November 27, 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.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to receive staff memo regarding status of November 13, 2007 City Commission Meeting minutes.  The minutes will be placed on the December 4, 2007 City Commission meeting agenda for approval.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the Parks & Recreation meeting minutes of October 9, 2007.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve claims to 319 vendors in the amount of $1,269,998.02 and payroll from November 11, 2007 to November 24, 2007 in the amount of $1,818.813.07.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Yacht Club, 530 Wisconsin; Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar, 3900 West 6th; Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar, 2520 Iowa; and the Retail Liquor License to Diane’s Liquor, 1806 Massachusetts.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize the City Manager to amend the contract with Restoration & Waterproofing Contractors, in the amount of $56,000, for additional work to secure the coping stones to the wall of the 1954 Chemical and filter Building at the Kaw Water Treatment Plant and to seal the window openings according to revised design details.  The new contract total will be $322,659.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve Cured-In-Place-Pipe unit price contract with I-Con Underground LLC for $76,781.52 for the 8^th and Michigan sanitary sewer improvement project.  Motion carried unanimously.          (2)

Ordinance No. 8125, rezoning (Z-03-03-07) approximately 3.31 acres from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential District) to GPI (General Public and Institutional Use District), located at 555 Stoneridge Drive, NW of the intersection of West 6^th and Stoneridge Drive, was read a second time.     As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Hack, Dever, Amyx, Highberger, and Chestnut.  Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (3)

Ordinance No. 8199, rezoning (Z-09-21A-07) approximately 1.80 acres from IG to OS, located at 900 East 15^th Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Hack, Dever, Amyx, Highberger, and Chestnut.  Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                      (4)

Ordinance No. 8200, rezoning (Z-09-21B-07) approximately 1.31 acres from IG to GPI, located at 900 East 15^th Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Hack, Dever, Amyx, Highberger, and Chestnut.  Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                  (5)

Ordinance No. 8207, providing for the amendment to the Nonresidential District use table, to allow veterinary clinics in the IBP District, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Hack, Dever, Amyx, Highberger, and Chestnut.  Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                                         (6)

Ordinance No. 8208, establishing an “all-way stop” at the intersection of Overland Drive and Wakarusa Drive, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Hack, Dever, Amyx, Highberger, and Chestnut.  Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                  (7)

Ordinance No. 8209, establishing “no parking” along the north side of 4^th Street between Maine street and Missouri Street and along the south side of 4^th Street from Maine street, east 170 feet, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Hack, Dever, Amyx, Highberger, and Chestnut.  Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                               (8)

Ordinance No. 8205, rezoning (Z-09-17-07) approximately .499 acres from IG (General Industrial) to CS (Strip Commercial), was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Hack, Dever, Amyx, Highberger, and Chestnut.  Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                    (9)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request to rezone (Z-09-22-07) a tract of land approximately 3.3 acres, from RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential-Office District) to RMO (Multiple-Dwelling Residential-Office District), containing the Summer Tree Apartments and are located at the southeast and southwest corners of Eldridge Street and West 6^th Street (U.S. Highway 40).  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                       (10)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8198, rezoning (Z-09-22-07) 3.3 acres, from RSO (Single-Dwelling Residential-Office District) to RMO (Multiple-Dwelling Residential District).  The properties contain the Summer Tree Apartments and are located at the southeast and southwest corners of Eldridge Street and West 6^th Street.  Motion carried unanimously.           (11)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize 2007 Longevity payments.  Motion carried unanimously.                                            (12)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:

During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said the Planning Commission’s agenda packets would be introduced online on the City’s website in January 2008 which included agenda materials, staff reports, applicant submittals, and correspondence. The website would provide a good historical database of the Planning Commission’s determinations and recommendations over time; save time in the transition from Planning Commission materials to the City Commission; the information would be more accessible to the public, and substantial efficiencies in staff time. 

He thanked Teri Pierce, City’s Parking Control Division, and other individuals in that Division for a parking lot capacity report that looked at parking lot usage throughout the downtown area.  The report indicated trends in parking lot usage and a report would be posted for the entire public to view.  The information was also shared with Downtown Lawrence, Inc. and after January 1^st, he would like to review the report with DLI to ask if staff was asking the correct questions about parking lot capacity issues.  In the past, consultants were hired to compile information about parking lot capacity, but the current data, in many cases, was greatly improved over what was done in the past.  The information gave a great snapshot of capacity issues and utilization.  If the City Commission wished to improve parking in the downtown area, the historical record of parking utilization would be available for review.

Also, Cliff Galante, Transit Administrator, had provided a transit funding update as far as where the City was in the federal budget process for federal fiscal year 2008, which began on October 1, 2007.  The City would not see the benefit of any of the money until there was a final appropriations bill enacted, passed by Congress and signed by the President.  There was $150,000 in FY-2008 transportations appropriations bill for City of Lawrence bus replacement projects.

He said there was a citizen concern about the maintenance of the landscape islands on Bob Billings Parkway west of Wakarusa Drive.  Staff followed through on that issue and found that Alvamar, Inc., involved in that development, was no longer maintaining those medians.  Those medians were in public right-of-way and were the City’s responsibility which would be maintained by Parks and Recreation Department.

Finally, he reported the yard waste collection season had hit its peak. 

Commissioner Chestnut said on the Federal Transit Funding update, he asked if the appropriation was higher, lower, or what was typically received in the past.     

Corliss said the appropriation was a little bit lower than what the City had earmarked and in this case, the appropriation was earmarked for bus replacement.  There was also formula funding that were depended upon and followed general courses on what was expected.  He said the appropriation was not substantially changing from what the City had historically seen.  In the past, the City received a little bit more money, but understood there were significant reductions across the board on any type of earmarks the federal government and Congress was likely to proceed with.                                                                                                                   (13)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 

Consider the following items related to the Proposed Oread Inn project (12^th and Oread):

a)         The public hearing on the appeal of the Historic Resources Commission determination for DR-07-93-07 was conducted on November 13, 2007.  Additional public comment from the applicant and the public in response to recently submitted material would also be appropriate.

b)         Consider making a determination on the appeal of the Certified Local Government Review under K.S.A. 75-2715-75-2726, as amended.

c)         Consider making a determination to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the structures located at 1140 Indiana street, 1142 Indiana Street, 1144 Indiana Street, and 618-620 West 12^th Street and the new construction proposed for the site.

David Corliss, City Manager, said it was not uncommon in land use discussions to have discussions with people outside of their meeting.  In this case, he knew many of the City Commissioners had talked to the applicant and had received e-mails from citizens who were interested in the project.  He thought it would be helpful if the City Commissioners would indicate if they had met with the applicant.  He said staff met with the applicant and data and proposed findings were shared with the City Commission.  If there had been other communications or e-mails the Commission might want to indicate those communications with other citizens.   

Commissioner Highberger said he met with the applicant on two occasions at their request.  He said he was also a member of the Lawrence Preservation Alliance and a resident of the Oread Neighborhood.  He received numerous e-mails from numerous citizens on either side of the issue.

Vice Mayor Dever said he met with the applicant and received numerous e-mails regarding the issue.

Mayor Hack said she was in the same situation.  She did not have the other two credentials that Commissioner Highberger did, but she met with the applicant and information that she had was exactly what the public had, but she had received numerous e-mails on both sides of the issue.

Commissioner Amyx said he met with the applicant twice and received a number of emails on either side of issue.  He had made calls to individuals and received communication from Lawrence Preservation Alliance President, Dennis Brown.   

Commissioner Chestnut said he met with the applicant once and several other interested citizens.  He received e-mail correspondence from all parties on either side of the equation.

Scott McCullough, Director of Planning and Development Services, said the City Commission had additional information from the applicant and correspondence from the Lawrence Preservation Alliance in the City Commission’s packet.  If the Commission chose, they would open up the first item to additional public comment in response to those submitted materials.  One issue needed to be recognized, up front, and addressed as the item is considered, which was the applicant submittal included design changes to the building that the Historic Resources Committee did not see and that staff was just now getting their hands around in terms of changes to the development plan aspect of the request and the HRC review.  He said one issue before the City Commission was considering whether or not the changes to the design of the building were of such a nature that it was substantially different than what the HRC reviewed and how the City Commission might address that issue.  As moving through some of the testimony, at the end of that testimony, staff could offer the City Commission options in terms of process for that consideration.  He said the applicant stood ready to address the changes that had been made and help the City Commission work through the elements that had changed.  In the end, they needed to be aware of what design work was being reviewed and considered for the HRC appeal. 

Mayor Hack asked McCullough to repeat his last comment.

 McCullough said the City Commission needed to know what design they were looking at in terms of if what their consideration was.  If the consideration was for approval, they needed to understand that it was the consideration of the latest design for the building.  He said staff would leave it to the City Commission on whether they would prefer a presentation on the remaining rezoning and development plan to understand the scope of the project, but they stood ready to make that presentation or provide any additional information on the HRC appeal review.

Mayor Hack said the City Commission would review the HRC’s recommendation in its entirety.  The public hearing was closed, but she knew there was additional public comment.  The City Commission would review the rezoning and the preliminary development plan separately and lastly the feasibility study.

Commissioner Amyx asked if the appeal the City Commission would hear from the applicant was not the same plan the HRC voted on several weeks ago.

