February 19, 2008
The Board of Commissioners of the City of
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With
Commission approval Mayor Hack recognized Mr. Brad Shuck for rescuing a
resident from a burning home on Monday, February 11, 2008.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of February 5, 2008. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to receive the Public Health Board meeting minutes of December 17, 2007; and the Destination Management Inc. meeting minutes of January 20, 2008. Motion carried unanimously. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to approve claims to 451 vendors in the amount of $2,938,770.18 and payroll from February 3, 2008 to February 16, 2008, in the amount of $1,791,935.77. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of
the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to
approve Drinking Establishment License for El Mezcal Mexican Restaurant II, 804
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Amyx, to approve the purchase of one track loader for Public
Works/Stormwater Division from Murphy Tractor & Equipment Co. off the H-GAC
cooperative contract in the amount of $161,850.58 less trade - $16,850, for a
total loader price of $145,000.58.
Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Laird
Noller Automotive $264,900
As part of the consent agenda, it
was moved by Highberger,
seconded by Amyx, to award the bid to Shawnee Mission Ford, in the
amount of $261,396. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Amyx, to authorize a purchase order for $16,539.30 to GE Fanuc intelligent
Platforms, Inc., c/o Industrial Network Systems, to continue the use of the
City’s use of Intellution Software maintenance for the period of March 1, 2008
to March 1, 2009, used by the Utilities Department. Motion
carried unanimously. (3)
The
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer’s Estimate $304,355.00
LRM
Industries, Inc. $336,396.70
R.D.
Johnson Excavating $362,879.98
As part of the consent agenda, it
was moved by Highberger,
seconded by Amyx, to waive the engineer’s estimate award the bid to LRM
Industries, in the amount of $336,396.70.
Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 8057, rezoning (Z-06-15-06)
approximately .85 acres from RS7 (Single-Dwelling Residential) to PRD (Planned
Residential Development), located at
Ordinance No. 8231, providing for the annexation
(A-04-03-07) of approximately 40 acres of City owned property located north of
Ordinance No. 8223, rezoning (Z-07-13-07) a
tract of land approximately .746 acres, from CN1 (Inner Neighborhood
Commercial) and RM32 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial
Development), located at
Ordinance No. 8234, establishing the Oread
redevelopment district, was read a second time.
As part of the consent agenda, it
was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to adopt this ordinance. Aye: Hack, Dever, Amyx, Highberger,
Chestnut. Nay: None.
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Amyx, to approve agreement for services between the City of
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Amyx, to authorize the City Manager to execute
agreement for the Use of City Funds with Downtown Lawrence, Inc. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Amyx, to authorize Planning staff to issue a Request for Proposals (R08005)
for a consultant to provide on-call travel demand modeling support for the
Transportation Planning staff in 2008 and 2009.
Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Amyx, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Brian
and Heather Bigham,
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the
City Manager’s Report, David Corliss said
The 2007
Also, the
park land below the
He said the City did not receive any
KDOT funding for the geometric improvements or economic development projects
the City had submitted which was disappointing.
He said what was incredibly disheartening was that KDOT did not have the
funds they once had for sharing in those types of projects. A person could not drive anywhere in this
community where the City had not benefited from KDOT’s geometric or state
transportation program funding. KDOT
indicated to staff to back off on submitting on that traditional 5 year surface
transportation program project the City had.
He said that funding source was not available and staff did not see that
funding source coming back anytime in the future. He said that meant the City would not be able
to do those types of projects, or would have to do those types of projects locally. There had been that kind of forecast from
KDOT in the past, but when seeing statewide that only two projects were
selected for a total of $1.2 million, it was not enough money to do substantial
road projects.
He said
there were discussions at the state level regarding a new surface transportation
program, but KDOT was not anticipating any action this year and it might be an item
in a non election year, such as 2009. In
many cases those were multi year efforts in order to enact a new plan. He said the state had indicated they did not
have, under their current revenue base, the ability to really do anything more
substantial than just basic maintenance to their state highway system.
Mayor Hack asked about the timetable
on the next Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Corliss said the state talked about
making service purchases in 2009, but it was not likely to happen in an
election year and did not need to happen this year. He said his observation was that it took a
strong push, if talking about new revenue sources. When tying a revenue source to a gallonage
tax and the gallonage was not increasing, but the costs were significantly increasing,
there was not an escalating revenue source.
The City shared in that revenue, but the City’s gas tax revenue had not been
escalating, certainly not with the cost.
He said the City Commission had seen some road projects where the bids
had not been as high and it might be that road costs were not going to continue
to escalate, but the oil and gas component into road construction was
significant and that did not seem to be moderating. Next year the Commission might be seeing movement,
but state legislatures were hearing from their constituents what they were
hearing from their constituents in
Commissioner
Chestnut said regarding Eagle Bend, that revenue number was much better than it
had been in years past. He said that
revenue was in an enterprise fund and the bonds were in the bond and interest
funds, he asked what would happen to that $148,000 surplus.
Corliss
said that money would stay in that fund and would not be spent and that money
would be used judiciously and the money might be used to buy equipment,
depending upon what happened through the rest of the year. (13)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
Discussion and direction on drinking establishment
– entertainment venue public safety issues.
David
Corliss, City Manager, said a general discussion took place last year about
whether the City Commission had interest in proceeding with some type of
additional, local legislation that might be a better tool to respond to public
safety issues the City had been experiencing regarding entertainment venues and
drinking establishments.
The State
of
In the
1990’s, there were similar experiences regarding public safety concerns with
some establishments in the community. At
that time, the law was not necessarily disfavorable toward local regulation
regarding drinking establishments.
Therefore, the City adopted ordinances that provided for conditional
local licensing of drinking establishments where the City was able to place conditions
on some drinking establishments after going through a process that allowed for
those applicants to participate in those decisions. Since that time, the law was changed or
clarified and it was clear to
The City
had pursued license revocation before the Alcohol Beverage Control Division. The City of
The ABC
Director issued an Order that denied the renewal of Last Call’s license, which
was the subject of litigation. Also, the
establishment continued to operate because they were allowed to continue as a
business, but not as a drinking establishment, with bring your own beer or
alcohol. It was understood by staff,
with some communications with the business owner and had been publicly
advertised as well, that Last Call would not operate anymore. He said he understood there was nothing in
the law to prohibit that business owner from seeking another license from ABC
to operate at that location or probably anywhere else in the community.
He said
regarding the public safety concerns, the City Commission asked staff to give
options regarding what local legislation the City might want to pursue and
staff came up with two different, but somewhat related, options. He said both options could be pursued, one or
the other, or obviously not pursue any of those options.
One option
was to establish a special use permit requirement for drinking establishments
in the City’s Land Use Code which would be through the traditional land use
regulations. The City Commission would
have the ability to establish special requirements on a particular
location.
Also, an entertainment
venue licensing regulation had been discussed which regardless of whether the
establishment sold alcohol, the City Commission would have the ability to
license and condition licensing and revoking licenses of establishments that
offer entertainment of certain capacities of crowds and those type of
things. He said staff did not think they
completely vetted those ordinances as far as public discussion or spent anytime
working with interested stakeholders on the ordinance.
He said Commissioner
Amyx had been in contact with an interested citizen regarding a licensing
ordinance that would license a number of other businesses in the community and
then if there was a nuisance situation with that type of establishment, there
would be a method of revoking that license for that business, which was another
alternative that could be explored and examined.
He said
this issue needed to be discussed as far as what were the expectations for City
staff and the City Commission as far as dealing with outside nuisance issues
associated with establishments. One
clear issue that came from the ABC ruling was their focus on what happened
inside the premises. Most of the
problems the City heard complaints about had not been about interior conduct,
but about incidents that happened outside the establishment. The establishment owner would kick out the
disruptive patron and the owner thought they were absolved of any
responsibility making that disruptive patron, the responsibility of the
community. He said the real issue was if
the establishment also had some responsibility, as well, for that
situation. He was familiar with a number
of those complaints in dealing with this type of issue in any number of places
around the community, outside on the public right-of-way or in the private
parking lot. He said it was a very fair
question and a lot of people interested in this issue had discussed where to draw
that line and at some point, judgment needed to be exercised in looking at the
situation.
He said this
community would have this type of situation occur perhaps infrequently, but
when situations did occur, there seemed to be one common theme which was the consistent
concern about public safety around the establishment. He said he was looking for the best tool to
advise the City Commission. The best
tool had objectivity and treated isolated situations in a gentle manner, but
for consistent public safety problems, had the ability to respond with some
element of speed and certainty. He said
in his opinion that meant the City Commission needed to rely on their ability
to look at the license and whether or not there was a threat to public
safety. A lot of the details had to be
worked out on that issue. The City could
rely on others or ABC, nuisance actions in civil court or criminal court. It might be a good vehicle as well, but could
take a long period of time to have those types of actions.
He asked
the City Commission what standard they wanted and the expectations. In any community there would be disruptive
behavior or situations where it was un-neighborly, but staff dealt with that
type of issue fairly effectively. The
consistent problems that were threats to public safety were where the
Commission might want an additional tool.
The process also needed to be discussed and come up with the right tool.
One type
of nuisance action was the public nuisance statute that was found in the criminal
code which was a Class E misdemeanor, meaning if someone was convicted the
maximum penalty to that offense was up to 30 days in jail and up to a $500
fine. The only problem was in many
circumstances, when talking about businesses that were organized as
corporations, corporations could be prosecuted, and when corporations were
prosecuted, there was no one to put in jail.
