[E-minutes] City Commission meeting minutes of April 1, 2003
Diane Trybom
dtrybom@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:17:38 -0600
April 1, 2003
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at
6:45 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Hack
presiding and members Dunfield, Henry, Rundle, and Kennedy Present.
Mayor Hack gave her Mayor's State of the City Address to the public.
It's a pleasure to be able to share with you my thoughts on this
past year that I have served as Mayor of your community. It has been a very
exciting year for me and for the Lawrence community. It is hard to believe
that one-year has passed since I became Mayor and that I will finish my term
next week when the commissioners elect a Mayor on April 8.
I would like to begin by thanking my fellow commissioners for their
support and for the energy they have contributed. I have learned so much
from you and have great respect for all of the time and energy you put into
this very important job.
I also want to recognize the city staff for all their hard work
that goes on every day, night, and during holidays and weekends to provide
the valuable city services. The professionalism, vision, creativity and
teamwork of our staff are critical in meeting the community's needs. I have
relied on your information and guidance and am very proud and honored to
have had this chance to work with such an extraordinary group of people who
are so committed to this city of Lawrence.
I would also like to thank you, the citizens who have provided
valuable input and thoughts on the numerous issues that we have faced. I
appreciate the concerns and ideas that you have brought to the city
commission.
It is your responsibilities as a citizen of Lawrence, Kansas that I
would like to address this evening. We are very fortunate to live in a
community that values our children, encourages participation in civic
decisions and experiences the benefits of the many past successes and hard
work of those individuals that have cared so deeply for our community. It
is imperative that we recognize the contributions that are necessary to
continue our heritage. As citizens of Lawrence I encourage each of you to
be aware, be involved and support our youth.
These three elements will help fulfill our citizen responsibilities:
awareness, involvement and youth support. Let me explain what each of these
elements can mean for the Lawrence community.
First, awareness or knowing how your community operates and the
factors impacting the community. Because we live in such a wonderful
community, we have high expectations of the services that the City provides.
We are accustomed to beautiful parks, plentiful recreational opportunities,
safe streets, excellent sanitation and a multitude of other services. Each
citizen needs to understand the cost associated with our expectations.
Key to helping generate the funds needed to operate our community is
the presence of businesses. By broadening our tax base with a variety of
businesses, we will see increases to the tax pool of funding available to
the community. We must be mindful of the fact that commercial and
industrial entities pay a far higher tax rate than that of individual homes
and properties. Continuing to attract new companies to Lawrence as well as
encouraging expansion of existing businesses will lessen the tax burden on
individual property owners.
Job creation is vital to our future in Lawrence. The competition
among communities for business that provide employment is intense.
Communities are actively supporting economic development and we must do the
same to come out of the downturn in the economy. In Lawrence, we all need
to be aware that it takes a lot of work and cooperation to bring new
businesses to our community. It takes as much work to retain businesses in
our community and the same effort is required to expand existing businesses
in our community. Economic development has been a focus for the City
Commission during the past year and we have experienced some successes. The
location of Serologicals in Lawrence is a tremendous success. The benefits
of bringing a business that will provide good jobs and investment will be
experienced for many years to come. There are other memorable
accomplishments in the economic development area during the past year
including enhancements at the Lawrence Municipal Airport, the expansion of
Prosoco, and the new facility for Classic Eagle Distribution.
Awareness of our community also means understanding that numerous
factors impact the ability to provide services and respond to changes. The
current financial situation in the State of Kansas has led to reductions in
funding being received by the City of Lawrence. One of our challenges in
2003 and subsequent years will be to hold the line on tax increases, while
continuing to provide quality services and programs for our citizens.
Several factors contribute to the deficit in our budget. Revenue from sales
taxes and property taxes has slowed during the past few years. And while
revenue has slowed, our community's residential areas have continued to
grow, creating increased demands for services. Once again, this emphasizes
the need to grow existing business and attract new ones.
We are working very hard to reduce expenditures and generate revenue
to cover the shortfall. However, with more than 1.3 million dollars removed
from the budget for the first six months of the year, we are certain to
experience even tougher budget decisions in the future.
My goal has been to identify the demands of our community and place
the limited resources to support those areas. Really the only future
certainty with the budget is that we are sure to survive. There is little
comfort to be found in the current budget situation, but we may be consoled
by recognizing that many communities and states are facing a similar and in
some cases more dismal situation. I call up on each of our citizens to be
resilient and endure the condition.
We have so many things to look forward to in our community. We have
opportunities to celebrate all of our success and come together to function
as a community prepared to face the challenges of the future and embrace the
achievements. Individuals need to be aware of the city's effort to build
and secure a successfully functioning community.
The City of Lawrence takes its responsibility to provide adequate
infrastructure very seriously. Staff has worked to plan for future growth
in population by planning for streets, sewers, sidewalks, accommodations for
bike and public transit was well as planning the municipal facilities such
as libraries and recreation centers. There are so many behind the scenes
efforts that go on every day by city staff, advisory board volunteers and
individual citizens that we all benefit from. On occasion we need to remind
ourselves that a lot of work goes into making Lawrence a great place to
live.
During the last year, we have expanded the water treatment
capacities and have nearly completed an expansion of the waste water
treatment capacity. Projects such as these take long-range planning and
foresight to be prepared to carry us into the future. Also, the City
partnered with the Kansas Land Trust in the first time in the State of
Kansas where a conservation easement is held by a nonprofit organization on
public land.
Other instances of planning for the future provision of city
services include the opening of Fire Station #2. The location plays a
critical role by aligning resources for future growth of the community while
maintaining high levels of performance. The master planning process that
began last year for the more than 1500 acres east of Clinton Lake Dam is
also preparing the park land, a valuable resource, for future uses. It is
the need to make decisions now about how to best provide for our community
in the future that is such a valuable part of the support our city provides.
The list of projects and activities that have been undertaken, continued or
completed during the last year is long. We opened our fabulous new Arts
Center, expanded our budget process to include outside agency and
departmental hearings, added resource officers to our Junior Highs, received
a grant for a traffic unit, started or completed several storm water
projects, and with help from many in the community and our staff conducted
the Employee Survey and the Image Survey. Things such as continued joint
meetings with the county and the school board; studies such as Adequate
Public Facilities, Transportation 2025 and the 23rd Street Corridor are
important pieces of our future.
When we look at all of those items on that long list, it is easy to
get overwhelmed by the operations of this city. Not all of you feel the
impact of these events. In fact not everyone gets excited about that
infrastructure, planning and preparation that goes on behind the scenes in
our community. However, I do know that everyone has an interest, talent or
skill that should be shared within our community. It is that interaction or
community involvement that is the second component of our citizen
responsibilities. Your individual involvement is very valuable for the
Lawrence community. Participation is your civic duty but it also is key to
your future. There are numerous opportunities for you to contribute in all
the wonderful events and programs that make us a unique community. In 2004,
we will celebrate 150 years as a city. We need to turn to our history to
focus on the events, attitudes and individuals that have delivered us here.
By getting involved in just one community aspect, you have the power to
affect the future of Lawrence.