McCullough said as he understood it, the height, number of floors, square feet, and mixed use ratios, all of those elements, were virtually the same.  What changed were the architectural elements of the skin of the building; roof pitches, fenestration, window openings, door openings, and the relief in some of the window treatments.  Most of those elements had been altered.  He said the applicant could walk the City Commission through some of those changes.  The facades of the building had changed from what the HRC denied. 

Commissioner Amyx asked if the City Commission should be looking at the appeal, at this time, or were those changes significant enough to require the HRC to look at this plan again.

McCullough said the answer to that question was debatable.  What he preferred to do was hear the testimony and then the City Commission needed to discuss and reach conclusions on that question.  If the City Commission was asking staff’s opinion, staff and the Historic Resources Administrator believed when looking at the different design elements, it had substantially changed from what the HRC reviewed.  It was questionable if it was the same project.  Many elements were the same.  Few would argue the height, massing and scale had changed, which were the main elements of findings the HRC made to deny the proposal.  Architectural elements were an important part of what the HRC looked at and how the HRC attempted to resolve issues of massing and scale and compatibility with the environs.

Commissioner Amyx asked whether there was a need for a motion to reopen the public hearing.

Corliss said the Mayor could receive public comment and continue the discussion on what the applicant submitted and the public’s response.  The City Commission conducted the public hearing on the development two weeks ago.  

Mayor Hack said she wanted to remind the public the City Commission did not overturn the HRC’s recommendation, but made a determination there was no feasible or prudent alternative and whether the project included all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties.

Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architect, said they had responded, in their minds, to some of the concerns heard over the last few months.  All that changed was some of the skin of the proposed structure.  The height, mass, footprint, square footage all had been tweaked, but very little.  The HRC made it clear the issues with this project about the size, height, and mass could not be mitigated by simple design issues.  He said when asked if they would work those issues out with the ARC, Michael Sizemore, Chair of the Historic Resources Commission, stated he did not think the issue could be worked out in an ARC venue.  They saw no advantage or different outcome.  He thought people were pleased with the design.  If the applicant went back to the HRC, they would be back to the City Commission in two months over the same issue; it was too big.  They agreed to work with the ARC as the final development plan went forward to work on design issues.  As a difference between this Board determining there was no feasible and prudent alternative and the ARC working with the applicant on that design, versus the applicant working with the ARC on a completely different design because the issue of the feasible and prudent alternative had not been determined yet.  If the City Commission did not make a determination, the applicant would be meeting many times discussing four stories, five stories, different footprints, moving things completely different which was a completely different animal than the applicant meeting with ARC to discuss design issues.  They thought it was a good thing and thought they needed the findings of the City Commission that there was no feasible and prudent alternative on their proposal.  He said again, the applicant was more than willing to meet with the ARC, but thought the applicant needed this determination first. 

Tim Homburg, Nearing, Staats, Prelogar & Jones, Architects, designer of the Oread Inn building, said when the HRC did an environs review, they were not to judge aesthetic and that was what they basically did which was changed the aesthetic of the building.  It was a product of comments received constructively from Mike Sizemore, in the HRC minutes, which stated the HRC rarely addressed design details of environs properties.  The minutes also reflected in Chapter 22 Section 505 criteria 3 stated all buildings, structures, and sites should be recognized as products of their own time.  He thought that was important.  They took an original path of recreating a historic flavored building and upon a lot of constructive comments from people from Sizemore and Dean of the College of Architecture at the University of Kansas, they had a strong feeling this building should have its own time and place of the “here” and “now”, not of 50 to 80 years ago.  He said they had made minor alterations to the skin of the building to let them take on a more contemporary feel with still some stylistic lines, forms and shapes of somewhat of a historic nature. 

He said the building was still going to be brick and cut stone with a very nice finish.  He said they had cleaned up the architecture.  A lot of the more serious comments received from a variety of people was the design was too busy and had too many architectural styles to it.  They believed that from those constructive comments, they created a building that had its own place and time of a contemporary styling, but still had all the height and massing that the previous rendition did. There were very little changes in height.  The old rendition to the peak of the tower was 91 feet and 4 inches, from the top of the flat was 92 feet 10 inches.  He said for all the elevations of the building, the volume or size had not increased.  They only changed the skin to a style they felt was more keeping with the “here” and “now”, being a landmark building for the City of Lawrence.

One other item that drove their decision was in Chapter 22-505(B)(4) which stated:

“Changes that may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected.”

He said they felt it was something that had its place in time. 

Matt Gough, Barber Emerson Law Firm, Attorneys for the applicant, said regarding the change and design of the building, he repeated that it was the same size, massing, and scale.  He could not emphasize enough in this case, they were dealing with the environs of historic properties, not historic properties themselves.  The Supreme Court case he cited in his letter supported that argument that when they were dealing with the environs, the standard was not quite as tight.  In this case, they were talking about the same project.  It was the same concept with the same purpose.  For that reason, they believed it would be acceptable for the City Commission to make the findings the applicant requested and have them be applicable to both the original design and the revised design.  They had seen the direct differences.  They were cosmetic in the applicant’s mind on this issue.  The HRC denied the project for size; it was too big and too tall.  It was the still the same size, but the fundamental issues remained and he emphasized that those were the issues the City Commission should focus on this evening.

Commissioner Amyx said the statute regarding the feasible and prudent alternative standard would not be construed as tightly as those situations involving the actual destruction of a historic property and the statute discussed relevant factors that there must be sufficient information to support a conclusion that the proposed alternative was feasible and prudent and the items must be in writing.  He asked if this project was feasible and prudent without the TIF financing and TDD and thought he heard the answer to be “no” and if that was the case, he asked if the tax increment financing and transportation development district were relative factors in making this determination.    

Gough said Commissioner Amyx raised a wonderful point, which was a cart before the horse question.

Commissioner Amyx said he understood, but thought it was an important part if Gough answered the question the way Amyx thought he would answer.

Gough said it was not ideal for the applicant to proceed with at least two public hearings in addition to the one tonight.  The money the developer would spend on a feasibility study and all the various statutory processes that must be complied before they could form a TIF District, execute a redevelopment agreement, and do all the things necessary to move forward if they did not know whether this was the only feasible and prudent alternative and that all possible planning had taken place.  He said those questions were relevant and related to one another, but at this point in time, he thought it was advisable to proceed.

Mayor Hack asked if the applicant would like the City Commission to take an isolated look at the feasibility study of the TIF and the TDD separate from whether or not the City Commission should determine not to agree with the HRC’s determination.

Gough said yes.  He said the questions were still distinct, they were separate questions and not economically feasible to proceed any other way and TIF and TDD was one factor, but the per unit numbers from Longhurst’s data was independent reason to not change the size of the building.  

Commissioner Amyx said he was not talking about size, scale, or massing, but the applicant was asking the City Commission to make a determination on feasible and prudent alternatives and as he looked at relevant factors and information provided, the question came back if that financing arrangement the City Commission was being asked to look at was part of the determination that needed to be made by the City Commission. 

Gough said it was something to consider, but in a sense it was a factor that applied more to the developer than to the City.  He said from the City’s point of view, if they could have this project built and no use of at-large public funds, it was all the same to the City.  On the other hand if TIF and TDD were not available from the developer’s standpoint, it was not a feasible project to move forward.  The relevant factor was more toward the developers own due diligence and not the City’s along with the HRC issue, not trying to downplay anything about the TIF or TDD.    

Corliss said the fact the development was requesting and making statements that, absent the TDD and more importantly the TIF, the project would not be financially feasible for the developer, was a relevant factor.  They needed to put that into context the way they wanted to weigh that issue.  There were values the applicant advocated on behalf of the project.  There were a number of advocacy points for the project that they also had to put into context.  The redevelopment of that intersection, the associated public improvements that were fairly substantial up and down the street for that project and the public benefit from that, along with the neighborhood benefit.  There were a lot of things that had to be put in context as far as what the community was gaining as to whether or not how the City Commission wanted to weigh the fact the public was, through a TIF, putting money into the project.  There was also the age old question of “but/for” the incentives would the project occur.  The developer was indicating that no “but/for” the incentive, “but/for” the use of that future tax growth, the project was not going to proceed.  He thought those were relevant factors, but did not think it decided the issue for the City Commission.  He was not sure exactly how that issue weighed in and thought there were more predominate factors regarding the consideration of the project as far as the information they provided on why the building had to be so tall and whether or not the economics of the project required the project to have the height that was proposed.  It was getting back to the historic review which was why the City Commission was making that decision.  He said it was a relevant factor, but he did not think the fact there was a public financial participation in the project was not the primary consideration.  It was the height of the project was necessary or required for the project to happen.

Commissioner Amyx said after reviewing the decision about feasible and prudent alternatives, the only thing that was different between the proposed project and the projects heard in the past, had nothing to do with public funding mechanism that was in place.  When he asked the applicant about that question, the answer was “no”, which was basically the same answer Gough just gave to the question. 

