than waiting on the board to make a decision and sometimes those decisions were fairly subjective.
He said the bottom line was the Fire Department believed they needed to adopt the I Code family of codes because it was the most effective and efficient mechanism of code enforcement for the City.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Sid Ziegler, President Local Home Builders Association, said his Association supported the adoption of the new code because this code had been accepted regionally and nationally and the continuing education program had worked well. He said the only problem was they did not agree with the proposed amendment by the Mechanical Board which added additional work not only for builders, but also the mechanical guys without reason. The amendment was extra documentation that no one would use. Their Association discussed the amendment with other jurisdictions as well as the National Home Builders Association and no one else was doing that extra paper work in showing the sizing. He said in talking with the Mechanical Board one issue brought up was why single family homes were being targeted and the fact that it did not address existing homes. There were more problems with existing homes versus new homes because of outdated systems and so forth, yet they did not want to accept the same paper work they had to do to get a new home built.
Commissioner Amyx said over the last five days he tried to learn about the sizing of mechanical systems as much as he could and this issue was obviously a point of contention. The City Commission’s responsibility was to the consumer in making sure that an individual buying a house was receiving the best product. He said he knew that was the Lawrence Home Builders’ goal as well. He asked if there was calculations paperwork for houses before those houses were built.
Ziegler said yes, but when homes were built, changes were often made. Sometimes features would be enhanced by adding a window or a vaulted ceiling. All those changes were simple changes, but for a mechanical person it was over and above because they had to figure out things like getting heat or air to a vaulted ceiling. What it did not allow them to do was make those changes in the field that were sometimes needed. He said their Association presented to the Mechanical Board that the duct requirement should be held until after the framing and could be turned in later. He thought the Mechanical Board was in agreement, but the sizing should be to the same effect because when seeing the changes, they would want to be able to make the sizing changes and make it a better system. He said fault was found in the system because it required certain information on the front side that might later become detrimental to the homeowner, such as the house was painted white versus black. He said the color of the house, the type of windows, the size of windows, all those type of things go into that interpretation they were requiring which actually could undersize the system. If a homeowner decided they did not want a white house and painted the house brown, the make up of the home was changed and its air conditioning was not going to work as well. Most mechanical guys had their own rules of thumbs that they hedged their bet a small amount to offset those potential problems. Basically they could get themselves into a position where if they submitted themselves directly to this tight, ridged system of sizing, they might end up going the opposite direction of what they wanted to do. They wanted it to be more of an option for the mechanical person that was actually out there doing the systems for years to use some of their professional expertise. No matter what code or restrictions, it was going to come down to the individual and the mechanical person that was represented was the person that was going to be responsible. He said if the City wanted to address a problem with a mechanical system, the City could go back to those permits to see who did not do their job right. He said they did not understand why they had to do all the extra paperwork if no one was going to look at it. City staff did not plan on doing anything with that paperwork other than placing it in a file.
Commissioner Amyx asked if he had a problem with the calculations being done at the beginning, but did not have a problem with turning in calculations at the end for the file.
Ziegler said he thought they should turn in the blueprint and submit what they deemed their required tonnage of the heating and air and that sort of thing. It was an as built drawing they could turn in after the fact. He said he did not think anyone had a problem with that so it could go into the file as exactly what was put into that home. What they were disagreeing with was the extra up front work that no one would take any time to look at.
Mayor Hack asked if turning the blue print at the end was currently something they did.
Ziegler said no.
Mayor Hack said it would be an amendment, but would be different timing.
Ziegler said what they were proposing was after framing and prior to the rough-in inspection, they would need to submit that paperwork to have it available for the walk through. They disagreed with the extra paperwork.
Kevin Chaney, Mechanical Board Chair, said there were things stated earlier that were not 100% true and he wanted to clear things up. Right now, the International Code asked for Manual J and Manual D sheets which required duct and equipment sizing and the Energy Code required equipment sizing. He said they discussed the issue with staff and decided the equipment sizing must be presented at the time for the request of the permit. The duct sizing did not have to be submitted until asking for the final inspection. He said some things did change like windows, room sizes, and walls, and they did not want to recalculate everything. He said the duct sizing and duct drawings were not going to be done until asking for the final inspection. Those drawings would then be presented to the inspector so the inspector could look at the job to make sure the duct work was put in properly. The current codes indicated the use of Manual J, Manual D, or other approved methods to size equipment and to size the duct work. The Board left it up to City staff to decide the other approved methods of acceptance. There was a lot of sizing software available. There would really not be extra paper work being done. The only people that were going to have extra paperwork would be the people who were not doing it right in the first place. There had to be calculations done to make sure something was the right size before they put it in. All the Board was asking was to provide those calculations to the City so when the City inspected, they could make sure it was done properly. He said there was no extra paperwork, they were simply asking for paperwork that was never submitted so the City could make sure it was done correctly. He said the Board was not asking that it be required for existing homes because a number of homes, even with basements, the ductwork was above the sheetrock ceiling and could not be measured. The homeowner should not be put to the expense of having to rip out sheetrock to be told their ductwork was the right or wrong size and the Board was saying it was for new installations only.
Also, the standards were minimum standards and were not the maximum. If the Association wanted to put in a system that was above the minimum standards, the Mechanical Board was not saying that could not be done. There had to be some sort of minimum standard set to protect the homeowners of Lawrence. The Association also said there were other jurisdictions that did not require those minimum standards, but City inspectors indicated that other cities would like to have those minimum standards too.
He said those proposed minimum standards were something the City Commissioners asked the Mechanical Board to do and they committed themselves to do it. They met every two weeks for 6 months and passed those standards 5-0. Some of the members of the Mechanical Board were in business, members from abroad, and one was an engineer. Right now, all commercial buildings were required to submit paperwork at the time they asked for the permit. They were not saying builders had to go to the expense of getting engineered stamped drawings.
Right now the City Mechanical Inspectors only looked at combustion air, making sure the clearances were correct, making sure the material was right, the dryer vent was correct, and the exhaust fans were correct. They had no way of checking what size the equipment was and if it was right or wrong. They had no way to check if the duct work was right or wrong. There were a lot of homeowners with new houses that were having problems. The City did not know about it because it was normally taken up with the homeowner to the builder or homeowner to the contractor, which was why the city did not find out about it. He said it was something that needed to be done. It was in the code book. The only thing they amended to the code was to require the paperwork. If it that paperwork was provided to City staff when they inspected the job, they could make sure it was done right and that there was some sort of minimum standard used and some sort of calculation used to size the duct system properly. He said there was no hardship, they were required to do it and they were just asking for the paperwork.
Commissioner Amyx asked if Chaney wanted the paperwork completed at the time the building permit was received or at the time of the inspection.
Chaney said the only thing needed at the time the permit was pulled was the equipment sizing. The duct work sizing did not have to be submitted to City staff until the final rough in inspection was requested. That gave them time to make changes. He said it did not matter now or later if the color of the house changed. The engineer on the board said when he sized commercial buildings, he always went with a dark color because you never knew if it was going to be a light color or dark color, so it was sized as a dark color that way if someone painted it darker later, it was sized to handle the extra load.
Brian Wyatt, Vice Chair Mechanical Board, said the other big difference from what the City did in the past was the Inspection Department was looking for life safety issues. The uniform code addressed life safety issues. What the International Family of Codes had done with the IRC, the Residential Code and the Energy Code, especially, was more performance based inspections. As it stood right now, they saw duct work and equipment in new homes that were not sized right and could not carry the extra load. The International Energy Code really addressed more performance based instead of life safety issues. When they were inspecting duct work before, they were looking to see if it was hung right and had the right supports. Now they were getting into the Energy Code and having a Residential Code and they wanted to make sure it performed well and did not have high utility bills. It was important to remember when considering this amendment.
Barb Hamilton, Lawrence, said when she purchased her new town home, she had no idea there would be any problems with the heating and air. The town home was built at the end of 2002. Shortly after moving into the town home, they noticed they had hot and cold spots throughout the house and there was less air flow in the back of the house. They called the company who installed the heating and air conditioning and duct work to fix the problem. They were very kind and came out and said everything was done according to code and the builder’s specifications. There was nothing that could be done. She asked why the air flow was so poor, and he said the unit might not have been quite big enough for the town home, but was approved by the city code. She asked why there was only one air vent in a town home of 1100 square feet, which was in the kitchen right next to the stove, which allowed the fumes from the cooking throughout the house. He said it was done to the builder’s specifications and it met Lawrence City Code. She said she was amazed and said she did not know how it could be done and he did not have an answer. She asked if the builder was responsible and he said he did not know. She called the City Building Inspection Office several times to complain about their problem with the heating, air and duct work. She was never given any answers other than people were very kind and said there was nothing that could be done after the fact, the City had approved the building and the plans, the town home was inspected by the City and nothing could be done. She said they had extensive insulation put in the attic hoping the insulation would help solve the problem. It did not have any effect. They put in additional ceiling fans in the house to help move the air and it helped. She said she tried calling another heating and air conditioning company to install a bigger air conditioning and heating unit. She thought it would solve the problem but they laughed at her in a kind way and said it was not going to fix her problem. She asked if it was because of the duct work and they said yes, but she already knew that. The problem was there was only one return for the whole place, in the kitchen that was right next to the stove. She said she believed it was a fire hazard and there were no additional return vents in the rest of the entire house. She said the only way to improve the air flow was if she cut out all the ceilings and had all new duct work put in at her expense, which was not going to happen because she could not afford it and it was ridiculous at this point. She said to her it was so sad that the City was signing off on this kind of work so the builders could make a little bit bigger profit and the innocent new homeowners had no idea of the problems they were getting into. They kept their air conditioning set so low in the summer that she was not going to say what it was. In the winter, it was just as high to be comfortable and was costing them more in utility bills. They were excited about moving into the town home which had big mechanical problems. The home builders and contractors would continue to do it. They might say it was more paper work, but someone had to protect the little people like her. She asked the City Commission to help protect the homeowners of Lawrence by changing the code so it did not happen to people in the future.
Bea Bryan, Lawrence, said she lived in a newer addition in Park West. It was a very small slab home where she lived. She said her home was very hot in the summer and very cold in the winter. In the winter, she had to have an electric heater on in her kitchen, office and lanai, where her dogs stay. In the summer she had the ceiling fans on plus floor fans to help with what little cooling she had. She said she also had to keep her blinds closed to keep the heat of the summer out because the air conditioning was inadequate and ran all the time. For the first time in a long time, she was able to open the blinds. She said she had two heating and cooling companies come and inspect her furnace, air conditioning unit, and attic insulation. She was appalled to find out that her furnace was too small, the duct work was too small, and there was not enough insulation in the attic. She consulted with the builder of her home only to be told there was nothing he could do because her one year homeowner’s warranty was expired and there was nothing wrong with her systems. She could not afford to replace her systems and could not continue the horrendous heating and cooling bills she had to pay each month. She shared an example of her heating bills for four months which totaled $900, for a 1,730 square foot home. One month alone was $300.82. Her older home was doubled in size and there never bills like that to pay. She said she could not afford to pay for heating and cooling bills like that, especially considering the price she paid for her new home. She felt the City Inspection Department should have made the builder or the heating and cooling contractor replace the system with the correct size that would be more energy efficient. She asked why she should have to foot the bill for a system she did not get in the first place.
She said she recently learned she was not alone in this predicament and there were many others in her neighborhood facing the same issue and they too were not getting any help from the builder, the heating and cooling contractor, or the City Inspection Department. She could not believe that in the City of Lawrence when homes were inspected, they actually pass those systems and the homeowners had no one to turn to for help. She asked the City Commission to please vote for the amendment to update the codes, to close the loophole that allowed those kinds of inadequate mechanical systems to be installed and not work properly for the unsuspecting homeowners.
Mayor Hack said if this amendment was passed, she asked if the paper work would not be used and would be put in a file.
Torres said if the paperwork would be turned in, staff would use it for inspection to look at the size of the unit and the ducting as well. It would be a blueprint to the heating and cooling system they would use for an inspection.
Mayor Hack asked why they were only requiring it from new single family and not remodels.