Involvement can occur on many levels and on many schedules. Whether
it is being actively involved in our schools, participating in church or
volunteering at the numerous agencies that depend on the generosity of
citizens to give both their time and commitment, you can contribute to our
future.
We have so many programs and services that support our community and
they are viable only because volunteers are willing to contribute time and
effort. I couldn't possibly list all the opportunities we have to volunteer
in Lawrence. The list is so long that I would certainly omit several, but I
want to give you some solid examples of giving back on a small scale.
On the United Way Day of Caring, I joined the city staff and spent
several hours at the Humane Society, my fellow commissioners and I spent a
Sunday morning planting bushes and flowers and a new Habitat for Humanity
House, we spent several hours at the Salvation Army as a part of keeping the
shelter open on some very cold days. These examples are not extraordinary,
they are a part of what many of you do for this community on a daily basis.
I applaud you for your involvement in this community and encourage those of
you who are not now volunteering, that it doesn't take special skills, just
a commitment to make this community better.
Also in the last year, the Lawrence community had the opportunity to
gather together and honor the lives lost on September 11, 2001. The events
of 9-11 have brought changes to our nation, our state, and our community.
Coming together at the 9-11 commemoration event was an opportunity for us to
remember those who lost their lives and feel the support of those around us
to help move forward. Attending community events and joining others in
remembering or celebrating or supporting is an act of involvement that
strengthens our community.
Now that you are more aware of the impacting factors on the
community and its operations and you have made a commitment to get involved,
I want to share with you the third element that will help fulfill our
citizen responsibilities. Youth. You have heard it so many times - the
children are the future. That statement is repeated in many arenas and in
numerous platforms through out society. That is because youth will be
guiding us in the future.
We need to embrace children and youth, and support the initiatives
that keep them healthy, safe and happy in the future. Young people of all
ages, from infants to the university students deserve our care and our
support.
In January, the Mayor's excellence in education award was delivered
for the first time. The award was created as a way for the City to recognize
the contributions that educators make in the lives of students. By
recognizing Lawrence educators who demonstrate excellence in education,
leadership and community, we are recognizing the value of their efforts,
dedication and even sacrifices. We will have a brighter future because we
have so many fine educators working with our children and youth.
If you don't have children in your everyday life, I encourage you to
look around at the youth that you are close to you. Young people or maybe
just people younger than you can benefit tremendously by your support,
interest and concern in their lives. And remember, supporting youth can
come in many forms. By simply considering the impact on children when we
look at new projects and endeavors and focusing on their education, health,
and welfare, we can be assured that they will be strong citizens in the
future.
Reflecting on these three elements - awareness, involvement and
youth support there are things that all of us can and must do to insure that
Lawrence continues to be a great place to work and live. I know that from
time to time we all become overwhelmed with the events that surround us. We
live in challenging times and it is easy to think that there is nothing the
individual can do to make things better. I hope that after listening to
this you know that your contributions do not have to be major - they just
have to be there. Each of us has a gift to be shared and how you use your
gift is your choice - you just must make the effort to be involved in this
community.
Several years ago, I heard a quote from President Theodore
Roosevelt, which I think is particularly appropriate for this occasion. I
would like to share it with you because I think it sums up what I have been
talking about tonight.
The Arena": "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who
points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could
have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives
valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great
enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who
at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at
worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place
shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or
defeat." T.R. (Paris Sorbonne, 1910)
Thank you again for the honor of serving as your Mayor for this past
year. It has been an experience that I will not forget.
Ed Mullins, Finance Director, presented a plaque to the City Commission,
which was the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The City has obtained
this certificate since 1991. He gave a special appreciation to Laura
Warner, City Accountant, for keeping the books and was primarily the
individual responsible for maintaining this certificate.
Rich Barr, Fire Marshall, presented sweatshirts to Residence Hall
participants for the highest participation in the Fire Safety Program.
With Commission approval, Mayor Hack proclaimed April 6 -12, 2003 as "This
Week of the Young Child and "Crime Victims' Rights Week"; the week of April
7 - 13, as "Public Health Week"; and the month of April to be "Fair Housing
Month", "Sexual Violence Awareness Month", and "Mediation Month."
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield,
to receive the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of February
24, 2003; and, the Public Health Board meeting minutes of January 27, 2003.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield,
to approve claims to 289 vendors in the amount of $784,751.07. Motion
carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield,
to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Shon Qualseth, to
the Grant Review Board which will expire on December 31, 2003; appoint Bob
Randolph and Lynn Barrington to the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals which
will expire on March 31, 2006; and appoint Gladys Sanders and Donna Bell to
the Public Health Board which both appointments will expire on March 31,
2006. Motion carried unanimously.
Ordinance No. 7629, adopting and amending the 2000 Edition of the Uniform
Mechanical Code, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it
was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance. Aye:
Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Rundle, and Kennedy. Nay: None. Motion carried
unanimously. (1)
Ordinance No. 7630, establishing "all-way" stop signs at the intersection of
Inverness Drive/Legends Drive and Wakarusa Drive, was read a second time.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield,
to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Rundle, and Kennedy.
Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
Ordinance No. 7631, establishing "all-way" stop signs at the intersection of
Kasold Drive and Peterson Road, was read a second time. As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the
ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Rundle, and Kennedy. Nay: None.
Motion carried unanimously. (3)
Ordinance No. 7632, establishing "yield" signs on Kansas Street at Utah
Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved
by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield,
Hack, Henry, Rundle, and Kennedy. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield,
to adopt Resolution No. 6460, authorizing $25,000 in additional bond
authority for the improvements at 23rd Street and Barker Avenue and at 27th
Street and Iowa Street. Motion carried unanimously.
(5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Dunfield, to adopt Resolution No. 6461, authorizing $350,000 in general
obligation bond authority for renovation improvements at the Fire/Medical
Station No. 3, 3708 West 6th Street. Motion carried unanimously.
(6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield,
to approve the site plan (SP-02-04-03) for a new bank and temporary trailer
bank on the west side of Wakarusa Drive, south of Harvard Drive, subject to
the following conditions:
1. A site plan performance agreement be executed; (Per
Section 20-1433);
2. Submittal of public improvement plans for sanitary
sewer main extension prior to release of the plan for building permits;
3. Filing of a 25' cross-access easement extending east
to west across property prior to release of the plan for building permits;
4. Provision of an Agreement Not-to-Protest the
formation of a benefit district for improvements to Wakarusa Drive and
intersection improvements at Harvard Drive/Wakarusa Drive and Inverness
Drive/Legends Drive;
5. Provision of a 7.5' utility easement along the south
property line; and,
6. Provision of a photometric plan.
Motion carried unanimously.
(7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield,
to approve the site plan (SP-02-05-03) for Harper Square Addition; a
proposed apartment complex at 22nd Street and Harper Street, subject to the
condition of the execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement.