Essentially for the criminal code, when talking about a public nuisance
which was anything that was injurious to the health, safety or welfare of the
public, they were dealing with a possible fine of $500 per prosecution or per
instance for a business. The criminal
law was not set up to shut a business down, but was meant to punish criminal
conduct.
Another
option would be the nuisance action that was found in Chapter 41, of the State
of
The third
option would be the nuisance statutes that were found in Chapter 22. Those statutes could be colloquially termed
the “crack house statutes” because they were enacted for controlled substances,
organized gang activity, when some place was being used for the purpose of
advancing the gang activity. Violating
the statute could result in leased premises being vacated and the person being
evicted or the padlocking of the premises. The facts had to be, for instance, applied to controlled
substances and not be involved with street violence or other problems an
organization or business might create.
The fourth
nuisance action was a civil action for public nuisance. It had limitations because of the length of
time it took. Anyone experienced in
civil litigation would tell you that the discovery process from the time a petition
was filed to the time the case was fully litigated, would take a couple of
years. Public nuisance actions could be
filed by independent members of the public that were affected, but anyone could
expect a two year, lag time before the case ever made it to trial and then
whether or not something fell into the definition of a nuisance depended on the
judge or jury hearing the case on that date.
There was a lot of build up and not a whole lot of certainty to the
process. He said that was the idea of
some sort of licensing statute or criminal prosecution statute that Commission
Amyx proposed, where those ideas had some appeal because the ordinance that could
be crafted could set forth specific standards of conduct that needed to be
violated for the ordinance to be triggered.
They would have a little bit more precise definition other than the
condition that was injurious to the health, safety or welfare of the
public. He said there were a lot of
ways to go about doing that. One way
would be licensing entertainment venues.
He spent a lot of time drafting ordinances on entertainment venue
licensing and those ordinances could be drafted in any number of ways. The City could step farther and not just
license entertainment venues, but any business in the City that was having a
problem like this. There were cities
that had a general business license, which had some advantages and disadvantages
as well because any time creating an administrative procedure that applied to
any business in the community, they were talking about an increase in
administrative overhead and increased burden for business. None of those actions were without cost.
The
proposal that Commissioner Amyx proposed to adopt the disorderly house nuisance
ordinance to a situation like this was an interesting proposal. It would result in criminal prosecution of
the individuals who were in circumstances that were currently being discussed,
but the problem was that he did not know any other city that used the
disorderly house nuisance ordinance to abate the problem, and once again they
would be plowing new ground. Staff would
need to do quite a bit of work to make certain it applied to just the things
the City Commission wanted it to apply to as opposed to other things. He said
He said what
staff presented to the City Commission and what they discussed several months
ago were basic draft ordinances as one way to approach the issue. Special Use Permits, in this circumstance,
were allowed by statute and he mentioned K.S.A. 12-755(a). There were not a tremendous amount of cities
in the State of
The
unified government had provisions that dealt with Special Use Permits and
license permits along with the City of
Mayor Hack
asked Miller to explain the grandfathering clause that would apply to special
use permits.
He said when
asking how staff would deal with the legal non-conforming use issue, some of
that was a policy question, but not entirely. There might be other issues in
terms of restructuring.
Commissioner
Amyx said regarding Section 5(e) which stated:
“No
Licensed Premises shall be granted non-conforming use status upon the adoption
of this section and any non-conformity shall not be continued in accordance
with the provisions of this article.”
He asked
if this ordinance was written in the stric
Commissioner
Amyx asked if the ordinance would not allow for a legal non-conforming use and
granting legal non-conforming use approval would be determined by the City
Commission.
Commissioner
Amyx asked staff how long it would take to develop a Special Use Permit policy
for various venues.
Commissioner
Amyx said there would be 130 businesses that would be going through the process
and understood that conditions might be different for each establishment.
McCullough
said yes. Those conditions would be
identified through the public process of going through each Special Use Permit. Staff would look at physical aspects of a
site and perhaps operational aspects of a site and restricting or expanding the
use with the special circumstances of that property.
Commissioner
Amyx said he did not see how staff would address 130 applications due to the
amount of staff time it would take to individually address all the necessary
conditions.
McCullough
said it would be a major program with current City resources.
Corliss
said a phase-in period was needed in order to go through all those drinking
establishment licenses. It would be take
considerable staff effort in finding a good template for those different issues
along with situations with particular establishments where staff had to spend
more staff time on than others. In many
cases, there were already existing site plans which would not be overruled. Staff was trying to get at the issue of the
external problems associated with particular establishments and would need some
type of phase in where they would have opportunity to review different licenses
over time. There would be a heavy work
load on staff, but did not want to minimize the work load staff had gone
through with the recent unpleasantness with the establishment in question,
either. Staff devoted several weeks to
that issue. He said staff would get the
right resources on the right priority.
Commissioner
Amyx said there were a lot of people who ran good businesses throughout the
community and the City would always have a few businesses that would create
nuisance situations. The obvious
question was if the City Commission wanted the authority to shut down a
business in this community. If the answer
to that question was “yes”, then he asked about the best tool to use to
accomplish that authority. Before allowing
situations to get out of hand, further than what had happened, the question of authority
needed to be answered and what a business needed to go through. The City Commission needed help from legal
staff to write that policy.
He said in
hearing the nuisance laws that were in place today, he thought the City
Commission needed that authority to deal with nuisance businesses, but staff
needed to direct the Commission how to get that authority. He did not think planning was the best way to
deal with the issue.
Corliss
said that was staff goal in getting an understanding from the full Commission
about expectations. He said while legal
staff had taken a lot of effort in drafting proposals staff was not hung up on
those proposals and were willing to make changes. He said the guiding light needed to be the
City Commission wanted the ability to exercise their judgment about situations
that were consistent threats to public safety and the ability to shut that type
of business down. He said staff needed
to find ways to write that policy to be objective and fair. He said Commissioner Amyx’s response about
almost all of the businesses operating very well was exactly on point. He said staff had to write a policy in a way
those businesses had a level of certainty that their business and financial
interest were protected, but the City had the ability to work on the situation
where there was a consistent threat to public safety.
Commissioner
Chestnut said Miller had an updated memo on the liquor license proceedings on
Last Call and they had discussed that it sounded as if there was ambiguity on whether
or not it was legal to operate in the manner that Last Call was operating. He asked if the City had ever asked the
Attorney General or anyone else about whether that loophole could be closed.
Commissioner
Chestnut asked if staff considered at any point, after Last Call’s license was
revoked, pursuing to see if the City could get some kind of ruling on that
legislation.
Mayor Hack
called for public comment.
Nick
Carroll, Jackpot Saloon and Replay Lounge, said currently entertainment
districts and venues were doing well in downtown areas in
He said
Mayor Hack
said there were not any of those types of restrictions for lofts.
Ted Boyle,
North Lawrence Improvement Association, said he hoped there would be some type
of licensing program. He said they had
been dealing with an establishment in
He said
the activities calmed down last summer because the establishment was not open
most of the time. Now that Last Call has
closed down, those patrons had migrated back to
A year
ago, last winter and fall, there was police presence which helped the situation. The residents of
Rob Farha,
owner of The Wheel, said regarding the land use side of this discussion, it was
stated there was no grandfathering in, but there were two establishments that
were operating presently under the non-conforming use category which was The
Wheel and The Hawk. He asked if staff
was saying in one year their establishments would be out if they went with that
method.
Mayor Hack
said those two establishment were non-conforming to what existed in the code
and was just a different layer of a special use permit.
Jerry
Neverve, Red Lyon Tavern, said his establishment had been downtown since
1993. He said when the Last Call
situation first came up two years ago, several people including the Kansas
Licensed Beverage Association and several bar owners downtown suggested the
City appeal to the Alcohol Beverage Control Last Call’s license being
issued. Several years went by and it did
not happen. The first time it happened
the license was repealed. At the first
instance of a nuisance lawsuit brought up against Last Call, the club was
closed. It was in their position that
the City Commission had the power in the statutes that existed in
Tim Lyons,
Gregory
Mann, Lawrence, said with the license taken away and the City Commission able
to close the BYOB loophole, he did not understand why they needed anything
more.
Commissioner
Amyx said the City Commission had to go through a process before Alcohol
Beverage Control, an outside agency, to make a decision whether or not the
license could continue and that type of control needed to be local because they
might not have the same abilities to battle, without Alcohol Beverage Control,
with the owner of the business and whether or not the City would be successful
in having that license pulled.
Mayor Hack
said the City Commission had asked in legislative agendas and statements every
year that local government should be able to determine what to do with
entertainment venues. The Commission’s concern
was not just with BYOB, but other issues.
She said if the City wanted additional regulation and if so, she asked what
would be the additional regulation. They
needed to answer a basic policy question first and move from that point.
Commissioner
Highberger said he did not want more regulations but he also wanted the
Commission to have the ability to deal with the situation like with Last
Call. He did not like the special use
permit idea because it was too much burden on staff and the business owners. The only place he would consider special use
permits would be for those establishments that were in or adjacent to
residential areas. Extra scrutiny of
that kind of establishment made sense.