David Longhurst, on behalf of the applicant, said he had two broad brushed pieces of information to share.  One piece of information related to feasible and prudent alternatives and the other was the feasibility of a TIF project.  He presented a feasibility analysis to the City Commission.  He said the total cost of the project was $37 million, which included the hotel, condos, parking, and public improvements.  In addition, there was $374,000 in contingency for the public improvements the City identified.  He said that would be paid for by TIF funds at 4.5% over 20 years would be $5,374,000.  The private placement bonds for the parking structure at 6.5% would be $6 million of the cost.  There was $16 million of equity and a $10 million loan to pay for the project.  Based on three years, the payments on the TIF bonds at 4.5%, 20 years, over 3 years would be a fixed cost of $1,200,000 and that cost would be the same no matter the level.  He said 90% of the parking would be a fixed cost and if eliminating or adding parking would not make a significant difference in the fixed cost because the fixed cost was the first level and the basic structure.  In operating the hotel, 52.6% of the expense was a fixed cost.  The fixed expenses for 3 years were $11,270,000. The variable costs, 10% of the parking payments, were $153,000, 47.4% of the operating expenses, or $7.8 million was a variable expense.  The more rooms that were occupied, the more they had to spend for housekeeping, bell men on duty, the fewer rooms the fewer variable costs.  The total expense was $19,200,000 for three years.  The revenue from the hotel was $17.6 million for the same revenue period.  The TIF revenue would be $1.1 million for three years, the TDD and sales tax would be $488,000.  The total revenue would be $19,236,000 for the three year period.  At 7 levels, 105,000 square feet, that fixed expense was $106.90 per square foot.  The variable expense was the variable expense divided by the square feet, which was $75.00 a square foot.  The more square feet, the variable stayed the same.  If they were looking at 105,000 square feet, they were looking at $19 million in revenue.  In the case of 7 levels, after 3 years they ended up with 9¢ per square foot profit.  If reducing it to 5 levels, the square footage would be reduced to 96,000 and the per-square foot expense was not the same fixed expense; it went up.  The variable expense stayed the same because it related to the volume.  The per square foot revenue he had left was at $182,046.  If they decreased the volume, it would go down because part of the square footage was like a laundry room or things that did not generate revenue.  If it was 7 levels, after 3 years it worked.  If they cut it to 6 levels, they would lose $900,000.  If they cut to 5 levels, they would lose $1.8 million and if they cut it to four levels, they would lose $2.9 million.  It was not feasible and prudent.  If they added a level, they would make $1.1 million.  He said he was presenting this information to the City Commission just to support the size and its financial impact. 

Commissioner Highberger said this analysis relied on certain assumptions about TDD and TIF revenue.

Longhurst said yes, because when looking at how to make it work, there was a 20 year TIF at 4.5%, and that expense with the public improvements was the payment on the bonds.

Commissioner Highberger asked if the purpose of the feasibility study was to provide the bond counsel some comfort those numbers were accurate and other figures were accurate. 

Longhurst said yes.  Later on when looking at the impact of the TIF, he had more information to support those numbers.

Vice Mayor Dever asked, if the tax revenue generated by the TIF and TDD was inadequate to support that expected part of the financials, who made up the difference.

Longhurst said the developer would make up the difference.  The public would pay zero. The proposal was if there was not sufficient TIF revenue to pay those bonds or sufficient sales tax and TDD revenue, the developer made up the difference and the public would pay zero.

Commissioner Highberger said there was a question if they could set up the arrangement so the City was guaranteed to not have a liability and still get favorable treatment on the bonds.  He asked if that had been determined.

Longhurst said he did not know if all the details had been worked out, but the developer was committed to guarantee the payment.  They were committed the public would not be liable for any shortfall.  In the proposal, the developer would pay $335,000 a year to provide sufficient revenue to pay the TIF and the private placement parking bonds. 

Corliss said he wanted to remind the City Commission that Gary Anderson, Bond Counsel for Gilmore and Bell was present and he had expertise in that area. 

Homburg said to further elaborate on Commissioner Amyx’s concern about the TIF being integral, it was only one part of a multi-faceted thing.  He said their findings, which was a very substantial document, outlined things that were beyond the hotel, which were being addressed such as traffic, pedestrian, and neighborhood blight concerns.  In a planning session with the members of the Oread Neighborhood, they expressed their concerns about the deterioration of the Oread Neighborhood as a whole.  Their project was not going to sit there on an island of itself, but would branch out to the surrounding neighborhood to reverse the trend of the deterioration of the neighborhood.  The developer committed to renovate two properties that were contributing structures in the historic district to things that were important to the Oread Neighborhood.  The developer was making that effort with money that was not even involved with the proposed development.  The hotel was supporting itself, but was also branching out to the surrounding neighborhood to create an urban infill project that was thus allowing a redevelopment that would help spawn other redevelopment within the neighborhood, to reverse a trend that was of great concern to the Oread Neighborhood neighbors and the association. 

Commissioner Amyx said it was obvious about the seven levels of this project and the 106,000 square feet that was necessary to make this project financially feasible and asked if there was any consideration given to reducing the size of the tower and placing those rooms over a shorter area.

Homburg said it came down to aesthetics.  They actually looked at that idea early on in the process and removing 10 feet, which was one level of the tower, created a different volume of the building.  It would become shorter, wider, and squattier.  It would take on the look of a rectangle.  Where as the design proposed, it had a more slender tower element and they felt that was less impact of a vertical element that was less than 9,000 square feet rather than taking it down, widening it out, and making the vertical element 15,000 square feet.

Commissioner Amyx said in making a determination of feasible and prudent alternatives, he said the questions needed to be asked because he wanted to make sure they took a look at every possible alternative. He said there was some concern with the improvements and changes to 12^th Street.  He asked how far east would the improvements go and if there would be any property taken or widening of the street.

Corliss said he had not seen any plans for taking any property or acquiring any right-of-way.  There were plans to improve 12^th Street.  He said the improvements would be under the Oread Inn, TIF and TDD cost estimates which was roughly $350,000 in street improvements with sidewalk improvements, ADA ramps and street reconstruction.  He said 12^th Street had the shadow problem, but the street received some light and during this time of year the street had a really bad freeze/thaw cycle and the street needed reconstruction.   He said staff thought there was ample right-of-way for reconstruction of that street without acquiring right-of-way.  He said temporary construction easements or things unforeseen might be needed, but they were not planning on buying property for any of those projects.

Mayor Hack called public comment. 

Anne Marvin, Lawrence, member of the Historic Resources Commission, said she had seen a lot of drawings and applications and knew what she was reviewing.  She said after seeing the most recent drawings that had been submitted by the applicants, she pulled the drawings from the HRC meeting when they last considered this plan and made their vote.  She said she was very struck by the changes in massing.  If she were to see the new drawings in an HRC meeting, she would say they were substantially different from the drawings reviewed when HRC made their decision as a commission.  In the drawing they reviewed there were many points on the roof.  The new drawing was a very different mass.  They were seeing a lot of rectangular masses in the most recent drawing that gave a very different massing to the building as a whole.  She questioned whether the City Commission was reviewing the same thing the Historic Resources Commission reviewed. 

As a private citizen, she hoped the City Commission, in making their decision, would keep in mind the community’s cultural resources management.  She had been working in the field of cultural resources management and history for 35 years and was thinking about the fact there had been the recent formation of the Freedom’s Frontier National Heritage Area and the community was presenting themselves to the country as a place to go see buildings, places and objects that have to do with significant historical themes.  They needed to think in terms of what they were saving about their history and what they were not saving about their history.  She knew it was hard to keep the huge themes and details in mind, but hoped that was happening.   

Betty Alderson, Lawrence, said she had grave concerns about this project especially the public financing aspects.  She said they did not have any real idea what the public cost was going to be with this project.  She expressed her opinion at an HRC meeting that she was increasingly concerned about development.  The project in and of itself might be alright if the developer was paying for all of it.  The public improvements were required because of the project.  It was true the Oread Neighborhood had problems, but so did her neighborhood and a number of other neighborhoods in town.  She asked how much public money they were prepared, under the same criteria, to provide for the rest of the neighborhoods.  She knew neighborhoods had been a concern of past City Commissions.  She was not sure the City Commission had all the facts to make a decision.  She asked how many different plans would there be from now until the finished project.  She could not comprehend such a huge structure looming at her at that end of the block, that much taller than everything else and was totally out of scale with the environment.  She said maybe before the developer bought up all that land, they were supposed to determine whether or not it would all be demolished.  They were smart enough to know what they were into and that it was going to require more money than they had to do it properly.  She had real concerns a decision might be made too fast for what the public good was going to be in the long run. 

Jody Meyer, Lawrence, member of the Historic Resources Commission, said the City Commission received a voluminous amount of information that unfortunately a lot of people had not been able to digest since that information was just received last Tuesday or Wednesday before the Thanksgiving Holiday.  She was not in a position to go through all of the suggested findings that were outlined in the packet, but she wanted to point out a few things for City Commission consideration.  She wanted the City Commission to note it was a significantly different project, not in terms of the overall massing, but certainly in terms of the outward appearance of the project. 

It was mentioned that when this project came before the HRC, it was denied because of the height, etc.  When the HRC looked at the project, height was a serious consideration of the HRC.  Taking that into account and the applicant was not interested in going before the HRC, they wanted the HRC to vote on the issue right away and appeal it to the City Commission.  Some of the other concerns were not really voiced and there was not discussion about it because it was clear they did not want to make any changes to it.  She thought there were some issues that might have been taken up in terms of what the skin of the building looked like or the architectural elements, but they did not get to that point.  She did not think the plans did justice to the project for a number of reasons and why she had asked for a 3D model of the plan.  Even the information the City Commission had in the materials that were just submitted, as far as the 3D photos, would have been significantly helpful to the HRC, but they did not have those photos either.  There were a lot of things that had changed from the project the HRC had seen and the project now. 