(8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield,
to approve the site plan (SP-02-07-03) for a contractor's office for an
existing contractor's office building, located at 912 North 3rd Street,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Publication of an annexation ordinance for the rear
.446 acres prior to release of the site Plan;
2. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement;
3. Provision of a revised site plan that shows striping
and location of one accessible parking space;
4. Provision of a revised site plan that clearly
delineates any exterior storage within the improved portion of the site and
provision of a screening detail on the face of the site plan to demonstrate
compliance with section 1443, per staff approval;
5. Execution of an Agreement Not-to-Protest the
formation of a benefit district for street and sidewalk improvements for
North 3rd Street; and,
6. Initiation of annexation and rezoning of the rear
portion of the property.
Motion carried unanimously.
(9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield,
to approve the City endorsement of application of Van Go Mobile Arts, Inc.,
for the Kansas Department of Commerce Community Service Tax Credit Program.
Motion carried unanimously.
(10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield,
to approve as signs of community interest the Lawrence Home Builders
Association Annual Spring Parade of Homes signs. Motion carried
unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Dunfield,
to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Leland and Alvera
Grammer, 421 Elm. Motion carried unanimously.
(12)
Mayor Hack pulled the site plan for Alpha Gamma Delta Sorority House for
discussion.
Sandra Day, Planner, said the proposed site plan before the City Commission
was for a sorority house development on vacant property and it was adjacent
to an existing residential area to the west of the subject property. The
proposed development would take place off of Sigma Nu Place and end in a
cul-de-sac. There would be shared access as well as access to the property
from the public street.
Staff had several conversations with interested property owners concerned
about drainage, perspective of the building adjacent to their homes, how it
was going to appear, how parking would be screened, impacts of parking on
the surrounding properties, and many other concerns. Staff had also been
working with other departments to address specific safety issues when this
property was submitted to make sure that there was adequate space to
maneuver. As a result, the site plan was revised and it brought the
facility closer to the street to provide greater separation. There was
also a fairly large detention pond on the rear side of the property as well
as an existing utility easement that would provide service to this property.
Richard Stein, Lawrence, said he knew that there were no bad guys here, but
he thought it was important to tell everyone how strongly he felt that this
project was bad for their neighborhood and bad on a whole variety of levels.
He tried to put the building that they were proposing on a scale of
reference that everyone could understand. If you go to the new Arts Center
and you walk out their front door and look across the street at the parking
garage, he thought you were as far away from, and looking about as much
vertical elevation, as what this proposal would put in his backyard as you
go north from his house up Avalon Road. He was at the south end of their
proposed site. All the houses that move north from his house would be
confronting a vertical elevation change which was extremely significant. It
was approximately 50 feet from the current topography elevation, to the top
of the retaining walls, and from the retaining walls, to the top of the roof
structure. This was roughly 25 feet east of his property line.
This impact on his home and the other homes on his side of the street was
enormous. Tim Keller, a local real estate appraiser, would talk about this
issue on numerical terms. He believed that a significant portion of the
home he bought 15 years ago, the value of that was site dependent. They
lived in an area that no one imagined that anything would get built and it
was an extremely rugged piece of wooded land. He said his sites value would
be heavily degraded by this proximity. This was true of all the homes on
the east side of Avalon. Much of the value that they each purchased was
site dependent. If this house were built as proposed, the value added would
be certainly gone and depending on the even swings negatively in a
significant fashion.
The second point concerned traffic issues. Avalon Road and all of the
surrounding residential streets were heavily burdened and overloaded already
with traffic that both comes to their neighborhood to park and attend
classes during the school year, but it was also heavily parked on by people
who simply live in the Greek houses which already exist in their
neighborhood. He said there were approximately 1018 kids that currently
live in the Greek houses behind them on Avalon. The proposed site allowed
for another 88 students, plus their cars. Twenty-four hours a day, people
park on their road that lived in those Greek houses. He said before this
plan or any plan could go forward, a complete and thorough traffic impact
study should be initiated. He thought we needed more than staff's response
because he saw in their comments where they felt it would not add to traffic
issues, but his experience living there suggested that get looked at more
carefully.
The third issue concerned litter and noise in his neighborhood. Every week
car alarms were going off and every week he was picking up trash off Avalon
Road. Every week there were volleyball games going on in the sand lot
behind them. It was a dense neighborhood and he thought these issue would
be exacerbated with the addition of another 88 students.
The fourth concern was that the City was confronting a topic that would be
repeated in a short period of time. To the north of this proposed
development was another building site, which was under contract for a
fraternity house. He did not know if they had closed and purchased this
building site yet. His guess was that there were contingencies while they
wait to see what unfolded at this meeting. As this unfolded, it needed to
be considered, looked at, and evaluated within the context that somewhere
down the road there would be another group wanting to put another Greek
house behind them on Avalon Road. So we were not only talking about 88
students, but the likelihood of another significant number of students. He
understood that this was a difficult issue because the property owners did
not need a variance to do what they have asked to do. This lot had been
zoned probably for 40 years. In today's environment, he doubted that this
lot would never get this zoning if it was not already zoned. The guidelines
today were stringent and the issues we confront in neighborhood preservation
were significant enough that if applicants were coming to the City
Commission asking for this to be zoned, he did not think it would happen.
He said with the buffers that were likely required on future height,
density, zoning plats, he did not think they could develop this property as
it was imagined.
He thought this project was out of scale for their neighborhood. It was too
big, too many kids, and too many cars. It was 52% of impervious development
on a wooded lot that already had drainage issues. He thought it needed to
be significantly rescaled, rethought, and redesigned.
He said whatever was approved, he suggested the following: 1) Thought could
be given to place parking underneath the building to save some of the
surface. 2) Reducing the scale of their Greek type entrance could conserve
some of their topography and allow the impact to be diminished, the
neighborhood gains. 3) Requiring natural materials on their retaining walls
instead of the type of cinder block we see on 9th Street. All of these
things would mitigate, to some extent, the extremely negative impact that
this project would bring to their neighborhood. He strongly believed that
the City could and should tell these property owners that their project was
completely out of scale and they needed to go back to the drawing board and
think how they could mitigate their desire to live in this neighborhood
without it costing the neighborhood.
Rhonda Chafin, speaking on behalf of Robert Morrison, Lawrence, presented a
letter written by Mr. Morrison to the City Commission concurring with
Stein's comments about this project.
Jerry Nossaman, Lawrence, also agreed with Stein's concerns. He lived on
the other side of this project. He asked the City Commission, at some time,
to drive up 9th Street, to the stoplight at Emery Road and turn left and
drive until you get to Sigma Nu Place and turn right. After that, you drive
up a very steep hill and come to a tiny cul-de-sac. He wanted the
Commission to see if a project this size was appropriate for that place.
Price Banks, Attorney, representing the neighbors west of this site, said
they were there to ask the City Commission to defer this item and ask the
owner to meet with adjacent property owners in an attempt to minimize the
impact of this project. They realized that the proposed use was a use that
could be located in the RD zoning district. He said they were not
requesting that the Commission deny the site plan, but to adjust the plan so
that it had a less deleterious impact upon the single-family home directly
adjacent on the west.
He commended the designers for this project because they were given a
difficult piece of property. It sloped steeply, narrow, relatively small
for what they were doing, it was nearly landlocked, and it presented some
drainage problems.
