December 18, 2007
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 5:30 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Hack presiding and members Amyx, Dever, Chestnut and Highberger present.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
It was then moved by Chestnut, seconded by Dever, to recess into executive session for approximately 40 minutes to discuss non-elected personnel matters. The justification is to maintain confidentiality of personnel matters. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission returned to regular session at 6:10 p.m. and then took a short break.
The regular meeting resumed in the City Commission Room at 6:35 p.m.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION
With Commission approval Mayor Hack recognized the University of Kansas Football team.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve City Commission meeting minutes from November 27, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve Lawrence Memorial Hospital Board meeting minutes from October 17, 2007; the Planning Commission meeting minutes from October 22 – 24, 2007; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes from November 1, 2007; and the Sustainability Advisory Board meeting minutes from October 10, 2007 and November 14, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve claims from December 11th to 472 vendors in the amount of $2,392,343.87 and claims for December 18th to 474 vendors in the amount of $3,323,877.45 and payroll from November 25, 2007 to December 8, 2007 in the amount of $1,747,812.01. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for University Econolodge Lawrence, 2222 West 6th Street; Replay Lounge, 946 Massachusetts; Jackpot Music Hall; 943 Massachusetts; approve the Retail Liquor License to Texas Jack’s Liquor; approve Cereal Malt Beverage Licenses to Amoco-Hillcrest BP, 914 Iowa; Amoco-Louisiana BP, 2301 Louisiana; Border Bandito, 1528 west 23rd; Checker’s, 2300 Louisiana; Commerce Plaza BP, 3020 Iowa; Dillon Store #43, 1740 Massachusetts; Dillon Store #68, 3000 West 6th; Dillon Store #70, 1015 west 23rd; Dillon Store #19, 4701 West 6th; Eagle Bend Golf Course, 1250 East 902 Road; Fastrack – Texaco, 1733 Massachusetts; Fastrip, 1414 West 6th; Global Café, 820 Massachusetts; Hy-Vee, 4020 west 6th; Hy-Vee Food Store, 3504 Clinton Parkway; Hy-Vee No. 2, 4000 West 6th Avenue; Jayhawk Food Mart, 701 West 9th; KOA Campground, 1473 Hwy 40; KWIK Shop #702, 1846 Massachusetts; KWIK Shop #718, 3440 West 6th; KWIK Shop #721, 845 Mississippi; KWIK Shop #773, 1714 West 23rd; KWIK Shop #784, 1420 Kasold; KWIK Shop #785, 1611 East 23rd; KWIK Shop #786, 4841 West 6th; PepperJax Grill, 947 New Hampshire; Pizza Hut, 4651 West 6th; Pizza Hut #301024, 600 West 23rd; Pizza Hut #301036, 934 Massachusetts; Presto Convenience No. 39, 1030 North 3rd; Presto Convenience Store #31, 1802 West 23rd Street; Presto Convenience No. 38, 2330 Iowa; Quicktrip No. 167, 1020 E. 23rd Street; St. John’s Church, 1229 Vermont; Star Food Mart, 501 West 9th; Stop 2 Shop, 2447 West 6th; Super Target, 3201 Iowa; Wheat State Pizza, 711 West 23rd Street, Ste. 19; Wood Oil No. 5, 920 N. 2nd; Yello Sub, 1814 West 23rd; Zarco 66 No. 3, 900 Iowa; Zarco 66 No. 4, 1500 E. 23rd; Zarco 66 No. 6, 1415 West 6th. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Jay Bialek and Neil Taylor to the Bicycle Advisory Committee, each to a term which expires December 31, 2010; appoint Jana Dobbs and Kevin Loos to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to terms which will expire December 31, 2010; appoint Paul Dietz and Simram Sethi and reappoint Matt Lehrman and Cindy Strecker to the Sustainability Advisory Board to terms which will expire December 31, 2010; reappoint Mark Stogsdill, Janet Smalter, and John Craft and appoint Neal Ezel to the Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals to terms that will expire November 30, 2010; and appoint Neil Taylor to the Bicycle Advisory Committee. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the sale of scrap and surplus equipment for the Utilities Department. . The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Scrap Copper Tubing and Brass:
Berry Heine $3,146.00
Warren Enterprises $2,852.00
Global Corporation $2,800.00
Scott Temperature Equipment $2,211.63
Hurrelbrink Recycling $2,100.00
Obsolete Water Meters:
Warren Enterprises $27,523.00
Scott Temperature Equipment $22,958.63
Berry Heine $16,227.00
Global Corporation $14,800.00
Hurrelbrink Recycling $4,100.00
Miscellaneous Desks:
Hurrelbrink Recycling $10.00
Warren Enterprises $1.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to award the for Scrap Copper Tubing and Brass to Berry Heine, in the amount of $3,146; Obsolete Water Meters to Warren Enterprises, in the amount of $27,523; and Miscellaneous Desks to Hurrelbrink Recycling, in the amount of $10.00. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for comprehensive housing rehabilitation scopes of work for the Development Services Department. The bids were:
224 E. 17th Street Terrace
BIDDER BASE BID ALTERNATE 1
Penny Construction $23,776.00 $2,340.00
Old Home Store, Inc. $24,925.00 $2,500.00
Staff Estimate $22,430.00 $2,340.00
931 Murrow Court
BIDDER BASE BID ALTERNATE 1
T & J Holdings, Inc. $24,340.00 $3,100.00
Old Home Store, Inc. $25,820.00 $2,700.00
Penny Construction $24,446.00 $2,300.00
Staff Estimate $25,972.00 $2,420.00
1645 Rhode Island
BIDDER BASE BID ALTERNATE 1
T & J Holdings, Inc. $30,450.00 $600.00
Old Home Store, Inc. $27,465.00 $1,100.00
Penny Construction $24,185.00 $400.00
Staff Estimate $25,736.25 $610.00
2616 Mayfair Drive
BIDDER BASE BID ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
T & J Holdings, Inc. $13,125.00 $6,400.00 No bid
Old Home Store, Inc. $13,010.00 $8,625.00 $12,465.00
Penny Construction $13,070.00 $7,000.00 $13,500.00
Staff Estimate $13,426.00 $5,778.00 $9,382.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to award the bid for comprehensive housing rehabilitation for 224 East 17th Street Terrace to Penny Construction, in the amount of $23,776; 931 Murrow Court to T&J Holdings for $24,340; 1645 Rhode Island to Penny Construction, in the amount of $24,185; and 2616 Mayfair Drive (Base Bid and Alt. 2) to Old Home Store, Inc., in the amount of $25,475. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve Change Order No. 1 (Final) in the amount of $83,303.18 for the 2007 Overlay and Curb Repair Program, Phase 2. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve reimbursement to Dave Millstein of $25,128.15, or 75% of the installation costs of a sprinkler system at 803 Massachusetts (Casbah), pursuant to the 2007 Downtown Fire Sprinkler Incentive Program.(4)
Ordinance No. 8211, authorizing the codification of the general ordinances of the City, 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)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt Resolution No. 6746, establishing U.S. Bank National Association as an official depository of the City of Lawrence. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to adopt Resolution No. 6747, declaring the boundaries of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve extension of parking agreement with Sunflower Broadband to use City Lot 16 at the monthly rate of $10 per metered space for 43 spaces, for a total of $430 per month, until February 1, 2008. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an Engineering Services Agreement with HNTB in the amount of $48,088.00, for design engineering services related to Phase II waterline and sanitary sewer relocations on North Iowa Street due to the widening of I-70 Interstate Highway. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize the Mayor to sign the Construction Administration Agreement with KDOT for Ohio Street Brick Restoration project, City Project No. 21-BS1-607(C), KDOT Project No. 23-TE-0303-01. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to receive request from Douglas County concerning special assessments at East Hills Business Park; refer to staff for a report. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Craig Nowatzke, 838 Oak. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Lori Phillips, 2104 Tennessee. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
Commissioner Highberger pulled from the consent agenda the draft December 4, 2007 City Commission meeting minutes. He said he sent an email to Frank Reeb, City Clerk and the City Manager earlier today with three specific changes. He said he would like the meeting minutes to reflect the changes requested in the email.
The specific changes requested were, regarding the Deciphera discussion, with the paragraph starting "Commissioner Highberger said he appreciated the City's commitment to open and fair government..." he thought he said to the audience that "I appreciate your commitment to open and fair government." With the paragraph starting "There had been some suggestion..," sixth sentence, he stated that the City Commission had not done enough to correct the appearance of impropriety. Lastly, Item 14, paragraph 3 he could not remember exactly what he said, but it would give a better sense of what he meant if they replace "mill and overlay growth and" with "runaway"
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the December 4, 2007 City Commission meeting minutes subject to the changes as requested by Commissioner Highberger.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Hack pulled from the consent agenda for separate vote to receive a report on Destination Management, Inc. organizational meeting. She said she would abstain from the vote because of her involvement with the Chamber of Commerce.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to receive the report on Destination Management, Inc. organizational meeting. Aye: Amyx, Chestnut, Dever, and Highberger. Nay: None. Abstain: Hack. Motion carried. (14)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said Public Works had provided a report on the 2007 Pavement Maintenance Program. He said this report could be referenced in January and February when the City Commission discussed the 2008 Payment Management Program and were making important priority decisions for the 2009 Budget for street maintenance. He said staff saw a small decline in the average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) between cycle one and two, which appeared to indicate the maintenance activities helped slow the deterioration rate of streets. The report also indicated road projects for 2008.
Also, the Parks and Recreation Department was responding to major defects in the recreational path along Peterson Road. A rough estimate concerning some of the needs for maintaining some of the existing paths was also included in the report. The City Commission would receive a report next week concerning the City’s property acquisition activities for the Burroughs Creek Trail. (15)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Consider approving the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department regulations for swimming pools and spas with 2007 amendments.
Dan Partridge, Director of the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department, said there were 86 swimming pools, public pools and spas in Douglas County and 82 of those were within the city limits of Lawrence. Pools have been inspected and regulated for many years and he was present to discuss amendments to those regulations.
Some highlighted changes they were asking the City Commission concerned pool chemistry and the changes in disinfection standards, PH levels, and the chemistry of what it took to make sure the pathogens were kept at a low level.
Additionally, they were requesting to establish a license fee which they discussed with the City Commission during budget discussions. They were bringing that request back because in the interim, Richard Ziesenis, Director of Environmental Health, had been part of a state process of drafting a state wide code for swimming pools. That code was near completion and the state would be regulating swimming and public pools related to lodging establishments. Those regulations drafted were part of the lodging regulations and would not apply to other pools that were not with a hotel or motel. Of the 82 facilities in Lawrence, roughly 1/3 of the pools were the hotel/motel pools. Just under half were apartments, and the remaining few were the community pools and neighborhood pools. The state regulations were just for a subset of the pools in the City of Lawrence. They wanted to make sure what they brought to the City Commission was consistent with those state regulations. The regulations would provide consistency between the community pools and motel pools.
He said the license fee was set by the Board of Health at $120.00 for one pool and $60.00 for any additional pool or spa. Of the 82 facilities in Lawrence, there were 101 pools and spas, so there were roughly 30 additional facilities that had more than one pool. Those fees, if enacted, would generate roughly $10,000 which was their estimate of the cost of the program. This past year they did well over 400 inspections and had been averaging 450 inspections of pools. They inspect pools about 5 times a year and tried to get to each pool every month they were in operation.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to approve the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department Regulations for swimming pools and spas with 2007 amendments. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Consider staff recommendations regarding bid lettings and use of incentives for the N. 2nd and Locust Street geometric improvements project.