She said if the HRC had some of the information the City Commission had tonight, she did not know if the ultimate decision would have changed, but thought that their body would have been able to make more findings either way, in support or not in support of the plan, to substantiate whether there were viable alternatives.  That was something she wanted the City Commission to think about as they made their decision.  The City Commission had a lot more information than the HRC did.  She asked if it was required the applicant had to go back with the HRC, she did not know if the answer was yes, but in formulating their decision, she thought they needed to take that into account, both to what it meant to this project and what it meant to future applicants.  One of the things the applicant relayed was they were committed to renovating other projects and hoped to spawn redevelopment.  She asked that meant if they had other projects because certainly they would probably be within the environs again.  She asked if people could come up with other projects, submitted those projects to the HRC, and not comfortable with the result they received, come back to the City Commission with an entirely new project.  She said if the project was approved tonight, there was nothing that could be said if another version of the project was submitted. 

She said Commissioner Amyx brought up the factor of public financing.  She thought that was a relevant factor to consider.  She was also in agreement it might not be the factor involved in this plan, but if a demolition permit was granted, find there was no reasonable and prudent alternative, then the applicant could demolish the entire structure, not get the financing, not go through with the project, then there would be empty lots.  She did not know if they were gong to do that or not, but it was one of the factors the City Commission needed to look at and perhaps deferring this item until the financing issue was taken care of.  The feasibility study the City Commission was considering in terms of whether or not to vote on the financing would be beneficial in this analysis also.  She said a feasibility study might be helpful in terms of the financial arguments the applicant was making with the HRC appeal. 

The City Commission also needed to ask themselves if they were comfortable approving this project knowing the HRC did not have all this information and thought the answer should be “no”.  One item brought up tonight was that the applicant considered moving levels off the top of this project and making it wider, but the applicant decided that would be more massive.  That was not a factor that was before the HRC.  The applicant told the HRC they would not consider doing anything else and whether that was something the HRC would have approved, she did not know, but was not a factor they had before the HRC.  It was an example of how something could be a reasonable and prudent alternative that would be acceptable.  The HRC was not opposed to redevelopment of this project and not opposed to a hotel or a fairly large complex it was some of the other issues involved.  She asked the City Commission to take all those things into consideration when making a decision. 

Dennis Brown, President, Lawrence Preservation Alliance, said he was not going to comment on the good or bad of the current design changes.  He noted that at every stop in the public review process, the design had changed somewhat.  They never had been shown the same thing twice and it led him to assume that it would change again.  He said going back to Commissioner Amyx’s question on the public financing component, it concerned him the developer’s representatives suggested that without that component, this project might not be feasible.  He also wanted to note the public financing component of this project was not brought to light to the public until after this project cleared the Planning Commission. 

Commissioner Amyx asked Brown if the changes to this project, since Brown had not seen the same plan twice, were in response to the comments he and others might have had.

Brown said yes.  In terms of whether the plan was significant enough to go back to HRC, he felt he should defer to the HRC members who were present on that issue.

Mayor Hack said it was important to remember the City Commission was not approving or considering the TDD and TIF, but was being asked to approve a feasibility study for which the applicant would pay.  She knew that had come up and wanted to make sure everyone knew what was on the agenda.

Sven Alstrom, former Historic Resources Commission Commissioner, presented an elevation drawing to the Commission.  He said it was based on information from the original 1957 drawings of the ECM building and a then current copy of the site plan he received during a November 9^th meeting with Paul Werner and Tom Fritzel.  One of the things in support of the HRC Commissioners was this comparison was never shown to his knowledge in the HRC presentations of prior designs or the currently modified design.  It was somewhat favorable to the applicant in terms of the height comparison.  He thought it was important since they were able to get the original drawings to show the height.  The ECM height was also higher than the hotel entry.  He said his drawing was within 18 inches of being correct. 

He said another minor issue was when Bailey Hall was being built the rock was quarried out and he wished the applicant the best regarding the parking garage.  It would be of some interest during construction.  He said certain there were major buildings on campus on the same geology, but that was the lower parking level.  He said when talking about the structure and whether it was in its time or not, the first concern was fitting in the context.  KU was on Mount Oread, a name which came out of Greek mythology, so they kind of had high expectations for that area.  He lived next door to a couple who were both class members who were pre 1940 classes at KU.  The older people really had a cultural heritage that was obviously quite different.  He asked for recognition of the cultural heritage.  Preservation and environmentalists naturally go together because they were both speaking for things that could not speak for themselves.  The HRC Commissioners had all volunteered their time to do that.  He thought it was more difficult to be on the Planning Commission, but it was a lot of work to be on the HRC. 

He said the way the copyright law was defined was based on the floor plans, arrangement of rooms, size of windows and fenestration patterns.  There was a direct overlap in copyright law. The drawings they were seeing now could be construed as a different copyright.  He thought attorneys would say it was not the same building and would be acknowledged to be a different proposal.  Similarly, it applied to HRC.  He said once again they had feasible and prudent alternatives that were not reviewed or presented to the HRC.  He said the City Commission should send the plan back to the HRC for review.

Mayor Hack said one of the first items to consider was whether the City Commission had seen a substantial change of the project based on the comments received.  The Commission might have questions for staff, if the City Commission should return this plan to the HRC.  She said there was no point in having a conversation about the determination of the HRC, if the City Commission did not believe it was appropriate. 

Vice Mayor Dever said the one comment that made him wonder if the plan needed to go to the HRC was the comment the HRC was not charged with reviewing aesthetics.  Someone needed to determine whether they were aesthetic changes or substantial changes for the City Commission to make that determination.  He knew it could go either way, but one of the first speakers quoted the aesthetic issue and he wanted to make sure that was true. 

McCullough said a couple of the HRC members gave opinions on whether or not they would see the changes as significant to the HRC.  He said they could bring the Historic Resources Administrator up for a discussion on that topic if they wanted her opinion on the matter, also.  It might be worth adding the discussion of precedent cases in terms of process and what other Commissions had done in similar situations.  If the process was heading toward considered for approval, there were some options in terms of process that got the HRC or ARC involved with the process if the City Commission found there were no feasible and prudent alternatives to the project.      

Mayor Hack said comments that they talked about in the agenda review meeting were whether the decision was based on size and mass and an architectural review was not part of the review.  Also, the same comments made about the skin and no other substantial changes and that the HRC would probably not have changed the decision with this newer model, but probably would like to have seen that model.   

Lynn Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator, said first and foremost the HRC dealt with aesthetic value on almost every single application that came before the HRC.  The architectural detail was not just about architectural style, but architectural detail could be used in a manner of ways to help with size, scale and massing.  There were ways to use architectural detailing or architectural tricks to minimize the overall massing of a structure or to maximize the overall massing of a structure, depending on the goal for the project.  Clearly, architectural detail always played an important role in what the Historic Resources Commission looked at when evaluating projects.

Mayor Hack asked about Zollner’s opinion.  Staff indicated the City Commission was looking at consideration of the changes and staff saw substantial changes and questioned whether or not it was the same project. 

Zollner said one of her biggest disappointments for this project was that staff and the ARC were not able to sit down with the applicant and work out some of those issues.  The applicant was, at that time, set on the exact design they had and to bring that design to the City Commission.  Now she was seeing a totally different plan if they looked at it from an aesthetic point of view or even if they looked at it from the technical aspects of the outer visual appearance of the building, which was what the HRC dealt with, the overall visual appearance and how that impacted the listed properties.  She thought there was a significant change on this project.  She said the plan was submitted on Wednesday and what was reviewed by the HRC and/or what the City Commission looked at two weeks ago. 

Mayor Hack said the Planning Commission had some standards in terms of what substantial change would be, like the footprint or percentage change.  She asked if there was something like that type of change or was this a unique situation that they might not see this type of change.

Zollner said normally when they saw this type of change, it was when a project had been approved and a condition of that approval was that staff approved the final construction documents and then staff had to make a judgment call as to whether or not those final construction documents met the intent of the Historic Resources Commission approval.  The best way for her to demonstrate that was if the HRC had approved this project and if the current documents had been submitted as the final construction documents, staff would not have approved that plan and the plan would have had to go back to the HRC.

She said one of the things staff discussed was in the past when the City Commission had made a finding that there was no feasible and prudent alternative, part of the planning to minimize the harm to the Historic Resources had included that the applicant work with the Architectural Review Committee to finalize a design that had the least amount of impact on the Historic Resources.  It was something available the City Commission had done in the past.  The other was in discussions with legal staff, the City Commission could table the item and ask the Historic Resources Commission to look at this new design, or deny the item and the applicant could reapply for the new project to the Historic Resources Commission. 

Commissioner Amyx said based on the information received, if the City Commission believed there was no feasible and prudent alternatives, other than the plan shown, and with the comments made by staff that there might be significant changes between the plan the HRC reviewed 6 or 8 weeks ago and the current plan, the City Commission could table that decision on the feasible and prudent alternative until such time the HRC would review the new plan that staff said had significantly changed.

Zollner said that was correct.  The City Commission could ask the Historic Resources Commission for their opinion and their comment about that new plan and how it met or did not meet standards for review.  They would have the HRC’s input on the new plan, just like their input on the original plan.

Commissioner Amyx said from what he seen at this time, he believed the applicant had met the charge and now he could make that determination on feasible and prudent alternatives.  He could not vote to deny the plan because he believed the questions he asked and the information provided that no feasible and prudent alternative existed, but then again if looking at a new project, it might be different.