Technically a sorority was not a permitted use in the RD district. It was a
conditional use. In the City Code it was termed "a use that was permitted
subject to conditions." That was important because it gave the Commission
the authority to do what they were doing and it gave them considerable
discretion in that process. In this particular case, those conditions were
set out in Sections 20-1428 through 20-1435.3 in the City Code.
Particularly important in this case, was Section 20-1432, which sets out the
conditions of approval for a site plan. Section 20-1432b, required that a
finding be made that the proposed arrangement of buildings, off-street
parking, access, lighting, landscaping, and drainage was compatible with
adjacent land uses. This site plan as submitted, was not compatible with
adjacent land uses. Adjacent land uses on the west were very low-density
single-family homes on wooded lots. Four of the residences on Avalon Road
were directly adjacent to the western boundary of the subject property. The
site under consideration was currently heavily wooded. The site plan as
submitted would not preserve one natural tree on the subject property
because it consumed the entire site with improvements.
He said as Stein indicated, the plan showed close to his property a 20 foot
tall retaining wall and the view from their living room would be a view of
that wall with a 3 story building above. Also on top of that retaining
wall, in view of that same living room was a loading dock. All of the
residences adjacent to the site on the west would view the same retaining
wall. It did vary in size and 20 feet was the tallest size of the retaining
wall. The parking lots on the site were positioned so that when cars were
entering the lots, and driving down the isle ways there lights would shine
on three of the four homes that were adjacent to the site. Landscape
materials on either side of the retaining wall near the north end of the
site might eventually mature enough to screen the impact of those
headlights. However, that would not protect adjacent owners from the
initial impact.
The configuration of the site has caused the owners to orient their primary
aesthetic features to the east away from the residents. That was where the
entrances were from High Drive and Sigma Nu Place. Therefore, the service
areas in the least visually pleasing features were facing the homes to the
west. Perhaps the site could be used more efficiently if it were condensed
or lowered so that a good portion of the grade could be absorbed in the
entry drives in the parking areas bringing the house down and the west side
of the site down so that the retaining walls could be shrunk. The dock area
should be located where the dock or trucks on the dock were visible to the
residents.
Section 20-1432c required that vehicular ingress and egress to and from the
site and the circulation within the site provide for safe, efficient, and
convenient movement of traffic not only within the site, but on adjacent
roadways as well. The primary concern was the traffic and parking on Avalon
Road. He commended the owner for providing more parking than the code
required. He did not agree with staff's findings that there would be no
overflow parking. The City's experience has shown that in this area of town
there was always overflow parking. There would also be traffic generated on
the surrounding street system, but without a traffic impact analysis, they
had no idea how much traffic was going to be generated in a low-density
residential neighborhood. They urged the City Commission to require a
traffic impact study, prior to final approval of the site plan.
Section 20-1432e required that there be sufficient mixture of grass, trees,
and shrubs within the interior and perimeter including the public
right-of-way so that the proposed development would be in harmony with
adjacent land uses and would provide a pleasing appearance to the public.
Although it would be difficult to landscape this site and to create a
harmony with adjacent land uses, the neighbors stood ready to work with the
owner to come as close as possible to achieving that end. He urged the City
Commission to defer action on this site plan and to provide an opportunity
for the neighborhood to work with the owner to solve some of the problems
that were being brought to the Commission's attention.
Bill Mitchell, Lawrence, lived in this neighborhood. He said Westhills was
developed beginning in the 20's as a planned mix of single-family
residences, fraternities, and sororities. It was an experiment that he
thought was successful. However, the single-family component of that happy
mix was imperiled, partly, because of the intensity of the Greek component
had increased dramatically. With the addition of new plats, such as Sigma
Nu Addition, and because every old house has doubled in size, allowed over
protest by short sighted Planning and City Commissioners. Parking lots had
grown to meet code, but not sufficiently to meet the actual demand thus
causing a spillover in the neighborhood.
He said take into account the staggering increase in vehicles per capita,
the thing he begged the Commission to rectify. The intensity of Greek
development was not solely responsible for their imperilment. Planning
without foresight has allowed us to be reamed about by multi-family uses.
Instant slum apartments with no way to accommodate their vehicular traffic
except on our residential streets. He said this project was not real suited
to a residential neighborhood.
He said since this governing body has allowed pressures to build on their
neighborhood incrementally, he suggested the Commission begin a reverse
course incrementally and send this project back to the drawing board to be
scaled back somehow. Such scaling to include reduced structure footprint,
more trees left standing, and far less impervious surface.
Tim Keller, President, Keller and Associates and an active real estate agent
in Lawrence since 1996, said at the request of the Stein's, he met with them
at their house to discuss their property. He reviewed the plans for this
proposed project. Based on his analysis, it was his opinion that this
proposed project would have a negative impact on Stein's property. At the
very minimum, the potential pool of buyers was going to be diminished.
He also looked at other properties they had appraised for mortgage purposes
in order to set a framework. He said this was a unique situation and every
situation varies. He said they recently did two appraisals on a house
across from the West Lake Hardware and a house on Louisiana Street. He said
it was very clear that when you paired those sales with sales that were off
Louisiana you saw a negative impact which was 3% to 5% on sales that were
similar in terms of age and quality of the home.
In conclusion, based on his analysis, it was his opinion, that the proposed
project would have a negative impact on the Stein's property. He said it
was hard to judge what type of impact this project would have on the Stein's
property, but it was reasonable to say that this property would have a 5%
negative impact.
Mural Cohen, Lawrence, said in addition to the fact that there was a lot of
traffic and a lot of cars parked on the street, there were constantly cars
parked illegally on their street, namely Cambridge, High Street, and Emery
Road. It was not just a matter of congestion it was a matter of hazardous
driving. She said Avalon Road looked as though the street was designed
without two-way traffic and parking. She had a concern with the noise and
could not imagine that either the traffic situation or the noise would
improve with the addition of this new sorority.
She said they were drawn to woods near their home because the design of
their house embraced the woods.
Marlan Harmony, Lawrence, said he was concerned about any project that
increased traffic congestion and parking on Avalon Road. He hoped the
Commission would take all of the matters mentioned into consideration.
Cliff Tisdale, Lawrence, said he had a concern about flooding. He bought
his house in 1991 and the house was built in 1959. The original owner and
builder assured him that he had no problems with water. He said his
basement has filled up with water 3 times since then. It was the overflow
from 9th Street, down to Avalon Road and it overflows the storm sewer. His
concern was if there was a mistake made, he would get a lot of water damage
on his property.
Dwight Hilpman, Lawrence, said he lived down stream from this project and he
agreed with Tisdale. His observations concerning this project were that
they would have increased run-off and they had an enormous amount of litter
and noise that they contended with. They had called the Police Department 8
times this last semester regarding noise and being wokeup in the middle of
the night between midnight to 3:00 a.m. He said adding an additional 88
beds in the neighborhood would exacerbate that problem.
The Sigma Nu Place was narrow, steep, and already dangerous. It was
subjected to heavy traffic and incredibly intensive parking. He was fearful
that they would be facing a problem where emergency vehicles would not be
able to get to their destination in this area.