He would
like to see any system the City Commission implemented to have minimal or no impact
on the vast majority of drinking establishments that did not cause any
problems, but give the City the authority to ramp up and take appropriate
action when dealing with safety problems.
He did not want something that made it easy for the City Commission to
have the power to shut down a business and that sort of authority should only
be exercised in real problem situations.
He said
Nick Carroll raised a very valid concern.
He thought they would want to draft something that was sensitive to a contract
so increasing residents in the commercial areas did not come into conflict with
the entertainment industry.
He said of
all the options, the most appealing option was the disorderly business
ordinance that Commissioner Amyx proposed although it would need to be crafted
very carefully. He was not sure he
thought all the issues through, but he felt like he had not achieved a
resolution of this yet.
Vice Mayor
Dever said he first wanted to address the local control issue. The City Commission passed on this issue
before because they wanted to put it in the hands of the state regulators who
were supposed to be able to help protect the citizens in the community. From nuisance actions or violence, it came
down to the City wanting to have some control over what happens in Lawrence,
Kansas and to sum up the fact that they were able to get the ABC to do what the
City felt like was necessary, was not putting the whole history of what went on
there. He thought the City needed to
have some sort of control over what happened in the City and the City Manager
tried to convince him because he was previously against any regulation,
especially one that was written in haste to address a specific issue or one bad
actor. He was in favor of staff looking
at what Commissioner Amyx suggested and taking a look at what was on the books
already to make sure they did not already have the power, but if they needed
more the disorderly business ordinance would be the next best option.
He thought
they had quite a few of land use regulations already and was not convinced that
was the best step now. After what just
happened, they needed to take a hard look to see if they had control over what
went on in the community and protect the people who lived near those
establishments.
Commissioner
Highberger said he thought it was important to note that the ABC did not do
what the City asked them to do. Their
concerns were based primarily on public safety issues that were happening
outside and the immediate vicinity of the club and the ABC decision was very
clearly only based on the violations inside the club. Even if the ABC cooperated in the future, he
did not think it gave them the tools they were looking for.
Commissioner
Chestnut said there were a couple of things that needed to be balanced
here. He said standards needed balanced
and one thing they were forgetting was they also had to balance rights of
property owner. As far as the ordinance
that was drafted relative to a venue license, he thought there was a whole host
of issues and some of those problems he raised back in August defining
substantial criminal activity and how they would define an incident within 500
feet, especially downtown when they had venues that were within 500 feet. The most difficult thing in drafting an
ordinance was crafting something that was general enough to cover the conduct,
but something that would meet constitutional muster, which meant they were on
the thin edge as far as drafting something they thought really balanced rights. He agreed he had all the faith and trust in
the governing body as well as the police department, but they would be putting
ordinances on the books that would go past their tenure and if they were
written broadly enough, there was a lot of danger in that. He had a lot of concerns about the
entertainment license as written because it placed a lot of power, especially
because it talked about appointing a board, then having a hearing, and
basically their decision being when it came to the City Commission, they got to
consider any way they wanted to so it boiled down to three votes on the City
Commission, which was a pretty serious situation. If they went down that path, it would have to
be much more restricted than it was presented now.
He agreed
with Commissioner Amyx as to the special use permits. He asked if they were really prepared to take
on 125 establishments and go through that process. He agreed with the other Commissioners that he
liked more local control, but was sensitive to the fact that they could really
create something that was pretty broad and used punitively.
The
establishment discussed in
Mayor Hack
said the issue was the state could not enforce it. The City had a nuisance ordinance they
thought they were good to go on, but the court said no.
Corliss
said he would follow up with the owner to see if they were complying with those
requirements. He said State Law at the
time this was enacted the City argued that it gave the City the authority to
condition drinking establishment licenses.
The state law changed because of some court decisions to make it fairly
clear that cities did not have that ability.
Commissioner
Chestnut said there were currently restrictions on locations in the City Code
that restricts the sale of alcohol within 400 feet of a school or church. He asked why the code could not be amended to
include residential neighborhoods.
Corliss
said that could be done, but they would have the non conforming use issue. One of the issues they were trying to get at
with the special use permit was putting an overlay on top of the current zoning
and say the occupant had to comply with special use permit requirements into
the future. If those special use permits
would somehow in the future deny a legal establishment their ability to
operate, the City would have a strong legal issue as to whether or not the City
could do that. How staff envisioned the
special use permit requirements going prospectively into the future would be
requirements that would have to do with their specific operation that would
apply into the future.
He said
Los Amigos/Club 508 was a legal non-conforming use at that location which was a
commercial use that was allowed at that location. He said he did not think the City could pass
an ordinance that they were not allowed to be within 500 feet and make that
stick.
Commissioner
Chestnut said on a scale of 1-10 if the Commission felt their control was a 2
and wanted it to be a 7, then the ordinances were a 10 and that was not a place
he wanted to go. It put the Commission in
a place with a lot of broad power that would be concerning to him as an
establishment owner.
As far as
the SUP and entertainment license as written were too broad and could have some
serious unintended consequences going forward.
He also felt they should get a lot of input from the licensees.
He said in
most of the examples provided, regarding entertainment licenses, there were
typically a lot of exclusions and a lot of exclusions were for full service
restaurants that mostly served food.
That could be one place to consider.
It seemed like it went through and excluded some of the venues and was a
little more targeted. Whether it was fair
or not, he did not know, but it was one place where he saw to limit the amount,
because it would be a big undertaking if choosing to move forward.
Mayor Hack
said the answer to the question of whether the City Commission wanted
additional authority to act on behalf of the safety and welfare of the citizens
was definitely a “yes”. The question was
what was the balance and how much. She
said the special use permit was too burdensome on staff and business owners. It would create perhaps more confusion and
complexity than already existed.
In a
perfect world the state would give the City the authority to do this, but
obviously the state was not going to.
When there was that situation there were the layers of appeal. What they needed was when a situation emerged
like this; they could act immediately with a license that might allow them to
do this. She agreed with Commission
Chestnut that if they did anything that put the future of businesses in the
hands of five elected officials, she thought that was too much of a burden for
the other businesses. However, they were
also responsible for the health, safety and welfare of all the citizens so that
was difficulty.
She would
like to see staff research what Commissioner Amyx suggested with the disorderly
business ordinance. It was a little bit
more palatable to her but could accomplish the same things. She appreciated Nick Carroll’s comments about
the context of the downtown because if they wanted to attract businesses and
residences, the vibrancy of downtown did not stop at 10:00 when someone wanted
to go to bed. The vibrancy of downtown
did continue and wanted to make sure it was safe for that vibrancy. She did not want to damage the business
because they had residences or damage the residences because they had business.
Commissioner
Amyx said when looking at licenses, he did not want to add an additional level
of bureaucracy on businesses. He absolutely
did not want to do the land use regulation through special use permit because it
would create problems for the business owner in trying to comply with land use
regulations under the Development Code. He
said staff had a lot of work to do and if staff had to consider 130 plus special
use permits, half of their staff would need to dedicate their time.
He said he
wanted to make sure staff drafted an ordinance that was fair, but very firm and
the ordinance would need to be updated from time to time. He said the goal of the disorderly business
ordinance was to make
Mayor Hack
said if staff was okay with the Commission’s direction and drafting an
ordinance to take care of immediate issues.
Corliss
said he understood staff had direction to look at Commissioner Amyx’s proposed
ordinance and provide a critique in response to that ordinance. (14)
Consider approving, subject to conditions and use
restrictions, PDP-03-02-05, a revised Preliminary Development Plan for Bauer
Farm. The proposed planned commercial,
office and residential development contains approximately 43.71 acres, located
on the north side of
Deferred
until a future meeting. (15)
Receive request from Allen Belot for consideration
of potential dedication of common open space for the expansion of the City’s
adjacent undeveloped
He
said the request was for 42 single-family houses within the plan development
which needed the rezoning requests to be heard.
The applicant was looking to dedicate some additional park land to the
city.
The
area the applicant was looking at dedicating was to the north approximately 2/3
acre to the north. A nature trail would
go through
Commissioner
Amyx asked if the current area had any type of sign or designation as a city
park.
Patterson
said no. Right now it was a natural area
that had been left vacant for the past 55 years. The park could be accessed off of
Commissioner
Amyx asked if the park would not be approved for other than connecting that
basin to allow for water detention.
Patterson
said the park would allow for water detention, but most of the time it would be
dry and could be used as a City park and access additional land the community
could use to walk back in as a nature trail and enjoy the woods.
Commissioner
Highberger asked about the current zoning.
Patterson
said it was currently zoned as OS-2 (Open Space), which was the typical zoning
for a park property.
Allen
Belot, Allen Belot Architects, presented his request to the City
Commission. He said the development plan
process was a lengthy one …which started back in October and the City
Commission would not see the development plan until the very end. He said this development plan was initiated somewhat
by staff. He said when staff reviewed
the plan they suggested placing the detention area around and into the park and
make it a feature. He said he had been
to the Planning Commission twice, with two or three staff reports and
revisions, and he did not want the City Commission to say they were not
comfortable with the plan. He said he was
present to get a consensus from the City Commission on their stream of thought
about the plan and if the Commission thought it was a good idea for the City,
neighborhood and the project.