Zollner said another issue she wanted to comment on as the City Commission considered their determination as to whether or not there were feasible and prudent alternatives, when they started looking at the case law, because so much of it was based on written documents, when the City Commission directed staff to identify those findings, if the City Commission made sure staff addressed those issues that were in the staff report and how those issues were not feasible and prudent; if those issues were or were not things that would minimize the harm to the listed properties.

Commissioner Chestnut said he was not sure he totally agreed with that only because the Kansas Supreme Court case law cited by the applicant charged the Governing Body to look at all the alternatives.  He thought they could use that as a guideline.  He was not sure if he would respond to those point by point.  The City Commission’s charge was to look at all the factors in consideration with all those things.  He was going back to what he considered to be one of the more important points for consideration which was the Kansas Supreme Court speaking and if the Governing Body took a hard look at all the factors and using common sense based its determination on the evidence.  Part of it was going to be that input, but there might be other factors involved.

Commissioner Amyx said he believed this project had probably met the requirements of what the City Commission was required to do in this appeal in making sure there were no other feasible and prudent alternatives.  There might be significant changes to the plan as presented to the HRC.  He said he would not deny the plan, but thought there needed to be review.

Werner said at the two meetings with the HRC, if the applicant knew they could meet with the HRC and be in front of the City Commission with a positive recommendation, the applicant would have went before the HRC.  The HRC was not allowed to deal with the financial aspect of this project, but the City Commission did.  He did not think the City Commission heard anything that if this plan were to go back, it would mitigate or change the decision of the HRC.  They heard criticism and they have worked, but maybe they should have gotten Zollner more involved.  The fact was the HRC denied the plan and if the HRC had approved it with conditions or different scenario, they probably would have been showing the design changes to the skin of the building as they went along. 

He said the financial aspect of the feasible and prudent was before the City Commission and thought it was a better building.  It was a 105,000 square foot building and things would get tweaked.  They wanted to meet with the ARC and looked forward to meet with them as they moved forward with the final development plan.  The final development plan would not go to the Planning Commission until the end of January, which was two months, but throwing the plan back to the HRC, they would be back to the City Commission with the same issue and the City Commission would be making the same determination they hoped the City Commission made tonight.

Commissioner Chestnut asked Corliss if there was a way to make a determination on feasible and prudent on this and move forward with an arrangement that basically required more review to look at the new skin and so on.  He asked if there were conditions they could place on that plan to provide that process.

Corliss said staff was advising the proposed project that the Historic Resources Commission made its determination on encroached upon, damaged and destroyed the historic environs.  If that proposed project that the HRC made their recommendation on had in the City staff’s professional opinion changed, was the proposed project significantly changed given what the applicant submitted.  To the applicant’s credit, they made those changes in response to the critiques of the size, massing and height of the structure.  They were trying to be responsive to those concerns.  There was a procedural issue where the City Commission was being asked to make findings from an HRC determination where they had not really looked at the same project. 

He said staff had discussed calendaring this project.  One of the things staff thought was important was adopting the formal findings.  Staff needed to make sure the City Commission was comfortable with the narrative that explained all of those findings.  Staff wanted a robust set of findings. 

The HRC would meet on December 20^th and one procedure that could help was for the HRC to look at the new drawings to make an additional determination.  He thought that was in keeping with staff’s views.  He said it involved the applicant more in the dialogue.  Staff was going to recommend that some of those members were involved in making the final determinations with the appropriate architectural review.  Zollner already indicated that one of the important conditions was the ARC of the HRC would speak toward design issues for this facility.  If the HRC looked at the plan again on the 20^th staff could work on findings when discussing the TIF. 

He said on January 8^th they could review comments of the HRC from December 20^th as they looked at all this material.  There was an opportunity to develop the necessary findings the City Commission could give further direction on, but there was indication from the Commissioners there was support.  They might have a good indication of when staff would get the financial feasibility study back.  The City Commission would be that much further along with the project.  He knew that did not meet the applicant’s timeframe, but staff had some important goals to solidify which was, in making findings, that those finds were adequately defended and also involved the HRC.  He said he did not think it was the best procedure for the City Commission to follow, to have the HRC make findings on this project on drawings the Historic Resources Administrators stated was substantially different from what was presented. 

On the other hand, the applicant had done what the City asked, which was make changes to reflect the critiques as far as the architectural aspects of the site.  The Historic Resources Commission would probably like to have an opportunity to speak to that as well.  He did not think the findings would differ all that much after the HRC looked at the current proposal and stated there was still an encroachment because the City Commission would be looking at the economic side.   He said another possible avenue was to proceed and direct staff on findings and not send the plan back to the HRC.

Mayor Hack said there was the possibility of conditioning the City Commission’s determination on the applicant being asked and directed to work with the ARC and should a determination not be reached, it would still come back to the City Commission.  She said the hard thing for the City Commission was that the changes that were made and made it significantly different were done following suggestions and adaptations were made to be more responsive. 

Werner said he had a possible solution that Zollner might want to comment on.   He said if the feasible and prudent alternative decision could be separated from the planning decision and he would argue the aesthetic and the changes in the plan were more of a planning item than the feasible and prudent alternative about the mass and number of stories. 

Mayor Hack said her preference would be to follow along with Corliss’ suggestions because the City Commission did not have the opportunity to discuss findings if there were or were not alternatives and the relevant factors.  She said in order to give staff some opportunity to work through those, the Commission needed to have that conversation and would agree to separating those two conversations and still having HRC review, but would still have the relevant factors being addressed.  The City Commission did not vote yet and might decide there were no feasible or prudent alternatives, but she was not sure that was the case judging from comment.

Zollner said her concern was if the City Commission was looking at all relevant factors, it would be difficult to separate those two things and plan all the aesthetics.  She thought the Planning pieces were more relevant than the HRC piece.

Commissioner Highberger said the applicant had made a fairly compelling argument that there were not reasonable and prudent alternatives, but he was concerned there had not been an independent review of those numbers from staff, which was something he would like to see.  If the City had their Economic Development Planner on board, they would have had that by now.  He said he would like to see those numbers before making a final determination.  He said it was hard to find the applicant did all possible planning to mitigate harm without having met with the Architectural Review Committee.  He was in support of this project and would be a real benefit in the community.  He wanted to make sure they did the process right.  The City Commission heard from the Planning Director and Historic Resources Director that the project had significantly changed from when the HRC looked at it.  He said the prudent thing to do was to table the item, have the plan go back to HRC for additional review as suggested by the City Manager, and in the meantime, receive verification of numbers presented to support the reasonable and prudent finding. 

Mayor Hack asked if the independent verification was not done with the feasibility study.

Commissioner Highberger said he was not suggesting tabling the item until the independent verification was completed.  This was the point Commissioner Amyx was trying to get at for the last two weeks.  The reasonable and prudent findings were basically an economic determination and that determination was based on some numbers that were provided by the applicant.  He said prudence would dictate they should have a second look rather than relying only on the applicant which was of the things the feasibly study would do. He did not think it would be suitable for the applicant to fund a feasibility study, pending the City Commission’s decision.

Commissioner Chestnut said he was confused about the discussion of protocol and process.     He said he was really uncomfortable, that in this case, the applicant was pursuing this plan in good faith trying to take input from the community and move forward.  He said in the way this case laid, that was to the applicants detriment because if nothing had changed in the drawings submitted, then the City Commission would not be having this discussion or making this determination of feasible and prudent.  It was unfortunate because it got around process.  It was pretty clear there was a very fuzzy situation where the applicant thought they were doing what was being asked of them, and now they were at a point where they were going to punish them.  He was trying to find something in the middle and if that was not possible, it was an unfortunate turn of events. 

He agreed with Commissioner Highberger that it would be beneficial to have a verification of the numbers.  He spent a lot of time on the plan economically and was convinced with the facts. He said he agreed the City Commission needed enough process to review, but ultimately they had to have some reliance on the applicant’s analysis and they were moving forward with outside financing and other such things.  The due diligence was going to be there.  He also knew a lot of it was driven off of experience on operating the Eldridge and could verify some of that information.  It went back to process and the City Commission had to figure out a clear and concise way on how this worked because it was a case if the Commission deferred the plan, they were basically punishing someone who was trying to do the right thing.  He said regarding feasible and prudent, the question was if the Commission could have a question on the economics, but now there was a consensus where the Commission felt they did not have enough information. He said he felt comfortable with it, but if they were not in a position to make a decision, the plan could be deferred until January.

Mayor Hack said she agreed with Commissioner Chestnut.  She said if they went back to the original drawings, the complaint would be the applicant had not responded to the Preservation Alliance, comments from the Historic Resources Commission and staff.  It was an unfortunate situation.  When she looked at the relevant factors and made her own list, one factor was the financial situation and the rest were clearly delineated in other areas.  She felt comfortable in having that discussion and leaving the financial aspect out of it.  There were plenty of reasons why this was the only feasible and prudent alternative.  She thought they could have those discussions. 

Commissioner Chestnut said Zollner discussed having consideration for aesthetics and yet when that issue was first discussed, it was said that aesthetics was really not their charter.  It was confusing and were there really definitions to the scope of what the HRC was in considering aesthetics. 