Torres said it was a very good question, and it might be something to consider as well.
Mayor Hack said the comment that it did not allow for any adaptation in the field if the building plan changed or a vaulted ceiling was put in, was that the way they were reading of the amendment.
Torres said the sizing of the ducting would be submitted at the time of the rough-in inspection, so if it happened then, then all those other issues would be addressed because when there was new construction going on, there were always new additions. Those things happened in construction and if they had all the requirements submitted at the front end, they would set themselves up for failure, but if they received the duct sizing after it was all built, it would be a good thing.
Commissioner Amyx said he was trying to understand adequate sizing of pipe and vents to making sure there was adequate flow from sink to sink or toilet to toilet without loss of pressure. He asked about the changes that were currently in the I Code and have those things been addressed to make sure it would work.
Barry Walthall, Building Safety Manager, said regarding the venting, the Plumbing Board was recommending an amendment to the venting requirements of the IPC and IRC to require basically that the vent system equaled the area of the drainage system, which brought it into alignment with the City’s current code. Without those amendments, the Plumbing Codes would allow for smaller venting systems. Those plumbing codes were enacted in jurisdictions all over the United States and also the State of Kansas. He said he was unaware of any problems with those vent sizes. However, the Plumbing Board did take action to recommend that those vents be increased. He said he did not believe it would be an issue.
He said on the question of the sizing of the water supply lines would be an issue that came down to how the system was installed. There were a lot of different ways a system could be installed.
Commissioner Amyx asked if the City had any problems in using the Uniform Code.
Walthall said he had not heard of a lot of problems.
Commissioner Amyx asked if the language in the Uniform Code was the same language that was now in the I Code.
Walthall said the language regarding the sizing of water supply systems was a little bit different in the I Codes. It provided a little more flexibility for the plumber on the job site to size the piping systems.
Commissioner Amyx said he had a concern that if the language in the current Uniform Code was adequate in making sure those systems work, he asked why that same language was not in the I Code.
Walthall said the I Code did contain regulations for the sizing of water supply systems.
Commissioner Amyx asked if the Uniform Code was specific in the language for water supply in that house.
Walthall said the International Code was specific as well.
Commissioner Amyx said the I Code gave flexibility to the plumber that was putting in the piping system and he thought that was the difference.
Walthall said there was flexibility in the International Codes and his belief was that flexibility could be strength to the code and there should not be problems with water pressure to individual fixtures with whichever code they adopted. The Plumbing Board looked at all the codes over the last three or four years including Uniform Plumbing Code and International Plumbing Code, and was fair to say they had issues with International Codes that they were not comfortable with. The flexibility of the sizing of the water supply system was not something that was brought to his attention as a major concern. The concerns he heard from the Board had more to do with the venting and they addressed those problems. He said the Plumbing Board made some amendments to the I Codes which had to do mainly with the venting systems, but he did not recall there was an issue with the water supply piping.
Jay Woodward, International Code Council, said there were two different philosophies, the Uniform Code was a more prescriptive code; it specifically would tell for this size of fixture run this size pipe based on distances and pressure loss. The International Code was more performance driven, but the key thing was in the end the result was, they had to supply this amount to that fixture and had to supply it when it was under the maximum demand of the system. The issue was if they were getting all the water they needed at that fixture under the most critical demand on the system, it was accomplished. However the pipe ran or whatever, the net result was it was going to give them the same basic result. He said he did not know if there was going to be a problem with either one.
Commissioner Amyx asked about the med gas standards under the I Codes.
Walthall said the med gas piping requirements would not change between the two codes. Both sets of codes reference the same standards. The different was with the Uniform Codes, some of the language from those standards were actually cut and pasted into the code where the International Code just recognized it was a specialty system and did not try to import any of that language.
He said he would like to recognize the Boards for their hard work and congratulated his staff for their work. A number of hours were put into drafting those ordinances and thought staff did a fine job.
Commissioner Amyx asked if the International Residential Code would only pertain to new homes.
Walthall said the International Residential Code would apply to new construction and remodels of one or two family dwellings. One and two family dwellings could be a row house type situation when seeing 5 or 6 rows of 100 dwellings long, the IRC could apply and it depended on how those structures were separated.
Commissioner Amyx asked if the energy efficiency part of the new code had any impact on the historical requirements on a structure.
Walthall said it was difficult for him to talk about the historic ramifications. The thing they walked a pretty delicate line with was trying to coordinate with Lynne Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, and the HRC regulations. Those HRC regulations, in general, took precedence over just about everything. He thought if they had a life safety issue, they might be able to talk the HRC into something, but for the most part historic structures were totally different and took a lot of personal attention and probably compromise.
Woodward said specifically, unless the City made a modification, there was a scoping section in the energy code that specifically excluded the historic buildings from those requirements.
Commissioner Amyx asked how someone, out in the field, would seek an opinion about those codes. He asked if a person could ask appropriate City Staff and how long would it take to receive and answer.
Woodward said if a person was set up as an ICC member, they would ask for a membership number before giving any type of interpretation and anyone could be a member. The City was a member so a contractor’s most direct route would probably be to call someone at the City with a question. He said he could also be called and he could give an answer, but the answer would be based on the information he was getting on the phone and his opinion. He had no jurisdiction in Lawrence, Kansas. The code official was the person that had to make that decision. Any answer that he would give would always be couched with they needed to talk with the code official because it was their decision. If the City staff called him, they could give an answer and was not a problem. They did that with the boards and he worked with the Mechanical Board on those types of things, too. Technically, if a contractor was trying to get ICC, they would ask them to be a member. He said not everyone followed that rule at their company.
Mayor Hack requested the Commission address the section on sizing proposed by the Mechanical Board and the idea the calculations had to be approved at the same time as the building permit.
Commissioner Chestnut said he was not sure if the amendment as structured was practical. The disappointing thing was it was the one instance where they did not come to some kind of meeting of the minds as far as between the stakeholders and the board as far as what to pursue. He was a little bit at a disadvantage because he might be the least manual dexterity gifted person on the board. He had a hard time understanding a submission on the front and one in the end and if talking about performance, how that was going to contribute to enhancing the inspection process.
Secondly, the City had not received a lot of complaints, but typically those complaints went to the builder and it was very distressing to hear some of the bad experiences. If they did or did not adopt a code, there would be isolated incidences that would present issues.
He said it was still not resolved whether or not they would apply this code to remodels or not. He thought it was important to resolve because a remodel would require a building permit. There was a lot of ambiguity in their discussions and he would like to see something more concrete where everyone was on board, but he did not know if that was achievable or not and did not want to delay the process any farther than it had gone.
He said regarding the sizing it did not seem people were that far apart in their position. There was an acknowledgement that something of substance needed to be presented to improve the performance, but it was how they would get to that point and he was not comfortable developing that process on the fly. At this point he would like to see an amendment worked out whether they delay this particular ordinance to come back to something that everyone was comfortable with.
Mayor Hack said she did not have a problem taking out the mechanical portion and asking for some clarification on new construction. The Board was made up of stakeholders who were people in the field. She said there might be a difference of opinion, but it was not that they did not have stakeholders at the table.
Commissioner Highberger said he supported the recommendation from the Mechanical Board. He said the City Commission asked the Board to adopt the I Codes, the Mechanical Board was not happy with that idea, but they came back with a recommendation. The I Code required the calculations to be done without an amendment and he did not understand why there would be a significant expense of providing documentation of a calculation that was already required to be done. He said it sounded like it provided additional protection for consumers and did not see it adding an additional expense. It would already be required with the un-amended code and would prefer to move forward with the Board recommendation.
Commissioner Amyx said the sizing of the unit would need to be turned in at the time the building permit was picked up. The blueprint of the ductwork needed to be done prior to the inspection following the framing of the property.
Vice Mayor Dever said this was one of those situations when switching from a means specification to a more performance specification and it was interesting the focus was on the ducts when they could have focused on water flow and gas flow. He said he was sure there was a good reason why ducts were picked, but he was more in favor of moving forward with the amendment. If everyone was in favor of moving with the I Codes, he thought it was a lot of hard work and would hate to delay the process. He said he would like some explanation as to why they solely focused on changing or amending the HVAC portion because there were other weak links in the chain and if they could identify it was a whim or truly an issue. If it was not necessary, then he was not in favor of having an amendment that was unnecessary but if it was truly a problem with the I Codes and the inspection of new construction that was following the I Codes, then the inspector needed to see the documentation when they were inspecting it because it could be changed in the field. He said there were a variety of questions he had in his mind and felt comfortable moving forward.
Mayor Hack said she understood Torres’ comments, there were a lot of conversations about all the specifics and this was the only area where there was some friction. There were adaptations to all of those codes on what would work and how to take the I Code adapting the code to Lawrence. Each one of the adaptations was accepted by the board and everyone else, but they got to this area of the code and it was the only area where there was difficultly.
Torres said the Mayor was absolutely correct. He said they were able to negotiate their way through the plumbing and all the energy code and all the other items that might have been a problem they were able to negotiate their way through that with the stakeholder group, the Plumbing Board and staff. They got to this one item in the mechanical code and they were not able to resolve it to the satisfaction of the one stakeholder group and the Mechanical Board.
Mayor Hack said she agreed with Commissioner Highberger in that those codes had been on their plate for a long time. She said she was ready to move forward on it and support the amendment as stated by the Mechanical Board along with the Fire Code. She said that was the direction they needed to go and asked in two different City Commissions to move this forward and it was time to make that happen.
Commissioner Chestnut said there was a lot of discussion on the Plumbing Code and asked if there were amendments much like the Fire Code.
Torres said there were a few amendments to the Plumbing Code.
Walthall said there were amendments to the International Plumbing Code and International Residential Code. He said the Board reviewed all of the previous amendments and carried approximately 80% of the amendments into the new code and created one or two additional amendments.
He said regarding the remodel staff could ask for plans on that mechanical duct work if appropriate, based on the scope of the work. If there was a significant alteration to the mechanical system, it would be reasonable to request that documentation and the code allows staff to request that documentation.
Commissioner Highberger said he did have some concerns with the Fire Code as related to development issues. He said he was not going to raise any objections tonight and especially with the SmartCode when it would be adopted, it might be something they needed to pay some attention to later and work through. He said he was excited they were finally adopting the International Energy Conservation Code and was something they had been looking forward to for several years. He appreciated all the work that happened and thought it would be a great step forward for the community.
Commissioner Amyx asked about fire alarm systems and when they were required.
Rich Barr, Fire Marshall, said regarding fire alarm systems there was a retroactive section in the new code stating fire alarm systems had to be in all multi-family occupancies. Those systems were required in other locations, but primarily multi-family. He said the one exception in the code said that any previously accepted fire alarm system was okay and where that retroactive piece came into play was if they had a residential occupancy that they might be unaware of in previous inspections or anything else that would need a fire alarm system in it, it would allow them to require one. If there was one alarm system already at that location and they had accepted it for the last five or 10 years, in his opinion it would continue to be accepted.
Commissioner Amyx asked about barbequing on a deck.
Barr said that issue was a new piece in the ordinance. In the past, were a lot of comments from apartment managers and multi-family property owners complaining that tenants were barbequing on their combustible decks. There had never been a law in the City that said barbequing on combustible decks was not allowed, until now. If the Commission chose to pass the International Fire Code, it was in the model code that barbeque grills were not allowed on combustible decks. If those decks were concrete barbequing would be allowed. There was one exception to the combustible deck, which was if the deck was protected with an automatic sprinkler system.
Corliss said it was important to point out that the Fire Code had retroactive application. Most of the other codes, with the exception of the Fire Code and Property Maintenance Code usually were prospective new construction. The Fire Code was different in that regard.
Commissioner Amyx said his support for the I Code did not change. He said he did have concerns about the Plumbing Code and the specific sizing. He appreciated those comments, but if they had code language that worked, then that language could be easily adapted to the new code. He said if he pulled a permit for an air conditioning unit to be installed in his home, he asked if the City required the size of the unit.
Torres said no.