Dena Mezger, Assistant Public Works Director, presented the staff report. She said they looked at the options they had relative to the timing of the 2nd and Locust project as it related to the pending improvements on the Turnpike. One of the concerns that started this discussion was if it was a good idea to do the 2nd and Locust project at the same time the Turnpike was closing the interchanges and plazas. Staff looked at three options, which were: 1) go ahead with the project now while the West Lawrence interchange was underway next summer; 2) delay it and have it closed at the same time the East Lawrence interchange was being done in 2009; 3) delay the 2nd and Locust project until after the interchanges and Turnpike was completed.
Staff looked at emergency response issues and met with Chief Olin and Chief Bradford, talking about what their preferences would be and staff’s recommendation was to go ahead with the project in 2008 and would like to get the project completed before the East Lawrence interchange or plaza was closed. That location provided a very necessary second access for emergency services into North Lawrence. While the 2nd and Locust project would not completely close 2nd Street, there would be one lane each way throughout construction, bottling everything down to that area, while the plaza was also closed which caused a concern for emergency services and they much preferred to get the project out of the way and completed before the interchange was closed in 2009. She said to hurry the project along, staff looked at offering incentives to a contractor to help move the project along before any work on the interchange started. Obviously, there would be penalties for delays. She said KDOT had no problems with the City offering incentives which was possibly $1,000 a day with a calendar day completion of November 15th which meant the project should be completed before starting work on the East Lawrence interchange. As an added incentive, if the contractor completed everything by September 1st, staff would offer a flat $100,000 incentive which would be considered an extra bonus for completing the project even earlier and that money would come out of the City’s pocket. She said with some of the funding issues, the City might be a little short already in the City’s capital plan for this project. Staff’s concern was if they waited and did the project after the Turnpike improvements were made, which would put the project potentially at 2011, staff could see a 20-30% increase in cost, which would all come back to the City because the KDOT contribution was capped at a flat $1 million. Staff thought it would be in the City’s best interest to construct the project in 2008, and if they wanted that extra insurance, offer that incentive.
Commissioner Amyx said he was concerned with public safety on the north side of North 2nd and it appeared those concerns were addressed. He said it was important to complete the project at 2nd and Locust and the citizens in North Lawrence anticipated the project would be completed next year. He said he would like staff to work with Police and Fire/Medical to make sure during the peak hours that someone was stationed on the north side. He said there should be two lanes of traffic during rush hours in the morning and evening. He said without four lanes opened bottlenecks occur which limited emergency response time to the north side of the tracks. If those situations were addressed, he did not have a problem proceeding with the project. He asked if staff could look at a project completion date of October 1st with less incentive.
Mezger said staff could look at that idea. KDOT typically set those schedules, but staff could discuss how tight the schedule could be made.
Commissioner Amyx said $100,000 was quite a bit of money for a September 1st project completion date. He said there were a number of people in the construction trade looking for work and it could be a situation where multiple people could be working on this project to complete the project quickly.
Mezger said staff could review those options.
Commissioner Highberger said he thought the memo indicated that stationing emergency response personnel on the other side in North Lawrence was not going to be feasible.
David Corliss, City Manager, said unless he was directed otherwise, he would leave it to the discretion of the Fire/Medical Chief and the Police Chief to determine whether to station staff at critical points. He said they would be cognizant of that situation and staff would monitor those situations. He said he did not think they would want to commit to saying during the longevity of the project they would have a fire truck north of the railroad tracks in order to respond. He said again, staff was cognizant of that issue, but did not want to make the commitment on certain deployment unless otherwise directed.
Commissioner Amyx said he was talking about peak traffic hours recognizing that there were traffic back ups in that area and he would hate to see a problem happen and staff could not arrive in a timely fashion. He said the stationing of staff would not be on a 24 hour basis, but just to recognize peak rush hour times.
Corliss said staff was not committing that during peak rush hours they would have someone deployed in that area, but staff would monitor that area and if it would be the Chiefs’ call to deploy someone in that area.
Vice Mayor Dever said the City Commission asked the Public Works Director, Chuck Soules, to discuss with the Turnpike Authority and find out if there was any flexibility on start dates or changes in schedules to try and save money and accommodate completion of the project.
Mezger said Soules had that conversation and the Kansas Turnpike Authority indicated that because of the magnitude of all the pieces on their project they would have to fit together, it was not just an interchange, but bridge reconstruction, lanes and this was a huge project. It was $150 million project and to start rearranging the schedule would be very difficult to put the entire project together properly, if they were to start accommodating their project one way or another. They were reluctant to pursue that idea.
Vice Mayor Dever asked if the City went on record that it was something the City wanted help with.
Mezger said yes.
Commissioner Chestnut said when KTA came to present the report on their project it was not as though they had a hard date at the time they were going to close the West Lawrence interchange. Realistically, if the KTA project slid into 30 days into August 1st, and the project was able to be completed sometime around October 1, they could make this time window as little as 8 – 10 weeks versus being 4 months. It was going to be based on their bid letting and timing.
Corliss said a bid date had not been announced yet for the project and it could slide based on final engineering design and those types of things.
Mezger asked for clarification on whether the City Commission wanted incentives or not for early completion.
Commissioner Amyx said he would look at a range of incentives, but he thought $1,000 a day was too much because a lot of people could be employed for this project to complete. Some incentive might be worthwhile, but $100,000 was too high.
Mezger said staff would put together some numbers for the City Commission, but the amounts were not outside of the box the City offered on other projects that were considered critical.
Commissioner Highberger said for the record he was not disagreeing with Commissioner Amyx’s suggestion for a cap but he was just noting the $1,000 a day was what they had done before.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Ted Boyle, President, North Lawrence Improvement Association, said last night was their monthly meeting and the 2nd and Locust Street construction was one of the topics in which emergency response was a concern. If it could be could assured the emergency response was in the same time line during this construction, the residents would like to see this go forward as quickly as possible. He said to delay the project any longer would not only cost the taxpayers more money, but also those turn lanes at 2nd and Locust were a safety issue. He said if the City had to place first responders in North Lawrence between peak hours of 6-8, 11-1 and 4-6, then so be it because it had been done in the past. The last time they did anything to 2nd and Locust there were first responders at the Harley Davidson parking lot which would not work this time, but on Industrial Lane by the recycling center, it was an enclosed building where a truck could park and make emergency response on the north side of the tracks without interference of the train. The south side of the tracks would be approachable by the bridge.
He said another concern was left hand turns at 2nd and Locust. It might be appropriate not to have a left hand turn at that intersection and maybe direct traffic down to 3rd and Lincoln, back on to 2nd where traffic could make a right hand turn to get back behind Johnny’s Tavern. The residents’ main concern was emergency response.
Commissioner Amyx said he would suggest going forward with the bid letting and authorizing staff to work with KDOT. Staff should also work with the residents of North Lawrence for emergency vehicle service.
Commissioner Highberger said he was happy staff found a way to keep this project on track. He concurred with Commissioner Amyx.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Dever, to authorize February 2008 bid letting for the 2nd and Locust project and authorize staff to work with KDOT to shorten the construction schedule, including use of incentives up to $100,000. Motion carried unanimously (17)
Consider awarding the bid for Project 6CP-906 Stoneridge Drive Elevated Water Storage Tank to the low bidder, LandMark structures, in the amount of $2,470,000.00 and authorize the city Manager to execute a contract agreement for the project.
David Corliss, City Manager, said staff received a good bid from a qualified contractor. The project was a major public improvement on the west side of town. They were continuing to provide infrastructure for a growing community and this was an example. He said staff went through a public process to let the neighborhood and public know what the structure was going to look like. It would look different than all other water towers and storage facilities. A public meeting was held and staff worked to get the photo out so people would know what the structure would look like. Staff wanted to make sure there would not be any buyer’s remorse and they did not like how it would look.
Commissioner Chestnut said it seemed engineering estimates were coming in rather high in comparison to bids and this bid was 79% of the engineering estimate. If the bids were consistently at 20-25% below the engineer’s estimate, he thought there needed to be process issues on how the engineering estimates were put together.
Philip Ciesielski, Assistant Utilities Director, said the second low bidder was much closer and there was a question from Black & Veatch with respect to the evaluations of LandMark’s bid. He said staff went to lengths to verify that everything was included in their bid and that LandMark was familiar with this style of tank. He knew the way the material prices had gone, he thought engineers and staff were lacking on their estimates and there might be an opposite swing on trying to add more. He said the 1.5 million size was set and was not a change at the time of bid on the engineer’s part.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Amyx, seconded by Dever, to award the bid for the Stoneridge Drive Elevated Water Storage Tank to the low bidder, LandMark Structures, in the amount of $2,470,000; and to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract agreement for the project. Motion carried unanimously.
Corliss asked if Commissioner Chestnut wanted staff to work on a report analyzing bid issues.
Commissioner Chestnut said Commissioner Amyx had noted that issue and the City had been on this trajectory where it might be leveling off which could be creating that issue.
Vice Mayor Dever said during a business retention meeting, that issue was brought up. He said there were a half dozen projects that were pointed out that the actual costs were much lower than the City’s estimates which was something that needed to be addressed.
Corliss said a report that showed the data and showed the City’s process on how they worked on estimates would be appropriate. (18)
Consider approval of SP-11-89-05, a site plan for Rylee Court Apartments, an apartment complex including 16 units and surface parking located on the south side of West 23rd Street and west of Tennessee Street extended.
Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report. She said the subject property was an existing commercial property that was vacant and was located on the south side of East 23rd Street, east of Checker’s. It was an application that was submitted under the old code and was submitted some time ago. The subject property proposed direct access to 23rd Street. As they looked through the application for the initial iterations of that development, staff directed the applicant to pursue and exhaust all opportunities to provide shared access with Checker’s to the west. It was unsuccessful, so the applicant started working with KDOT to look at getting direct access to 23rd Street, located on the north side of the property. One of the other things the site plan included was the concept of shared access to the east upon future redevelopment of that property. Staff worked through a number of different elements over time for this property and was happy to report those elements were resolved to staff’s satisfaction. In fact, Condition No. 3, provision of screening, had been met and was not removed from the staff report.
Commissioner Amyx asked if whether at the time of the Checker’s site plan, there was a type of agreement made at the time of the closure of Ohio Street that worked to assure the access to this piece of property and the cross access would happen at that time.
Day said she was not aware of any agreement and had not been involved in any title search that would locate that agreement, but was not a piece of information she had been directed to look for or had any knowledge of.
David Corliss, City Manager, asked if the Checker’s site plan or development plan had a requirement for cross access to the east.
Day said she was not aware of any requirement for cross access to the east.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, said infill projects bring there own special set of issues and this project was no different. He said there were three issues: sanitary sewer, access and storm water concerns. Storm water was worked out with a detention pond that met the City’s requirements and was in cooperation with a neighbor to the south. He said regarding the sanitary sewer issue, the City had to condemn an easement. He said when the owner’s replatted they changed some of the wording on the easements which was why they needed the City’s help in getting an easement for sanitary sewer. He said all of this issue started because they thought they had access from Checker’s and access was denied when it was determined that Checker’s owned the business and a group of lawyers out of New York actually owned the property. They had future shared access to the east, which was not perfect but they were allowing that. Somewhere down the road they thought the property to the east was ready for redevelopment. It was a small apartment complex, and while they thought it was not perfect, they thought they solved all the issues.