Zollner said Chapter 22 of the City Code clearly identified what was the charge of the Historic Resources Commission and in part the Certificate of Appropriateness for this project and the state law identified what their charge was.  The HRC had to use the Secretary of the Interior standards or in this case the standards for evaluating the effective projects on the environs.  They were general statements that incorporated aesthetics or architectural detail as part of what the Historic Resources Commission looked at when making that determination.  The guidelines spoke more specifically to character defining elements, and architectural details were character defining elements.  In this building, the proposed construction, the architecture details of the building are the character defining features of the building. 

Commissioner Chestnut said Chapter 22 and state statute did not really comment on aesthetics per se.  What they were doing was interpreting it and saying that aesthetics apply to that as long as it was an application to the environs.

Zollner said they did not use the word aesthetics, but used character defining.

Commissioner Chestnut said that interpretation was something the Commission needed to discuss and what that meant for the applicant.

Commissioner Amyx said he thought this plan was one of the best looking projects they had come before the board and the applicant probably hurt themselves in trying to answer some of those concerns.  He said one concern was he did not want applicants to go before the HRC as quickly as they could, just to appeal to the City Commission.  The HRC process was a very important part of the process and he appreciated the amount of work the HRC members do. 

Vice Mayor Dever said he was disappointed as well because there was a process and a procedure and for him it was important the City Commission follow proper procedure for precedent in case there were legal issues.  He thought it was important they had all the proper documentation put together.  He was disappointed in the process where a person tried to implement ideas and concepts that were important to the people who care about this process, and then end up being penalized for it.  He said for him it was more important the City Commission follow proper procedure and use it as a learning experience to improve their processes because it needed to be made clear if changes were made and try to put forth a great effort to improve the aesthetics for the building and be punished for it, it seemed backwards.  For him it was the most frustrating part of this whole thing.

Gough said the standard that came up began when the State Historic Preservation Office, in which case it was local, made the finding that it encroaches upon, damages, or destroys historic properties or the environs.  The need for this body to make the no feasible and prudent and all the subsequent findings did not begin until the finding by the HRC was made.  In  this case, for example, if the City Commission were to make the findings the applicant requested for both the original design as improved in the process and subsequently if the HRC made a finding the revised design encroached upon, then all  that needed to be done was to make the finding again which was the conservative view.  Once the finding was made, the project could not proceed until the finding was made by the City Commission and notice was given to the appropriate historic officer.  The question might be having made the decision at both the original level and as improved, they might have answered the question in advance.  If the HRC elected to say the revised design was encroaching upon, damaging or destroying the environs, then the City Commission could come back and make the appropriate finding at that time.  With respect to the findings the applicant requested the City Commission to make, he thought it was feasible for this body to proceed today and react if HRC later came back and said the revised design encroached upon, damaged or destroyed.  He said it was one possibility and would recognize the applicant’s efforts to respond to the design. 

Mayor Hack said Gough suggested having the conversation to either affirm or not affirm the determination and then in addition, send the new design back to the HRC for review.

Gough said fundamentally the issue was if the City Commission believed the size, massing, height, and shape of the building was the only feasible and prudent alternative then why not make that finding now.  He said if the Commission was talking about the skin, they could deal with that in someway, but he also thought it was feasible for the City Commission to comment in their findings, both upon the old and new skin and proceed accordingly.  He said if there was opposition in the form of a denial from the HRC, the statute applied with or without notice to the HRC of a proposed project.  He said on its own, the HRC could make its finding, in which case it would have to come back to the City Commission where the City Commission could make the finding again, if that was their belief.  He said this idea was a possibility in lieu of going back and spending two more months. The other factor was the feasibility study that would be prepared in connection with the TIFF and TDD could be expensive at the developer’s expense.  He said they preferred to know the answer to this question before proceeding with the TIF and TDD due diligence.       

Vice Mayor Dever said the City Commission was presuming that if they send this plan back as amended, the fact the plan had changed and took into consideration the way things looked based on mass and size that it appeared they would not get a different determination from the HRC.  He said he hoped if the plan was submitted, it would receive approval and they would not have those types of problems, although it might be impossible.  He said it was important from a procedural standpoint that if they were steering things the wrong direction, and they had two paths that were concurrent, they might end up in a messed up place when the HRC met again.  He said it concerned him the City Commission would be throwing something back to a group that might change their minds, based on what was seen.  He said perhaps the improvement of the aesthetics had been such that there might be an issue that could be resolved by the City Commission.  He said also, it was pointed out the ARC be involved in the process and that committee was not involved at all.  He said those were the things he was concerned about from a procedural standpoint.  He said he agreed that would be the best path, but was it the cleanest and the best procedural path for the City Commission and the City to be in the best light at the end of this process.

Gough said from an efficiency standpoint, it would be better to move forward if the City Commission’s judgment the applicant had met its standard to have the height and the massing resolved.  Anything that could be done to expedite that process and still be legitimate procedurally would be beneficial.  Regardless of what action the HRC took with respect to the revised design, whether the HRC approved or denied the design, either way the outcome could come back to the City Commission with a denial and then the City Commission would make the same finding again or if it was approval, it would be a moot point.     

Mayor Hack said she believed the Commission should table the item, but provide staff some direction on what the City Commission wanted staff to work on in terms of findings and then direct the HRC to consider this item at their December 20 meeting, and the City Commission would have the item back in January.

Commissioner Amyx said he did not have any problem with the Mayor’s recommendation.  He said as long as there was an outline and understood the City Commission was setting the procedure so the applicant and public knew this would happen.   He said it was relevant if the majority of the City Commission sent the plan back to the HRC.  He did not believe that a relevant factor the HRC took in consideration was public financing in this particular case because the HRC had no business in that part of the discussion.  He thought that discussion was for the City Commission because they controlled the purse strings on whether or not that would happen.  He thought it was a factor in the appeal of the HRC, but did not think in the original determination that financing was something the HRC should consider. 

He said there needed to be procedure and had the HRC not brought up the fact that this project, which was better than what was presented before the HRC, that the project was different than what the HRC addressed, he would be ready to proceed this evening.  Procedurally he did not believe the City Commission could approve the plan because it was determined to be significantly different.

Mayor Hack said she did not want to indicate that by tabling this she wanted to ignore their agenda item 1f because she did believe that it was important to proceed with the feasibility study.

Zollner said she would like the City Commission to clarify whether or not the City Commission wanted the HRC to review this plan as a new project and bring to the City Commission a vote as to approval or denial or if the City Commission would like the HRC to review the plan and send comments on their recommendation on whether or not this plan met the standards.

Mayor Hack said her preference was whether or not this plan met the standards.

Corliss said it would be valuable to direct staff to work on the final findings. 

Mayor Hack said she would like staff to begin working on those findings based on conversations and information received. 

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to table agenda items 1b through 1e; direct the HRC to consider the proposed project as amended and review whether it meets the standards (not a review of a new project) and directed staff to work on proposed findings.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                          (14)

f)          Consider a proposed agreement whereby the proposed Oread Inn developer agrees to provide funding for the City’s cost associated with bond counsel work and the feasibility study up to $25,000 for possible Tax Increment Financing and/or Transportation Development District financing for improvements related to the proposed Oread Inn.

            David Corliss, City Manager, said he wanted to introduce Gary Anderson, a member of the law firm Gilmore & Bell, the City’s bond counsel that helped with the City’s debt issuances.  He said Anderson was involved in a number of issues related to tax increment financing and transportation development districts and Anderson would provide a general overview of the process. 

He said the community had experience with tax increment financing such as the 900 New Hampshire project.  He said while staff thought the parking garage had been a success, the private redevelopment had not been a success.  The parking garage was enjoyed by downtown businesses and patrons.  It helped the Arts Center and downtown, but the private redevelopment had not occurred at the pace the City had hoped.  They still had discussions with the property owners.  The property owners had some interested prospects at various times.  The tax increment financing would be hopefully sales taxes to pay for half the portion of that parking garage. 

He said some criticism was the TIF district was drawn too small which was only the 900 block of New Hampshire.  Clearly, other portions of downtown had benefited from that project. 

One of the key issues in the Downtown 2000 Project was the City backed the bonds and the developer did not have a financial obligation to pay for any gap in that project.  There were a number of policy issues for the City Commission to consider regarding tax increment financing and TDD.  He said Commissioner Chestnut talked about publicly discussing the issue of other incentives the City Commission might want to consider as a community and City Commission.  He said the City did not have a tax increment financing policy, but other communities had that policy. 

As the City Commission dealt with public incentives, one of the issues was the “but/for” question.  Some of the other issues were related to the appropriateness of TDD and TIF.  One of the key issues was the City did not have the in house expertise to conduct a feasibility study.  Staff could look at the numbers provided by the developer but did not know with the level of rigor that was necessary to say whether or not those revenues would occur.  Staff had a pretty good idea on the cost estimates for the public improvements.  He thought one of the important policy issues was just because certain public improvements were eligible for reimbursement with TIF revenue did not mean they had to use TIF revenues.  It might be important for the developer to pay for those things. 

The next steps in the analysis was discussed and it was important for the City Commission and public to understand they were talking about an agreement with the developer whereby the developer would provide $25,000 to the City that would pay for the City’s cost, not only for the feasibility study, but also the City’s cost associated with bond counsel work in establishing the necessary next steps in the TIF process. 