Commissioner Amyx said under the new language that was recommended by the Mechanical Board, he asked about the timing of the information that needed to be provided. He said the calculation needed to be complete because that was written in the I Code. He asked if it would be appropriate to bring in the sizing of the unit when the building permit was issued.
Torres said yes because it was not likely the square footage would increase or even the cubic footage would increase that significantly to make that change. If it did, it would be the responsibility of the mechanical contractor to advise the City and submit an amendment to the calculation indicating there was an increase in the size of that unit.
Commissioner Amyx said the problem he had was that it appeared they had a code that was currently in place that seemed to be working with the majority of the applications.
Torres said he understood. The beauty of the family of codes was that they cross reference each other. The IRC was used specifically for one or two family dwellings and it was one that addressed all the different systems. Those codes talked to each other and referenced each other. If they threw in a Uniform Plumbing Code, there would be a blended code situation. He said if there was a reference to the Uniform Plumbing Code to another code that had not been adopted; the current ordinance would need to be amended to address all of those amendments wherever there was a reference. That was a complication and there were numerous types of scenarios that could be discussed when they had a blended code scenario.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Dever, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8180, adopting by reference an amended Chapter V of the City Code. Aye: Dever, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: Amyx and Chestnut. Motion carried. (11)
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Dever, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8055, adopting the International Fire Code, 2006 Edition. Aye: Dever, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: Amyx and Chestnut. Motion carried. (12)
Consider the following items related to the KU Boathouse:
a) Consider approving Special Use Permit SP-07-06-07 for the KU Boathouse, located at 2nd and Indiana.
b) Consider adopting on first reading, Ordinance No. 8159, an ordinance providing for a Special Use Permit (SUP-07-06-07) to allow for KU Boathouse and dock facility as active recreation within the Open Space zoning district for certain property located at Burcham Park.
Paul Patterson, Planner, presented the staff report. He said the access into Burcham Park was on 2nd and Indiana Street. The facility itself was approximately 81 feet by 102 feet, a little less than 8300 square feet for the footprint of the building. It would be a poured in place concrete building which would help when flooding occurred. This particular facility had been heard before the Historic Resource Commission on June 21, 2007 and they recommended approval subject to conditions. It had gone before the Board of Zoning Appeals for location within the 100 year floodway and on August 2nd, 2007 they approved it subject to conditions. It also went before the Planning Commission on August 29th, 2007 and it was unanimously approved subject to three conditions. He said City staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to three conditions.
Andy Pitts, Treanor Architects, said they presented this item to the City Commission previously before in the design. He said this was their 5th public meeting for this project and were pleased to present this project for the University of Kansas and Kansas Athletics. It was a very exciting project for Kansas Athletics and the 60 plus women part of the row team at the University of Kansas. The site was located at Burcham Park, adjacent to the river to be able to have access to the 2,000 meter race course and having the constant river water needed at that spot and also the distance.
Some of the questions that came up were the location of the building and why that location was specifically chosen back from the river bed and not placed within the park itself. He said they looked early on into this process of trying to locate the building in a couple of different spots. He said they worked with the University and the Athletic Department and spoke with Parks and Recreation on the potential location of that building and received comment from Parks and Recreation about pushing the building back away from the riverbank so that building did not become an object in the park, and the open space and views could be preserved to the north, to the bridge and the river itself. City staff’s suggestion in one their proposed locations the existing tree line which impacted some of the existing vegetation. He said they were concerned about how that building would impact the park. He said they had identified nine existing trees that would be impacted by that project and they had comment from Parks and Recreation in addressing those trees. The athletic department was more than willing to work with Parks and Recreation and provide additional trees from what was removed. He said they had received from Parks and Recreation the specific species of trees that they recommended and had success in those areas.
He said Parks and Recreation balanced between two different conflicting views. From the recreation side, this was a very important development within the City park that allowed the City to have a development with a private entity within the City park, allowed the public improvements to happen, and affords the City with the opportunity to work with the University to develop additional programming for the park, but at the same time, from the parks side, it was impacting the park and open space.
He said they would continue to work through construction working with Parks and Recreation because they had concerns that any construction activities that occurred that they mitigate any future damage and not leave a partially damaged tree that could potentially fall, damage the building or be a hazard within the park.
The contractor for this project had already met with Building Inspection and Parks and Recreation and how they would access the park during the construction. There was an existing road in which the contractor would use that maintenance road as their construction activity point.
Vice Mayor Dever asked Pitts to describe the size and type of trees affected.
Pitts said he believed most of the trees were between 24 – 30 inch diameters. He said most of the trees that would be impacted were cottonwoods in the area and historically those were about a 5 to 6 growth spurt per year and an 80 to 100 year lifespan.
Vice Mayor Dever said the impervious pavement that was being proposed to the east of the Boathouse, close to the bank of the river, he read comments that it needed to be concrete for a variety of reasons. He said the City Commission had requested other developments to investigate alternate types of pavement to improve drainage and to become impervious. He asked how come they could not use something that would be less impacting not only on the eyes, but more importantly on the vegetation that extended far away from the bank all the way to the river.
Pitts said they had shown the concrete from a maintenance standpoint, they had not had a very successful time with some of the impervious concretes from freeze and thaw, especially with the amount of water that would be down in that area. He said they were concerned that over time, the deterioration would be greater than a typical concrete slab would be on that area. The University would maintain that pad and would be prepared to make any maintenance and repairs that might be required over time.
He said one of the questions from the Planning Commission was if there was the ability to use some type of material that would allow grass growth. What was seen, because of the heat in the summer, the amount of heat that was retained in the brick killed off plant life and it was very difficult to maintain the growth of plant life in that area because of the expansive area and the size of those bricks. He said for water going through, to be able to maintain the root life that was below, what was seen was the amount of water that was below the soil was significant with the riverbed adjacent. Currently, the City through those sand beds was pulling groundwater from the river to those wells and they did not anticipate any problems by putting a material on top of the ground that would prevent water from penetrating to the ground to be able to maintain the root source.
Vice Mayor Dever said by substituting crushed limestone or some other surface that would percolate, he asked if there would be any measurable difference in the amount of water in roots to the trees between the concrete and the impervious pavement.
Pitts anytime they would be able to provide the ability to go through, it would increase the water below that slab.
Vice Mayor Dever said he was concerned about the life of the trees at that location and keeping the area a park.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Kelly Barth, Lawrence, said as a citizen she was concerned about the damage to the trees and the habitat in the area. She said as a member of the Lawrence Parks and Recreation Advisory Board she was concerned that she did not know about this project until after the zonings were completed. She said she had people calling asking why she would have approved the project, but she did not know about the project.
Lisa Grossman, Lawrence, said she was speaking as a citizen who enjoyed Burcham Park. She said she supported KU’s rowing team, but she had some concerns about the Boathouse facility. Burcham Park was appreciated by many people from Lawrence as a less developed park with really great views and wildlife watching opportunities along with migratory bird habitat which Burcham Park had the best view within City limits. She said she felt this structure would irrevocably alter the character of the park for human and other than human populations with over 16,000 square feet of building footprint. She said she was also glad the City Commission was concerned about the non-permeable surface and she did not see any reason that permeable pavers could not be used. She said she was also concerned about the mature cottonwoods because those were the trees in question that would be removed. She asked how many trees would be impacted by the utility lines coming through.
Also, she noted comments that Crystal Miles, Horticulture Manager, Parks and Recreation, had written on the architectural plat where she had arrows pointing to the various trees and features and she wanted to know how a few of those trees and features had been addressed.
1. “This is the only cottonwood forest in Lawrence and trees need to be preserved or reforested;
2. Current plan shows severe loss of roots which would lead to tree decline with install of base floor;
3. The proposed concrete path will also damage tree routes of existing trees;
4. Any grade change over four inches will lead to decline of trees, possible destabilization and structural unsoundness of trees in these public areas, a risk of liability and loss of cottonwood forest area;
5. Damage could increase with construction staging area related to equipment storage and parking;
6. All of these issues need to be resolved with the Park Department prior to approval;
7. A lot of the critical root zone that would need to be protected under the drip line or structure would need to be moved to protect the trees;
8. No one’s has been given permission to remove trees for this structure.”
She said just the design seemed to reflect little concern for the environmental impact in the area.
She said she had one other concern about the security lighting and she did not know how much additional lighting would be in the park because light pollution would be a concern and another negative impact for wildlife populations.
Finally, she said her last concern was that public access would be restricted to the north end of the park and she was not sure about the amount of public access and if would be cut off on the north end.
Susan Iverson, on behalf of the Jayhawk Audubon Society, and on behalf of the park, she said they were requesting the Commission to deny this Special Use Permit for a Boathouse because they felt it would negatively impact public access, the riparian forest buffer, water quality, and the value of habitat for wildlife. They were totally in favor of the rowing team having a Boathouse, but did not feel that Burcham Park was the right place for a Boathouse to be.
Their specific reasons were the cottonwood forest, water quality, water quantity, and stream bank stabilization. She said Kansas Forest Service had called for there re-establishment management and they should be expanding the forest, not chopping the forest down. The City’s horticulturalist thought those trees should be preserved. Also, the submitted plan was somewhat misleading because they did not acknowledge all trees that would need to be removed for the utility right-of-way. When woods were fragmented, it reduced the value of what was left for wildlife. It was well document that ecological disturbance extended well beyond the actual physical footprint of construction.
She said the applicant had received an email from Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks and this was not considered critical habitat. She said critical habitat was a technical term that simply meant there were non endangered species and it did not mean this was not extremely valuable habitat for many species. She asked, for once, could they not wait until it was critical and endangered to act, to preserve something.
She said this building was designed with its large expansive glass and would be a wall of death for birds. The lowest estimate for the number of birds killed each year in North America from window collisions was 100 million birds which was well documented in big cities. She said there were a large number of birds that migrate along Burcham Park through the fall and spring and would be a real hazard. If the City Commission approved the Boathouse they would ask that the City Commission go back and ask the team to make some change to those windows. There was lots of research in the architectural community to improve this problem and there were things that could be done.
The pervious pavement was also a big concern. She said they were using pervious pavement in Minnesota and in Canada, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and could not believed Lawrence Kansas winters were not more severe. She said pervious surfaces needed to be very carefully planned and very carefully executed. She said according to the Friends of the Kaw River, it was probably not in the Athletic Department’s best interest to construct the boathouse at that location because in a few years it would not be a good place to row. She said she did not know why the row team did not practice out at Clinton Lake. The KSU’s rowing team practiced at Tuttle Creek. She was sure that many teams across the country practiced at reservoirs.
The City Storm Water Engineer indicated that they would be building the boathouse in the floodway and might affect the City’s participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. She said the needs of the few should not outweigh the needs of the many.
She expected that a lot of people were thinking those tree huggers were just really overreacting to the small boathouse. She said that thinking was the problem in those open space issues. As a society they had always been willing to allow one small project after another. She said at this point, with all environmental problems she thought they should think globally and act locally. They knew the natural world was not limitless and that human activity was causing irreparable damage and lost.
She said now she was speaking as a taxpayer. She said if the boathouse facility was approved, the lease would be for a nominal fee and asked why the City would lease public land which would basically be in perpetuity. The Athletic Department prides itself on operating like a business and the City needed money. The Athletic Department had no hesitation taking all the sales tax money for the MU game away from Lawrence. If the City Commission did approve this boathouse and leased the property to KU, then the City needed to charge KU what the land was worth.
She asked that a letter from Chuck Herman, President, Jayhawk Audubon Society Board, be entered into the record. The letter read as follows:
“The Jayhawk Audubon Society requests that the City Commission act to preserve full public access to Burcham Park and maintain wildlife habitat in its current condition and extent by denying Special Use Permit SUP-07-06-07 for a KU Boathours. We make this request for the following reasons:
1. This riparian cottonwood forest is of high importance for maintaining the water quality in our community and others downstream. According to the Kansas Forest Service such riparian forest buffers have declined by over 50% in Kansas since the 1850’s. They call for the re-establishment and management of such forests to restore and maintain water quality, water quantity, stream banks, and provide wildlife habitat. The trees act to filter out many pollutants and also increase infiltration of ground water thus reducing storm water runoff. The roots of large trees perform an important service by stabilizing the stream banks. In this remnant of a larger forest each tree matters.