Laura Routh said she lived in the neighborhood near this proposed development. She said she wanted to congratulate the developer regarding infill. She thought it was great and made a lot of sense instead of sprawling out into the countryside, but she was not sure that this project was the best manifestation of the infill concept.
She felt this project was going to exacerbate congestion and unsafe conditions at the intersections between Massachusetts and Louisiana. At Tennessee and Vermont at 8:00 o’clock in the morning and 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon were absolutely inaccessible. So much so, she thought the City over a year ago decided not to allow left hand turns during peak traffic hours onto Vermont and Tennessee for that reason. It was stop and go traffic for upwards of an hour at the end of the day already.
The second concern was this project was approved under the old code which dated back to 1966. Because it was approved under that code, it did not go through a lot of public input and she believed it did not have enough review by the folks that lived in that area that would be impacted by the traffic considerations.
She was concerned that they had an awful lot of vacant rental property and was not sure why they would create a curb cut on the busiest road in town when it was after their vacant rental units all over town that had not yet been filled.
She respectfully disagreed with the person that proposed those buildings in that she did not think this project met the requirements of Section 20-1432(b) of the code. That section required safe and efficient egress. She would challenge that at 5:00 o’clock that someone could get out of that efficiently or safely because she did not think it would be possible.
She said if this project was approved, the Commission might want to consider not allowing people to turn left from Tennessee onto 23rd Street during the peak traffic hours.
Routh said Tennessee had been repaved recently and placed a stripe right down the middle which was puzzling to those in the neighborhood because parking on right hand side of Tennessee was allowed, headed south, but it was an equal distant two lane road now and gave people the impression that it was a one way. They had people driving in both lanes down Tennessee toward 23rd Street. She did not know if the intention was to set it up that way because it was going to become a one way, but if it did become a one way, she suggested placing a light at 23rd and Tennessee to try and ease some of the congestion.
In looking at this intersection and this project, she pleaded for the City Commission to consider improving contiguous sidewalks in the area. She walked to work through this intersection almost every day, and it was very difficult to get from point A to point B or safely across 23rd Street because there were no sidewalks.
Commissioner Amyx asked Routh if she was aware there was another project planned for this particular piece of property about three years ago for a small strip center at that location.
Routh said she recalled seeing that idea, but did not hear that project had legs so she did not pay much attention to it.
She noticed that KDOT took a long time to approve the curb cut for obvious reasons, but did not notice any attachments as part of the decision making process on the agenda. She asked if KDOT wrote directly to staff or to the City Commission.
Day said the access permits for those driveways were routed through Public Works. There was communication between staff internally that those issues were resolved, but there was not typically a letter of approval or communication with staff that would be provided to the City Commission as part of the attachments. It was an internal issue to be resolved, unless there was disagreement between the applicant and the other party.
Carol Bowen, Lawrence, said she brought pictures to show the Commissioners, but distances looked a lot different on a sheet of paper than in reality. From her driveway, she could see Checker’s and it was not a very long distance. She said every time it rained they received a gully gusher. They relied heavily on their streets and what was left of the curbs to drain the water because there were not many storm sewers in the neighborhood. Stormwater was an issue in the entire neighborhood and there were a lot of low properties. On her property, they had nowhere to drain the water because it was flat. She said all the rain headed toward the southeast side of town. She said she also had a question about the idea of screening the parking lot lights with a three foot fence.
She said her next comment was on the neighborhood shopping zone. She said when she heard the word “neighborhood” it implied that somehow the neighborhood should be involved on how it would fit with the neighborhood, serve the neighborhood, and what land use was going to happen.
She also noticed under access, the developers were planning to redevelop their neighborhood, but where was the neighborhood plan. Her plan was to stay there for the rest of her life and was she supposed to change her plan because someone wanted to develop. She asked if they were letting the developers plan their neighborhood for them or did they want the redevelopment to fit in. It was not that they did not want it to develop, but wanted to develop it compatible with the neighborhood and wanted some control over the future of their neighborhood. She said if she were to request anything, it would be to send the developer to their neighborhood so they could work through some of the minor details.
Werner said regarding traffic with eight one bedrooms and eight two bedrooms, which was 24 people, access to 23rd in the big scheme of things was pretty minimal. He said regarding the history of this project, everyone kept dropping site plans because they were always going into Checker’s for access and every time a commercial proposal was brought forth, the owners were denying the access because they thought it would be competition with the grocery store. He said if that was the problem, they thought constructing apartments would work and thought they would have shared access through Checker’s parking lot. He said they turned in their site plan two years ago thinking they were going to get the project completed by August 2006, but they found out the other deal about who owned the property and who had to sign off.
The stormwater problem had to do with the apartments on Kentucky Court further east that had no detention. He said their concept was to keep the water on the west side of his house after the detention pond and release the water at a slow rate. The detention pond solved the problem. The streets were designed to hold the water versus in people’s houses. It was not a perfect situation, but was consistent with what was done in several projects and the water right now was going that direction. The water drained off 23rd Street and flowed to the south and was not controlled. The better plan was to control it and release it slowly over time. The water coming off of that site would not get to that street until much later and hopefully after the other storm sewers could handle the water.
There were also no parking lot lights, they were lighting some of the area off the buildings so the three foot fencing would work.
He said they were not touching the property to the east and it was determined that it was the best future shared access. He said part of the reason they had access to 23rd Street instead of building access to the east was that there was no plan to redevelop that property.
He said they sent letters and have tried to be much better about hearing from neighbors. He said he knew nothing until about an hour ago about issues. He said they would look at those issues, but he thought they had the best plan.
Commissioner Highberger asked if Werner could give a more clear answer about the stormwater detention.
Werner said it would go to the street and to the storm sewer. The street held a bunch of water right now. The water was getting to the street earlier because the water that was causing some of the problems was not coming through a detention system. After it rained, all of their water would be held in the detention pond and released slowing so hopefully the street would have receded by the time their water was getting to that location.
Commissioner Highberger asked if Werner had sent letters to all the neighbors that were required.
Werner said they sent letters to the neighbors two years ago, but they had heard nothing. It did not necessarily mean everyone received a letter.
Commissioner Amyx said regarding access, there were two curb cuts to the property to the east and asked if their access would be the only access that if that property to the east were to develop, would have to use that one access.
Werner said the proposed site plan included an agreement as to what the owner of this property would do based on the property to the east redeveloping. It was Tennessee Street extended to the south that would allow for the possibility. If a four way intersection at that location seemed to be the best answer, this was what they would see happen in the future. He said they filed an agreement with the Register of Deeds that went with this property so whoever owned that property in the future, if the property to the east redeveloped, this was what they needed to do to this property once they could obtain access from the east, that property owner needed to remove that curb cut.
Day said with regard to notification, staff encouraged applicants to meet with neighborhoods whenever they could. Under previous codes, that was not a requirement and was left up to the applicant’s judgment on how far they take those conversations when they had a property that was on the edge of the neighborhood, sometimes it was less clear to the applicant, neighborhood, or other individuals involved how deeply into those discussions the neighborhoods get. Staff relied on the different contacts staff gets from different residents. She knew the individuals they talked to were out talking to their neighbors, which was another piece staff relied on. Staff also did posting in the new code that was not done under the old code. This was a project that was started a couple of years ago and was with a different planner, so she was playing catch up with it as well.
She said with regard to some of the storm water, the detention pond was actually oversized for what was required so it would provide additional benefit. With regard to the screening there was no parking lot lighting, so no pole lights were proposed in the parking lot. The screening staff addressed in the recommendation that had been addressed on the site plan required that landscaping be provided along the eastern property line. That kind of screening, a minimum of three foot high, was intended to screen the vehicle lights at that vehicle level.
Commissioner Highberger asked if there was an existing neighborhood plan that included this property.
Day said no, not to her knowledge. The property would be within the 23rd Street corridor. Staff discussed eliminating access points. The future access would not only close the immediate access, but the two driveways would be reduced to a single access. They would end up with a single access point to the two properties upon some future redevelopment. There was not a plan out there for the property to the east that staff was aware of. There was an expectation that some point in the future someone was going to make a request.
Commissioner Highberger asked if there was any similar expectation for any other property along the immediate corridor.
Day said not in the immediate area that she was aware of. This subject property happened to be carrying commercial zoning, so it had been a very attractive piece for a number of years. She looked at two development proposals that never made it as far as City Commission consideration previously.
Commissioner Amyx said concerning the access on 23rd Street, that was a tough stretch of road with the division of the roadway getting closer to the intersection to the west and asked about the possibilities for right in and right out at that location.
Day said right in/right out would be subject to KDOT approval, but generally the sure way to control a right in, right out was with a median on 23rd Street.
Commissioner Amyx said he had some concerns about access to this property. If they were going to be looking at some future development to the east, it seemed that in changing some of the driveways by the extension of Tennessee Street, he thought it would take care of some concerns in that they might see the dedicated stop light at that location that would help move traffic from those sites.
He liked the idea of the additional detention that was required on the site to help take care some of the neighbors’ concerns. He understood the water was coming from one of the other developments to the east and was done at a time when there were little or no detention requirements other than to put a pipe in the ground running through the neighbor’s yard. Obviously, because of the commercial nature of this property and the existing zoning, this was probably the best use of this property. He said when looking at long term development throughout this area and that new access, he supported the project with the requirements that staff recommended.
Commissioner Chestnut said he agreed with Commissioner Amyx. He said one of the things he was learning was there was never a perfect land use for any piece of ground. He said the history of this particular property with the CN2 zoning had gone through a number of innervations and found the land use that seemed to be the best fit, which was not always ideal. He said he was comfortable with the stormwater detention and there was also a possibility that it might slightly assist with some and absorb some of the run off from other properties to the east.
He was concerned about the access onto 23rd Street, but with the number of cars and number of parking spaces, it was negligible as far as what it was going to add to traffic.
The applicant has done the best job possible in providing the interior entrances and at least on that property there was some walk ability in and out of the project. Based on the property, it was a difficult property and was about as good of a land use that they were going to get.
Commissioner Highberger said he had a few concerns. He said he would like to see a neighborhood meeting for interested parties, but if the applicant indicated they contacted neighbors and did not receive a response, there was not much they could do about that at this point. He said the storm water issues were his biggest concern remaining with this project. He said there were stormwater issues near his house and so he understood the problem the neighbors were talking about here.
Vice Mayor Dever said he liked to see that the landowner was willing to put some use restrictions on the deed. He looked forward to being able to tie into a joint entrance on the eastern part of the property. He did not know what the future held for that parcel, but it was a definite positive point for the approval of this plan. He was concerned anytime he heard water dumping onto the street and was a cause for additional safety and health hazards. He liked the 100 year retention basin and thought it was a great step forward in improving the drainage.
Communication with the neighbors as much as possible was really important. They saw how well it benefited certain projects and anytime they could improve this process by involving the neighbors as much as possible was what should happen. He was in favor of airing out any concerns, especially with the neighbors because it was going to be in their backyard. He said ultimately he would like to see the extension of Tennessee Street be built out.
Mayor Hack said, as Commissioner Chestnut said, there was no perfect land use, and infill development even added to it and made it more difficult. She reiterated what the Vice Mayor said about neighborhood contact. They were all trying to do a better job and were very critical in the process. She agreed the best part of this was the opportunity to work with the property to the east and close that curb cut. She was sorry they were not able to move the owners of the property to the corner towards something that would benefit not only them but the community.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the site plan (SP-11-89-05) for Rylee Court Apartments, an apartment complex including 16 units and surface parking located on the south side of West 23rd Street and west of Tennessee Street extended, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement;
2. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
a. Correct general note 1.5 to show density at 14.8
b. Correct zoning labels on the drawing to reflect the current zoning designation
c. Correct project surface summary information that states “Project Site 1.059 acres (46,117 Sq. ft. =/-)” to reflect correct area summary.
d. Note that change in use will require re-evaluation of access configuration to 23rd Street.