His feeling revolved around anxiety. He said sanitary sewers have leaked in
the past and storm water run-off had been intense in 1991 and 1993. His
needs were to retain their home value, to have a dry lot, and to have a
traffic study before this project went forward. He requested that the
Commission defer action on this item to allow for modifications and a
traffic study.
Jill Krebs, Lawrence, said she was affected by the noise, but her primary
concern was with traffic safety issues. The traffic from the south and to
the north on Avalon was frequently fast and the people who were driving
seemed to have little regard for the people who were coming south up the
hill. She had a concern for the safety of her children as they learned to
drive.
Peggy Hiltman, 936 Avalon, said the terrain between the two areas of Avalon
and the Sigma Nu Place was extremely rugged, extremely steep, and very
challenging. The plan called for extreme grading of almost 2 or more acres
of this area. The building was approximately the height of the downtown
parking garage and it certainly wouldn't be pleasant to look at.
She said their property was at the bottom of the hill and they get water
from the south, west, and the east. She understood there was a large
detention pond in the makings and that they went back and came up with a
plan for more stringent metering of the outflow of that pond, but it was
huge surface. She could not imagine that all the water would be able to go
into that detention pond.
She said they had been good stewards of this property. They clean up the
trash that washes off the hill and have placed rock retaining walls along
the creek.
She acknowledged Voigt, City Storm Water Engineer, concerning the
stormwater. She knew he was a knowledgeable person and had put a lot of
time into this project, but he did not live there. His estimations were
based on his mathematical knowledge and skill. She said he did not know the
flow that came off that hill, metered or not.
She said this was a rare wood lot in the middle of the City and it did
absorb a lot of the run-off already, but there still was a considerable
amount of cast off.
She also had a concern with the noise. A lot of homes along Avalon have
backs that face into the wooded property with large picture windows. Many
nights out of the year, the noise starts up and by midnight the windows in
their house were vibrating to the base sounds from the music that comes off
the hill. The students that live up there stand out on the cul-de-sac area
and on the back porch of the fraternity behind their house screaming,
shouting, and throwing bottles into the woods. They had talked to the K.U.
Greek Society and representatives of one of the fraternities about these
students, but they finally resorted to just calling the police. There were
a substantial number of Police calls generated from their street. She said
this City prides itself on beneficial growth and development and this
development was neither one of those things.
She had been told that the City Commission had never vetoed a site plan once
it was past the City Planner's office. She was having a hard time
believing that any Commission would give carte blanc approval to this
project in light of the issues that were raised. She asked the Commission
to look closely at this plan.
Jeff Shinkle, BCS Design, architect of record on the project, said he had
the opportunity to talk with Stein on several occasions and he has been
friendly and courteous. He introduced some of his team to the City
Commission who had been on the design portion of this project. He said
there were a lot of difficult issues presented.
He said when designing this house they had looked at this particular design
every which way on the site. They had been at this project since August
2001. They looked at a linear building, a four-story building, and
two-story spread out building at this location. This was a very difficult
site to design. As for, lowering or elevating the site, he was not sure
that would resolve any issues with regard to the height of the house. If
they lowered the site, they would have a problem from the alleyway of
looking at a rooftop of a particular building. They would also have
problems getting to the site with grading and slope they would have with the
approach during ice storms. The reason the house was situated as it finally
was, was to be a little bit sensitive to the neighborhood. They tried to put
in on the site where they would have angles at each direction, which would
be a more residential feel.
He could not guarantee that there would never be noise coming from the
house. This particular sorority house did not allow alcohol on the site.
He said the bottom line with their design was that they had designed it to
City Codes and Planning has acknowledged that with their approval.
Darron Ammann, Bartlett & West Engineers, said he heard a variety of issues.
He addressed the design standpoint on how things were done. This building
just wasn't placed on this site the first time they sat down at the drafting
table. Many issues, and there were many when you look at a site that had
grading concerns of 60 feet across the site, existing drainage concerns,
traffic access up on campus where students and pedestrians exist. These
design issues had been evaluated through their overall design process.
The staff from the City of Lawrence, with their various experiences and
expertise, had reviewed these plans in their entirety with regard to all of
those issues. There was no mention of a traffic study in any regard. On
the west side of the street, right now, there were no parking signs. There
was parking permitted on the east side of the street and people who were
parking on the west side they were either doing so illegally or of their own
accord to take a chance that they would get a ticket and be towed. He has
walked this site two or three times for various design issues and there was
thick under brush and drainage swells.
They heard a lot of concerns about trash and other issues that would happen
on this site. He would like to look at this project from an improvement
standpoint. Right now loose blowing trash blew down the cul-de-sac, across
High Drive and onto this open and wooded lot and nobody was accountable to
pick it up because nobody went down there. If this site were developed and
maintained with a lawn, this trash would be accountable and it would be
picked up. The member of this sorority would make themselves accountable to
do that.
Obviously with a new building there comes a need for parking. At this site
they were providing one parking stall for every one occupant that was going
to live at this building. They were only required to provide 2/3 the amount
of parking stalls, but with already existing conditions of parking problems
they did not want to create an extra headache.
He heard a lot issues and concerns about controlling and managing storm
water run-off. He said if you needed specific information about stormwater
management, Chad Voigt, City Stormwater Engineer, was an expert in the field
and could provide that information. They already had an approved drainage
study for the amount of stormwater run-off that would be coming off the
site. In his professional opinion of analyzing the stormwater system, they
would have less of an impact with this impervious surface and building on
this site. He said they were going to capture approximately 95% of the
water that was on this site and 100% of the impervious surfaces and put it
into a detention pond that would carry the capacity of a 100 year flood.
There would also be one foot of freeboard on the detention pond to hold this
water and it would be released at a regulated rate.
He said they conducted a neighborhood meeting. Formal letters were sent out
and a meeting was held on February 20, 2003, to hear comment and input from
the neighbors on any of their concerns. Only two residents were present.
He said Stein attended this meeting and voiced his opinion. They took
Stein's considerations and concerns into mind and moved this building a
little way from their property and addressed some screening and other issues
they had with headlights.
He said they worked closely with planning staff and addressed comments both
with the initial site plan review and then the revised site plan review.
He said this was an accurate use for this type of property. It was
surrounded on three sides right now by the same exact use. There were
sororities, fraternities, and there were adjacent neighbors on the west side
that were single-family homeowners.
He said concerning the loading dock, the first thing that comes to mind when
he hears loading dock, was an eighteen-wheeler unloading freight. That dock
was a large concrete area that was next to the back door of the building so
that a delivery truck could deliver food to the sorority members.
Other concerns he heard were headlights that would shine on adjacent
properties, additional traffic, and noise. He said they had worked through
all of these issues and was looking at how it was all going to work together
as one big piece.
This piece of property was currently zoned with the exact type of structure
and use and it has been for many years. This property has various other
uses of the same type and number of occupants all around it with the
exception of the single-family homes to the west. This project has been
thoroughly investigated from start to finish to provide a safe and
attractive environment for the future sorority members that would live there
some day. They had addressed all the codes and concerns as stated in
previous staff review comments and, as stated in the final staff report, had
received a recommendation of approval from Planning staff. This was a great
opportunity to create a wonderful place and living environment for all these
future sorority members of Alpha Gamma Delta Sorority. He hoped the
Commission would approve this proposed development.