2. Given that management of riparian buffer forests is considered a high priority by the Kansas Forest Service it is important to note that Crystal Miles our City Horticulturalist has commented in writing that the current plan for the KU boathouse “will not work as shown to maintain tree health.” Also “Current plans show severe loss of roots, which will lead to tree decline with install of bas floor.” Finally, “This is the only Cottonwood Forest in Lawrence and tress need to be preserved or reforested…Condition of approval – this is a risk to the city.”
3. The submitted plan does not acknowledge that beyond the estimated 6 to 13 old-growth trees that would be totally removed to construct the boathouse, many more will have to be removed or severely trimmed to bring the planned utility services to the building creating a swath of destruction through the remainder of the wood. Removal of these trees will further impact the forest’s ability to serve as a buffer zone for the river.
Also this fragmentation of the wood will make it less useful to wildlife than even the same reduced area would be if it were an intact tract of forest. It is well documented that ecological disturbance extends beyond the physical footprint of construction because of “edge effects” and the disruption of functioning when part of an ecosystem is destroyed. See Silence of the Songbirds, 2007 by Bridget Stutchbury, professor of biology at York University and former Smithsonian Institution research associate.
4. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks has indicated that this is not “critical habitat”. However, this determination only means that the habitat is not essential to some threatened or endangered species. It does not speak to the value of the habitat for other species that may be declining but are not yet endangered or for species that are common that we would like to keep common! For once let’s not wait until the situation is critical before we act to maintain valuable habitat like Burcham Park.
According to Galen Pittman, Wildlife Biologist & Field Station Manager of the Nelson Environmental Study Area of the Kansas Biological Survey: “Burcham is EXTREMELY significant for migrating passerines in eastern Kansas. (Passerines are perching songbirds and make up over half of all birds.) It is one of only a handful of places such as Marais des Cygnes Wildlife Area that had the habitat that attracts these species. The dense undergrowth is also very important to certain rare species and should NOT be cleared out or any large trees for that matter.” (personal email)
5. This building with its large expanse of glass will be a literal wall of death for migratory and resident birds traveling along the river bank looking for food and shelter. According to ornithologist Daniel Klem (Audubon magazine, 3/2004) over 100 million birds die after colliding with windows every year in North America. They cannot perceive the glass as a barrier but rather sense it to be an open space. Because of the large number of birds moving along the river bank in Burcham during spring and fall migrations this building will pose a significant hazard. In the sad event the permit is approved, we ask that the design team be required to make modifications to the design such as the use of fritted glass to minimize danger.
6. The design team stated to the Planning Commission that previous pavement cannot be used for the boat washing and staging pad in front of the building because Kansas winters are too severe for this material. A simple Google search reveals that previous pavements are being used successfully for boat launch ramps, parking lots and other heavy usages in places such as Duluth, Minnesota, Canada, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania which have much more severe winters than Lawrence. At this time, permeable pavements can be more costly and require careful planning and execution, but if done properly have been found to perform well and not require excessive extra maintenance. (“Advances in Porous Pavement”, Stormwater, the Journal for Surface Water Quality Professionals, March 2005) The Athletic Departments’ bottom line cannot be allowed to take precedence over safeguarding water quality for our community.
Again, if this permit is approved, please require the use of some sort of pervious pavement for the large boat washing/staging pad. Water is an increasingly precious resource and the interests of the entire community must far outweigh those of the Athletic Department.
7. According to Friends of the Kaw, the riverbed is significantly aggrading with sand along this stretch and will probably become too shallow for use by the rowing team in the foreseeable future. Dredging would be extremely detrimental to the health of the river and would not be approved simply by recreational purposes. Clinton Lake already has heavy recreational use and would be a much more appropriate location for this boathouse. The KSU rowing team uses Tuttle Creek Reservoir. As for community use, if your child was taking a rowing class through Parks and Rec and fell out of the boat would you prefer that to happen in the Kaw where it is usually recommended that you not even eat the fish or out at Clinton Lake where people swim and fish all the time?
8. The City Stormwater Engineer has indicated in his report of 7-25-07 that construction of a permanent structure like this in the Kansas River floodway could affect the city’s eligibility for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. This would be a bad outcome for the city. Again the interests of the few should not be allowed to outweigh the interests of the many.
Some may feel we are overreacting to the paving over of a relatively small amount of land – after all the Athletic Department does not want to build another Memorial Stadium here. The problem is that this argument is used ad infinitem to justify gobbling resources and obliterating one parcel of open space after another until – Oh my, how could this have happened? – the last prairie is plowed, the last foot of river bank is swathed in concrete, the Ark River runs dry, or the last Ivory-billed Woodpeckers search fruitlessly for the old-growth pines they need for nesting and die without reproducing. At this point in history, we should all be very aware that the natural world is not limitless, that human activity can cause irreparable damage and loss and, finally, that most of that damage is done in small incremental steps – exactly like this project.
Therefore in the interests of maintaining public open space for the use of all the people of Lawrence, maintaining riparian forest for water quality and maintaining habitat for migratory and resident birds who do not have other local places that meet their needs, the Jayhawk Audubon Society respectfully asks that the City Commission deny this special use permit for a KU Boathouse in Burcham Park.”
KT Walsh, Lawrence, said, she was a member representing Friends of the Kaw and someone who loved to canoe the river and take a good book down to the park. She said God love the crew members that got up at 5 or 6 in the morning and get out there and practice. There were some issues. The process was not open and complete because it did not go through the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. There was a problem with transparency since there was no meeting with the Pinckney Neighborhood. They were all standard neighborly things that needed to happen in the process. The trees were heritage trees mature and stately. They needed to save them. Pervious concrete was being used all over and in Lawrence. It sounded like it was a unique riverside application for KU and may require them to use materials they were not in the habit of using, but was a creative opportunity. Although they have clear rules for construction sites on their books, they all seen heavy equipment parked under drip lines of trees and oil running off vehicles. She said if this went through in this natural place, there needed to be some clear monitoring of where the vehicles would be so they did not harm this fragile area. She said she understood there was an elevator in the building for access. She asked about the maintenance fee of the elevator over the years as it flooded.
Steve Braswell, Pinckney Neighborhood Association, said the people who had spoken previously had brought up a lot of good points. He said the groups did meet with the Pinckney Neighborhood back in June, which they appreciated. They had a pretty short notice to get together and were not publicized well. The people that attended the meeting then were pretty agreeable to think this was a good and useful project for the park, but obviously there were a lot of other concerns. He said speaking personally, he would like to hear a little bit more about the arrangement of using a City park with KU. He asked if they had done much of this previously. He said a personal concern of his was the light pollution. There was a comment from the architects that the lights would not impact the neighborhoods, but there was not much neighborhood close to it. He said people did enjoy being able to enjoy nature without a lot of bright lights. He said that was a thing he would like to see addressed. He understood they needed security lights, but would hate to see it like an airport beacon in the middle of the park. He said he wanted to point out the neighborhood met and appreciated they made the effort.
Pitts said they would be happy to look at the option available to pervious material. What they had seen and what land plan they had seen was the climate issue that they saw was not the extreme cold, but the extreme cold and immediate thawing. That was where this type of material had not been successful in this specific climate. If they were 100 miles north or south, it was a completely different situation. They were happy to do more research to see what other options were out there, but it was not a cost issue. It was what they were trying to do to provide the best product out there for the program and for the maintenance so they did not have deterioration of that in the site.
He said as to the utility lines and how the trees were going to be impacted, the overhead electric that was going to be brought to this site was going to be brought along the existing roadway. There was an existing transformer that sat above grade at a pole that was mounted near the parking lot. There would be a new pole that would be situated just to the north of that parking lot outside of the tree line. They had been very cognizant of that. From there to the building, it would also be outside the tree line. He knew recently the electrical company came in and cleared the existing lines that were to the west of that. They were trying to minimize that impact so it did not occur with this project. They tried to keep it outside the tree line so the 10 foot wide piece they would need would be outside the existing tree line.
He said they looked at where the tree canopies were to the best of their ability without physically laying out the plan. They indicated what trees would be impacted. He said they would protect any trees that were not to be impacted. They would continue to work with Parks and Recreation before construction, during construction, to make sure their concerns were addressed. They recognized what Crystal had indicated and would continue to work with her to make sure that those issues were addressed and they do not damage trees beyond what they needed to. He said they would educate and knew the contractor was already educated on what needed to occur in this area to make sure that was maintained. They were very cognizant of that and were going to make sure they would take care of that not only from the trees but the construction material was down there. He said not only did they need to be careful of things that were dripping from machinery or not, but they had to be cognizant that the river could flood during this period of construction, so things needed to be maintained and they needed to be ready and pack out if that occurred, too. There were many issues they would address from the beginning and work with City staff to make sure those items were addressed. The grade would not change significantly to impact the tree line because they could not from the flood perspective. They could not raise the grade that then impacted the flood way which would impact how the river direction and flow or raise the level in any sense. They were very cognizant of that also. He said anything outside the building footprint would be maintained to as close the existing grade as possible.
As for the security lighting, they had two additional pole lights that would be located. One would be just north of the parking lot and one that was north of the building towards the dock. These would be similar pole lights that were out in the parking lots now. They did not meet City standards and were less light than what was required. They were cognizant of how that light will impact the site and the University was cognizant of the maintenance and electrical cost that was associated with powering those lights. They would take that into consideration and submit that as part of their planning package for City staff to review to make sure it met City regulations and did not impact not only the neighborhoods, but also impacted the park.
He said access to the park would not be changed with this project. They anticipated some access controlled from the staging aspect during construction, but after construction there would be no change in access around the building, to the river, or through the park itself. They would do the public improvements on the parking that was located on the north side of the park and also the access road to the north. They would also make sure the site was not disturbed more than needed. He said the access to the park for the public would not change from where it currently stood.
He said on the rowing on Clinton Lake, the access, and the sandbar, but it was the winds at Clinton Lake with significant deterioration that really impacted their ability to row out there. What was nice about this piece of the river was it sat down and the winds were directed above the tree line, so it allowed them to have races in a lot more consistent winds and water levels and speeds. It was a very good location for the team to practice and also have their regattas.
They were cognizant with the work of the Corps of Engineers on the river and where the river sandbars were. Natural flooding and river changes helped that and they would continue to monitor that throughout the process.
He said some of the questions from Matt Bond, the City Engineer, were addressed at the Board of Zoning Appeals. He was concerned in the report he indicated for staff that if they did not complete the flood development permit per city regulations, there was a possibility the flood insurance program would be affected. He said Bond believed with that flood plain development permit being completed properly, he did not anticipate any problems, but it would be part of the audit process for that.
He said the model for the lease that was used was the model that was used for the fire station being built on KU Endowment Land so it was very similar and equitable lease. He said for the elevator they were following the FEMA guidelines of what needed to be developed within the floodway. They had specific guidelines of what they could have within the floodway. All of their utilities were going to be located above the floodway and how that elevator needed to be flood proofed and also where the electronics and controls for that elevator are maintained. He said the elevator would be above the floodway and would be at the second floor. They were going to follow the FEMA guidelines as part of the construction.
As part of the lease agreement of how the private use with the public park and how KU Athletics would work with Parks and Recreation, it would be part of the lease agreement and would be continued to be developed. As they saw new developments and opportunities, it would change and have opportunities from both of the parties to grow through this building.
The plumbing would be all above grade. They had a force main that was located on the 2nd floor. All of the lines were above the floodway. The 1st floor to the 2nd floor was a 17 foot floor to floor. The flood highest elevation was about 8 feet above the 1st floor. All of the mechanical, plumbing and electrical mechanical systems were above that 8 foot. They were at the bottom of the existing 2nd floor slab. The force main was double cased out of the building and then went to the west underneath the railroad tracks to an existing line that was in that area. They worked with the Utility Department and would also work through the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to make sure they were meeting all the regulations and make sure there were not contaminants that would potentially contaminate the water source for the City of Lawrence.
Commissioner Highberger asked about the glass windows.