3. Provision of a revised landscape plan, per staff approval to screen the east side of the parking lot.
Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Consider the following items related to the Revised Southern Development Plan:
a) Consider approval of the Revised Southern Development Plan. The draft plan was returned to the Planning Commissioner for further consideration by the Board of County Commissioners on October 8, 2007.
b) Consider adopting on first reading joint City Ordinance No. 8220/County Resolution No. _______ regarding the Revised Southern Development Plan and CPA-2007-03, amending Horizon 2020, chapter 14 Specific Plans, approved by the City Commission September 25, 2007.
Michelle Leininger, Planner, presented the staff report. She said the planning area was expanded from the original Southern Development Plan to include the Baker Wetlands and to extend the property to the east and to the south. Horizon 2020 identified the property as low density residential. CPC and staff recommended the same. The Planning Commission recommended medium density residential, the City Commission recommended low density residential, and the County Commission recommended medium density residential which brought the plan back to the Planning Commission. Staff did some additional calculation research based on the property and neighborhoods to the north to get some type of comparison to what they would be developing next to. The Planning Commission recommended medium density residential with some policy restrictions.
She said there was a large floodway that was noted on the property which bisected the property. She said staff took an area between 27th Street, Louisiana, Naismith Park and the abutting property that had been up for discussion, to compare the gross areas and density and total number of units as to what the vacant property could be developed and the single family area was gross density of about two dwelling units per acre. The multifamily area was about six dwelling units per acre and the total the area together it was about three dwelling units per acre.
She said the Planning Commission recommended the following:
• Add a reference to T2030 and subsequent transportation plans.
• Change low-density residential land use description the following ways:
– Remove under applicable areas: Property to the north and west of the intersection of Louisiana Street and W. 31st Street.
– Add to the Zoning Districts: RM12D
– Add to the Primary Uses: attached dwellings and duplexes
• Change medium-density residential land use description to add:
– Add to the Applicable Areas: Property to the north and west of the intersection of Louisiana Street and W. 31st Street.
– Add to the Primary Uses: attached dwellings
• Change the Policies under residential to add:
– 5. Property northwest of the intersection of W. 31st and Louisiana Streets, north of the FEMA designated floodplain shall:
• have a gross density of no more than 8 dwelling units per acre,
• be restricted to the following zoning districts: RS7 (Single-Dwelling Residential), RS5 (Single-Dwelling Residential), PD (Planned Development Overlay), RM12D (Multi-Dwelling Duplex Residential),
• develop with any of the following uses: single-family dwellings, attached dwellings, duplex, and
• develop with similar residential character to the neighborhood to the north.
• Change the Policies under Commercial to state:
– 2. Planned development overlay zonings shall be self-contained with consideration given to: independent traffic networks; land use buffers; and/or a gradation of land uses, as well as, landscaped buffer(s) along the perimeter of the planned commercial development.
– 3. Future commercial development and/or redevelopments of existing commercial areas shall be in the form of planned development overlays.
• Change the Policies under Open Space/Floodplain to state:
3. Areas within the regulatory floodplain shall not be counted as contributing more than 50% of the open space used in the computation of density for planned development overlays e.g., areas designated as open space/floodplain cannot be used to justify increased residential development densities.
Commissioner Highberger asked about the existing multi-family area and the number of units per acre.
Leininger said the multifamily area was 6 dwelling units per acre.
Commissioner Highberger said it was his understanding about the negotiations that what was proposed would be similar but it was more than that.
Leininger said the property owner felt that capping it at 8 units per acre, which was gross density, so they were not going to get quite that much when they took away street right-of-way, set back, and other requirements. It made sense to have the higher density to the arterial streets and it was something both the property owner and neighborhoods were agreeable to.
Commissioner Amyx said the only agreement that was made or talked about on the eight versus the six had to do with the wording changes as recommended by staff and Planning Commission.
Leininger said it allowed the higher density, but medium density residential allowed multi dwelling structures, which the neighborhood was not comfortable with. Identifying it as medium density would allow the higher density, but adding the description to keep it consistent with structure types was important so the area did not develop with apartments.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Jane Eldredge, representing the property owners, said that agreement happened as a result of the work of Scott McCullough, Director of Planning and Development Services and Leininger. They voluntarily got everyone together and thought it had a good result. Bonnie Johnson represented the Indian Hills Neighborhood and was very helpful and she appreciated Johnson’s work on this as well.
Bob Suderman, Lawrence, said his letter to the City Commission pertained to issues relating to water problems that had occurred and the elevation on the current site as it currently stood which had to do with the Snodgrass property.
As related to the Southern Development Plan, the one request he asked that was not in his document, related to the last paragraph on page three. He said with the possibility of looking at a reduction in density for two of the remaining uncommitted tracks that were currently listed as medium density, if they could be looking at a lower density much like across the road at 8 units per acre or looking at triplexes or duplexes to get a different mix. Right now, they were looking at the potential to have 180 acres of high density student apartments and this was not an objection to The Exchange nor was it an objection to the commercial along Iowa Street that was in that plan. The problem was having all three contiguous tracks all pointing their traffic loads towards Iowa and Louisiana. He wanted to see if there was any way that could be reconsidered.
Suderman submitted a copy of his letter to the City Commission dated December 18, 2007 which read:
Dear City Commissioner:
Three related projects await your action: the 20+ acre property on the NW corner of 31st and Louisiana; the final Southern Development Plan proposal; and the 60+ acre “Exchange” apartment project proposed for the SE corner of 31st and Ousdahl. This memorandum addresses issues concerning these projects. Please place it in the City Commission meeting record.
20+ acre property NW of 31st and Louisiana
Projections from past, multiple occurrences would indicate that units constructed on this property will be in danger of sporadic flooding if occupied living areas are below or at current ground level. Parts of this property previously consisted of Naismith Creek flood plain that, along with other contiguous areas, were filled. In 1993, and again, two times approximately a month apart in 1996, this area was subject to serious flooding. Flooding occurred to such an extent that a triplex near Missouri and 29th Terrace was inundated multiple times and vacated for several years before it was renovated and reoccupied, (probably within the last four years). The elevation of the window wells to the flooded, below ground areas of the triplex were at approximately 829 ½ feet, plus or minus 2-3 inches. Two blocks away on Belle Haven Creek, the water level reached a measured level equal to approximately 830 feet.
The elevation of the filled 20 acre property, as of March, 2006, generally ranged from 828 to 830 feet, with no sizeable areas above that level. This can be determined from aerial photography shot by the city at that time. (Additional earth movement has been done since that time, but it does not appear that the overall level has risen substantially.) The 830 foot line runs underneath the first five existing buildings east and south of Missouri Street and 29th St Terrace, and then meanders to the south edge of the built-out lots for the remainder of the lots toward Louisiana Street.
Naismith and Belle Haven Creeks, and the related basin watersheds drain a two square mile area that extends from the Chancellor’s House along Jayhawk Boulevard-Crestline to Iowa; south to 31st; east to Louisiana; and back north to near the Chancellor’s House. The entire area drains out through the box culvert at 31st and Louisiana. In wet years, flooding has been a problem. Whether filling of areas that formerly were potential “retention-holding” areas will change the overall, hydrologic characteristics of the area, remains to be seen.
The Dilemma? On the one hand, it is fortunate that the 20 acre property has been raised only to a level that approximates the height of the built properties on 29th Terrace. On the other hand, the current elevations of the site probably leave the future owners and tenants of any new construction at risk if the situation is not corrected. Unfortunately, excessive elevation of structures would, in all likelihood, create problems for property owners on 29th Terrace.
If the City Commission approves this project, it is hoped that future, careful reviews of sensitive land issues, drainage and flood plane development issues, and site plan issues will balance the needs of the property owners, nearby neighbors, and future tenants and/or owners of these units. With careful planning, tax dollars should never be required to correct drainage or flooding problems in this area.
Please consider the rejection of this future land use plan as currently outlined. A reconstitution of the mix of uses for the undeveloped land east of Iowa along with a reduction of the residential densities in two of the four, eastern, undeveloped tracts would be an appropriate and welcome change.
The areas in question lie south of 31st Street and east of Iowa and Ousdahl. A change is not suggested in the proposed use of undeveloped property southwest of Iowa and 31st, (near Target), the 60 acre property currently proposed for student apartments (the Exchange), nor does it suggest a change in the proposed use as commercial of the approximately 60 acres east of Iowa and south of Armstrong Road. There is concern about the uses proposed for the remaining two tracts of approximately 60 acres that lie south of the proposed Exchange Apartments (located south of Armstrong Road, and projected as Medium Residential) and for the proposed use of the 50-60 acre, triangular shaped piece of property (located east of the Exchange Apartments and SE of 31st and Louisiana, also projected as residential).
Traffic Issues:
In late winter, 2002, and again late in 2002, KDOT personnel presented two information sessions that were sponsored by the (four) Southern Neighborhood Consortium on Louisiana Street. Chris Hoffman and two other staff members stated the following:
(1) 59 Highway was almost certain to remain in its current location until at least 2015, and possibly as long as 2020.
(2) No more traffic signals or right turn lanes will be allowed off of Iowa between The Bypass overpass and 6th Street.
(3) The Iowa and 31st St. intersection breaks down to failure (level F) by the time a volume of 40,000 vehicles passes through the intersection.
(4) Once it hits that level, there is little that can reasonably be done to correct the situation since improvement at that location would merely send cars to the lights up and down the streets where longer waits would occur.
(5) Lawrence needs a through, east-west street from K10 to Iowa Street.
(6) KDOT was not opposed to development along 31st Street; however, it was strongly supportive of doing what was reasonably necessary to limit the load on 31st St. to minimize the impact on Iowa St/59 Highway.
(7) The 31st Street corridor study projects traffic volume for Iowa and 31st at approximately 50,000 to 60,000 vehicles (extrapolated).
(8) The 31st Street Corridor Study projects traffic volume on Louisiana north of 31st at more than 26,000 vehicles. (Breakdown to F level was presumed to occur by 15,000 vehicles as currently arranged; approximately 25% of the school children in Lawrence attend school between 19th and 27 Terrace Streets.)
The Exchange will contain 700 units and 1,950 bedrooms. (By comparison, the Reserve has 200 units with just over 700 bedrooms, while the Legends also has nearly 200 with over 600 bedrooms.) This will be a large student trip generator down Louisiana and Iowa. A mix of uses and restriction of density in the remaining 120 acres, well below Medium Density Residential in the southern area could mitigate the total number of trips pointed towards the university (and along Louisiana Street) at peak times.
Land Use Mix Issues
The Southern Development Plan abandons the policy of mixing uses. Three of the four 60 acre tracts are projected as medium residential (or approximately 180 acres out of 240 acres). This is a substantial concentration of a single use –students—in one area. By contrast, the 160 acres along Clinton Parkway by the Legends has more balanced planning with only about 40-50 acres committed to student apartments. Similarly, the Southeast Area Plan contains approximately 1000 to 1100 acres. It contains 160 to 180 acres of medium and high density residential uses. This is a substantial area disparity. Why is there no low density residential or office? A reduction in density to 8 units per acre for the residential, and the addition of a larger tract of office or similar use would create a better mix. Sixty acres of medium-high density student housing in one place is extreme, even without regard for the traffic load that will be pointed down Louisiana Street. 180 acres of it there is just too much.