Commissioner Rundle said there was suggestion of placing parking under the
building. He asked how long would it take to consider that suggestion.
Ammann said to be bluntly honest he thought that was not a realistic option.
The residents mentioned specifically that they did not want to see that
structure the size of the parking garage right next to their property. If
you wanted to place parking underneath the building, then you would see a
parking garage.
Commissioner Henry said with the light spillover from the cars that were
parking on the deck above, was there any mitigation of light from those
automobiles in the form of an extension of the vertical wall to shield the
neighbors.
Ammann said the parking lot itself, due to the fact that the retaining wall
was on the west side and was the easterly border of the detention pond which
brought this site up, there was a proposed 42 inch wrought iron fence that
would go along there for safety reasons. Secondly, they had provided
continuous screening in all those areas so that headlights point to the
west. When they park, they would be parking so that the orientation would
be north to south. They had proposed shrubs that would grow to 4 to 6 feet
high and provide a glare shield from lights that would shine down.
Vice Mayor Dunfield asked Ammann if it was possible for him to get this
project on this site and leave 20 feet untouched of property on the western
edge.
Ammann was not going to say "no", but when he looked at this site from a
grading standpoint, access off of Sigma Nu Place and High Drive was a big
concern. They were tied down by the elevations that exist on those drives.
On the southwest corner of Stein's property, bringing the building up closer
to make drives less steep on that east side would create an extensively tall
retaining wall on the back in order to take up grade.
Vice Mayor Dunfield asked if he was correct in saying as you move the
building away from the neighbor's property, you were also moving it upward
and increasing the impact in terms of the height on the scale issue.
Ammann said yes. It really would not be much different on the site right
now because with this elevation change throughout the site, it would still
need to be graded properly.
Stein said when he hears the architect's rebuttals, he acknowledged how
hard they had worked and how much great work and effort they had put into
solving their problems and what they were left with was a plan that solved
nothing. It was not because they didn't try or it was not because the
property owners don't want to. It was essentially a site, which could not
have this scale of a building on it without the negative impacts that were
discussed.
Commissioner Rundle said in every site plan that the Commission had to
approve, they were making a judgment that it meets our codes. We have to be
comfortable when we make those judgments. Most of the time he agreed with
staff's assessment, but sometime he didn't. He would feel much more
comfortable if they could have a traffic impact study.
He called the University today to talk to a person in student organizations
to ask about any variations among sororities and fraternities and this was
very much in line with other sororities in terms of size and residents, but
not all residents of sororities live in the house. He would like to see
some consideration by the applicant in reducing the size and whether or not
that was feasible for them. He was not comfortable with this proposal and
wanted to defer this issue because he wanted more information on traffic
impacts in this area and any changes in design on reducing the scale.
Commissioner Henry said before we rush into a failed situation, he would
like to see more effort to mitigate the negative impacts particularly as
they would affect the surrounding neighborhood and he would also like to see
a traffic study.
Vice Mayor Dunfield did not have an objection to a deferral for the purpose
of looking into other alternatives. His feeling from having spent some time
with this site plan and studying it, given the program and given the desire
to provide more parking in order to reduce the amount of on street parking,
he didn't see that there was a physical solution to the issues. Obviously
there were still options to be explored and it should be done. It was
important that the Commission recognize that this site plan could only deal
with the site issues that were particular to it. We were not going to solve
the issues of college students' use of our streets in the vicinity of the
University with this project whether they approve it or not. He said they
recognize that this was a very real problem and it was something that we
were going to have to continue to front. He said we have ordinances about
noise and litter. We could not hold this site plan accountable for those
types of issues. This was simply outside the scope of what we consider when
we approve a site plan. He tempered his agreement to the deferral with that
caution that if the issue was that there could not be any development of
this site, then clearly, deferral did not do us any good.
In connection with the flood control related issues, he had a very high
degree of confidence in both the engineers and City staff that when they say
those detention ponds were going to work, those detention ponds would work
and they would be a benefit to the neighbors.
Mayor Hack agreed with Vice Mayor Dunfield. If only allowing for more
dialogue and coming to a clearer understanding of what the limitation were
of the site, she thought a deferral would help in that direction. If only
two neighbors came to the first meeting, she would hope more neighbors would
come to a second meeting. She supported a deferral.
Commissioner Kennedy's only concern was that the architects work with Stein
and his concern about screening the wall with natural stone or vines. In
regards to water detention, the development would assist in retaining some
of that water.
Commissioner Rundle asked if they could consider reducing this project to 68
rooms, but he understood that might create feasibility and viability issues.
Commissioner Henry said his decision to defer did not mean that he did not
think this project should be disapproved, but further studied.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said what she heard that the Commission was
saying was that they would like the applicant to consider reduction of
rooms, redesign so that parking could go under the building, at least
exploring those options and explaining how it did or did not affect the
site. The neighbors raised issues of traffic, litter, and noise. Litter
and noise were apparently a problem there today and it should be a City-wide
issue.
Mayor Hack said Vice Mayor Dunfield's point was well taken on that issue.
We have situations on both the east and west side of campus where if your
only meeting with the fraternity and sorority houses once every three or
four years, you were not getting the rotation. As neighbors, this was
something that needed to be an on-going conversation with the fraternities
and sororities, every Fall, about the impacts of our neighborhoods
concerning noise and trash.
Finger said traffic impact studies as we do them today, relate to where the
property took access and how vehicles come on and off. The property did
not take access to Avalon. If you want a traffic impact study that reviewed
traffic on Avalon or adjoining streets, she suggested that it would be the
City's responsibility to find out that information. We do have court cases
where we need to tie requirements to specific generated needs. It would be
difficult for the City to connect Avalon to this structure or any new
structure on Emery Road.
Commissioner Rundle said it was mentioned that there were similar uses on
three sides, but he thought it should be compatible all the way around.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Henry, to defer the site plan (SP-01-03-03) for
Alpha Gamma Delta Sorority House for 3 weeks. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Henry,
and Rundle. Nay: Kennedy. Motion carried.
(13)
During the City Manager's Report, Mike Wildgen said staff had a great Broken
Arrow Park Maintenance Program with the County and he presented the
Commission with a report. Mayor Hack said due to the denial of staff
and the Planning Commission's recommendation for the 6th and Wakarusa
project last week, the Commission had to come up with findings of fact for
the 4 rezoning petitions and the Preliminary Development Plan. She said
staff needed Commission direction on whether the distinction made in
discussion of the rezoning petitions and proposed development plan extend
beyond the actions taken last week using the restriction placed on that
approved PCD-2 zoning and development plans in December of 2001.
Finger said two questions arose in that discussion. Question 1: Was the
term "department store" as it was being defined for this denial and in these
findings, to become a generic term to apply to all general merchandising
stores going back to the SIC codes (Standard Industry Codes)? General
merchandising being your umbrella and including both department stores,
variety stores and general merchandising as the three sub-categories.