Pitts said it was something they could look at to see if there was something they could do, if there were different films or glass materials. He said he knew it was always a concern the more reflective they made it sometimes helps and sometimes it does not. He said they would look into products to see if there were things they could do to fix it. There were a lot of different products out there.
Corliss asked what the vegetation disturbance would be for the sewer line going west.
Pitts said the only place they were taking vegetation out was just next to the railroad tracks itself. There was underbrush, but no trees. They were following the existing road that the water line uses to access the pumps. Once on the west side of the railroad tracks, they were in the bone yard of the water department which was owned by the City that went into the sanitary sewer on 2nd Street.
Commissioner Highberger said it was his understanding this was presented to the Parks and Recreation Board, but only two members were present.
Corliss said that was correct. They received the presentation and there was not enough of quorum to do anything other than discuss the project.
Commissioner Amyx said he still supported the boathouse. He said the applicant did everything possible to make sure there was little affect on the park as they could. One of the comments brought up this summer was safety by some of the neighbors from Pinckney. Some of the lighting would help the safety in and around the park area, too. One of the things they ought to talk about was the pervious pavement area. If there was a way the applicant could look at other materials to be used on the roadway area, that was important. Protecting the trees was also important. He said everyone involved had a goal to make sure this project met the beauty and spirit of that park. If there were ways to take care of that system, there was a way to handle that along with the pervious pavements.
Mayor Hack asked Corliss about the Riverfront Mall and what if anything was done to address the large amount of glass on the north side.
Corliss said he did not know. He said he knew it was an important issue.
Commissioner Amyx said the item at the time he knew there was a lot of discussion about the glass on the north side of the building and to make sure the glass be reduced as much as possible so that it did not have an affect on the population. There was some concern that a number of trees on the east side of the property.
Commissioner Chestnut said he agreed with Commissioner Amyx. He said he still supported this project. The focus on this discussion had been on the impact of the environmental issues and there was no doubt anytime they put a structure in a park, they were going to have some impacts. One of the things that made this unique was because there was so much utility right-of-way that was already there, it mitigated a lot of what could be a whole lot of requirements to cut through a lot of trees. He was satisfied the applicant did a good job of looking at much alternative as possible to preserve that. He said the other thing was it was maybe the most highly engineered building they would look at in the City of Lawrence and thought it was necessary because of the unique placement of it, but it calculated at $600 a foot. He said there had been a lot of planning and he was very much in support of it.
Commissioner Highberger said he was supportive of the project but he had concerns that he would like to see addressed before final approval. Those concerns about the impact on trees he would like to see a more specific plan before he was ready for final approval. He shared Vice Mayor Dever’s concerns about the permeable pavement. He would like to see either a little more information on why it was not possible or plan for making it work. He said there was no required approval from the Parks and Recreation Board, but would have been a lot happier if it had gone to the board at some point earlier in the process that they could have gotten feedback from the board. He preferred to have Crystal sign off on the tree plan and it was presented to the full Parks and Recreation Board for approval, but would be more comfortable if they deferred action on this.
Vice Mayor Dever said he was able to talk to Crystal that day and get some questions answered. He thought one of the things she pointed out to him was if it was done right, they could do things well. She pointed to the fact that they rebuilt the swimming pool and did a great job of saving and preserving trees in the middle of one of their most historical parks in the community. Her biggest concerns were they manage and process it adequately and did it in such a way it was transparent. Construction activities could get out of hand, people get deadlines and get overzealous and do things normally would not bother anyone but in a park like setting he thought it was important they pay particular attention to. He thought it was important they outlined the best management practices to be utilized in a park and follow those. He was in favor of doing something to get the project moving forward. He thought it was important they were careful and perform due diligence when deciding exactly where it belonged and exactly how much of the area got paved. The area getting paved was far greater than the footprint of the building. He liked the concept of the building, but end up with a lot more paving in the park than what was necessary. He wanted to recognize it was a City park and something they needed to take care of and do a good job of. He was in favor of the concept, but wanted to make sure they were careful with how they took care of their park and the forest growth there.
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve a Special Use Permit (SUP-07-06-07) for the KU Boathouse, located at 2nd and Indiana, subject to the following amended conditions:
Motion carried unanimously. (13)
Consider the following items related to the Revised South Development Plan and CPA-2007-03:
a) Consider approving the Revised Southern Development Plan.
b) Consider approving CPA-2007-03 an amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 14
Specific Plans, to add reference to the Revised Southern Development Plan.
Michelle Leininger, Planner, presented the staff report. She said it was an update to a plan that was done about 10 years ago. This item was the new planning area. The old planning area was a little smaller. The Comprehensive Plans Committee, which was a sub committee of the Planning Commission, was charged to work on this plan. They decided to expand the planning area both to the west and east to help incorporate some of those areas better into the document. It was sent to the CPC in November 2006. CPC prepared a draft to the plan, the plan was made available to the public in May 2007, and there was a public meeting held on June 7th, 2007 to receive public comment. Those comments then went back to the CPC where they considered all the comments and revised a draft to the plan. Letters were sent to property owners within the planning area to let them know the changes within the future land use map. Draft 2 was made available for the public to view on their website and comment on. A second letter was then sent to the property owners informing them the complete draft was available online and also informing them the public hearing date for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission heard the plan and the Comprehensive Plan amendment. On August 29, 2007 they recommended approval 8-1 with two changes.
She went over the plan recommendations. First was a future land use description. They were all the land use categories that were incorporated in the plan that ranged from low density residential office. They incorporated traditional neighborhood development that would depend on the SmartCode being approved. Some commercial, public institutional uses was a little hard to see, but was part of the plan that showed how the future land use descriptions were described, gave the intent of the district, the density, which came straight from the Comprehensive Plan. The intensity of the development would be the applicable areas described on the future land use map; the applicable zoning districts and the primary uses within that land use. This plan had two future land use maps that would all be adopted into the plan. The first was traditional land use. It had a variety of land uses. Most of what was developed along South Iowa, there was residential and reflected to what the current uses and density were. They were not recommended to be changed. They had a second land use map which was an option TND identified areas. They were dependent on the approval of the Smart Code. It would be an option for the property owners within the specified areas.
She showed the two recommended changes from the Planning Commission. They recommended the property located at 31st and Louisiana Street be changed from low density residential to medium density residential. There were also duplex and triplex uses. It would be consistent with abutting land uses. Horizon 2020 future land use plan identified that area as low density residential. Staff could support it either way. Horizon 2020 talked about transition of uses and things of that nature.
The next change was the addition of language referencing in T2030 and subsequent transportation plans. She said they talked with the Planning Commissioners that made the motion to find out specifically where they intended and what type of text they intended it to be. They came to the agreement to put it under the policy section under the transportation network and corridors and to state Transportation 2030 or subsequent long range transportation plans once adopted should supersede any recommendations, actions, or policies referenced in Transportation 2025. It would help to carry the current transportation plan policies and things forward so they could be utilized in this plan so that the plan did not immediately need to be updated.
She said the Comprehensive Plan amendment was to Chapter 14, which was specific plans, to add the reference to this plan. It incorporated the plan by reference so the goals, policies, land uses and anything that was in the plan was part of the Comprehensive Plan. It made the documents more solid for staff to use and more solid for the Commissions to base recommendations and decisions on. She said this was a brand new chapter and was recently adopted last month and published. They could not incorporate plans into the chapter until they were approved. This was part of the new process and they were trying to bring the Comprehensive Plan up to date so they could bring the Comprehensive Plan Amendments along with the plans. It was more solid and up to date.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Robert Hagen, Lawrence, said he was in the neighborhood immediately to the north of the area. He said in any plan the devil was in the details. It was a nice, general guideline and was pleased that after 10 years of having no effective plan, at least there was some kind of blueprint of what they might expect. He said there were a couple of rules and concerns. Some of them were things they could not do anything about, such as the traffic way, but there were new issues involving how traffic was going to move through this area. They had prospective substantial growth to the south and the likelihood that increasing pressure would come on Louisiana Street to serve as the major access point to the north. He knew it would be very expensive either in the form of a buyout of properties along that street to turn it into a proper arterial or an equal expense, the deterioration of properties and their eventual demolition by neglect. The answer was going to be tough, but thought it had to be factored into this. He asked how the traffic from the south of the area was going to move northward. In addition to that, and more specific in area, part of the greatest concern to his neighborhood, the Indian Hills area, was the fate of that northwest corner of Louisiana and 31st Street. It had been a difficult issue. Ten years ago, when he was president of the neighborhood association, they made an effort to try to learn from the property owners what plans they had in mind. They were unsuccessful in getting any information from them. From this date, they had no indication what was being planned for that area, which was the source of concern. The concern that greatly affected the neighborhood was traffic access. One thing that would be most alarming would be any attempt to connect the stub streets of Missouri and Alabama down to 31st Street. From the standpoint of the 31st & Louisiana property owners it may be a great advantage, but from the standpoint of the neighborhood it would be a disaster and would be fought vigorously. It was not something the plan discussed very well. He said the original Comprehensive Plan should propose low density housing. It was something the neighborhood would like to see. The medium density rose great concerns. Even without the connection to 31st Street, medium density would put a lot more traffic and residences into a neighborhood that did not have the streets to handle it. There were many ways they could plan it, but they did not know what those were and without knowledge the low density zoning would be highly preferred and would strongly urge to return to the original plan.
Carol Bowen, Lawrence, said she wanted to tell the City Commission about her neighborhood. Her neighborhood was a neighborhood that people were talking about. They could go to the dentist, go to a doctor, and was a great neighborhood. It was one of those TND’s she kept hearing about. Their neighborhood had been impacted by Target, Wal-Mart and Home Depot. Each one of those developments promised that it would not happen. They only had three ways into their neighborhood and they were all on Louisiana Street. They lived behind Checkers. That neighborhood was not even on the map, yet it would be affected. It would be impacted by all the development to the south. She said she was hearing they would have a medium density student apartment complex behind the old K-Mart. They were saying all that traffic would be going to Iowa, but it did not sound like much as a medium density development, but when they were talking about 8,888 beds designed for students, it was an entirely different matter. She said she thought they were probably all not going to go on Iowa. Target, Wal-Mart, and Home Depot’s traffic did not all use Iowa Street. They were not planning for the capacity they had and their neighborhoods around the edge were not incorporated into the plan. They needed to integrate their capacity and land use from what they already had and what was going to work well outside the City limits. They needed to work that together rather than just having the old neighborhoods suffer because a new development came in. New development was good, but they needed to integrate it better. She said she did not think the hearing process was adequate and shared that concern with the property owners. She said she did not think it was openly discussed. She went to the public hearing, but it was mostly for the property owners. The other neighborhoods did not even know about it. She thought it needed more careful review because they wanted it to last for a while and wanted to be able to rely on it.
Mike Caron, Lawrence, said he could remember when folks who used to sit in the City Commission’s seats came over to South Junior High to a joint meeting of the Indian Hills Neighborhood Association and the brand new Park Hill Neighborhood Association. Those people stood there and they asked them about the piece of property they were talking about at the northwest corner of Louisiana and they assured the neighbors that the Lawrence City Commission would never allow any substantial development there whatsoever. The most they would ever see there was perhaps a church. He said it was a wetland until the property owners illegally filled it. When they were caught illegally filling, there was a handshake and they gave a few thousand dollars to Baker University and all the fines and jail time they would have spent if they would have enforced the laws were just ignored. In 2001, the permit they got ran out and those folks continued to fill. The folks from Indian Hills watched it fill and watched their basements fill with water. People kept saying it had nothing to do with the flooding that was going on in Indian Hills. He said they were now talking about rewarding all of that illegal filling. It took him forever to find out whether or not they had a permit. He talked to the City and they said it was not City property and was told to go to the County because they were the ones that were monitoring that property. He went to the County and they said it was the state that was monitoring that. He went to the state and they said the County monitors that. He went back to the County and they put him in touch with the people in the state that should be monitoring it. He talked with a person at the State and that person literally went out to see when people were filling. He was told that person had a lot of counties to check and could not keep up with all of it. He eventually received a letter from that person that said the property owner at 31st & Louisiana have been illegally filling and have not had a permit since 2001. There were several people in the Indian Hills Neighborhood this person promised he would keep in touch with. Every one of them has tried to call and they got no responses whatsoever. He said his point was by boosting this up to medium density population, they were doing something that very significantly negatively impacted the neighborhoods and rewarding someone who had been destroying wetland. The whole piece of property had been kept out of the City so it could not be regulated. They were allowing a developer to do something that should have never been done to that land.