Please consider this plan.
Mayor Hack asked McCullough if he had any comments.
Scott McCullough, Director of Planning and Development Services, said this plan had gone through an immense amount of process through the Planning Commission and subcommittee through plans and neighborhood meetings. Not to dismiss the comment, but it had a lot of process to this point. It was the designation they came into agreement on at this point and if there was a review of that parcel or other properties in the area, he thought they would need to take it back and look at it.
Bonnie Johnson, President of the Indian Hills Neighborhood Association, said she wanted to come and say they were appreciative of staff working out this compromise and they were much happier with this compromise than the higher density on the Snodgrass property.
Carol Bowen said when they planned their new growth, they did not do it in conjunction with their established areas. When they looked at the South Lawrence Development Plan, their neighborhood was not on it, but a lot of the impact from the development to the south would affect their neighborhood. They needed to plan the older neighborhoods so they were ready for the new growth. They could not just do the new growth and let the consequences form in the old areas. She challenged the City Commission to come up with a plan for Louisiana Street. They had to plan it at the same time and integrate it with the new development; otherwise they would always have long meetings.
She said regarding the 8 units per acre, she asked if was buildable acres because there was much floodplain involved on the Snodgrass property.
Leininger said that was the property outside the FEMA designated floodplain.
Commissioner Chestnut said when the City Commission considered this plan the first time, there were a lot of questions about that property, a lot of unanswered questions, and not a lot of information. He spent time looking at the property, he did not know how much was in the flood plain, but thought it was a good compromise as far as the density because low density single family was not going to happen on that property, especially with what was across the street. He also understood the neighborhood’s considerations of the fact that if they put a 15 unit per acre, they would have the possibility of creating some significant drainage issues and the plan met in between.
He said if development moved forward there were some things that could be done on the drainage because it flowed to the south and were some legacy issues now on that property that created some drainage issues that could be rectified on the development plans. It would contribute to some drainage and improvements that could be made to help the water flow to the south. They had some narrow piping and some other things that were creating some of the back up into the adjacent neighborhood.
Vice Mayor Dever said it was great to see this type of planning and interaction before the site was even up for development. He said he was excited the neighborhood and developers were able to come to an amicable agreement on this plan.
Commissioner Highberger said he appreciated the efforts of the property owners and the neighbors to work this out. He would personally prefer slightly less density on that piece of property, but it seemed to be a reasonable compromise. He said there were still drainage issues and traffic issues that needed to be addressed, but the time to address those was at the development proposal.
He said they would have to deal with Louisiana Street sometime but they failed to build a good street grid at that part of town and would have to address that at some point. He was willing to support the compromised version of the Southern Development Plan.
Commissioner Amyx said several months ago when this item was on the agenda for the first time, he thought the Snodgrass property ought to be at low density. The access was brought up to and from the north and how grid system of the streets might work better in this area. He thought some of the work that had been done by the neighborhood and staff in trying to reach some type of compromise might have worked and took in consideration some of the comments Commissioner Highberger made about access to the north. He thought that might help in those access issues in 31st Street and Louisiana Street.
The density was still high, but when looking at the plan and the language in looking at future development in the Southern Development Plan and this particular corridor, he could support the work that had been done by all parties involved.
Mayor Hack said what she found encouraging about this was that density was an issue at the beginning, but the uses that were specific to this and the transition to the neighborhoods to the north. She appreciated that language and the work done. She agreed with her fellow City Commissioners and a lot of work had been done on this plan and appeared to be moving forward in the right direction.
Moved by Dever, seconded by Chestnut, to approve the Revised Southern Development Plan and place on first reading joint City Ordinance No. 8220/County Resolution No. ____, approving amendments to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, “Horizon 2020” by amending Chapter Fourteen – Specific Plans in “Horizon 2020” and repealing the existing section and incorporating by reference the “Revised Southern Development Plan”. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Consider the following items related to The Exchange, an approximately 126 acre multi-dwelling residential development located at 31st Street and Ousdahl.
a) Consider approval of the requested annexation of approximately 52 acres for A-05-04-07 for The Exchange located at 31st and Ousdahl.
b) Consider approval of the requested rezoning Z-10-24A-07, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 6.673 acres, County A (Agriculture) to OS (Open Space), located at 31st and Ousdahl.
c) Consider approval of the requested rezoning Z-10-24B-07, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately 56.44 acres, from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) and County A (Agriculture) to RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential), located at 31st and Ousdahl.
d) Consider accepting dedication of easements and rights-of-way for PP-05-06-07, a revised Preliminary Plat for The Exchange addition, approximately 63.11 acres containing 3 lots and 1 tract, located at 31st and Ousdahl.
Mary Miller, Planner, presented the staff report. She said there was an error on the agenda. It listed the acreage of the property as 126 acres, but it was actually 63.11 acres. In November 2006, the applicant submitted an application for a development of Phase I, which included a rezoning to RM-15 and also an annexation of 13.11 acres. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the annexation request and voted 5-5 to recommend the approval of the rezoning of RM-15 which constituted a recommendation for denial. Topics of concern raised at that time was the Southern Development Plan was out of date, traffic concerns on Louisiana and 31st Street, and the fact the sanitary sewer lines being utilized were located off site. The line that was located in Phase I was currently at capacity, so the City Utility Engineer approved their suggestion the applicant would construct a pump station and direct the flow to the sewer line south of the property.
She said in June 2007 the applicant submitted new applications as they were ready to work with both Phase I and Phase II. There was an annexation request for the entire property which was 52 acres outside the City limits. There was a rezoning request for Phase I which was the 24 acres to RM-15 and the southern acreage which was 38.6 acres that was requested to be rezoned to UR as they were not proposing any development at that time. A preliminary plat was submitted for both phases. The Planning Commission voted 7-1 to recommend approval of the annexation request, and 5-3 to recommend approval of the rezonings and preliminary plat. Concerns at that time was the Southern Development Plan was in progress, but had not yet been adopted and also with the traffic issues of 31st and Iowa. These items were forwarded to the City Commission in August and the applicant requested the City Commission return it to the Planning Commission as they were now ready to propose development on both phases. The City Commission voted to send it back to the Planning Commission. The applicant submitted new rezoning requests. There was a request for rezoning of 56.44 acres from RS-10 and A to RM-15. There was also a request for rezoning for 6.67 acres from Agriculture to Open Space. It would allow for the protection of a streamlined corridor passing through the property. The City Utility Engineer reviewed the downstream sanitary sewer analysis and concluded that the southern line, which was located adjacent to the southern property line, did have capacity for both phases of the project. It was a conceptual plan for Phase I of the project. It showed that access would be taken off Ousdahl Road. There were two access points with the southern point being the major point. There was a large storm water detention pond in the southeast corner. Access would be taken off the extension of West 33rd Street and also off of Ousdahl Road.
A revised preliminary plat was submitted which showed the dedicated rights-of-way and it showed Ousdahl Road being extended to the southern property line, which was required by subdivision regulations in order to provide connectivity to future developments, however KDOT recently purchased the permanent easement for road right-of-way for this area for the alignment that had been selected for the SLT and it was very unlikely any development would occur south of this property. The applicant requested a waiver for the requirement to extend the road all the way to the border. The waiver they requested to allow them to construct a cul-de-sac that exceeded the length required by code, which the maximum length by code would be 600 feet. They asked to be able to extend it up to 1000 feet but not to the southern property line. The applicant would dedicate right-of-way to the southern property line and there was right-of-way for North 1250 Road adjacent to the southern property line. It would provide access for the City Utilities Department. They had a rural water meter pit in the southwest corner they wanted access to. The right-of-way would allow them access. In the event the property to the south did develop, it would be possible to extend Ousdahl onto the south.
She said with the preliminary plat, 80 feet of right-of-way was being dedicated for the extension of Ousdahl Road. 80 feet of right-of-way was being dedicated for the extension of West 33rd Street. There was 50 feet of right-of-way being dedicated for the one half of the future arterial located on the east property line, and an additional 25 feet of right-of-way being dedicated for West 31st Street as required by the 31st Street corridor study. Access easement would be provided to the City to allow them unlimited access to the pump station, which would be located in the southeast corner of Phase I and the exact location would be determined on the design stage and would be shown on the final plat. The property the pump station was located on would be transferred to the city prior to issuance of any building permits.
The Planning Commission voted 7-1 at the June meeting to recommend approval of this annexation request. The Planning Commission voted unanimously at the November 26th meeting to recommend approval of the rezoning request of the OS District for the approximately 6 acres. The Planning Commission voted 8-1 to recommend approval of the rezoning request for the 56.44 acres to the RM-15 District. The City Commission voted 8-1 to approve the preliminary plat and associated waiver. Planning staff also recommended approval of these items, subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report.
The League of Women Voters prepared an e-mail letter voicing their opposition to this development based on the concerns of the review process of development plans versus site plans. She prepared a brief summary of the differences between the different types of review process. The standards they needed to comply with in planned developments were required to accept as expressly exempted in Section 20-701 and were required to comply with all standards of the development code. If they were site planning, the site plan must comply with all standards of the City Code, the development code, and other City policies or adopted area or neighborhood plans. The significant differences between planned developments and conventional zoning or site plan developments was planned developments had more flexibility. The City Commission might approve modifications such as an increase in density up to 25% or a reduction in lot sizes. Commercial uses may be permitted in planned development where conventional zoning they may have only limited commercial uses permitted, such as bed and breakfast, private dining, extended care facilities, which require special use permits. The maximum height limits may be increased by the City Commission and the number of required parking and loading spaces may be reduced. They require a variance on the Board of Zoning Appeals. A reduction in set back in the planned development may be approved by the City Commission provided the buildings would be set back a distance at least equal to the height of the proposed buildings, all exterior walls of the detached buildings would be separated by minimum distance of 10 feet, and balconies located along peripheral site setbacks adjacent to RS zoned properties would require additional landscaping. A setback could be reduced in conventional zoning, but required a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The major differences between two different types of review processes were in the common open space requirements. A planned development required at least 20% of the area to be set aside as common open space, or 300 square feet for each dwelling unit, whichever was greatest. Minimum of 50% of that must be set aside as open air recreation space. Conventional zoning required 50 square feet of outdoor area for each dwelling unit and also places a limit on the amount of building coverage and amount of impervious coverage they could have per lot. In the RM-15 zoning district, they could have a maximum of 50% of the lot in building coverage and maximum of 75% of impervious coverage, which mean 25% of the site must be pervious. Landscaping planned developments required that any part of the development that was not being utilized for buildings or pavement or any other structures would be landscaped, unless it was designated to remain with natural vegetation. One major difference between the processes was the planned developments come to the City Commission for approval, where site plans were reviewed administratively. The Planning Director’s decision could be appealed to the City Commission. It could be appealed by the City Commission, by the property owner, adjacent property owners, or the neighborhood association it was located in. It would then be heard by the City Commission who would take public input.
Commissioner Highberger asked if staff could give an example of another area in the City that had this much of this type of housing concentrated in one place.
Miller said she was not sure what the size of The Legends was or Jefferson Commons, and did not know their acreages but those might be two examples.
Commissioner Amyx said in both phases of this project, it had 1760 beds. When Miller was making her presentation, she said they had to change the direction of the line and add a pump station because they had one line that was full and one line that had capacity left that was to the south. He asked if they had looked at any analysis on the impact this project would have on capacity the plant would have left.