Question 2: Is the term "department store" to become synonymous with the
term "big box" or "discount store?" That term was used that way, in
discussions by the Planning Commission and that term was used that way
somewhat in these findings of fact. Staff was just trying to clarify those
points so that they were on target for staff reports.
Vice Mayor Dunfield reviewed the draft findings of fact. He said there were
a few distinct issues that were brought up by the Commissioners and he tried
to fit those issues into the form basically that they take in the
Comprehensive Plan and received input from Mayor Hack as well. Basically it
came down to 3 issues: 1) What was a department store? 2) The definition of
"Community Commercial Centers" versus "Regional Commercial Centers" and
whether or not it was appropriate to have a 'big box" type store in a
Community Commercial Center. 3) Traffic and whether the plan that was
before the Commission had adequately dealt with the traffic issues.
Commissioner Kennedy asked a question about Chapter 6, regarding maintaining
downtown as a primary Regional Commercial Center. He asked when the
Commission approved the 3 - 2 vote and the Planning Commission brought a
vote of 9 - 0 for the original "big box" plan if the term "department store"
was taken out.
Finger said yes, it was a use restriction placed in 2001 by the
Commission's approval that stated that no department stores could be
developed as part of that plan.
Commissioner Kennedy asked Finger to define a department store.
Finger said this was when the discrepancy came into place regarding
the difference between a department store and the standard term that staff
was using. Finger said staff was asking for clarification. You would still
be using the SIC Code, it was just broadening it to say "general
merchandising" was synonymous with "department store", "big box" or
specifically one type of categorized use.
Commissioner Kennedy asked if the Commission would not be following
the SIC Code regulations and instead be determining their own.
Finger said the Commission would be broadening the SIC Code
regulations.
Commissioner Kennedy asked, before the Commission made a decision,
should they send this issue to the Planning Commission to let them figure
out the definition so there was no confusion as to what each specific code
means in the SIC Code regulation.
Finger said the Planning Commission would be interested in this
body's direction on this issue because staff was dealing with the revision
of Chapter 6 and there would be a public meeting this week. She said the
Planning Commission would be very interested what the City Commission said
to them rather than giving the issue to the Planning Commission. She said
the Planning Commission would be confused as to what they were asked to do.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Henry, to adopt Mayor Hack and Vice Mayor
Dunfield's proposed findings of fact for the following rezoning requests
(6th & Wakarusa), which were all denied on March 25, 2003:
* Z-01-02-03, an approximate 0.2554 acre area from Agricultural to
PCD-2 (Planned Commercial);
* Z-01-03-03, an approximate 1.65 acre area from PRD-2 (Planned
Residential) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial);
* Z-01-04-03, an approximate .03 acre area from PRD-2 (Planned
Residential) to POD-1 (Planned Office); and
* Z-01-05-03, an approximate 2.08 acre area from PCD-2 (Planned
Commercial) to POD-1 (Planned Office); and
Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Henry, and Rundle. Nay: Kennedy. Motion carried.
(14)
Moved by Henry, seconded by Hack, to adopt Mayor Hack and Vice Mayor
Dunfield's proposal for a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-01-01-03) for
6th and Wakarusa Drive, which was denied on March 25, 2003. This proposed
retail development contained 157,966 gross square feet on 15.584 acres.
Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Henry, and Rundle. Nay: Kennedy. Motion carried.
(15)
Vice Mayor Dunfield said it seemed the Commission was dealing with
classifications that were anachronistic at this time. The question of what
was a variety store versus a department store and what did a general
merchandise store mean and so forth. In addition to that, they also had the
issue that Horizon 2020 made specific references to other issues that were
not in categories that were recognized by these codes at all, such as Super
Stores and Discount Department Stores. Discount Department Stores was a
generic term used for Wal-Mart, but it was not in one of the codes that
existed. He proposed that the Commission acknowledge when Department Store
or Discount Department Store were being discussed, that the Commission means
the larger category of General Merchandising Stores. He said that seemed
like common sense and an every day usage of those terms. He said it was not
synonymous with "big box" stores.
Commissioner Rundle asked if there was any guidance from folks like
Duncan and Associates that were more up to date than we were.
Finger said their use tables were quite different in the revised
codes.
Mayor Hack said she agreed with Vice Mayor Dunfield that "department
stores" should be applied to all forms of "General Merchandise Stores", but
was not synonymous with "big box" stores.
The Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m.
After returning from recess at 9:00 p.m., Brian Pedrotti, Planner,
presented the staff report on endorsing an Area Plan for possible land uses
for the Oakley Area. Staff had prepared three scenario plans for Commission
guidance. He said these plans went before the Planning Commission at their
February meeting, but no action was taken. All three scenarios were
consistent with the zoning request, Item 2B. They were also consistent with
the zoning request for PRD-2, for the south 11 acres as it had been deferred
by the Planning Commission. Staff recommended endorsement of a scenario
plan and sending it back to the Planning Commission for their consideration
and approval. He said it was important to note that no streets were
included in the Area Plans and specifically for Folks Road. Staff also
recommended endorsement of a plan for the future of Folks Road.
Kristen Fink, Lawrence, was excited to be commenting on an Area Plan
although she felt that she was not given enough time to prepare. She showed
the Western Landuse Map of Horizon 2020 to the Commission. The map
designated the entire area that was in question as a low-density residential
development. She said there was a concern that the discussion of an Area
Plan was out of sequence with the planning process. She said the Planning
Commission had noticed the inconsistency as well. She said there was
confusion on how to approach this issue. The Planning staff has presented
three plans for endorsement. She felt that Plan 3 best supported their
ideas for that area. However, in this year-long process, there was another
Area Plan formulated, but it has not been presented to the Commission. She
felt that plan was the best compromise between what was indicated in Horizon
2020 and what the neighborhood would like to see happen to that area. She
presented the plan to the Commission. The plan indicated a low-density
residential development for approximately 2/3 of the area in question, and
the medium density development upwards toward 6th Street. She said Horizon
2020 stated a lot about infill developments and she felt that this was an
infill development case. In Horizon 2020, bullet one said the plan
supported infill development, which provided a range of uses consistent and
compatible with the established land use patterns in the surrounding areas.
Area 3, seemed to be most continuous with the existing development. Medium
density exists parallel with medium density to the west and higher density
exist along the arterial.
Fink said in Horizon 2020, it discussed neighborhood conservation
saying that the character and appearance of existing low-density residential
neighborhoods should be protected and improvements made were necessary to
maintain the values of properties and enhance the quality of life.
Developing this undeveloped area in a like manner would hopefully preserve
their existing neighborhood. Scenario 3 was supported by policy 4.2 in
Horizon 2020, that indicated that we should protect areas planned for
low-density development and to avoid concentrations of medium or higher
density residential development within the interior of a neighborhood. She
said they were discussing a parcel of land within the interior of her
neighborhood. Scenario 3 was also supported by low-density residential
development, which stated "while single-family neighborhoods were built up,
several vacant parcels were scattered throughout the existing community
where new, low density residential development should occur in the future.