Eddie Davolos, Park Hill Neighborhood Association President, said his motivation for coming to the meeting was mostly out of fear for traffic in their neighborhood that was started around 1951 and 1952. At that time there was nothing else around it and now the City has started to grow around them. It was a neighborhood that was easily forgotten. His motivation was because it was a very walking friendly community. They did not have sidewalks but there were a lot of people that used their bicycles or walked on foot. His fear was with all the attention and potential activity that was going to be coming down the pike, that they would be more and more isolated and not able to get to the other parts of town without jeopardizing their safety to cross Louisiana Street.
Jane Eldredge, attorney representing the property owners at 31st & Louisiana, said they were asking the City Commission to support the Planning Commission recommendation and the staff memo received supporting the Planning Commission recommendation. She pointed out a couple of things in the report. The property in question was not in the City and had been filled with permits and with inspection from County permits, State permits, and State water. There had not been any illegal filling there. She said when they looked at the current Horizon 2020 generalized map for what the land use should be in this area, it was a split land use with low intensity and high intensity. She said on page 16 of the report, there was the road map. 31st Street and Louisiana both showed up as arterials. One of the regulations they had in the City was that they could not exit from residential property onto an arterial street. There were two arterials and there would not be a way under City regulations to exit onto those arterials. The other concern was they spent a lot of effort to find out what to do with 31st and Louisiana. There were going to be significant issues with rights-of-way that needed to be required there, significant infrastructure issues and costs associated with improving the road that the property owner would have to bear. She said Tom Jennings at the Planning Commission put it best when he talked about having gone over to the property, sat there, looked at it, and tried to figure out if it would be an appropriate place for single family housing. His conclusion was that it was not an appropriate place for single family housing. They were having housing facing these arterials which would not work, the costs that were going to be associated with the land in terms of assessments for benefit districts and the infrastructure that would be necessary would not be supportable with single family development. She brought up the nature of the land use recommendation itself. She said to create the island was really suggesting there not be any development there. If it was the will of the City Commission that there be no development, it would probably be more straightforward just to say that. If they were going to leave it in private hands to be dealt with, the only realistic solution was the medium density recommended by the Planning Commission and supported by staff.
Commissioner Highberger said it seemed that almost all the property on 31st Street was floodway. He asked if there should not be any development along the roadway anyway regardless of what went there.
Eldredge said she did not disagree. She thought it was a smaller version so she did not know exactly where that was. She said she did not know if it would be a little bit or none. She said there would not be any development in the floodway.
Jean Elermeier, Lawrence, said she has been speaking at City Commission and Planning Commission meetings since 1974. She said she helped organize the Indian Hills Neighborhood Association and at that time they were way out of town. 27th Street was a cart track, Iowa was another country road. She watched a lot of things happening in Lawrence and much of what was built in Indian Hills came after the war. It was all potential floodplain because they were close to the Naismith Drainage Area. They were fortunate the Naismith Park was there to take care of lot of this. It was also a fact and had been all these years that all the water that came down off the KU hill from the north and most all of the water that came down from the west and east pooled at 23rd and Naismith. There had been horrible problems down there before some of the fixes were made and some of the help was put in. The City bought some property and did a lot of things to the drainage. There were cars that floated around in the Dillon parking lot every time they had a heavy rain. She saw Naismith Creek flood so badly that people were canoeing across 27th Street. The property they were talking about here had always been low and part of that floodplain. Surely it had been filled and she would not be arguing about whether it was all legal or not. Certainly it was done before any permits were issued and some were issued after the fact. Now what they were facing was a situation where 29th Street Terrace, which was the most southern street in their neighborhood association, was literally below some of the fill, which acted as a dam. What had always been bad along 29th Street Terrace and 29th Street was now worse. The people who lived along there in those duplexes and triplexes came to a meeting they had sometime a couple of years ago and their concern was that water was pooling behind their houses before some of the last fill was put in. She said people could not get out onto the arterials. The development they were talking about and the change in zoning along the northern edge of this property had no egress except 29th Street Terrace. That was into her neighborhood and already the neighborhood carried most of the traffic that was coming through town to the big box stores because they did not want to go down Louisiana and struggle with the failing corner at 31st and Louisiana. She said it was not a simple problem and she could appreciate the problem that was before the City Commission, but they would like to help solve it but have never, ever been permitted access to any of the owners, even though they have repeatedly asked to meet with the owners for probably 15 years. She asked the City Commission to think about it and maybe they could help solve the problem.
Commissioner Highberger voiced his concerns about approving blob maps in general. He said he had limited faith in their utility. He wanted to see area planning at a more detailed level. It was something that was a concern of his for a long time and he knew it was difficult, but in order to make some decisions, they had to look at things like local street networks. He respectfully disagreed with Mr. Hagen. He thought if they were going to keep Louisiana Street from failing, at some point they had to look at connecting Ousdahl and maybe Missouri. He thought the real problem was more than this area and there was no cross connections and everything got funneled onto places like Louisiana. He shared the neighbors’ concerns about use of that property. He disagreed with the Planning Commission recommendation. Their transition policy the property there could transition either to a higher residential or single family and given the fact it was bound by floodway, which precluded any development along the arterials. He thought keeping it as single family would make more sense, especially given the drainage concerns in that area. He said he could not approve any plan that contemplated construction of the SLT as a freeway through what was going to be a neighborhood in Lawrence. It was like building a wall and thought it was a wrong approach to carrying the traffic. He thought they needed to look at a different way to do it. He said he would vote against adopting the plan.
Commissioner Amyx asked for further explanation of the addition to the reference of the T2030.
Leininger said she believed what the Planning Commissioners were getting at was that they did not want policies and future thoroughfares maps that were shown on the future land use map to conflict with the recommendations and the future thoroughfares map and T2030 and subsequent plans. They thought this would be a way of basically getting around that and having that when T2030 was approved; they would use the goals and policies in the future thoroughfares map instead of the previous ones.
Commissioner Amyx asked if it would replace T 2025.
Leininger said whatever policies if there was conflict, the policies in T2030 would be the ones they would follow, being that it would be the approved transportation plan at that time.
Commissioner Amyx said he read through the minutes to make sure he understood that, and did not see how they could replace something that currently existed that may put some of the southern development plan back at this commission to be changed so they could put those future policies in place.
Mayor Hack said the rationale for referencing that did make sense because it would be part of their transportation plan very quickly as they went through that process. According to the staff report, it was indicated the change from low density residential to medium density residential was requested by the Planning Commission and staff supported the modification for this future land use map because of the surrounding land use, similar to what Ms. Eldredge pointed out with the medium density north and south of that, but Leininger said the Planning Commission could go either way.
Scott McCullough, Planning and Development Services Director, said they had a density range in the land use table that they were looking at and as actual applications came in, they had options to decide what kind of structures that was. There were a range of options to the actual development there. When they looked at the density ranges, they could support either the low density or medium density range. They began a discussion at the Planning Commission about structure types and attempting to match structure types on the Snodgrass property to the existing structures to the north. Frankly, the Planning Commission did not want to go down that path in very much detail and they ended the discussion at the density range issue and recommended that medium density range did consider the structure types to the north. When they said they could support it, they could support it either way knowing that eventually they would get another chance at recommending a specific application through the planning process.
Mayor Hack said these transition areas are always difficult referring to the area at 31st & Louisiana. She said the rest of the plan was perfect and thought this was the area that concerned people, but also thought they had the opportunity for some site plan and staff recommendations and further in the Planning process to look at the clustering of these so that they were more compatible. She did not think single family was appropriate, essentially with the flood plain area to the south, it was still an island of low density surrounded to the north and south with medium density. She would go with the recommendations from the Planning Commission. She said it was a long time coming and no plan was going to be perfect for everybody, but it was a good step to get something on paper to allow some things to happen.
Vice Mayor Dever said he looked at the City’s GIS overlaying the floodway, the floodplain, the site that the neighborhood aerial photograph did not look like a whole lot of build able area on this piece of land. He asked for them to go into great detail into planning, how much land it would be because it did not look like there was a considerable amount of land to build on.
Leininger said she did not have the exact acreage, but it was not very big. They would need to put roads in there, right-of-way. There would be less space than the actual block they saw because they did have right-of-way that needed to be in there and setbacks.
Vice Mayor Dever said there would also be floodway. He said that was part of what they needed to decide. He asked for the definition of low density.
Mayor Hack said the definition of low density was 1 to 6 per acre and medium was 7 to 15 dwelling units per acre.
Eldredge said the approximate answer to Vice Mayor Dever’s question was that there were about 17 acres there and although they had not done the work to know how many buildable acres there would be after they took out all the floodway, the floodplain and the rights-of-way, they were probably looking at something certainly under 10 and maybe close to about 7.
Vice Mayor Dever said he was trying to calculate how many residences they were talking about. It was an uncomfortable situation because of its land locked nature; they had floodway, roadways, it was in the County, and there were a lot of issues that still needed to be discussed. He agreed with the Mayor there were a lot of good attributes with the plan and would like to see it move forward. He said he did not know how they could do a good job with this without knowing what impact there was going to be and the fact that no roads could be directly on to it. They would be piling on a whole lot of new residences in an area they did not have to get the new residents in and out of the neighborhoods very effectively. He said visually it was pretty clear they needed to be careful it would not be occur there, but he did not know if they needed to micromanage the situation either.
Commissioner Amyx said he grew up in the 2600 block of Ridge Court. He said this plan had some very positive recommendations. One of the things Mr. Hagen brought up and everyone knew that one of the things they had to take into consideration was the traffic as they looked at Louisiana Street and the tie in of the street there. He said they probably did not do a very good job with these types of maps as it related to being a little bit more specific on how development was going to occur. There was discussion about the extension of Ousdahl and was sure that was talked to death during the time of Home Depot being built and other developments there and had from the time he was a kid. He said since they were looking at doing a blob map on future land use and realizing that the traffic on Louisiana Street at 31st Street was going to be an important part of whatever development happened to the south and being able to access it, he did not see it being a problem as they looked at comments that the Vice Mayor just brought up about how much land was developable on that particular piece of property. He said he did not have any problem leaving the property as open space. He said the density of being able to go 7 to 15 dwelling units was too high.
Commissioner Chestnut said he agreed with Commissioner Amyx and his concern regarding the density at the corner at 31st & Louisiana. He thought staff did an appropriate job along with the Planning Commission at looking at the use of the land, but one of the things it appeared that if they went to a very high maximum density on that property, they could exasperate a flooding problem that was in adjacent neighborhoods and thought that was a big concern. He did not know how to get his arms around that except that his inclination would be to move forward with the plan with the approval of the amendment on Transportation 2030 because that was appropriate. There were going to be street recommendations and other things but he did not approve the higher density on that corner. He said one other thing that needed to be said was that he agreed there had been a lot of discussion about Louisiana and it was a big traffic issue. Part of that issue was created by the fact that their east/west situation was so bad. The fact was that issue as far as the problems with traffic in that neighborhood have not only been created by the development on 31st and Iowa, but then created by the increasing commuter traffic coming off of east 23rd Street. He said whatever route there was, it was important to understand that as long as that issue was not addressed it would continue to be an issue for that whole area because that area got gridlocked with traffic 4 or 5 hours a day.
Mayor Hack said it would take a supermajority vote to approve what was originally presented to the Planning Commission that had the low density. A simple majority would pass what came to them on 8-1. If they were to make a change in it to reduce that to lower density of 1 to 6 dwelling units per acre, then they could approve that with supermajority.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the revised Southern Development Plan as originally submitted to the Planning Commission (with the lower density for the area at 31st & Louisiana. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve amending (CPA-2007-03) Horizon 2020, Chapter 14 Specific Plans, to add a reference to the revised Southern Development Plan and adopted on first reading joint City Ordinance 8160/County Resolution _____. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Consider adopting on first reading, joint City Ordinance No. 8097/County Resolution No. _______, to replace Chapter 7 – 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, CAP-2004-02 Edition”, and repealing the existing chapter.