Gary Anderson, Gilmore & Bell, said TIF, tax increment financing, had been around for quite a while in Kansas.  It was intended to be used as a tool to provide for redevelopment of property in eligible areas, which in Kansas were primary blighted areas, conservation areas, and old enterprise zone areas.  There was a number of things they could pay for with tax increment financing and the easy way to think about it was that it was basically land, site work, infrastructure, parking, landscaping, parking structures, and no vertical buildings.  It was a wide spectrum of things they could pay for.  One of the policy issues that communities struggle with was how much TIF assistance was given and what that money was used to pay for.  A lot of communities use the approach of providing TIF assistance for extraordinary costs, whatever that might be in connection with a particular project.  One of the challenges in Kansas because of an Attorney General opinion was that costs could only be paid for within the TIF district.  If they decided to pay for some of the public improvements in connection with this particular project, which went significantly off site, the TIF district had to be drawn in such a way to encompass all of those streets and other public improvements that could be paid for with TIF off site. 

From a structuring standpoint, the way TIF worked was that when the redevelopment district was created, basically the based assessed value of the property was frozen so the property tax that was generated from that property could be captured and used to pay for TIF bonds or reimburse a developer on a pay as you go basis.  In addition, the city could use the City sales tax that was generated from a project and transient guest tax and franchise tax if it so desired. 

He said from a financing standpoint, the City issued General Obligation TIF bonds for the other project.  It put the City taxpayers at risk in connection with whether the increment was sufficient to repay the debt and if it was not, the City taxpayers made up the difference.  Most TIF bonds issued were special obligation bonds, which basically meant they were payable from the TIF revenues that were generated so if the TIF revenues were insufficient, bond holders were left holding the bag. 

The third option was pay as you go, which was traditionally the least attractive to developers because the developers had to go borrow the money conventionally or equity and then get repaid over time from the increment. 

From the procedure standpoint with respect to a TIF, an important thing to remember was it was a two step process.  Step one was a creation of the redevelopment district, which was basically just drawing the geographic boundaries of the district.  It required the City to adopt a resolution, call a public hearing, notice given to all property owners as well as published noticed, public hearing regarding a creation of the district.  If a district was created, it froze the base value and the public hearing regarding the creation of the district triggered the 30 day period where the County and School District had the absolute right by resolution to veto the project.  Once the 30 days was gone, the County and School District no longer had a veto.  One criticism, at times, was usually at that stage of the process, many of the details of the project, especially the financial details were not worked out.  Sometimes the County and School District would suggest that it was difficult for them to evaluate the project because many of the details would not be worked out at that point in time. 

After the district was created, typically two things would happen.  The developer would have primary responsibility for drafting the redevelopment plan and then usually Gilmore and Bell assisting the City would have primary responsibility for drafting the redevelopment agreement.  The redevelopment agreement was the agreement between the developer and the City where the developer agreed to make and keep all the promises the developer made as part of the process.  

One of the things to keep in mind because aesthetics were apparently very important, that TIF was totally discretionary by the City.  The City Commission had authority they did not otherwise have under the City’s police powers for planning or anything else.  It was something to keep in mind with connection of the project and could impose additional requirements they could not otherwise under the planning and zoning codes.  Communities have used that device because if they were going to provide a public incentive, they would want a higher level of finish and certain public improvements as a part of the project. 

He said one thing that was fiction in Kansas was the statutory scheme assumed the Planning Commission was involved in the drafting of the redevelopment plan.  He said with the hundred TIF’s he worked in Kansas, which was 60-70% of all done in Kansas, the Planning Commission had never been involved, until the point in time, under the statutory scheme where the redevelopment plan, before it went to the City Commission for consideration, went to the Planning Commission for a finding the redevelopment plan was consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan for that area.  Many times the Planning Commission would receive a thick document which would have a feasibility study and other financial information and not know what to do with it, but the Planning Commission considered from a plan standpoint, if it was consistent with the master plan.  They would look at the site plan and make a determination and leave the financial information for the City Commission to deal with.

Generally they recommended that the redevelopment plan and redevelopment agreement be considered at the same meeting because they were integral to the various responsibilities.  It was the same process; the city would adopt a resolution, call a public hearing on the redevelopment plan, give notice, and publish the notice.  One important fact was under the Kansas statutory scheme, the redevelopment plan must be approved by 2/3 of the members elect of the body.  Four of the five Commissioners would need to affirmatively vote to approve the redevelopment plan for it to be effective.  When the redevelopment plan was approved, it would start the 20 year clock for the collection of TIF revenues.   They would typically have 20 year bonds in connection with a TIF project. 

He said TDD was Transportation Development District in Kansas.  It was a relatively new scheme with respect to property owners agreeing to be taxed.  It was facilitated by a petition signed by 100% of the property owners.  They could either impose a special assessment or a sales tax up to 1%.  Those moneys must be used for transportation improvements as defined in the statute which were generally very broad but included everything one could think of as transportation improvements as well as parking and parking structures. 

One benefit of the TDD with respect to public improvements that might be outside the district was under the TDD statute, those costs could be paid for even though they were outside the district, unlike the Attorney General’s interpretation on tax increment financing.  It was a relatively simple process.  Once the petition was filed, the City called a public hearing, gave notice to the property owners who were the same people who signed the petition.  Generally there was no objection from the property owners since 100% of the property owners had to sign the petition.  The City considered the information that was considered at the public hearing and generally would approve the district and impose the special assessment and/or sales tax.  The sales tax could run for a period of time for approximately 22 years.  The sales tax was collected just like any other sales tax of the City by the State.  The state would do all the administration and then send the money to the City, just like they would regular sales tax.  It was a very simple process and one thing to keep in mind that it was money that was not otherwise available.  It was a special sales tax that was created solely for the district.  Once the bonds were paid off or the improvements were paid off, the sales tax would go away.

Commissioner Amyx asked if the item they were considering started the clock on anything.

            Anderson said it did not do anything other than provide the developer would provide some funding for initial costs.

Corliss said if they proceeded with the TIF, the developer was requesting that those costs would be reimbursable back to the developer.  If they did not proceed with the TIF, then the developer was out that money for the cost of the feasibility study they conducted.  If they did, they were reimbursable expenses and the agreement was asking that be paid back. 

Mayor Hack called for public comment.

Dacia McCabe Maher said the City Commission made it clear that they were just deciding on whether or not to do a feasibility study on this particular project.  She said her concern was that as Gough said earlier, they were putting the cart before the horse and all the items they were discussing and considered were moot when it was made clear that this project would not go on if TIF was not approved.  She said her worry was process and precedent.  The City went through months of talking about this project and ticking off one thing after another from rezoning, demolition, HRC, Planning Commission, and felt like they were just being pushed to the edge to the point where the City felt like it was obligated to go ahead and approve the financing.  She thought they needed a broader understanding of the implications of using this financing and what it meant along with some sort of policy because the City was in a dangerous position where plans were taken on a case by case basis.  She said she found research that financing would negatively impact a municipality and there were a lot more factors.  

Sven Alstrom, local architect, said he had a conversation with Thomas Fritzel, Paul Werner and Gwen Klingenberg on November 9, 2007 in Fritzel’s office.  He said he supported performing the feasibility study and understood the applicant was willing to pay for that study.  He said Fritzel said the advantage of the TIF route had grown; it was 1% less interest rate.  When the City Commission looked at the financial numbers, they should look at that analysis with a range of a 1% interest rate because it was the reason they were presenting the TIF to get a 1% lower interest rate.  It was a much bigger number than the cost of the feasibility study and did support the feasibility study, but thought the applicant should bear those costs. 

He said in earlier remarks, he did not think the applicant was being punished at all because the City Commission was supposed to be gate keepers for the community first and the process should be relatively clean of editorial comment.  The applicant had not been punished by the HRC, but it was because the applicant did not bring forward a complete application.  He said Commissioner Chestnut clearly focused on aesthetics which were character defining features that talked about compatibility with the environs and it was an element of historic review. 

He worked on historic projects since 1980 with four different historic people, and he thought Zollner was the best and the City Commission should take her opinion to heart, just as much as the advice of the TIF tax consultant. 

Commissioner Amyx said one of the things the City Commission was looking at from a policy standpoint was if this project moved ahead and used tax increment financing and transportation development funds, the bar was going to be set high enough that anyone else in the development world that wanted to enter into those types of agreements, that bar was going to be set high enough, they would be paying 100% of the costs on those special projects.  It was part of the feasibility they were going to be looking at. 

He said the City Commission valued Zollner’s comments quite well and there was a unanimous decision based on the comments made by her, but as far as this project went and the financing arrangement, this bar was being set and set awfully high for others to have to follow.  The applicant did a good job in being able to show they could do that.

Mayor Hack said Zollner indicated how lucky she was to work for this City and the City Commission had always told her how lucky they were to have her because she was excellent in what she did.  They knew they were hard working people and they listened to staff.  Staff was always available for comment and was clarifying a lot of information in the last 45 minutes of conversation.

Commissioner Highberger said he supported moving forward with this proposed agreement.  The TIF and TDD had been proposed was structured such that there was no risk to the taxpayers of Lawrence.  He was glad the developer was willing to fund the study given the potential of uncertainty and provided the City Commission approved the project, it was reasonable to include those costs and refundable costs. 

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement whereby the proposed Oread Inn developer agrees to provide funding for the City’s cost associated with bond counsel work and the feasibility study up to $25,000 for possible Tax Increment Financing and/or Transportation Development District financing for improvements related to the proposed Oread Inn.  Motion carried unanimously.                           (15)

Receive status update on issued discussed during November 7, 2007 study session with Oread Neighborhood Association.