Corliss said he specifically asked that question to the Utility Department and this project was appropriate to proceed, even if they did not do anything. They were recommending they proceed with the Four Seasons Pump Station at 31st and Kasold in January. With this pumping to the southern line, this project was fine and they were capable of the conveyance and at the wastewater treatment plant.
Commissioner Amyx said one of the concerns he had was the capacity of the existing plant. By looking at these types of developments, specifically residential, and the effect it may have on any commercial or industrial development.
Corliss said the capacity at the plant had two major components. One was conveyance, which was not what they were talking about. It was getting to the plant itself and that had a little bit to do with the 31st Street corridor and a little bit to the east and west of this location. He thought what Commissioner Amyx was getting at was the issue of just the general capacity of the plant. That was rated for population of 100,000 plus they had a 10,000 reserve. It was rated for 110,000 but liked to use that 10,000 as an additional reserve. They knew through the good work of the Planning Department that the census numbers show about 89,000 for the community. They grew 0.5% last year and given the building permit and water meter numbers, it was probably about where they were this year. He did not know if they would be much above that next year. At those growth rates they would not get to the 100,000 population category sometime until the middle part of the next decade or a little bit later. The capacity of the wastewater treatment plant was a function of population and whether or not it was all at higher density residential or traditional suburban development did not matter too much until they get the sewage to the facility, which was the conveyance system.
Commissioner Amyx said they may not have the population in Lawrence yet but they had to take away from 100,000 or 110,000 total by every project they approved.
Corliss said they had to make assumptions that regardless the number of projects that were approved, their population was going to grow at a certain rate the development community would respond to that. One interesting question was if it got built out, would it mean there would be this many more people living in Lawrence or would they move here and vacate elsewhere. He thought they were going to need to proceed with the wastewater treatment plant, but did not think they needed to start construction next year. They would be talking about that more and did not think this project and its conveyance issues would affect the wastewater plant. As they had employment centers that were heavy water users, and heavy sewer users, was that going to take away some of that capacity. They wanted to have that 10,000 population reserve there so they could talk about that additional capacity. They also wanted to have reserve capacity for those type of employment users that could use a lot of water. They also dealt with employment opportunities in industrial sites and most of them were not major water users. In East Hills Business Park, some use quite a bit of water, but a lot of them do not. The largest private employer in town was the call center and it was pretty much domestic use. That had to be part of their calculation.
Steve Stamos, applicant, said they had been working with the City and staff for about 16 or 17 months now. He pointed out that it had been their pleasure because their staff had always operated at the highest level of professionalism, always been willing to meet, give timely answers and because of them they were able to meet here tonight. He thought Miller did an excellent job presenting the case and did not have much more to add. They were excited about this project and believed it was going to be highly successful.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Bonnie Johnson, Lawrence, said she had a couple of concerns about this project. The first concern was who the market was for this. She asked if KU was expecting that much more students and how it impacted The Legends, which was the exact same kind of development. She asked how it would impact the apartments that were already existing near her neighborhood, the ones behind Westlake Hardware and the ones behind Dillon’s Grocery Store on 23rd Street. Students live there and if students move from there to live at this place, would those apartment complexes be empty and thus her neighborhood was in bad shape because they had apartment complexes that were not well maintained and full. The cul-de-sac at Ousdahl, when Ousdahl was a pretty big road, seemed very strange. This was a completely student dominated apartment complex and there were not families. If they talked about 1600 beds, it was 1600 cars. It was not mom, dad, and kids. It was headed to Iowa and over at 31st Street, which they already had problems with. The traffic was a concern to her. Another concern was the sewer capacity. They were having this on a pump station. The way sewers were supposed to work was on gravity, they were not supposed to have pump stations. It was not an efficient way in running a sewer system and maybe it was telling them it was not time for this. Her concerns were giant concerns for the community as a whole and it was things the public had to deal with. This developer had stepped into them, which she was sure they would have rather not stepped into, but they have and they could not ignore them.
Carol Bowen, Lawrence, asked what the plan was for the existing area to accommodate this development. She could tell the City Commission from past experience and decades of experience that traffic impact studies did not cut it in their area. If there was a problem at Home Depot, it was gong to impact Louisiana and 23rd because the drivers did not have that many choices. Louisiana Street was a straight shot up to the center of campus. She knew the applicant encouraged buses and considered shuttles, but the busses will teach the students to use Louisiana. She encouraged the City Commission to develop a plan that would take care of the existing areas in order to accommodate the new growth. They had to look at capacity and have to be realistic about it.
Commissioner Amyx asked how many pump stations did they have throughout Lawrence right now.
Corliss said there was a pump station 48 but were missing numbers through there. He thought it was about 47.
Commissioner Amyx said they had a number of developments throughout the community that they had to pump waste into a gravity line that would eventually go in and around.
Corliss said their preference was they wanted to avoid pump stations. In this case, the topography of that property was such that using just gravity lines would not work.
Commissioner Highberger said he was ready to approve the annexation but for a number of other reasons he cannot approve this project at this time. He said he was concerned about the magnitude of it and did not think this concentration of this much type of housing was good planning. He thought it would be irresponsible to construct this project without connecting Ousdahl. The traffic concerns were very real and the basic concerns about 31st and Iowa and Louisiana were correct. If this was a student development a vast percentage of them would be driving down Louisiana Street or 31st Street to campus. In addition, he thought the 1,000 foot long cul-de-sac was poor street planning. For those reasons he was not willing to approve the plan at this time.
Commissioner Amyx asked how was the cap on the road project that was going to be to the east of this project figured out.
Corliss said the property owner, as a condition of this development was going to sign an agreement not to protest the formation of a special assessment benefit district with the hope that eventually Louisiana would be brought south along the eastern side of this development. It was part of the South Lawrence Trafficway 32b alignment plan. They were requiring the development to pay up to $600,000 of that project, which was based upon the length of that road. The developer wanted some level of certainty as to what that dollar amount would be since the City did not know if Louisiana would be built out or when it would occur. It was viewed that project would be responsible for half and agreed at a $600,000 cap. He had no idea if that road would ever be built and were requiring the development to dedicate the right-of-way for it, but one of the challenges for making development changes were the future construction and planning of the South Lawrence Trafficway. They thought it made good sense to plan for Louisiana and platted with this development.
Commissioner Amyx said in looking at this project there were a number of things to take into consideration. First of all this was a large project. One of the things that was important but he did not know if he was irresponsible when saying this, but when a determination was made on a piece of property like this, was it their responsibility to make a market determination on whether or not this project can be needed at this time. He questioned the sewer capacity because he did not want to sell them short in the long run. The project probably met all the requirements they had, but the problem came in with the Ousdahl access to the north and was something that was extremely important for the Indian Hills Neighborhood, Park Hill, and all the areas to the east and north. For 31st Street, they will have to look at the extension of that roadway fairly quickly. He would support the annexation, and he would support the development but they had to look at additional access to the north, which ought to be Ousdahl road.
Vice Mayor Dever said there was a tremendous value in being able to plan for their future. Some of the lengths they had to go to was to look at a large piece of land and try to determine its future and mass, and not do it in pieces. They would end up with a better picture if they could do that. This was a very large project, but was similar to many other developments in other places. It was really difficult to sense because they did not have anything like it in Lawrence. There was something similar, but nothing of this scale. It was a tenuous proposition when you want to invite something new to the community. On the other hand, this type of development, the concentration of students into one area, could assist in the long term range and planning for public transportation, moving people from one point to another, instead of having everyone in their cars getting up to campus. There would be a positive impact on the opportunity to move people from one point to another in an easier fashion. He thought a lot of the students who were living in single family residential neighborhoods right now were causing some concerns to certain people and believed that anytime they could concentrate that type of land use in one place was important for the community. For him, this was a large project, but he also saw it as an opportunity for some development as far as some construction projects in the community. He thought it would be a positive economic benefit in a time when the economy was not in great shop. He did not know a higher and best land use for something that was adjacent to one of the most highly traveled commercial areas in the community. He did not see it being a single family residential area and they did not need more commercial areas. For them to move forward and develop, he thought it was the most suitable and best land use for this property.
Commissioner Highberger said it was his impression there was a feasible way to connect Ousdahl and there may not be.
Commissioner Chestnut said he agreed with Vice Mayor Dever as far as the land use potential. It was the best land use they could have and was adjacent to a fairly substantial commercial development. It acted as a buffer to the east, which was probably not going to be developed because a lot of it was in the flood plain. He shared some concerns about traffic but had to rely on what they did as far as process and study. One of the things that has happened was the Park and Ride on Clinton Parkway and Iowa had really been tremendous to the students and had started to attract a lot of cars. A lot of people took advantage of that and there was transportation potential from this particular property to that property. There were a lot of things that could happen. He wanted to echo Vice Mayor Dever in that these are the kinds of projects they want to concentrate students in. He did not know and thought it was a policy discussion they had to have in the future about what they believed their role was in controlling market forces. It was a big project and knew their population was not growing at 1 or 2% a year, but did not know if it would be difficult to manage that from this body. The applicant saw a lot of potential in this community and wanted to encourage that.
Mayor Hack said this was going to be an incredibly high quality project and a project they could look at and say it was a positive contribution to the community. As the qualifications for who can park on the university, the Park & Ride has become huge which pushed the traffic not on Louisiana but more toward the west and the intersection to the west was built to handle more than it was handling right now. She agreed there could be discussion about what their role was, but this was the fourth Commission she served on and each one had a different feeling for what their responsibilities were. It went back to the age old conversation of how Horizon 2020 was law or a guide. She thought they could have the conversation, but it depended on who was sitting in the five seats as to where that fell. She thought it was going to be a great project and she would approve the annexation, rezoning and dedication. She would like to have staff look into the code issue with sensitive land. What could happen in a situation like that were the unintended consequences of that land not being preserved as open space, which was the intent of the code. She appreciated the applicant’s kind comments towards staff and willingness to work with the City because they did a great job in working with community concerns.
Commissioner Highberger said he appreciated all comments. He said the southern area plan had two alternative scenarios. One was mostly residential and the other was traditional neighborhood development. This would have been a perfect opportunity to put something like that into place. Instead of building a development where 1,800 people had to drive their cars to do everything for their daily lives, to integrate some of those things into it and cut down on the trip generation.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the annexation (A-05-04-07) and place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8217, the annexation of 52 acres for he Exchange, located at 31st and Ousdahl. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for the rezoning (Z-10-24A-07) and place on first reading, Ordinance No. 8215, providing for the rezoning of approximately 6.673 acres from County A (Agriculture) to OS (Open Space). Motion carried unanimously. (22)
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for the rezoning (Z-10-24B-07) and place on first reading Ordinance No. 8216, providing for the rezoning of approximately 56.44 acres from RS10 (Single-Dwelling Residential) and County A (Agriculture) to RM15 (Multi-Dwelling Residential. Motion carried 4-1 (Highberger voted no). (23)
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve a revised Preliminary Plat (PP-05-06-07) for The Exchange addition, approximately 63.111 acres, containing 3 lots and 1 tract, located at 31st Street and Ousdahl Road; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Agreements not to protest the formation of benefit districts for future improvements must be executed by the applicant and provided to the Planning Office at the final plat stage. The following agreements will be required at that time:
a. Agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for construction of future minor arterial road on the east border;
b. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future signalization and intersection improvements at the intersection of the future minor arterial road and W. 31st Streets.
c. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for future street improvements to the future arterial on the east property line; with a $600,000 liability limit for the property owner.
d. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for the future construction of Ousdahl Road to the southern property line, if development occurs to the south.