Amy Miller, Planner, presented the staff report. She said this chapter, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, had already been through the process and approved unanimously. The major changes that were made in this chapter included that consideration be given to the environment, diversified economy, and fiscally stable government when making land use decisions. Another major change was that industrial and employment related land use was split out inside the chapter. In addition, a work/live campus type center was added and specific sites were identified on Figure 7-2 and numerous goals and policies were updated.
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2004-02 was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission in November 2005, the City Commission in December 2005 and the County Commission on January 8, 2007. The joint City Ordinance and County Resolution had already been before the City Commission at the April 17, 2007 meeting. At that time it was deferred pending comments from members of the public. No comments were received and the item was placed back on the City Commission agenda at the July 10th City Commission meeting. It was deferred again to have staff study four issues. These four issues were outlined in a memo attached to tonight’s materials. The first item was draft alternative language for specific language regarding office space located on page 7-10. Staff drafted that alternative language and it was in the memo. That change had already been made within that chapter.
Item #2 was to study the addition of industrial employment areas not presently identified in the chapter. At the July 10th meeting, correspondence was received from the Barber Emerson law firm regarding a specific parcel of land, 154 acres that was located near I-70 and K-10. In that letter, it was identified that this was a possible site on the T2030 feature land use map. In reality, it was only identified on that map with an asterisk as a future possible site beyond 2030. Sites that were identified on that map were identified through a public hearing process and were specifically identified for the Comprehensive Plans Committee, work with staff, work with the public, and then this chapter and including those specific sites went through a public approval process at the Planning Commission, City Commission and ultimately the County Commission. The site in question was outside the urban growth area. Specific policies in the chapter stated that development should be limited to industrial areas within the urban growth area. In addition there were other policies that spoke to the availability of urban infrastructure and that would be contrary to adding this site.
She said point #3 was to study the addition of language that suggested that locations presently identified within the chapter were not exclusive. The exclusivity that this referred to was part of the overall intent of Horizon 2020 and it would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other chapters, specifically the Commercial Chapter referenced specific sites similar to this chapter update. The basic intent of Horizon 2020 was to guide future land use decisions and in the first chapter of Horizon 2020 it stated where and how development should occur and allow for agencies to plan for future improvements. These specific sites had been identified through the public hearing process.
Item #4 was to study the incorporation of specific language related to the involvement of ECO2 in the process. Early work from the ECO2 Commission was reflected in the criteria already located in pages 7-7 and 7-8. Staff planned to assist ECO2 with the next phase of the process. Further work could be incorporated at that later time.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Dave Ross, Douglas County resident, said he lived about a quarter of a mile from the piece of property in question. He was past president of the Scenic River Way Community Association that was a neighborhood association that formed in 2003 by approximately 200 members. They formed their organization to address what they felt was an inappropriate zoning request for this parcel in question. At that time, it generated several public hearings with the City, County and the Planning Commission. There was a lot of public discussion and the end result was the zoning was denied. He believed this request was premature because as it was mentioned there was no infrastructure in place and none planned for 20 – 30 years in this area. For the land use, it was suggested by the property owner in the letter they have received. More importantly, he felt that after nearly two years of hard work by lots of people, that this last minute request circumvents the public hearing part of planning and that he as a major land owner in the area would prefer to see happen. He requested the City Commission approve the Chapter 7 of Horizon 2020 with the findings of fact that the Planning Department had added and defer the request for this piece of property to a later date so it could be properly evaluated. He did not feel like bringing something at the last minute, it had been in play since 2005, was appropriate and he asked they defer that part of the question as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Marguerite Ermeling, Douglas County resident, said she lived out in the same vicinity where a number of these people live. She said Ross covered mostly everything that she would have gotten up there to say. She thought the area was a good area where they could think about development. She thought the operative word of the planning comments was an area to be looked at beyond 2030. She agreed it was quite premature to consider it. It seemed that an appropriate approach to begin looking at this area would be through an area plan and certainly would hope and urge consideration to that effect by the Commission and would support the process the Planning Department had brought forward and their recommendations.
Rick Stein, Douglas County resident, said he lived approximately two miles from the property being discussed. He said he had not lived there very long, but was not in the neighborhood when this property first came up for rezoning several years ago. Because he had not been able to participate in the public process, and it would ultimately have a huge impact on his property and all properties in the neighborhood, he thought that any effort to facilitate or make development rigorous in its review process for the public, it would serve him personally and because of the extent and degree to which any development, however intense, would affect the rural community neighborhood, he thought it should be subjected to the most rigorous public review. He thought however slight this would impact that, an effort to identify it now would make that process less transparent, less rigorous from a public perspective, and as a result a disservice to the property owners. While it might benefit the current property owner when it came time to be developed, at this point facilitating that by making it inclusive in a document which had not been carefully looked at, considered and reviewed was inappropriate.
Jeanette Funk, on behalf of Karen Misek, said she would like to read a letter. She was speaking both as a land owner in the neighborhood as well as a participant on the ECO2 Industrial Space Committee. As a member of the ECO2 Industrial Space Committee, they developed criteria to determine valuable industrial sites in Lawrence and surrounding areas. At the request of the City and County Commissions, the Economic Development Board received criteria from ECO2 and identified priority locations for furthering industrial development. The property north of K-10 and the Farmer’s Turnpike was not included. The letter said Misek was in support of adopting Ordinance 8097 as written and was opposed to individual properties added without the proper process. It was premature to amend the plan without public input, including that of ECO2.
Stan Unruh said he was a new property owner in that area and a little over a year ago he purchased a 10 acre plot. He was not aware of any plans for industrial development. What made the property attractive to him was he loved the pastoral settings of Douglas County. He thought a lot of people did which was what made it an attractive place for a lot of people to live. He was a little disturbed to hear there was possibly a plan to zone the property immediately across the road from his house as an industrial site. He realized it would probably be developed at some point, and hopefully it could be residential instead of industrial. He said they all knew what it did to property values and the desirability to live across from a truck stop or something of that nature.
Nancy Feldman, said she was a resident of Grant Township. She said overall she liked the language of Chapter 7, particularly the policy 2.1 where it mentioned the consideration of prime agricultural farmland that was not appropriate for industrial site, where it mentioned the consideration the risks of building on flood prone land, the consideration of extraordinary costs to the public with certain sites selected for industrialization and fiscal impact study to gauge whether the cost of a development was worth it to the community in the end. She said one thing that seemed lacking to her was direction in this document, which spoke to the scope of the development being considered. Also, if it would be helpful for comprehensive planning to be able to take the long view of the development rather than the piece meal or the phased view. The public might want to know the whole build out scenario and the potential cost of that or the potential benefit of that rather than just learning about the first phase and the cost of the first phase and being surprised in the end by the full build out scenario and the cost of that. Specifically speaking for Grant Township, she was wondering the same thing; if her community would benefit from an area plan. She asked today in City Hall if they had a specific detailed area plan to help guide development in Grant Township, and they did not. It seemed to her that development was being thrust upon them by one family who wanted very much to develop an industrial park in their neighborhood. She thought they would benefit, not just from the Comprehensive Master Plan, but from a plan that looked at their needs specifically. She thought Grant Township deserved that guide to help them through this challenge in their neighborhood. She asked that the City see what it might do to help address the need for a detailed area plan for their area. She said as she read Chapter 7, she saw four areas in bold listed as current industrial sites and other areas in the south of town and other parts of town that were not in bold that were just spoken of as a general reference. She wondered if that weights certain sites over other sites and wondered if all the sites that were truly appropriate for industrialization or future business parks were being listed fully in this document.
Gwen Klingenberg, representing Grassroots Action, said Grassroots would always support transparent public process and supported the staff’s finding that the K-10 I-70 industrial site lacked that transparency in the public process. They also believed that an area plan, not a blob map, for any future annexed area needs to be done to have the surrounding neighbors’ input, such as both of this area and the airport area as they asked. The issue of infrastructure was brought up and considering the fact that in the last couple of months the City Commission had cut city services that were needed for the low income, middle income, and fixed income people in order to find ways to help maintain their city’s monies, the thought of the City providing infrastructure to leap-frogging development, as in the airport, it was not all being annexed and there was actually a section between North Street and the airport development, that would require extensive infrastructure by the City and was said earlier the K-10 and I-70 would require major infrastructure at major costs. Grassroots would like the City Commission to consider an area plan for each site. They were grateful the staff findings found the K-10 and I-70 should not be put in the chapter at this time.
Jane Eldredge said she started some of this but thought the discussion was a good discussion. She thought there were some things that needed to be said to clear the air. When she came before the City Commission in July her concern was that this proposal was exclusive. It did not allow the opportunity for additional sites that met all the criteria but were not on the land use map associated with this chapter to be considered. She said Commissioner Chestnut, Commissioner Amyx and Vice Mayor Dever all expressed concerns about having this chapter be too exclusive. The staff properly indicated that they had choices. They could pass it as it came to the City Commission or they could deny it. They could also send it back to the Planning Commission or with a supermajority vote they could incorporate some language that would make it non exclusive so it would be possible to look at other sites. She said she learned on Thursday night after she had attended the T2030 meeting that the staff was going to recommend they not take any action on a super majority on this sort of planning item. Her goal and clients’ goals were not to disrupt any other plans that were taking place in this community right now. New industry and business was too important to all of them. They must have it and have choices of sites. They must be able to meet their goal of 20,000 new jobs by the year 2020. That was one of the goals of this section; it was a good goal. Their Comprehensive Plan up until this particular chapter had been a policy guide. That was what it said in the introduction. State required general locations of uses on a map that showed how the uses relate. That was why they had their map 3-1 in the future land use section. It showed the relationship of uses. Her concern about this plan was simply that it was limiting and would exclude sites that were not on the map. She was particularly concerned because on the first page of the proposal it said the City and the County shall consider this section every five years. She asked if something was not included now today, did it mean that it had to be five years before it was considered. The planning process, which there were certainly very real concerns about whether this suggestion of looking at other sites or having language that was not exclusive has had a full vetting, she thought that was fine. They should send it to the Planning Commission, but they could not just send anything to the Planning Commission. She said that afternoon she e-mailed the entire City Commission a letter with particular sections to look at and particular concerns. She said she also gave them hard copies at their seats. She urged the City Commission to pass the chapter as it was, but the reason she thought it was so terribly important that they look at making it non exclusive was because in July the City Manager properly told them that Comprehensive Plans were guide plans and were not dispositive. This chapter should not be dispositive. She thought it was really important because in this case what they were hearing from the neighbors was they wanted it to be excluded.
She said she wanted to talk about T 2030 and that map. She said they followed all the T2030 meetings and got copies of the minutes of those meetings. The T2030 map that was in question had some concerns. One of the areas they suggested looking at was not a specific 154 acre site, but the intersection of K-10 and I-70 did show that it was appropriate area for a future industrial site. The map with the latest date she had was December 12th and it just said future industrial site. She said how a designation of beyond 2030 got onto any one of those maps she did not know. It did not occur in any of the meeting minutes that she had from T2030 committee meetings. More importantly when she talked with staff, the consultant and Lisa Harris, the chair of the 2030 Committee, she asked what was the purpose of the land use map and if the Planning Commission adopted it as a land use map. She said they did not and it was adopted for the limited purpose of modeling for the Transportation T2030 study. It did not supplant any other land use map they had. It was not a land use guide. It was close to and based on the land use guides that have been adopted. The update in terms of recognizing this area as an industrial site, the issue of when it was appropriate, she thought was an issue that needed to be looked at. In this community they have lost some important employers. Part of the problem had been when an employer came when they first have to get a Comprehensive Plan amendment and then start with zoning and development; they were 18 – 24 months into the project before they could get anything done. They were asking the City Commission to be proactive, make that map non exclusive or at least ask the Planning Commission to consider that as an amendment immediately following approval. There was no place on the map that better showed a proper transportation map for that. She said one of the provisions for this plan was industrial and employment related businesses should be located along transportation corridors. They specifically pointed out I-70, K-10, US 59, and US 24-40. She said if they looked at the K-10 corridor, they have the intersection of US 40, appropriate new sites on the east side of town, but they have eliminated the biggest one at I-70 and K-10. She said that ought to be considered and if it was not considered specifically, at least consider broadening the category and getting rid of the map, and talk about potential sites as they talked about potential sites in the commercial area. She said she hoped that if the City Commission did not choose to include her recommended changes tonight, that they would choose and have enough votes to choose initiating an amendment to Horizon 2020 for the Planning Commission to consider yet this fall some additional tweaking of this so there could be a full public hearing at the Planning Commission.