He
said they were proposing to dedicate an area back to the park. It was something that staff and his engineer
all agreed on. In further studying this
plan, they conducted some analysis and realized there was enough of a holding
vessel within the Quarry to take care of the storm water run-off. By building an earthen dam, they could hold
that water and monitor the water out at the predevelopment rate. He said they would not need to take down any
trees and could construct their plan within the sensitive land standards. To make sure the water was clean that was
coming in from above on the development and proposed putting in some bio-swales
and work those in between the trees rather than bulldozing a 12 foot path down
through the trees to get to the park.
The trail would connect with the sidewalk system of the
development. He said there would be
three points of entry and one point would be for the Rockledge neighborhood and
for the sidewalk that came in off
Commissioner
Highberger asked in addition to dedicating that land to the City, they would
also continue to count it as open space toward meeting the requirements of
sensitive lands.
Belot
said yes.
Commissioner
Chestnut asked McCullough with the proposed dedication, given the park as part
of the dedication, what percentage was it of the project.
McCullough
said he did not have a chance to study recent submissions. He said Belot might be able to speak to that
issue in terms of whether or not the 1.8 acres was met with the dedication and
if the park open space would be included.
Commissioner
Chestnut said it was mentioned that with the sensitive land section of the
code, the code required 20% of dedication of open space. He said including
Belot
said there was more open space for development.
He said this would make the sensitive land cut-off and almost 100% would
be for public recreational use.
Vice
Mayor Dever asked how much of the 9 acre parcel of Belot’s land would be
dedicated on the entire development.
Belot said eight to nine tenths of an acre.
Mayor
Hack called for public comment.
Burke
Griggs, Stevens & Brand, on behalf of the Lichtwardts, property owners,
said they were not opposed to developing this area, but they were concerned
about the proper interpretation of zoning regulations. This concerned a planned development in a
sensitive area. He said he wanted to
walk through Article 7 and 11 because if everyone understood the regulations, everyone
would see this should not be considered at this time.
He
said the purpose of Article 7 was to preserve environmental and historic
resources. Common open space for planned
developments was the topic of Article 7 and planned developments outside of
sensitive lands. As previous speakers
had spoken to, planned developments shall include under Article 7 at least 20%
of the total area of development, or 300 square feet per unit, whichever was
the largest number. That was a
preference for the larger area to be preserved.
Secondly, at least half of that common open space shall be recreational
open space. Finally, to the maximum
extent practical, common open space should be natural open space. Natural open space was defined in the list at
701(k)(3) and incorporated various features on this site; in this case,
geographical features with rocky outcroppings.
Finally, there were mature trees which were one of the issues. They had mature trees and rocky
outcroppings.
There
were also additional requirements for planned developments within Article
7. One was the preservation of natural
features. To quote from 701(L)(5),
mature stands of trees and other site features preserved to the grea
Finally,
under 701(L)(7), there were additional conditions which the Planning Commission
and City Commission might impose which were consistent with the purposes of
this section and the code generally. He
asked what the purposes were of Article 7.
He argued that Article 7 set minimum standards in order to seek maximum
protection. The 20% figure which had
been brought under review was a minimum and in keeping with the statements from
Article 7 with producing the largest number to the maximum extent practicable,
to the grea
He
said regarding Article 11, which concerned general development standards; this
applied to planned developments in sensitive lands and was an addition to
Article 7. There was a clear regulatory
intent to impose higher, more restrictive standards upon sensitive lands than
what existed in Article 7. The sensitive
lands defined in Article 11 were identical to the ones identified in Article 7,
floodways, floodplains, wetland streams, stands of mature trees, geographical
features with rocky outcroppings, and archeological sites. This showed consistency with Article 7, but
also showed a regulatory independence.
Article 7 did not go on sensitive lands.
He
said Section 1101(D)(2) and (3)(B) concerned what McCullough discussed earlier
about the difference between a planned development and cluster
development. He said the City had judged
that there were between 60-70% of the acreage in this development was sensitive
land. If 15% of the land site was
sensitive land in the development, must be a planned development, which was the
case here. That was consistent with the
statutory intent of the code to choose the higher standard. Under the planned development, 20% of the
land must be common open space and in a cluster development only 10% must be
common open space. Therefore, the code
mandated a higher standard. Article 11
was using Article 7 to select the higher standard and Article 11 governed this
topic.
He
said there were three possibilities for a developer who was faced with the
requirement to do a planned development in a sensitive land area. He may dedicate open space up to the required
land dedication to the City. Secondly,
he may include within the plan private open space where the developer devotes
up to half of the required open space for development to private use. In both of those situations, the operative
question was what was required. The City
Commission might require a higher level than 20%. Just because they were in a planned
development situation, did not kick them from Article 11 back to Article
7. The 20% standard was a basement beneath
which you could not go.
The
third option for a developer in sensitive lands for a development was there was
no land dedicated to the City and each building envelope of the development
must not encroach upon the designated sensitive lands. It was the stric
There
were two things to note with Article 11.
To repeat, the City had the power to require much larger amounts of open
space whether by dedication or by private open space. If the basement was 20% and there were 60-70%
of sensitive lands in this area, all 6 – 7 acres of this 9.9 acre tract, it
gave an idea the leeway the City Commission had. The matrix of density calculation that
occurred at 20-1101(d)(4) spoke to how density calculations should be used if
there were features of a flood plane or a stream; here there were mostly
trees. That did not dilute the density,
but a rocky outcropping would delete the density substantially.
Their
argument was that the correct standard to apply in this situation was to select
the stric
He
said the final substantive issue concerned the detention pond in
He
said under 20-1101(e), prior to development, a sensitive area site plan should
be submitted to and approved by the City in accordance with the site plan
review. They did not have a sensitive
area site plan before them. They
understood the concern to try and deal with this issue before he took the time
and effort to configure this plan. It
was unclear what was desired here regarding the pond and the park. Therefore, they argued the City should not
consider the plan at this time and the City should not decide the concept at
the time because if the City Commission has not seen the full plan, by
accepting the concept they might legitimize it and that may be a dangerous
precedent for dangerous infill and sensitive land development. It also appeared the density of the
development, the road access, and the frontage aspects of the plan were unfixed
at this time and the neighbors would speak to those issues.
He
argued that this plan, as far as he understood it, was both substantially and
procedurally defective. It did not
recognize Article 11 governed development in this case, which was a planned
development within sensitive lands. The
City required more conservation. The
pond issue was unfixed and to what extent could they use a rocky outcropping as
a retaining wall, thus getting rid of the rocky outcropping and the
He
said his clients wanted this development to occur and have plans in the future
to develop land themselves. They were
concerned about the precedent value of this development within the City of
William
Kalinich,
Mayor
Hack said she appreciated the concerns about lack of notification. This was just an opportunity to get a general
feeling from the City Commission as to whether a trade of one piece of property
for another would be acceptable to the Commission. The Commission was a long way from any kind
of approval. She said City staff, the Planning
Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and the City Commission all
had to consider this item which would require public notification and comment.
Paul
Kitos,
He
said they received no official notification of what was going on. All they have learned happened to be
indirectly from friends who had heard something about it, so they inquired and
came up with a lot of things which were hearsay and very few things which were
fact. Today they came to the meeting
because of their concerns and this was the first time he saw this portrayal of
what was going to go in. He had the same
concerns of other neighbors, but had additional concerns relating to the fact
that his wife and him lived in their house for over 42 years and were very
familiar with
The
neighborhood was a great place to live and they knew that at some point something
was going to be developed in that property.
They wanted to see something that would be decent and would improve
The
driveway to his neighbor’s house was consistently being washed out and the
water coming off the fields would come down and create gigantic rivulets in the
driveway. The City trucks would come out
and put fresh gravel on, which would happen once a year in the main runoff
season. He said he was not against the
development, but he wanted it to be something that complemented the City of
Carolyn
Crawford, Vice President of the Sunset Hills Neighborhood Association, said
they wanted to make sure the Neighborhood Association was contacted and had
input regarding this situation. She said
she understood why the architect would like to solve one of the pieces to
puzzle so the rest of the layout could be completed. However, there was a major precedent for the
rest of the City and they had seen this happen before in their neighborhood. Anytime there was infill development,
generally people leaned over backwards to accommodate the infill development
but in doing so, they set precedent that went throughout the City. In this particular request, they were asking
for the City’s land to use which was not appropriate because the land belonged
to the people of
Mayor
Hack said she assumed that if the City Commission was interested in pursuing this
trade or see how it would work, that was the direction, either positive or
negative.
David
Corliss, City Manager, said staff had struggled with how to process this
issue. The City Commission did not have
an action item and they did not know how the rezoning and plat requests were
going to proceed. He said the City did
have a process and followed that process as far as the notification for
rezoning and those types of things. That was why the property owners had not
been notified. He said staff was trying
to find out a little more information about this project as well. He said what would be helpful, if there were
issues of concerns or questions, staff could respond and provide the City
Commission with that information.
Commissioner
Amyx asked about the requested zoning.
Belot
said the zoning would remain RM-7.
Mayor
Hack asked Belot to describe how a detention basin would work.
