Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Planning & Development Services

TO:	David L. Corliss, City Manager
FROM:	Brian Jimenez, Code Enforcement Manager
CC:	Scott McCullough, Director Planning and Development Services
Date:	March 23, 2010
RE:	331 Johnson Avenue; adoption of resolution recognizing CDAC decision

History

Staff cited Patricia Sinclair, the owner of 331 Johnson Avenue, for Environmental Code violations in August 2009.  After receiving the notice of violation she requested a hearing before the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) as permitted in Section 9-611.  After two scheduled hearing dates were cancelled by Ms. Sinclair the hearing was rescheduled for December 10, 2009.  Sinclair notified staff at 2:30pm on the day of the December 10, 2009 hearing that she could not attend the meeting.

Staff informed Ms. Sinclair that staff would attend the hearing, provide an update to the Committee and let them decide on how they wished to proceed.  The Committee voted 7-0 to continue with the hearing without Ms. Sinclair’s attendance as they determined she had been given enough opportunities to be heard before the Committee. 

The Committee heard staff’s presentation which included photograph’s of the conditions.

After reviewing the information staff provided, the Committee on a 7-0 vote determined that Ms. Sinclair was in violation of city code sections 9-601.1 (A) and (C). Staff informed Ms. Sinclair of the Committee’s decision and she asked what her appeal options were. To staff’s knowledge there had not been an appeal of a Committee’s decision in the last  15 to 20  years therefore staff verified the appeal process with Legal Services Staff. It was determined that an appeal of the CDAC’s ruling must follow the provisions of K.S.A 60-2101 as outlined in Section 9-612. 

Recommendation of Adoption of Resolution

Additionally, Section 9-611 states the following: “the Community Development Advisory Committee shall record its determination of the matter and recommend to the Governing Body adopting a resolution and serving the resolution upon the person in the manner provided in Section 9-609 of this Article.”  Therefore, staff has prepared Resolution No. 6880 for adoption by the City Commission. Once the resolution is adopted, staff will send the resolution to Ms. Sinclair by certified mail, postage prepaid with return receipt requested.

Staff will then proceed with filing a complaint through Municipal Court for violations of the above-mentioned code violations.  Staff has sent Ms. Sinclair a letter identifying the date of the City Commission meeting as well as informing her that if she chooses to appeal the Committee’s decision and the adoption of the resolution she should follow the appeal procedures identified in K.S.A. 60-2101.

It is important to note that since the CDAC’s decision staff has attempted on several occasions to talk to Ms. Sinclair about working with staff to resolve the violations.  Staff was hopeful that Ms. Sinclair would correct the violations; however, she has made it very clear that she does not want to work with staff to rectify the code violations and recently informed staff to not contact her in anyway.  At the time of the writing of this memorandum Ms. Sinclair’s property was still in violation.    

Action Requested

Staff is requesting that the City Commission adopt Resolution No. 6880 which ratifies the decision of the Community Development Advisory Committee, if appropriate.