Jim Baggett said he lived within a mile of the 154 acres. He said their neighborhood association had dealt with this since 2003. There were a lot of people present at the meeting tonight and wanted to thank the people that spoke because they did not spend a lot of time duplicating things. He said a lot of people had to leave early because it went on so late. This was outside the UGA. He knew the development would happen there, but three years ago it was deemed to be premature and he still thought it was premature. It was outside the UGA, there was no one except for the land owner that really pushed for this happening tonight. He hoped the City Commission’s decision with what the Planners said they would go with.
Don Fuston, Chairman of Water District No. 6, said he lived right next to the property they were talking about. He said what concerned him the most was the motive behind the letter Barber Emerson wrote to the City Commission regarding this piece of property. They went through this three years ago and he told everyone then that they did not have enough water to do this and it still applied today. He would be rationing water if they used the projected past history, he would be rationing water to everyone in the district out there in five years or less. He did not have water. The motive was what worried him. He said he would like to know what was going on. He found it interesting he never got a notice of this meeting tonight and he thought their regulation said that anyone that was within 1000 feet of this property would get a hearing notice.
Corliss said this was a discussion about an adoption to the Comprehensive Plan and what language the City and County want to have in their Comprehensive Plan. It was not a request to consider the rezoning of property. State law did require notification to property owners within 1000 feet of a specific site that was going to be zoned in an unincorporated part of the county. He said that was not being discussed this evening at all, as far as rezoning a particular piece of property. He said what was being discussed was the language the City and County wanted to have in their Industrial Chapter in the Comprehensive Plan that set out the general guidelines for how they wanted the community to grow. The suggestion had been how specific they needed to be about future industrial sites. It was not the hearing for the rezoning. He had every confidence if there was a rezoning application, that they would follow the appropriate laws to notify the property owners within 1000 feet.
Mayor Hack said in addition to that, the proposed amendment did not come at the City Commission’s request. They were receiving what the Planning Commission presented for the chapter. The additional area to be considered as part of the industrial chapter was something they did not initiate.
Fuston said what they were planning tonight did not make sense to him.
Mayor Hack said they were not planning anything.
Fuston said they wanted to do away with the old Chapter 7. He asked why they were doing this.
Mayor Hack said they do not do away with them; they change them and approve them according to what was going on today and what they wanted to have happen until 2020. They also know that this particular segment of area, according to the 2030 Transportation Plan, was thinking in term of even longer time than that. They were not doing away with anything and many of the things that were in the original chapter were incorporated into this one. It just acknowledged the fact that the community was growing.
Fuston said he would go back to his original statement and say that there was no water available.
Mayor Hack said she thought they could adopt a revise Chapter 7 with the changes that have gone through the Planning staff and Planning Commission. They could continue to appreciate staff’s continued work with ECO2 and working toward ultimately including some of the language in that chapter because it was a vital part of the conversation they were having. She said she would also like to ask staff to look at the area that was talked about concerns about infrastructure, land use and the public process. She did not feel the Chapter 7 was exclusive, but did not think they were smart enough at this point, to know what would happen in 20 or 30 years. They have people who have some more experience in that and would like the opportunity to look at that area but not as a part of Chapter 7 at this point.
Commissioner Chestnut said the issue he had was whether Comprehensive Plans were dispositive or not. He believed that one of the concerns he still had was the fact that when they introduce a map, it became more dispositive. He thought one other thing he would like to also talk about was the suggestion that there still needed to be consideration of language to talk through that whole issue. It was an issue and had been an issue in development as long as he had observed the doings of City government. If they put something down and put a map there, did it become the be all and end all. In regard to long range planning, talking about costs constraints, the issue was when they started talking about infrastructure and did they have the money, they were talking about a 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 year time window. The fact was the current cost constraints now should not be limiting to what they were trying to do that was best for land use and everything else. There was no doubt when those particular projects came up, how much it was going to cost was going to be an issues. He did not think that should cloud their judgment now, but thought they did not want to limit themselves to the industrial sites they had on that map. He was still concerned that could be the case. He said he would like to move forward but ask Planning staff to consider that. They had this discussion once before and basically the response was it was the opinion that this change would not be in keeping with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan. It led him to believe that it was dispositive. He said this document would survive him and thought the more flexibility they created in it to consider opportunities, the better off they would be in planning in the long run. He did not know how they would make that work to make everyone comfortable, but thought they needed to revisit it.
Corliss said he felt pretty strongly that one of the things they needed to do, whether it was one of their Thursday morning meetings or a study session, they needed to sit down to devote an hour and a half to walk through Horizon 2020 because there was language in the beginning parts of it about how the authors and Planning Commission essentially the first planning body anticipated it to be used. They had an entire chapter devoted to economic development. It had the language about how they want to try and plan things and locate industrial parks near the Airport and Turnpike. He thought it would be helpful on how they interpret the Comprehensive Plan was ultimately left up to the City Commission. It did get to that and something they may want to work at. They felt strongly that the purpose of this chapter was to identify prospective sites and by identifying those sites they were alerting the public that was a possibility, they were alerting themselves they may need to think about that for infrastructure planning purposes, for transportation planning purposes. The identification of the site was saying that was valuable. Those were to exclude other sites if they went through the process through the merits of saying it was the right place and there would be infrastructure and water at a particular location.
Commissioner Amyx asked if any dramatic changes were made to Chapter 7 now, would that throw a wrench in the review and approval process including the review process for Chapter 6.
Corliss said the changes they were making in Chapter 7 have been in harmony with that. Some of the things they were talking about in doing in economic development would need to be incorporated when they went through that chapter. The Planning Department had the schedule for reviewing all the different chapters and may want to take a look at that again and see if it was in keeping with all the different values they had.
Commissioner Amyx said as they looked at the map they now had in the new Chapter 7 and looking at the areas of interest, they were looking at three areas for industrial development in Lawrence, Kansas. They were looking at East Hills Business Park, Farmland and the airport. Two of them they have not made a decision investing in and those kinds of things. He asked if they limited themselves by having the language of those three sites in there and then everything else had to go through the process. He asked if they trusted the process.
Corliss said he trusted the process because he trusted the individuals that control it. He said the City Commission could initiate a text amendment to have the Planning Commission at their next available meeting look at any particular site they wanted to and say it was appropriate. It was still just a guide. They could go ahead and zone property that did not reflect that. There was counsel for and against that. He said those were the sites for new industrial. They also had large industrial north of the Turnpike and Lakeview Road area as well.
Commissioner Highberger said flexibility was the opposite of planning. He said they made a lot of progress and could write any language they wanted to in Horizon 2020 and would still not have the force of the law. He thought they made a lot of progress in the last five years and actually using it more as a firm guideline than just a piece of paper. He said he would hate them to go back on that and looked forward to having that in the discussion. He thought it was inappropriate to add an additional industrial site in the manner that it was attempted to be added. He thought their best course of action would be to approve the Chapter that had already been unanimously approved by the County Commission and the Planning Commission. If there was a desire to add additional spaces, it should go through a full public process and this particular space being outside the urban growth area was not appropriate, but thought that was where the public process was there to determine and it could be initiated if desired.
Vice Mayor Dever said he agreed with a lot of things everyone said. There were a couple things that needed to be pointed out that he wanted to make clear. Based on the last meeting, he felt like they requested some more inclusive language. Considering every location in the City was development, but thought three of them would solve the need for some flexibility to not be the opposite of planning, but some other options in the event that these other areas they picked out were developed for other reasons. They all wanted Lawrence to thrive and needed jobs in this community and needed to have places for people to select a place to build. He was afraid if they limited their ability to do so, because they limited their site selection, they end up backed into a corner with people walking away from them because they did not have places to build. He was not in favor of going around the process, not in favor of adding things in the last minute, but was definitely not in favor of limiting their options so that they could build the economy in Lawrence, Kansas. He said all the talk about not wanting it in their backyard; it was going to happen every time they tried to do something. He thought it was important that people had that opportunity. They were not trying to do anything quickly or wrong, but were trying to make sure that there were other places for people to turn in a relatively quick fashion and not take two years for the process to occur. He was seeking some language to expedite the process. If they wanted to add other places in this community where someone might want to build something to enhance the job situation in the community and the economy, they be given that chance and not take years for it to happen. He was a little concerned that might be the case if they moved rigidly with their language and the designation on a map and the inference those were the places they could build and all others were unacceptable.
Mayor Hack said she would suggest they move forward with Chapter 7, but also they needed to ask Planning Staff in a 90 day time frame to look at the kind of things Corliss was speaking of. Not specifically the area, K-10 and I-70, but some of the other options and how they would go about evaluating and not limit to just what was identified in the map. She said they needed to avoid being held strictly to what was laid out as an industrial area.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Chestnut, to place on first reading joint City Ordinance No. 8097/ 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 2002, CPA-2004-02 Edition.” Motion carried 3-2 (Amyx and Dever voted against the motion). (17)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
|
10/2/07 |
|
|
10/18/07 Thursday meeting
|
|
|
11/20/07 |
|
|
TBD |
● Staff reports on Sales tax options, Intangibles Tax and Impact Fees ● Revised Federal Legislative Statement (in anticipation of delegation visit to federal legislators in October) ● State Legislative Statement ● Downtown Redevelopment Issues (public procedures and financing options) ● Review of plans for Stoneridge/West 6th Street watertower ● Contracts for the development of maximum prices for the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility and for the conveyance system construction |
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Dever, to adjourn at 11: 55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Sue Hack, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Bid Set- October 16, 2007, Weatherization Program.
2. Ordinance No. 8157 – 2nd Read, allowing possession & consumption of alcoholic beverages, Local Burger.
3. Resolution No. 6740 – Benefit District, order improvements, George Williams Way & 6th Street.
4. Resolution No. 6739 – Benefit District, order improvements, George Williams Way, 6th St N to Overland Dr.
5. Parking – Deny “no parking” both sides of 24th St between Kasold Dr & Winterbrook Ct & both sides of Brushcreek Dr between 24th St & Winterbrook Dr.
6. Parking - Deny “flashing beacon” intersection of Arrowhead Dr & Princeton Blvd.
7. Subordination Agreement – 817 Alabama, Nascimento.
8. City Manager’s Report.
9. Ordinance No. 8136 – 1st Read, Max Assess, Stoneridge Dr, 6th St S approx. 630 ft.
10. Vacation Order – sewer easement, located N 40 ft of Lot 8 & S 60 ft of Lot 9, Block 2, Oread Addition (1140 Indiana).
11. Ordinance No. 8180 – 1st Read, adopt Chapter V of the City Code.
12. Ordinance No. 8055 – 1st Read, adopt International Fire Code, 2006 Edition.
13. Special Use Permit – (SUP-07-06-07 ) KU Boathouse, 2nd & Indiana.
14. Ordinance No. 8159 – 1st Read, provide for SUP-07-06-07 to allow dock facility.
15. Revised Southern Development Plan & CPA-2007-03, amendment to Horizon 2020, Ch 14 Specific Plans.
16. Amend CPA-2007-03) Horizon 2020, Chpt 14, Specific Plans
17. Ordinance No. 8097/County Resolution No. ______, to replace Ch 7 – Industrial & Employment Related Land Use, Horizon 2020 w/revised Ch 7 entitled “Ch 7 – Industrial & Employment Related Land Use in Horizon 2020, CPA-2004-02”.