Belot
said he was not an engineer, but before that area was platted, that area was
quarried which created a series of holes in the ground at different
depths. He said they were able to
measure the area, the depth, and determine how much water could be held in
those three ponds. He said those three
ponds were not spread out, but three levels of depth. The reason why the water was currently
running down in that neighborhood was because there was nothing to hold that
water back. He said by construction of a
dam along the right-of-way of
He
said he was not bringing this issue to the City Commission because it was his
idea, but it was something that came from staff as a creative idea to develop a
park that was inaccessible, never been used in 55 years, very few people knew
about the park’s existence until they started talking about this project. He said it was an opportunity to bring the park
alive and not have a high maintenance park for Parks and Recreation. He said that was one City staff’s concerns in
that they did not want to have a lot more park to maintain and this plan would
achieve that goal. He said this plan
made the park accessible, not only to the neighborhood but the public at large,
and also to the development which was a neighbor. He said to keep in mind that this park was
dedicated to the City 55 years ago which was a long time ago, but it did not
change any differently than if someone came to the City now and dedicated the
park to the City.
He
said he was trying to be honest with the City Commission and the neighbors and
everyone had known for 2 ˝ years that he had been working on this plan. He said everyone would be contacted and he
was not shying away from the neighborhood, but there was a timing aspect. He said he was not asking for zoning or
approval, but trying to get a consensus so he did not need to go through 2 or 3
months of work only to find out at the very end that this was not something the
City Commission was comfortable with. He
said he knew this was unusual, but he would like to know what his chances were
and what direction the City Commission wanted to go because of this unique
situation. He said it was a unique
situation because there was a little quarry in the middle of town and a park
that nobody knows about or could not get access to; there was 9 acres of
undeveloped land in the center of the City and by development could open that
park up and make it usable for everyone.
He said they would be providing access corridors from outside the
neighborhood, through this neighborhood, to get to this park. He said it was not like they were being
selfish and trying to put a tremendous amount of density on their land and use
this as a benefit to increase their density, but they were trying to be good
neighbors.
Commissioner
Highberger said he knew this was an unusual procedure and people did not get
notice like they should have, but he wanted everyone to know that the City
Commission would not make a binding decision without full public notice. However, he did understand Belot’s concern
about having some idea whether this plan would fly or not before going through
the work. Although he would not make a
binding decision right now, he was comfortable with the concept of using the
park, quarry area, for stormwater detention and expanding the park. He was not comfortable with the idea of
counting the existing park land toward the open space requirement because it seemed
like a bad precedent to set.
Commissioner Amyx asked if Commission
Highberger agreed with the use of the park and additional space for the
detention from the development, but not allow it to be counted in the 20% for
common open space.
Commissioner
Highberger said yes. He said this was
existing open space and existing City park.
He did not have any objections to the plan, but if it went RS-7 it was
great. He thought it set a really bad
precedent if the Commission allowed the counting of an existing City park, even
a park he did not know existed until two weeks ago. He thought it would set a very bad
precedent. He said there were 40 acres
in the southeast and if someone wanted to develop a Planned Unit Development
next to those acres, he asked if they would count those 40 acres as their open
space. He thought it was an interesting
and creative idea to switch out the park space and expand it. He could not sign on with counting the
existing park space to the required open space for the development. He assumed for the neighbors the storm water
engineer would do detailed calculations and would talk about the existing
conditions before there was a final approval.
Dean
Grob, Grob Engineering Services, said one thing he wanted to add was the reason
for this concept was the park, the way it necked down allowed that no trees
would have to be cleared in the detention pond.
They did an analysis that the peak storm was about a two hour storm and
the Parks and Recreation Department said that would not hurt any trees if that
area was to fill up with water. Rather
than putting the detention pond somewhere else on the site, it would be cleared
completely and there would be a big hole in the ground. It was part of what got them from that idea
to the one they had now. It necked down
so it was very easy to make a small dam with a walking path on top.
Commissioner
Chestnut said he liked the concept and thought it was trying to take the
natural topography and maximizing it.
The information was a little bit sketchy and he did not understand what
acreage was being dedicated and also, what was the common open space area that
was going to end up being even with counting the park in.
He
said he agreed with the concern about precedent. Instead of looking at this from the
standpoint of using the park as part of the dedication, it might be wise to
look at how many planned developments did the City have where they granted some
exemption or some special situation where they had less than 20% dedicated open
space because of some factors. He said
it merited some consideration because infill development was harder. It had significant neighborhood
considerations, but it also lent itself in trying to create density, which was
a commitment this Commission always had.
He said the Commission had to look at some solutions that integrated
into the natural part of whatever topography they were talking about. He was not sure he would say he would not
consider anything that did not have 20% of the property outside of the park, but
with the runoff situation, everyone had to be comfortable with that. He said he liked the concept of retention,
but the question was with the open space, he was not completely
comfortable. He said it might help to look
at some planned development examples and how to work through that process if
they had other situations. He did not
want a situation where infill development, especially with the lowest density
zoning, which was single family RS-7 became impossible to do in infill
situations because it was not feasible.
They had to figure out a way to do that.
The intent of the neighbors was good because they wanted development and
understood it was going to happen, but it was doing it to accommodate as many
requests as possible. He liked this
concept.
Mayor
Hack said she would like to have further discussion about the trade off. She said Commissioner Chestnut was correct in
that infill development was difficult.
She said maybe it was their mistake trying to have some sort of
conversation about it that raised everyone’s level of concern before it
probably needed to be because the issues of storm water and traffic would be
talked about as they progressed.
The
idea of using an existing detention pond for detention made perfect sense so
they were not creating another one. She
liked that idea. She did not know about
the open space situation and agreed with Commissioner Chestnut that she needed
more information about that. She
believed using the quarry as the detention made perfect sense because it was using
something natural. She wanted to have
further conversation with staff.
Commissioner
Amyx said this was a plan that was difficult to see because there was no development
wrapped all the way around to see how it integrated all together. The idea of expanding that park was something
he thought was a good idea. He thought
this was one of the few cases they could consider conditioning the
request. Obviously, the plan could not
proceed if it did not get support of the City Commission.
He
said because of the ingress and egress through the existing neighborhood plus
new streets that would be required, this might be one of the harder infill
developments the City was going to have to deal with. The Commission could encourage infill
development and do things that were probably a little bit creative or start
looking at more and more expansion on the edges of town. He said he could probably go ahead and count this
as the requirement for the sensitive lands and use the detention that currently
existed conditioned upon final approval of the City Commission.
Vice
Mayor Dever said overall they should look at a couple of items. He said he was looking at the topographic map
and the slope was pretty severe with a 20-30 foot drop across that area of
Belot
said they would be using the natural topography for the development.
Vice Mayor
Dever said he wanted to extrapolate what would be best for the City and for the
developers. The question was if they
would be in favor of expanding the park through the use of his land, and he
would be in favor of doing that. He
thought it only made sense to dedicate the areas that were most difficult to
develop and had some of the oldest trees in the area.
He said he
was not in favor of waiving the participation of dedicating 20% of the
developer’s lands to the development for the purposes of setting
precedent. Those lands represented an
interesting area for the community and he thought there was the presupposition
that it was going to be built, but because how difficult it was to build on, it
was going to be difficult for someone to do.
Belot
said they started this project a year and a half ago before any development
code was developed. He said they would
not be present, but because of the sensitive lands development standards, it
threw a whole new set of standards over a normal development. No neighborhood in this area could have been
developed under the sensitive lands development standards. The Orchards, West Ridge, Pioneer Ridge,
Sunset, Hillcrest all could not have been developed the way it was
written. He was trying to work an infill
development, which was difficult, into the code and it required a little shoe
horning and massaging and a little creative thinking. The Land Development Code was not written for
infill development, but for development on the edge of town. If he had this development on the edge of
town, he would not be present because he would be figuring out a way to make it
work within the code. He was bounded by other developments that had taken place
over the last 50 years. He was bounded
by decisions other people made within this vacant land that dictated which
direction he could go. The location of
the waterline and sewer line was already there and he had to work around all
this stuff. He was not asking for help,
but asking the City Commission to think about those obstacles and try to make infill
development work, under the present zoning ordinance.
Vice
Mayor Dever said he was not in favor of allowing all the portion of the park to
be used as the 20%. He said as one
speaker noted, this was an area that was sensitive and would want to be
dedicating even more under perfect conditions.
Obviously, this was an infill development and a unique situation and
would like to get more feedback from the Planning staff to determine their
interpretation, now that he heard all the legal reasons why the City Commission
needed to adhere to a new plan. It was important
to protect the natural resources within the City and important to take in to consideration
the lay of the land whenever development occurred. It was also important to consider the
neighbors when infill development occurred.
He said because it was park land, sensitive and because the Commission
was asking the developer to dedicate 20% of his land, he thought it was going
to become economically unfeasible to do any kind of development at a lower
density. He would like more information
from the Planning Department on how much land could be put aside. He was not in favor of using the park as the
vast majority of the area they were talking about putting aside.
McCullough
said one of the reasons the applicant was pursuing this creative alternative
and trying to take advantage of the adjacent park was because in staff’s review
of the code, that was not one of the elements that could be waived by the
Planning Commission. It was not an
element in the PD Overlay District that could specifically be waived. Staff did not always know the consequence of a
new code and staff only had 2 or 3 developments to use the sensitive land
article on. The Links was a project that
was not an infill development, but a large scale development that had a lot of
sensitive land and was able to protect their share and more of protected land
and sensitive areas. He knew that they
were getting ready early next week to post a draft text amendment on the
sensitive lands issue. It arose out of
some processes through other developments that were not necessarily favorable
in the process of just a cluster development or PD, but other mechanisms the
development community could use to protect sensitive lands that were better
suited to their finances. They were
directed by the City Commission to look at the idea of a sensitive lands
article. Since then, even more issues had
arose, like infill development and trying to get a more objective list of
criteria or what qualified as sensitive lands and whether they could map those
issues better. One of the issues
regarding this creative option was that it was not an element that could be
waived. It was 20% as a minimum and the
sensitive lands article that triggered the PD overlay and the PD overlay had
requirements on the percentage. It was
something staff believed could not be waived.