2. The applicant must contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for any necessary permit for development of the wetland shown on the plat and provide the Planning Office with a copy of the permit, or with documentation showing that a permit is not needed.
3. Approval of the Downstream Sanitary Sewer Analysis by the City’s Utility Engineer. If the City Utility Engineer determines that capacity is not available for the entire development, the development must be phased in accordance with availability of sanitary sewer capacity, per City Utility Engineer’s approval.
4. If the requested variance is approved, the right-of-way for Ousdahl must be dedicated to the southern property line.
5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Plat with the following changes:
a. Note added stating that a Transfer of Ownership for the property where the proposed pump station will be located will be executed before building permits may be obtained.
b. Note 10 must be revised to state that “funds must be placed in escrow for the future decommissioning of the pump station and modifications required to establish gravity sewer service for the development.”
c. Easements provided for access to waterlines, per Utilities Department’s approval.
d. Sanitary sewer line along the southeast corner of the property must be shown and a 20’ easement dedicated to accommodate it. If the sewer line is not within this location, please provide documentation to that effect for the City Utility Engineer’s approval.
e. Note added that Lot 3 will require 2 access points if more than 35 dwelling units are proposed.
f. General Note 13 must be revised with the following wording “Natural or non-natural structures or vegetative barriers (including but not limited to trees, shrubbery, berms, fences, and walls) will not be installed within the drainage easement. The drainage easement will be privately-owned and maintained.”
g. The plat shall indicate the required minimum habitable floor elevations for structures on lots, or the minimum elevation for a foundation opening(s), which shall be certified by a licensed land surveyor or engineer, on lots adjacent to all drainage easements
h. Note added stating that construction activity including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence and this project will not be released for building permits until a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) has been provided and approved by the City Stormwater Engineer.
Motion carried 4-1 (Highberger voted no). (24)
Consider initiating various items pertaining to beginning the adoption process for the Lawrence SmartCode:
a) Consider initiating CPA-2007-6, an amendment to Horizon 2020 by creating Chapter 15 – Place Making to ensure proper comprehensive plan language is in place for the proposed Lawrence SmartCode in the City of Lawrence.
b) Consider initiating CPA-2007-7, an amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 14 Specific Plans, to add a reference to the Lawrence SmartCode Infill Plan.
c) Consider initiating TA-11-27-07, to adopt the Lawrence SmartCode.
Dan Warner, Planner, presented the staff report. He said one of the comprehensive plan amendments was to create a new chapter in Horizon 2020 that would be called Place Making to help ensure they had the proper policy in place to support the market. The second comprehensive plan amendment would be to create what they were calling the Lawrence SmartCode Infill Plan which would include a number of the areas PlaceMakers planned for TND redevelopment and adopting that plan would help SmartCode be used in those areas. The text amendment was the text amendment they would use to bring SmartCode through the process. They were not requiring that SmartCode be mandatory, but an optional parallel code to be offered through the development code. They were asking they initiate these three items for a public hearing at the Planning Commission. They were not going to approve the items but start the process to take them to the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Amyx said he knew there were a lot of questions about the SmartCode but the only way they would get them answered was to start the dialogue at the Planning Commission level and see if there was any common ground on this. He thought they had to initiate it at this time or put it on the back burner and forget about it. They had a large investment in this by a number of great people in the community and a financial commitment in doing the original study and work. He thought the initiation had to happen.
Commissioner Highberger said he was looking forward to getting this adopted while he was still on the City Commission and wish they would have had it available for the previous project.
Mayor Hack said it was out there and allowed the opportunity for potential questions to be answered.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to initiate CPA-2007-6, an amendment to Horizon 2020 by creating Chapter 15 – Place Making; initiate CPA-2007-7, an amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 14 Specific Plans, to add a reference to the Lawrence SmartCode Infill Plan; and initiate TA-11-27-07, adopting the Lawrence SmartCode. Motion carried unanimously. (25)
Consider authorizing staff to issue a joint Request for Proposal for contracted transportation services for City and University of Kansas transit operations beyond 2008 on January 8, 2008. The City and University would be seeking a single price proposal to provide transit services under a combined contract.
Cliff Galante, Transit Administrator, presented the staff report. He said he was present to complete a proposal for contracted services beyond 2008. He had been working with the University of Kansas in drafting a joint procurement for transportation services beyond 2008 when the current contract would expire. Danny Kaiser with the University of Kansas Parking and Transit Department and Tom Marker-Braddock who was a graduate student of the University assisted him in drafting the RFP to this point. The sections they have drafted in the RFP they submitted to the Federal Transit Administration to review to get their feedback on the elements of procurement. Once they got the feedback, they would make any necessary changes to the document prior to issuing the RFP. Staff proposed they issue it on January 8th because the closing date on when they would receive proposals would be February 15th. Between February 15th and the beginning of April, they would use that period to interview contractors, select contractors and do whatever negotiating they needed to do. Whatever that dollar amount was, they would be able to submit into his 2009 budget.
Galante said drafted a memo that highlighted some of the major changes in this procurement as compared to the prior RFP they drafted and what the current contract was operated under. There were some significant changes and obviously they were doing something with the University of Kansas and the purpose of that was to see if they could better coordinate their services, find cost efficiencies and operational efficiencies and operational efficiencies that they currently were not realizing this provided the potential and opportunity to find out if they could do that. The way the proposal was structured was a contractor could come in and bid on both services or bid on each individual service. The city or university could decide based on the pricing received what was the most advantageous. There was a lot of flexibility in this proposal and they put in a variety of options. What was also included was they added options regarding different service levels and would get different pricing based on that. He also included language about the use of alternative fuels, which he would bee seeking guidance on. He was looking for the City Commission’s guidance on what had been drafted and if they wanted to see any changes, this would be the time to make changes to that document.
Corliss said one of their challenges was going to be building the 2009 transit budget given how they built the 2008 transit budget, which was they raised property taxes for a portion of that transit budget, but also took money from the reserve fund which was put into the reserve fund when they had a fund balance that was not immediately necessary in the transit budget. It was fine to take it from the reserve fund, but it was one time money. They did not have taxes to replicate that again. They had a challenge in building the 2009 budget. He was optimistic by getting it out to the private sector and to vendors. They may be very incentives to come back with innovative ways to use a larger system and find some efficiency they had not been able to find.
Commissioner Amyx asked if the City was at a point if the responses that came back through the RFP did not help them significantly, would they see recommendations of major cuts in the transportation unless they had some other source of income.
Galante said the situation they were in was the three pricing options based on the current level of service, which would be the base bid and then two alternates. One would be a 30% reduction and a 50% reduction. He chose the 30% reduction because 15% of that, if they went back in time to this summer to pay for the service between 6-8 p.m., they were paying for that in 2008 using reserve funds. That represented 15% of operating hours right there. When they added in fuel costs, it would represent about $250,000. Currently the contract based on pricing would be around $2 a gallon. He said $250,000 bought them two buses of fixed route service a year. It did not include other costs they would be looking at such as increased personnel benefits costs like increased insurance costs. There would be an increase in maintenance cost and in the last 18 months they had 3 engines on the fixed route vehicles die which their contractor had to replace, which was built into the pricing. The cost of those engines was $20,000 each. One of the things when the contractor bids on this, they were going to look at the age and condition of the fleet, and hedge their bet. He did not think it would be a 50% reduction, but put it in as more of setting the floor. He thought if they went beyond 50%, then they had to start asking the question of what they were trying to accomplish and if they were really even doing it. The different pricing options would give a floor in which to negotiate from. Based on the pricing received, it could be more than 30% but could be less than 50%. They would have the ability to negotiate to come with a price that makes sense. It was not his recommendation to reduce service and thought they needed to increase service. The current facility they were in now the contractor was able to maintain the vehicles. There was a question of in the long term to share a fleet of both City and University vehicles; they were trying to find something that was going to be a more sustainable long term situation. FTA’s preference was to not have communities enter into contract longer than 5 years. There was going to be a challenge in taking an infrastructure investment and trying to spread out the cost. They worked well with the University and have been helpful in terms of coordination.
Commissioner Chestnut asked along with this effort were they looking at route optimization. He asked if there was a possibility in getting a level of service that was equal to what they had now with less revenue hours because they were coordinating efforts.
Galante said in terms of trying to coordinate the service, there still had to be a lot of discussions in what they would look at in terms of routes. The expectation or needs the University had in terms of moving students, they had to be at class and at the campus at certain times. A lot of the people that were utilizing the T, half of the people were using it to get to work. They had to find the balance of being able to still serve those people that were using it to get to employment and help those trying to get to school. He thought there would be some efficiencies where there was overlap of service they could eliminate some redundancies of service. He thought what would happen was once they knew what the total hours were going to be, at that point they would have to find out with those hours what they could do with it. It might require a major redesign of service depending on how many hours they felt they could afford or provide.
Commissioner Highberger asked if there had been any discussion on having the City take over the bus service instead of contracting it.
Galante said he did not think there had been. He said based on his experience, the cost of contracting was a lot more affordable than taking it in house in terms of wages. If funding was a concern, then taking the project in house was more likely going to cost those more. It was something they could explore.
Vice Mayor Dever said Galante pointed out to him before that a lot more communities were outsourcing this service. It seemed to be a trend.
Commissioner Amyx said he could not see how it could be less if they were going out at a company that was going to make profit. He said the biggest thing for him right now was taking the opportunity to combine the service with the University of Kansas to see if there were any cost savings at all. The final decision was whether or not they could stay in the game or what level they were going to be able to afford to stay in the game. He said it had been very expensive but people depended on their service. He realized there were people who relied on the service to get places.
Galante said earlier in the fall they conducted an on board passenger survey following up on what they had done last year. They used last year’s information survey as a base line and used this year’s information. 78% of the riders surveyed indicated they did not have a vehicle available when making that trip. 19% of those riders said if the T was not available, they would be unable to make that trip. 40% of the riders use it primarily to go to work. Another 15% use it to go to school, and another 13% use it to go shopping. The T was providing economic opportunity because they were getting people to work, school and shopping. Of all the riders, 46% indicated having an annual household income of less than $15,000 a year. Almost half the people who ride the bus were in poverty. Based on the national numbers, nationally only 20% of riders fall within that income bracket, and when they said there was a need for public transit in the community, there was a need. The question would be at what level and what they were trying to accomplish. Public transit could do a lot of things such as traffic congestion, regional transportation, getting people to employment, and a social service need. They had to discuss in the long term of what they direction they wanted public transit to be.
Commissioner Highberger said he would like to see the minimum starting wage in the RFP be set to City’s living wage. The job was a fairly stressful job and something they asked of companies that received tax abatements. He would like to see the people who drove the busses be able to afford to live in the City. He asked what the current living wage was for the City of Lawrence.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk, said it was $10.73 for 2007.
Tom Marker-Braddock, Chair of the Transit Commission for KU and a graduate student, said this discussion they were having right now was just one of the many fine details. The City and University have separate needs in many ways and when the City was requiring one thing, they were talking about putting that into the same contract the University wanted to follow and would affect the University. He worked on the RFP and believed that the RFP as it was written, they would have separate staff at the City and University, but would share the same operator which would be the best way for them to realize the efficiency of scale but still maintain the independence they needed to operate the University system the best way they felt to meet the student needs and still give the independence to the City to operate the City bus service in the same way they needed to. When they talked about combining governance, it was a long ways to go right now. He thought having the same operator and having that system designed from the get go where it was one operator operating both separate systems, right now that was a big step forward.
Commissioner Highberger said he would like to send Cliff back to see if they could raise it to the minimum City wage and if KU did not want to do that, they would do the best they could.