David Corliss, City Manager, presented the staff report.  He said staff drafted a listing of the different issues that were discussed at the study session.  He wanted to make sure the City Commission saw the list and agreed they were the items staff should work on. 

Commissioner Chestnut said they spoke about the issue of increased law enforcement and there was a lot of feeling from the neighborhood board that there should be an attempt to collaborate with the KU Police and he did not see that in the follow up action. 

Corliss said as part of staff’s response, they would work with KUPD.

Mayor Hack said they have worked with KU involvement and combining those was a great idea.

Corliss said at some point, he wanted to discuss what the City of Manhattan had done with K-State.                                                                                                                                   (16)

Direct staff concerning possible State legislative items for the upcoming session of the Kansas Legislature.

Commissioner Highberger said he had a couple of issues that needed additional discussion and research before those items went on the list.  Revenue sources were discussed regarding an innovative program from Arizona whereby the State legislature added a surcharge on the state income tax and refunded monies to municipalities and counties.  Something like that idea would give the City a tool to raise additional revenue in a less regressive way.  

He also asked Corliss if the Kansas League of Municipalities took a position on the proposal last year to mandate the taping of executive sessions.

Corliss said he thought the League had traditionally opposed that legislation. 

Commissioner Highberger said it was something he had been thinking of a lot about in the last few weeks.  He said he would not propose right now to include that, but was a little reluctant to go against the League position.

Corliss said it was something the City Commission could do on its own if the Commission chose.

Commissioner Highberger said he thought about that, but the statute would give them more protection on confidentiality than they would have if they taped it on their own. 

Corliss said he could get the City Commission copies of previous bills that set out how that procedure would be set out.                                                                    

Corliss said he wanted add some discussion about reservoir sedimentation issues and other issues as far as the concern about Clinton Reservoir’s long-term viability.  It was likely to be a legislative issue next year.  He said he wanted to make sure Vice Mayor Dever and Commissioner Chestnut was familiar with the structure and how the document was used.  He said staff thought it was better to have elected officials speak for the City than staff members and if they were asked to attend, staff was likely to ask the Mayor of Vice Mayor to speak on behalf of the City.   Traditionally, the City had a very defensive posture telling the State to keep mandates away and not take money away from the City.  He said the City did not receive a lot of direct revenue from the State.  He said the City received a share of the State gas tax and saw that as a shared tax and the Kansas Department of Transportation saw that money as a grant to municipalities and also received money from alcohol tax.                                                    

Mayor Hack said she would like the language bumped up on the authority for regulations of drinking establishments or ideas on what local governments could do.  The other issues were homeland security and the levee.  

Commissioner Amyx suggested some type of tax relief to individuals who made the City and neighborhoods strong. 

Corliss said every year there would be legislation to cap property taxes and there were efforts to freeze certain assessments.

Commissioner Amyx said if someone made their house their home for the last 20 to 25 years, and if taxes were starting to push those property owners out, the City had the authority for someone who qualified to grant them an abatement.  He said the City  had asked the senior members of this community to participate in a whole lot of projects in the course of their life time and he thought it was time to give back some.

Commissioner Chestnut said in 2006, the business machinery and equipment property tax was repealed and it was his understanding at that time that somehow they were going to be made whole on that.  Again, it was trying to understand the impact and again contributing to imbalance between residential and non-residential property tax contributions.  He said it would have an impact as the equipment that was installed prior to 2006 gets older and that assessed valuation would go down.  He said it was not an unfunded mandate, but a revenue stream that would eventually go to zero as all that equipment prior to 2006 was retired.  He did not know the impact, but it might be appropriate for this document and for budget purposes in the future to understand the City might need to integrate that into revenue projections.

Corliss said staff would review that and knew that when machinery and equipment property tax exemption bill went through there were some provision that had to do with some revenue coming back to counties and cities.                                                                                         (17)

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Ashley Carr said she wanted to comment on the property tax cap.  She said she had been living with her grandmother the last two years and her grandmother was almost 90 years old and taking care of her, they realized how hard it was for someone living on a fixed income to take care of their property tax.  She said her grandmother was an employee of the Lawrence High School and believed it would be to the City Commission’s benefit to look into the property tax cap.  She said someone that had lived in Lawrence for 20 to 30 years and had contributed greatly to the society needed a break.

REGULAR AGEND ITEMS (cont’d):                                                                                        (18)

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Dever, to recess into executive session for 30 minutes to consult with attorneys for the City on matters which are deemed privileged under the attorney-client relationship.  The justification for the executive session is to keep attorney-client matters confidential at this time.  The regular Commission meeting will resume in the Commission meeting room at 10:10 p.m.          Motion carried unanimously.  

The Commission returned to regular session at 10:10 p.m. at which time it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dever, to extend the executive session for 10 minutes.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                     (19)

The Commission returned to regular session at 10:20 p.m.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

12/04/07	Commission review of Neighborhood Revitalization Act plans   Bauer Brook Estates annexation/Infrastructure Issues   KTA Kansas River Bridge construction schedule and related issues
12/11/07	Franchise transfer from Aquila to Black Hills Energy
TBD	The Airport Business Park Items were scheduled to be heard on December 4, 2007.  Please note that the items will not be heard on December 4, but at a date to be determined. Airport business park land use and public financing issues. Because valid protest petitions have been received, a super-majority vote (4 votes) would be needed regarding the rezoning items. Consider approval of the requested annexation of approximately 144.959 acres and direct staff to draft an ordinance for A-06-05-07, for Airport Business Park No. 1, located at E 1500 Road and US Hwy 24/40. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and Brian Pine, property owners of record. (PC Item 16A; approved 5-2 on 10/24/07) Consider approval of the requested rezoning and direct staff to draft an ordinance for Z-06-09-07, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 99.31 acres, from A (Agricultural) and B-2 (General Business) Districts to IL (Limited Industrial) District with use restrictions. The property is located at the intersection of E 1500 Road and US Hwy 24/40. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and Brian Pine, property owners of record. (PC Item 16B; approved 6-1 on 10/24/07)    Consider approval of the requested rezoning and direct staff to draft an ordinance for Z-06-10-07, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 43.48 acres, from A (Agricultural) and B-2 (General Business) Districts to IL (Limited Industrial) District. The property is located at the intersection of E 1500 Road and US Hwy 24/40. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and Brian Pine, property owners of record. (PC Item 16C; approved 6-1 on 10/24/07).   Consider approval of the requested rezoning and direct staff to draft an ordinance for Z-06-11-07, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 26.22 acres, from A (Agricultural) & B-2 (General Business) Districts to IL-FP (Limited Industrial-Floodplain Overlay) District. The property is located at the intersection of E 1500 Road and US Hwy 24/40. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and Brian Pine, property owners of record. (PC Item 16D; approved 6-1 on 10/24/07).   Consider accepting dedication of easements and rights-of-way for PP-06-07-07, a Preliminary Plat for Airport Business Park No. 1, located at E 1500 Road & US Hwy 24/40. The Planning Commission will also consider a number of waivers from the Development Code with this request. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and Brian Pine, property owners of record. (PC Item 16E; approved 6-1 on 10/24/07).  Timing and Scope of Growth-related Sanitary Sewer projects Possible modifications to sidewalk dining laws Fire/Medical Department Apparatus Replacement Plans
11/20/07	Vice-Mayor Dever plans to be absent
TBD	· Staff reports on  Sales tax options and Impact Fees · State Legislative Statement · Downtown Redevelopment Issues (public procedures and financing options) · Contracts for the development of maximum prices for the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility and for the conveyance system construction

Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adjourn at 10:30 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                                                                       

APPROVED:                          

_____________________________

Sue Hack, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 2007

1. Amend contract- Restoration & Waterproofing Contractors for $56,600, additional work to 1954 Chemical & Filter Building at Kaw Water Treatment Plant.

2. Cured-In-Place-Pipe unit price contract with I-Con Underground LLC for $76,781.52.

3. Ordinance No. 8125 – 2^nd Read, rezone approx. 3.31 acres, RS10 to GPI at 555 Stoneridge Dr.

4. Ordinance No. 8199 – 2^nd Read, rezone approx. 1.80 acres from IG to OS.

5. Ordinance No. 8200 – 2^nd Read, rezone approx. 1.13 acres from IG to GPI.

6. Ordinance No. 8207 – 2^nd Read, amend Nonresidential District use table, allowing veterinary clinics in IBP District.

7. Ordinance No. 8208 – 2^nd Read, est ALL-WAY STOP at Overland Dr & Wakarusa Dr.

8. Ordinance No. 8209 – 2^nd Read, est NO PARKING along N side 4^th St between Maine St & Missouri St along S side 4^th St

9. Ordinance No. 8205 – 2^nd Read, rezone approx .499 acres from IG to CS.

10. Rezone approx. 3.3 acres from RSO to RMO, located SE & SW corners of Eldridge St & W. 6^th St.

11. Ordinance No. 8198 – 1^st Read, rezone (Z-09-22-07) 3.3 acres, RSO to RMO, SE & SW corners of Eldridge & W 6^th.

12. Authorize 2007 Longevity payments.

13. City Manager’s Report.

14. Oread Inn project (12^th & Oread) tabled items 1b – 13, HRC to consider project.

15.       Oread Inn project developer providing funding for bond counsel & feasibility study 

16.       Oread Neighborhood discussion.

17.       State legislative items for upcoming session of Kansas Legislature.

18.       Executive Session.