Vice
Mayor Dever said lastly, by working with the developer there would be an
opportunity to expand the park. If the
City did not work with the developer, then the City ran the risk of the
developer setting aside sensitive lands scattered throughout development,
minimizing the large impact on building a larger park for the community. By working together with the developer the
City would gain the opportunity to build a greater park rather than having spot
areas of sensitive land set aside. He
said he was in favor of working with the developer, but he was not sold on the
entire concept of switching out the public land for the developers sensitive
lands.
Commissioner
Chestnut asked McCullough to lay out a process.
The Commission was providing feedback, but it was a moot point because
if development went for the PD overlay and 20% was not dedicated by the
property owner, then the City would not see it again. He asked if staff would have text amendments
fairly quickly that would allow for consideration by Planning Commission.
McCullough
said they would have a text amendment in March that included several elements
talked about in recent months. One of
the elements discussed would be whether or not it should be an element that
could be reduced by the Planning Commission and ultimately City Commission
through the rezoning process based on either established criteria that could
include whether it was an infill development or whether there was a certain
acreage amount or adjacent amenities or benefits and those type of things that
benefit not only this project but other projects similar to it.
Commissioner
Chestnut said he agreed with Commissioner Highberger. There was a precedent as far as dedicating
public land, but if based on what McCullough was talking about, there was a
text amendment and there could be consideration by the Planning Commission of
an exception to that 20% rule so that the City was not dedicating part of the
public park, but on this particular infill project they would not have the 20%
criteria filled and could move through the process much more comfortably and
not look at mixing the public land that had already been committed. (16)
Conduct public hearing to consider Ordinance No.
8238, establishing the maximum assessments for improvements to
Mayor Hack
called a public hearing to consider Ordinance No. 8238, establishing the
maximum assessments for improvement to
Chuck
Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said the improvements consisted of a two
lane road, 31 foot back to back, a multi-use path on one side, and a sidewalk
on the other side, storm sewer and waterline improvements. The method of assessment was based on front
footage and spread by square footage to two tracts. The assessment would be paid 100% by the
benefit district and the estimated cost was approximately $1.765 million.
Mayor Hack
called for public comment.
Mark
Anderson, speaking on behalf of the property owners of record, said he wanted
the record to show the property owners were in support of this maximum
assessment ordinance and asked the City Commission to vote in favor.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to close
the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Moved by Amyx, seconded by Chestnut, to place on
first reading, Ordinance No. 8238, levying the maximum assessments for the
construction of public improvements of George Williams Way from the
intersection of Overland Drive north approximately 1,326 feet to the north city
limits, including property acquisition, traffic control/calming devices,
sidewalks on both sides, intersection improvements, bicycle facilities,
subgrade stabilization, power line relocation, storm water improvements, and
other necessary and appropriate improvements, as authorized by Resolution No.
6661. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
Consider adopting on first reading, Ordinance No.
8194, annexing property generally located west of
David
Corliss, City Manager, said in 1999 the Bauer Brook Estates Plat was recorded
which was an unincorporated county plat.
He said the requirements were the property owners’ consent to City annexation
and the properties connect to the City’s sanitary sewer system by seven years
after the plat was recorded.
He said last
year Pump Station 48 and the Free State Interceptor Sewer project were
completed that was in part of the Bauer Brook Estates Plat. It made it physically possible for some of
the properties in the Bauer Brook Estates Plat to connect to the City sanitary
sewer system. One of the requirements of
the plat was the property be annexed into the City, which was what the City
Commission was considering. The City
communicated with the property owners at the end of last year. The annexation ordinance had a couple of
provisions pointed out in the staff report.
One of the
issues was a grandfathering type issue as far as the property was concerned. Some of the property owners had plans to
construct buildings. Staff thought it
was appropriate to go ahead and construct those buildings as they had been
planned under the county’s building code regulations. Staff did not see any harm to construct those
buildings as to the City’s interests and would recommend that be allowed to
occur.
Also, there
was a situation where a number of the property owners had animals on the
property that would not be allowed under the City’s animal control code. An example would be the Chris Collister
property on
Once the
property was annexed into the City, benefit districts would be formed for
waterline and sanitary sewer improvements.
Staff had discussed the costs associated with those improvements and
most of the costs would be born by the property owners, with exception of half
of the cost of the waterline along Folks Road would be absorbed by the City and
when the property on the east side of Folks Road redevelops, the City would
recover the costs for that waterline.
He said staff
wanted to proceed with the annexation and if the property was annexed into the
City by April 1st, it counts toward the City’s assessed valuation. Staff could wait until the end of the year,
but if they were going to annex that land, it would make sense to proceed now.
Mayor Hack
asked Corliss if this would allow the grandfathering in and there was an
agreement process for that within the documentation with the ordinance.
Corliss
said staff would write a letter indicating the number of animals and make sure animal
control and the property owners had copies that included basic standards.
He said this
was a unique property and situation. He
said there were reasons why the City did not allow RS7 zoning to have that, not
only because of nuisance concerns, but animal welfare issues.
He said
the animal code had an interesting history.
He said in the 1990’s someone had a bear on their property. Staff took a look at the animal control code
and found out the City prohibited certain animals, but not bears. Therefore, staff wrote the code in a way so
that they listed the animals that were allowed within the City. He said other parts of the community there
were a number of animals that were not conducive to the rest of the community,
so the City grandfathered in animal types that were allowed before making that
change. The City had allowed situations
before changing the animal control code to continue.
Mayor Hack
called for public comment.
There was
no public comment.
Commissioner
Highberger said there was some discussion in a staff memo about the possibility
of vacating the right-of-way of what was currently a county road. He said just for the record he opposed
vacating the right-of-way
Moved by Chestnut, seconded by Dever, to place
on first reading, Ordinance No. 8194, annexing property generally located west
of Folks Road and south of North 1700 Road (Peterson Road extended), commonly
known as Bauer Brook Estates. Motion
carried unanimously.
(18)
PUBLIC
COMMENT:
Mark
O’Lear,
Mayor Hack asked how many times the neighbors
asked to meet with the developer.
O’Lear
said the first time the Planning Department asked if the developer could attend
the meeting, but the neighborhood wanted to meet with the Planning Department
first and then after that meeting, meet with the developer to discuss this plan. At the end of the meeting the neighborhood
reiterated they did not have a problem meeting with the developer. He said the developer was willing to throw in
4 windows out of the initial 117 windows.
After that, the neighborhood kept asking to meet with the developer to
discuss the plan. He said they finally
had a meeting set up with the architect and, at the last minute, that meeting
was cancelled.
Mayor Hack
asked if the neighborhood had a chance to look at the four different elevation
options.
O’Lear
said the neighborhood looked at those options, but they had concerns and wanted
to discuss those options with the developer.
He said the neighborhood wondered why they added the smaller window and the
neighborhood wanted clarification to see what was going on.
He said
this issue was recognized, staff took immediate action in calling in the
applicant’s representative, the architect in this case, subsequently meeting
with the neighborhood and working to resolve the issue. He said he wanted to demonstrate how the process
allowed this to become an issue.
The preliminary
development plan did not include detailed elevations and the plan included what
the front elevations would look like including deck details. This project was located at the corner of
Stoneridge and
The
Planning Commission in their review, under the old code, saw the documents that
had the four plex units with a little bit of relief in the elevation facing the
neighborhood. The Planning Commission
also saw a sheet of elevation drawings which included the seven windows and the
subject of this discussion. The
materials received a great deal of discussion, so much in fact that it became a
condition of approval. The materials of
the buildings were to be spelled out as to what the roofing, siding, and
stonework materials would be. The
Planning Commission saw the gate access and later changed into a condition in a
much more aesthetically pleasing gate.
After the
Planning Commission approved the final development plan, the former code
allowed for modifications. This was a
practice staff undertook in most instances to allow a little bit more
flexibility as more engineering took place in project. There were minor modifications to the final
development plan, including changes in building, landscaping or parking lot
size or location or reduction in density and could be approved by the Planning
Director. He knew there was there was
some discussion about him signing and back dating a document, but he believed
that was perhaps the plat that happened after this. All the development plan documents were
signed by the Interim Director at the time. He could only assume as the
documents came in to be processed for the final process and released to
development services for building permit, that there was a review to what the
Planning Commission saw and there was a determination that this was a minor
modification because by practice this would have been seen as a minor
modifications and the Planning staff recognized it to be an urgent matter the
neighborhood had with this project. He
said that was where it was heavy on staff’s shoulders because staff looked at
those as a matter of course and their job.
If staff missed one, like they did in this instance, it weighed very
heavy.
He said
the elevation drawing for one building went from 7 windows down to 2
windows. The same document showed the
gate that was revised and several other minor modifications to each building. The buildings that affected the neighborhood
the most were the buildings that were reduced from 7 windows down to 2.