Corliss said if the proposals came back and they were not going to be able to merge, they could do a separate agreement and would get another chance with the contractor.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
Danny Kaiser said this could be looked at as a consortium contract. They were going to try and reach out to one provider who could give them some cost savings if they could go together. He supported the living wage, but could not commit to that kind of thing tonight that would have a huge impact on the KU on Wheels and Park and Ride budgets. He said it could be a long term goal for them and could work towards. He was not sure they could leap that far that fast. It was somewhere he would like them to be more down the road. What they were looking at today was a different situation than a few years ago. He spent six years on the City’s Public Transit Advisory Board and a number of years as Chair. The University had a commitment to transit and made a large investment in the enterprise. They were ready to go and wanted to do as much as they could in partnership with the City as they learned to work with each other. They were not there in terms of an overall government structure yet. It needed to be part of a progression in learning how they could do these things together. They made the commitment to buy newer used vehicles and bought 38 in their fleet in addition to the 5 in Park and Ride. They were also moving forward in replacing the newer used buses with new buses. They had an order in for 5 brand new, low floor, 40 foot heavy duty buses. They were excited about that and looked forward to that opportunity. The University was doing this because they had a problem with congestion and their problem was parking. They could not move cars around the campus any more the way they had been trying to move them around the campus. At every class break they hit gridlock at intersections on the campus. That was why they moved the Park and Ride lot west so that those cars never came to campus. The more they could start having the students, faculty and staff leave their cars at home and take the bus, it would make them happier. To further that goal, they offered a free bus pass to all faculty and staff because they were trying to make this work.
He said the realities of how they would work together in the future were yet to be tested. He was concerned because everyone was good at making assumptions. He thought they were both wrong sometimes. They were already operating one route out of the City to a large apartment complex on the south part of town. They were sending two buses out there so it had a 30 minute frequency and had terrible ridership. The facility the Commission gave a nod to earlier that evening with the same kind of track record, they would probably not send service to that place on their own or without it being a coordinated service with someone else so they had a reasonable benefit of ridership. Without the 30 minute frequency people would not ride it. The University made an investment and the City made an investment in public transit and hoped that investment would continue so they could maintain not just the kind of service they had been providing in the community, but the kind of service the community deserved.
Mike Sweeten said issues like the wages for the employees and the type and level of service they wanted to have they believed that was important and right for the community, it was the essence of the issues they were facing and did not want to try and accomplish that tonight. They would love to pay the employees more money. He said he could price it to accomplish what they wanted and price them out of a contract if there was not a competitive floor. He said when 2/3 of their cost was based on personnel; it was going to be huge. In essence, everything they were trying to do and in trying to put together the RFP and looking at what they wanted to do in the future, but it was a division. It was somewhat upside down. They needed to determine their level so they could get pricing, but underneath the levels they had to determine the purpose of the system in the first place.
Commissioner Highberger said he would be ready to approve this with the caveat of asking staff to raising the living wage issue with KU counterparts. He did not want it to be a deal killer, but any progress they could make would be good.
Moved by Dever, seconded by Highberger, to authorize staff to issue a joint Request for Proposals for contracted transportation services for City and University of Kansas transit operations beyond 2008 on January 8, 2008. Motion carried unanimously. (24)
Receive staff report concerning options for locating merged Planning and Development Services Department in Riverfront Mall.
Dave Corliss, City Manager, presented the staff report. He said they did not have an action item, but wanted to entertain any additional questions about the continuing negotiations regarding the Riverfront Mall. City Attorney Gerry Cooley had been representing the City in those negotiations and the negotiations were continuing. They hoped to be able to present to the City Commission some options in the coming weeks with hopefully a decision in January. Among those options may be leasing a couple of floors. One was currently occupied by Sunflower Broadband. They were also looking at whether it was appropriate to acquire the west wing of the Riverfront facility. They had the property appraised as well. The particular dollar amounts were still in negotiation but they had money in the budget for this project next year. They were looking at a number of issues.
Mayor Hack said they have had this conversation and they had a consultant work on the Matrix Report with the departments. The consultant gave clear direction and they have moved in that direction, which was the one stop shop concept. She thought the proximity of City Hall was something they have discussed and hopefully would be an opportunity for them as well. The merging of these two and having Scott McCullough on board helped them move in that direction.
Commissioner Amyx said the Mayor brought up the Matrix Report that called for a couple of Plans Examiner positions. After further review, he thought they had a debate about the need for those two positions. Upon further review, they did not need them.
Corliss said they have not proceeded with hiring them at this time. He thought it was at a point when the economy was stronger and they had more going on in that department, they would come back and look at those positions. They did not have them budgeted in 2008 and that department was down two positions; a planner and site plan inspector.
Scott McCullough, Planning and Development Services Director said he thought they were down five positions; including front line staff, a planner, and two or three inspectors.
Mayor Hack called for public comment.
KT Walsh, Lawrence, said it was critically important if they began to discuss a possible purchase of some of the Riverfront Mall, it would be really important to have an honest and open accounting of money that had gone into that building and parking and the ownership in that. They needed to be honest with themselves as a community. She thought they needed to look at what had gone on there because the old timers here would be watching closely.
Mayor Hack said Walsh raised a good point and why they wanted to have the conversation out in the open. (24)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
|
12/27/07
|
The December 25 City Commission meeting is cancelled due to the Christmas Holiday. There will be a City Commission meeting on December 27 at 9:00 a.m. for bill paying/consent agenda items. Some Commissioners will be phoning in to participate in the meeting.
|
|
01/08/08 |
Consider the following items related to the Proposed Oread Inn project (12th 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.
ACTION: Receive public comment.
b) Consider making a determination on the appeal of the Certified Local Government Review under K.S.A. 75-2715 – 75-2726, as amended:
ACTION: Make a determination based on a consideration of all relevant factors that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed demolition of the structures located at 1140 Indiana Street, 1142 Indiana Street, 1144 Indiana Street, and 618-620 West 12th Street and the new construction proposed for the site, if appropriate.
ACTION: Make a determination that the proposed project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed properties, if appropriate.
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 12th Street and the new construction proposed for the site.
ACTION: Make 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 12th Street and the new construction proposed for the site, if appropriate.
d) Consider approval of the requested rezoning and direct staff to draft ordinance for Z-07-13-07, a request to rezone a tract of land approximately .746 acres, from CN1 (Inner Neighborhood Commercial) & RM32 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development). The property is located at 618 W 12 th Street. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Triple T, LLC, property owner of record. (PC Item 6A; approved 9-1 on 10/22/07)
ACTION: Approve rezoning, Z-07-13-07, and direct staff to draft ordinance for 618 W 12th Street, if appropriate.
e) Consider approval, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-07-03-07, a Preliminary Development Plan for Oread Circle (Oread Inn), located at 618 W 12th Street. The plan proposes mixed use residential and commercial development. Submitted by Paul Werner Architects, for Triple T, LLC, property owner of record. (PC Item 6B; approved 9-1 on 10/22/07)
ACTION: Approve, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-07-03-07, if appropriate.
|
|
01/15/08
|
The Airport Business Park Items were scheduled to be heard on December 4, 2007. Please note that the items were not heard on December 4, but will be at a date to be determined.
|
|
TBD |
a) Consider authorizing staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for engineering services to review the scope and timing of the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility and perform a watershed sewer service plan.
ACTION: Authorize staff to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP for engineering services to review the scope and timing of the Wakarusa Water Reclamation Facility and perform a watershed sewer service plan, if appropriate.
b) Consider authorizing staff to distribute a Request for Proposals for a Construction Management Agreement for the expansion of the wet weather storage capacity at Pump Station 09 (Four Seasons).
ACTION: Authorize staff to distribute RFP, if appropriate.
c) Consider authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Engineering Services Agreement with Professional Engineering Consultants, in the amount of $285,680, for completion of the design and construction phase services for the West Baldwin Creek Interceptor Sewer and initiation of condemnation proceedings, if appropriate.
ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to enter into an Engineering Services Agreement with Professional Engineering Consultants, in the amount of $285,680, for completion of the design and construction phase services for the West Baldwin Creek Interceptor Sewer and initiation of condemnation proceedings, if appropriate.
a) Consider approving the Southeast Area Plan (PC Item No. 10; approved 9-0 on 11/28/07)
b) Consider approving CPA-2007-04 an amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 14 Specific Plans, to add a reference to the Southeast Area Plan. (PC Item No. 11; approved 9-0 on 11/28/07)
c) Consider adopting on first reading joint City Ordinance No. 8221/County Resolution No. ____, regarding the Southeast Area Plan and CPA-2007-04. |
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Commissioner Amyx said there was an article in the paper yesterday about senior dances no longer happening at the Senior Center. They talked about the importance of downtown and bringing people to downtown. He asked the City Manager to contact the individual who runs the Senior Center and get a report back to them why the change happened with the dances at the Senior Center. He had a lot of customers at his business along with people shopping downtown and thought it was a big slap in the face as to what happened.
He said following the ice storm a week ago, he knew at one point they had approximately 3,800 homes without power for a short period of time.
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Amyx, to adjourn at 10:55 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Sue Hack, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Bid- sale scrap copper & brass, Utilities Dept, Berry Heine for $3,146.00; obsolete water meters Warren Enterprises for $27,523.00; & obsolete desks Hurrelbrink Recycling for $10.00.
2. Bid - Comprehensive Housing Rehabilitation, 224 E 17th St Terr to Penny Construction for $23,776; 931 Murrow Ct to T&J Holdings $24,340; 1645 Rhode Island to Penny Construction for $24,185; & 2616 Mayfair Dr to Old Home Store, Inc. for $25,475.
3. Change Order No. 1 - $83,303.18 for 2007 Overlay & Curb Repair Program, Phase 2.
4. Reimburse Dave Millstein $25,128.15 for sprinkler system, 803 Massachusetts for 2007 Downtown Fire Sprinkler Incentive Program.
5. Ordinance No. 8211- 2nd & Final Read, codification of general ordinances of City.
6. Resolution No. 6746 – Establish U.S. Bank Nat’l Assn. as official depository.
7. Resolution No. 6747 – Declaring boundaries of City of Lawrence, Douglas Co, Kansas.
8. Extension of parking agreement with Sunflower Broadband.
9. Engineering Services Agreement- HNTB for $48,088, Phase II waterline & sanitary sewer relocations on N. Iowa.
10. Construction Administration Agreement with KDOT for Ohio St. Brick Restoration Project.
11. Report- Destination Management, Inc. organizational meeting.
12. Request- Douglas Co., special assessments at East Hills Business Park.
13. Subordination Agreement – Craig Nowatzke, 838 Oak.
14. Subordination Agreement – Lori Phillips, 2104 Tennessee.
15. City Manager’s Report.
16. Lawrence-Douglas Co Health Dept regulations for swimming pools & spas.
17. Bid letting & use of incentives for N. 2nd & Locust St. geometric improvements.
18. Bid for Stoneridge Dr Elevated Water Storage Tank to LandMark Structures.
19. Site plan for Rylee Court Apartments, S side W. 23rd St & W Tennessee St extended.
20. Items related to Revised Southern Development Plan.
21. The Exchange, 126 acre multi-dwelling residential development located at 31st St. & Ousdahl.
22. Items pertaining to beginning adoption process of Lawrence SmartCode.
23. Joint Request for Proposal- contracted transportation services, City & University of Kansas transit options beyond 2008.
24. Staff report- options for locating merged Planning & Development Services Dept. in Riverfront Mall.