He said again,
staff sensed the urgency, met with the developer and subsequent neighbors and
were heading to resolution to getting it closer to conformity with what the
Planning Commission approved and what the neighbors felt they were represented
through the public process.
He said the
recessed part of the building did change and by practice, that would have been
looked at as a minor modification. The
new code probably addressed more of the perimeter, but because staff did not
have design guidelines to look at multi-family structures, staff had nothing to
base this plan on besides a judgment call on whether it was minor or
major. He said if staff knew the impact
of the neighborhood would be received in this way, staff would have taken a
step back and taken the plan back to the Planning Commission for further
approval and back through the public process.
Commissioner
Chestnut said he was assuming the final plat was probably dated some point in
the past and came across after McCullough was hired.
McCullough
said it was dated with the date the Planning Commission approved the plat.
Price
Banks, representing the neighborhood, said those that were involved from the
beginning knew that initially the neighbors were sorely disappointed when the
vote changed from a denial of a development plan to an approval of a
development plan. Then there began a
long stage of negotiations. At the final
point, the sides came together and the issues were aesthetic and compatibility
issues. The units that were closest to
the neighborhood were modified and the design was modified, to make those units
more like the single family homes they were up against. When talking about image and compatibility of
single family homes, they were talking about not having big blank walls, but
were talking about windows. She said
that plan lost 117 windows which were 117 bits of character that was gone from
that development that had an impact on a neighborhood. At one point the developer was successful on being
relieved from irrigation requirements.
The City had not had a real good record of enforcing landscaping
requirements on development. If they
were trading off aesthetic issues related to compatibility, then perhaps more
irrigation and more screening could have been provided. The neighbors came to some serious
compromises and now the neighbors found they had been led down a primrose path
and there should be some way to remedy that.
He said the City was going to end up with an abrupt interface between
this apartment development and the single-family homes adjacent. He said he urged the City Commission to find
someway to remedy that issue.
Mark
Turner, Lawrence, and property owner adjacent to the development, said there
was a lot said over the last couple of years for this entire project and he was
trying to preserve the value of his property.
He said they tried to work with this developer through this whole
process and had a feeling this particular developer had a history through this
whole thing not delivering what had been promised. There was an issue over the density of the
apartment buildings where the developer had maxed out the density. When the idea was proposed to the neighbors,
this was supposed to be a luxury apartment complex and now there was higher
density. He was concerned that
development was going to bring a lot of traffic in the neighborhood. There were a lot of issues surrounding the
sheer density of what was coming to the neighborhood.
Another
issue was transitioning and buffering.
In some of the cases it did not seem what was proposed on the outset was
likely to develop or simply trying to save money by putting in small
trees. They were willing to work and got
some of that stuff upgraded.
The gate
was also mentioned. The first gate
proposed looked like something that belonged on a farm to keep horses at a
corral, not something that belonged in a single family neighborhood where neighbors
were trying to preserve the values of their properties.
Now they
were at the five buildings in question.
What they were told was that those buildings were going to look like
homes because the buildings were right at the end of the street and going from
a situation where they were shown a drawing that looked very much like a home with
different elevation and shapes in the building, those buildings were down to a
straight wall with two windows. It was
not a minor change, but a major change.
It had a significant impact for someone that was driving up the
street.
The
developer was not willing to meet with the neighborhood to discuss was a
problem and now this final plan came through without any opportunity for the
neighborhood to see the plan or any public comment on the plan. He said as mentioned, the neighborhood was reasonably
happy with what was going on and then the buildings went up and they did not
look like what the neighborhood was promised.
The answer
to the problem was to hold the developer responsible. He said he did not think the developer cared
about the neighborhood because he would not meet with anyone and this whole
thing was cloaked in secrecy. In talking
to residents in the area, they were very concerned about their investment in
their homes. Again, the answer to this
problem was to go back to the developer, hold his feet to the fire, and get the
plan right.
Alan
Cowles,
Mayor Hack
asked Cowles if he understood the clarification of the dating of the
document. Generally, when a plat was signed,
that generally happened, was the date would reflect when the plat, which was
the legal description, was approved.
None of the other documents were signed outside of who was in charge at
the time. That happened on a plat.
Cowles asked
if there were any limits on the back dating.
Mayor Hack
said generally it was within 8 – 10 months.
Sometimes it took a long time for the plat to come through to the person
who was going to sign it. It was signed
with the date it was approved, which was why McCullough signed it on that
date. There was not any backdating.
Cowles
asked the City Commission to look at the process.
Mayor Hack
said the City was still dealing with projects that came through the old
code. The old code allowed for the kind
of changes done in the manner that they were.
She said she was not saying what happened was perfect or that she was
satisfied. The new code did not allow
for those kinds of changes to occur without more of a public input.
When looking
at how the gate was improved, the new code would not allow the gate. The new code mandates, so it did not mean
they should deal with two windows on a stark building, but there were good
points and bad points to both codes. The
Commission had a long talk with McCullough this morning and with staff, and
thought the Vice Mayor had some ideas on elevations and windows that he wanted
to discuss.
Vice Mayor
Dever said specifically, his concern was why if the architect had submitted
alternate elevations that were more consistent with what was intended several
years ago, and asked why there was no response from McCullough to the developer
so they could execute one of the four elevations suggested. He said he and the Mayor both agreed there
were some compromises made that were clearly not staff’s intention, especially
if they went through the documents it was clear they wanted to maintain the
architectural integrity of the neighborhood, improve the look of the
buildings. The process had come to a
stand still because both parties were not communicating and he did not know why
that was. They talked about picking an
idea, a plan and elevation they felt was acceptable to the residents in the
neighborhood and should move forward with trying to get those done so they
could not be stuck in the mud and move forward in trying to get the buildings
constructed to a suitable fashion to the neighbors and identify some of the 117
windows that were missing and try to get some of them back on the
structure.
He said
the bump outs, the insets, and relief changes in the walls were also a concern,
but they were asking a lot to ask a contractor to tear out an entire wall. He thought there was something they could do
with the materials on the exterior of the building that might achieve the same
goal from a distance.
The
Commission would propose that they come up with a variation or try to submit
what was an adequate representation of what would be approved and would talk
about making those changes. Everyone
else needed to come together, but that was what the City Commission felt was
fair; even though the plans clearly only show two windows on those elevations,
those were approved and clearly that was not the intention of the agreed upon
neighborhood several years ago.
Mayor Hack
said she wished they would have taken those four elevations. There were two very tiny windows and that was
not what was shown in any of the four elevations. It might give opportunities for extended
materials or additional windows with the shutters, which was certainly more
pleasant.
Commissioner
Amyx said he thought at the time they considered this item, the elevations seen
were the elevations that were accepted.
He understood the previous code allowed the Planning Director to make
minor changes to those buildings. He
said it might have had a difference in his vote if he would have seen the current
pictures. He asked whether the City
could hold the occupancy permit.
David Corliss,
City Manager, said one of the questions he had was what had been staff’s past
practice in this area. The occupancy
permit had to be related back to what was approved. Staff, as he understood it, administratively approved
changes to the final development plan.
He did not think the neighbors were concerned about the gap between the
final development plan and what staff approved on the revised development plan
that showed the new gate and some elevations on some roofs, but significantly
did not have the build out feature on the buildings, particularly as they faced
to the south and also the windows and orientation of the windows.
He said
Toni Wheeler, Director of Legal Services, looked at this issue and it was her
opinion the City was following their past practice as far as staff being able
to make those modifications. He thought staff
could require additional windows as a requirement for the final occupancy. He was not sure how far that would go and
would have to count windows on the final development plan and the plan approved
by staff. The elevation illustrations
were meant to be examples and samples.
He said there was some flexibility as far as enforcement. What staff learned was they misjudged the
significant changes from the final development plan to what was approved by
staff. They were looking at some items,
but not looking at all the correct items that were of a concern to the
neighborhood. He said it was not too
late to say that staff was going to require those elevation changes in order to
issue the final occupancy permit. It was
probably too late to require tearing down parts of the structure and making
changes to the build out, but there might be some ways to give the physical
appearance of those changes with texture changes and those kinds of
things.
Mayor Hack
said as they faced the structures, they were flat and there were indentations;
it was not a complete box. Those
indentations were going to be more visible when the materials were put up and
the facades were put on. The huge
difference was the windows.
Corliss
asked McCullough if the architect or developer indicated why those changes had
been made.
McCullough
said they had not been able to ascertain why the changes were made. Staff had a discussion with the architect on
that issue and he explained the process of this plan and it was not a single
decision type process; it was a process that entailed architect staff working
with the developer and his representatives.
Decisions were made that did not flow always up the chain of command.
Mayor Hack
asked McCullough to set up a meeting to look at those elevations and
windows.
Commissioner
Highberger said he found the whole situation frustrating. He was surprised that staff found those
changes to be minor. He said it looked
like a bait and switch situation. He
said if there was a condition of occupancy, he would support it.
Commissioner
Chestnut said he also thought it was appropriate. He said he wondered if staff should address
administrative approvals even with the new code, as far as how final
development plans were administratively approved to make sure that due
diligence was there that did not allow for that kind of situation. He understood the code had addressed that,
but thought it would merit a discussion because this had come up a couple of
times and he would feel more comfortable if they had that discussion and
understood what the process was under that administrative approval.
Corliss
said Commissioner Chestnut had a good suggestion. He was learning a lot about the
administrative approval process and thought he understood, but he did not know
there was an additional submitted plan after the final development plan in this
case until earlier today.
Mayor Hack
said there were two different codes and some of the nuances of the code were
still difficult.
Commissioner
Chestnut said he agreed, but obviously there were others to go through under
the old code. He said he meant just for
the new code going forward it would be reasonable to calibrate what the
Planning Commission approved and what steps were taken to make sure they had
the appropriate level of public involvement and understand those rules of
engagement and maybe have input if there was any latitude to offer some
direction.
Commissioner
Amyx said a simple fix would be re-notification if there was going to be a
change from the final development plan to some revised administrative approval.
Corliss
said that was a possibility and staff needed some better understanding of where
they were going from something that was truly minor to something that was
substantial. He said in this case what
was missed was the significance of those changes which was an error.
FUTURE AGENDA
ITEMS:
|
02/26/08 |
·
Consider the following items related to The Links at Lawrence, a
Planned Residential Development containing 40 multi-dwelling buildings with
12 dwelling units per building for a total of 480 dwelling units, located at
the intersection of a) Consider
approval of the requested annexation of approximately 81.13 acres for
A-11-07-07 for The Links at ACTION:
Approve requested annexation (A-11-07-07) of 81.13 acres located at the
intersection of Queens Road & Wakarusa Drive, and adopt on first reading,
Ordinance
No. 8225, providing for the annexation of approximately 81.13 acres, if
appropriate. b)
Consider approval of the requested rezoning Z-11-28A-07, a
request to rezone a tract of land approximately 80 acres, from A
(Agricultural) to RM12 (Multi-Dwelling Residential). The property is located
at the intersection of ACTION:
Approve requested rezoning (Z-11-28A-07) of approximately 80 acres located at
the intersection of Queens Road & Wakarusa Drive, from A to RM12 and
adopt on first reading, Ordinance No. 8226, providing for the
rezoning of approximately 80 acres from A to RM12, if appropriate. c) Consider
approval of the requested rezoning Z-11-28B-07, a request to rezone a tract
of land approximately 80 acres, from RM12 (Multi-Dwelling Residential) to
RM12-PD (Multi-Dwelling Residential Planned Development Overlay). The
property is located at the intersection of ACTION:
Approve requested
rezoning (Z-11-28B-07) of approximately 80 acres located at the intersection
of Queens Road & Wakarusa Drive, from RM12 to RM12-PD and adopt on first
reading, Ordinance No. 8227, providing for the
rezoning of approximately 80 acres from RM12 to RM12-PD, if appropriate. d) Consider
approving, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-11-06-07, a
Preliminary Development Plan for The Links at ACTION:
Approve,
subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-11-06-07, if appropriate. e) Discussion
of possible ACTION:
Direct staff as appropriate. ·
Consider the following items related to the proposed Oread Inn project
(12th & Oread): a) Adopt resolution calling for a public
hearing on proposed redevelopment plan. b) Adopt resolution calling for a public
hearing on proposed Transportation Development District. |
|
03/04/08 |
·
Adopt on first reading, Ordinance
No. 8235 establishing the City Commission quorum at four (4)
Commissioners. Pursuant to Charter
Ordinance No. 25, the City Commission quorum of four (4) Commissioners must
be annually re-established by ordinance by March 31. A supermajority vote is required to pass
the quorum ordinance. ·
Discussion of Snow Removal Ordinance. ·
Receive status update on Lawrence Freenet proposal for “Freenet-Kids”. ·
Presentation of Transportation 2030 Plan. |
|
03/11/08 |
·
Receive report from ECO2. ·
Consider the following items related to the Farmland Industries Redevelopment Plan:
a) Consider approval of the Farmland
Industries Redevelopment Plan. (PC Item No. 14; approved 9-0 on
11/28/07) ACTION: Approve Farmland Industries Redevelopment
Plan, if appropriate. b) Consider adopting on first reading
joint City Ordinance No. 8218/County Resolution No. ____ regarding the
Farmland Industries Redevelopment Plan and CPA-2007-05, amending Horizon
2020, Chapter 14 Specific Plans. ACTION: Adopt on first reading joint City Ordinance
No. 8218/County Resolution No. ____, if appropriate. |
|
BD |
·
Fire/Medical Department Apparatus Replacement Plans ·
Receive follow-up staff report on sales tax options ·
Consideration and discussion of proposed Neighborhood Revitalization
Act plans. The
Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods has indicated an interest in
establishing a task force to review applications of the NRA. ·
Consider amendments to Sections 20-804, 20-805, 20-808, and 20-815 of
the Development Code for TA-09-21-07 to clarify that access shall be taken
from a hard-surfaced road. (PC Item 13; approved 8-2 on 10/22/07. Approved
by ·
Consider approving request from Aquila, Inc., to transfer its
franchise to Black Hills/Kansas Gas Company, LLC, and authorize the Mayor to
sign the Franchise Transfer Consent Letter.
·
Consider County request regarding special assessments in the ·
Discussion of City/County funding relationships ·
Approve, subject to conditions, SP-03-25-06, a site plan for
improvements to the northwest corner of 9th and Vermont Streets
(Carnegie Library). Submitted by
Peridian Group, Inc., for the City of ·
Receive status report regarding the timing and scope of sanitary sewer
projects, and consider the following items:
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. The Airport business park land use and public
financing issues. Because valid protest petitions have been received, a super-majority
vote (4 votes) would be needed regarding the rezoning items. (a)
Consider approval of the requested annexation of approximately 144.959
acres and direct staff to draft an ordinance for A-06-05-07, for Airport Business Park No. 1, located at E 1500
Road and (b) Consider approval of the
requested rezoning and direct staff to draft an ordinance for Z-06-09-07, a request to rezone a
tract of land approximately 99.31 acres, from A (Agricultural) and B-2
(General Business) Districts to IL (Limited Industrial) District with use
restrictions. The property is located at the intersection of E 1500 Road and (c) Consider approval of the
requested rezoning and direct staff to draft an ordinance for Z-06-10-07, a request to rezone a
tract of land approximately 43.48 acres, from A (Agricultural) and B-2
(General Business) Districts to IL (Limited Industrial) District. The
property is located at the intersection of E 1500 Road and (d)
Consider approval of the requested rezoning and direct staff to draft
an ordinance for Z-06-11-07, a
request to rezone a tract of land approximately 26.22 acres, from A
(Agricultural) & B-2 (General Business) Districts to IL-FP (Limited
Industrial-Floodplain Overlay) District. The property is located at the
intersection of E 1500 Road and (e)
Consider accepting dedication of easements and rights-of-way for PP-06-07-07, a Preliminary Plat for
Airport Business Park No. 1, located at E 1500 Road & US Hwy 24/40. The
Planning Commission will also consider a number of waivers from the
Development Code with this request. Submitted by Landplan Engineering, for
Roger Pine, Pine Family Investments, LC, and Kathleen and Brian Pine,
property owners of record. (PC Item 16E; approved 6-1 on 10/24/07). ·
Sidewalk dining regulations and guidelines. ·
Rural Water District contracts.
·
Economic Development study session follow-up items. ·
Consideration of ordinances to change the composition of the
Convention and Visitor’s Bureau Advisory Board. ·
Consider natural gas franchise Ordinance for Atmos. ·
Receive 2007 annual report from the Convention and Visitors Bureau. |
Moved by Amyx, Chestnut, to
adjourn at 10:35p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Sue Hack, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1.
Bid – Track loader for Stormwater Division to Murphy Tractor &
Equip. Co. for $145,000.58.
2.
Bid – 12 Crown
3.
Purchase order - for $16,539.30 to GE Fanuc Intelligent Platforms for
Intellution Software maintenance for March 1, 2008 – March 1, 2009.
4.
Bid – K-10 & O’Connell Rd. street improvements to LRM Industries,
Inc. for $336,396.70.
5.
Ordinance No. 8057 – 2nd Read, Rezone (Z-06-15-06) approx. 85
acres from RS7 to PRD at
6.
Ordinance No. 8231 – 2nd Read, Annex (A-04-03-07) approx 40
acres for Pump Station No. 48.
7.
Ordinance No. 8223 – 2nd Read, rezone (Z-07-13-07) approx
.746 acres from CN1& RM32 to PCD-2.
8.
Ordinance No. 8234 – 2nd Read, est. Oread redevelopment
district.
9.
Agreement - Destination Mgmt Inc., operate Lawrence Convention &
Visitor’s Bureau.
10.
Agreement - Use of City Funds
with Downtown Lawrence, Inc.
11.
RFP - On-call travel demand modeling support for Transportation staff in
2008 & 2009.
12.
Subordination Agreement – Briand & Heather Bigham,
13.
City Manager’s Report.
14.
Drinking Establishment – Entertainment Venue public safety issues.
15.
Revised Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-03-02-05) Bauer Farm, 43.71
acres, N side of W 6th between Wakarusa, Folks & Overland.
16.
Dedication of common open space for expansion of undeveloped
17.
Ordinance No. 8238 – 1st Read, max assess for
18.
Ordinance No. 8194 – 1st Read, , annex, W of Folks Rd. & S N. 1700 Rd.,
Bauer Brook Estates.