This clearly said that low density residential development should occur on
empty parcels within the developed single-family neighborhoods.
She said scenario 1 and 2 were for more medium density development, which
would place additional traffic on to Harvard Road, should Folks Road be
connected to Harvard Road. She would like to see the City endorse the Area
Plan presented. She would like to see any indication on whether Folks Road
was going to go through because it affected what they would like to see
happen. She thanked the Commission for their thoughtful consideration on
the issue. She thought the greatest potential for positive impact could
occur with Scenario No. 3, however, they would like to see something more
like the scenario she placed in front of the Commission today. She said
this also indicated a plan for east of Folks Road of low-density.
Walt Emerson, Lawrence, said the Quail Run Neighborhood Association was
opposed to the zoning. However, they had interesting discussion with the
developer this evening. He said the neighborhoods concern with RO1-B was
the proposed high-density housing. He did not see why 6th Street needed to
be wall-to-wall apartments. He said the neighborhood maintained their
objection to an RO1-B zoning. They wanted to go back to their neighborhood
and hold a discussion about what the developer had planned and then come to
a consensus. He said a consensus should be reached in a matter of a few
weeks.
Michael Fink, speaking on behalf of the Quail Run Neighborhood, said
they were seeing some of the new plans that had come to them from the
developer. As far as an area plan went, before anything was adopted, they
wanted to see what the progress of the street was to be. He said they felt
like it was hard to comment as far as the neighborhood because they were
given maps with no street indications. He said this affected the
neighborhood generally because any amount of traffic that went into the
neighborhood from a development such as this, would affect it with no
possible comment on the street going through or not going through.
The reason why they were opposed to the RO1-B was because they were told it
would be office in the front, but as they saw it there was still no guarntee
for office at that location. It was shown on some of the preliminary plans,
but all the plans shown to them lately just involved the southern 2/3 with
the residential part. Even if the residential part was approved on the
southern 2/3, they had no indication what was to be on the northern 1/3 part
of the property. Before they vote, they suggested seeing some more
development go into this area plan and then sending that plan back to the
Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission had requested the
Commission's input on the street itself.
Vice Mayor Dunfield asked if there was an objection to the RO1-B
because it allowed higher density residential use.
Fink said yes. On the PRD development in the southern 2/3 they were
given number on how many units there would be, but in the northern third
where RO-B was, there were no amount of units that might be on there.
Roger Bain, Lawrence, said his main concern was the procedure for
the development plan. He said at the last Planning Commission meeting the
issue was brought up that the City Commission was presenting plans to the
Planning Commission. He said that procedure seemed to be backwards. His
main concern, even if the wording was changed from "adoption" to
"recommendation" was how binding it would be to the Planning Commission for
zoning. He said it was decided that the Folks Road development could not be
brought forward until the zoning was established. Part of the item on the
Planning Commission's agenda for zoning was passed by the Planning
Commission, but the plan that applicant had provided was not. He requested
that the Commission take no action on the items until the Commission
received a plan that the developer had provided through the Planning
Commission and presented to the City Commission, which was the proper order.
Todd Thompson, speaking on behalf of the contract purchaser, said
with respect to the RO-1B that was before the City Commission for
consideration it was important to point out that, contrary to the earlier
reference that it was consistent with two of the three plans, it was
actually consistent with all three plans. The office zoning on the north
end of the tract was consistent with all four plans that they had seen,
including Fink's plan. He said that was why they were there to ask the
Commission to go ahead and consider the zoning. It came to the City
Commission on a unanimous Planning Commission recommendation for approval
approximately one year ago and it has been held in abeyance. He said there
was really no reason to delay any longer the rezoning of this particular
tract of land. Again, it was recommended unanimously for approval, it was
consistent with all of the various plans. Approving the plan and letting it
develop did not affect the issue of whether or not north Folks went all the
way through to Harvard or not. That issue could still be addressed either
way regardless of the action the Commission took in approving this RO-1B.
As the neighbors had indicated, their concern was that large
multi-family structures might be built on this particular tract of land. In
some discussion, Doug Compton, the applicant, had indicated his willingness
to have them place on the RO-1B zoning that prohibited multi-family
structures from being built on this particular piece of ground. For all of
those reasons, the applicant was asking the Commission to note with regard
to the plan that this particular rezoning was consistent with all of the
forms that had been submitted and that the Commission approve the zoning
because it did not have a detrimental affect on continuing through the
process on the remainder of the Oakley Tract and consideration of the
various plans on whether or no the street went through.
Commissioner Rundle asked Thompson what he meant by held in
abeyance. He asked if the Commission took any action.
Thompson said the Commission did not take any action. The applicant
was willing to pull it back, it wasn't withdrawn, it was simply deferred.
He said there was no pressure to go ahead with the development. There was
an effort to develop the whole tract. That effort has taken eighteen months
and was still not completed. He said they had narrowed a lot of issues.
One of the issues that was narrowed was that on every single proposal the
Commission has addressed, this was office property. He said the neighbors
had come before the Commission tonight saying what they did not want
multi-family structures on this property. So they were asking the
Commission to adopt the rezoning, which was unanimously recommended, and let
the project proceed and then let the efforts of the back 2/3 proceed as
well.
Mayor Hack asked Thompson to repeat that condition.
Thompson said the neighbor's indicated a concern that residential
might be built on this particular tract of land and Compton had offered that
the condition could be that "no multi-family residential structures could be
built on this particular piece of ground."
Doug Compton, developer at this site, said they were at plan No. 14,
after 18 months. He thought it was positive because the total plan was more
consistent with what they wanted to see on this complete site. They now had
a plan that was on file with the Planning Department that had single-family
residential in the south 650', they had higher density in the northern part
that matched up to Westgate, and then they had the RO-1B. They basically
had mirrored the tract of land next door. It went almost identical to
Scenario No. 3 of the plan that the neighbors had recommended to the
Planning Commission, which was the RO-1B on the front, some multi-family,
and then single-family in the south 650'.
He was before the City Commission at this time for the RO-1B on the
northern tract of 6th Street. He had a user for an office building on that
RO-1B and he needed to get the process to the point of getting the RO-1B so
that he could move into that direction with that user. This user was a
doctor who has been in town for 30 years. He said they had a planned design
for the RO-1B.
He heard the neighbors' concerns prior to this meeting in regards to
multi-family. He said there would not be multi-family on the plan and asked
if there was some way they could address that issue. He assumed if that
issue went away then they would not have a neighborhood concern with the
RO-1B. It would be consistent with the plan, Planning Staff's
recommendation and the unanimous Planning Commission recommendation. He
said Finger's recommendation was to go with a lesser change of O-1 zoning,
which would not allow multi-family and he was okay with that recommendation.
If that was what it took tonight, to go for a lesser change, to get the
office approved so he could proceed not only with his client, but with staff
in regards to the stubbing of Folks Road from an accessibility standpoint.
He was fine with working with the neighbors for the next several weeks on
the south half of this property to come up with a plan that was acceptable.
He asked the Commission to approve the RO-1B zoning.
Commissioner Henry asked if the plan on file was the latest plan.
Compton said that was the latest plan.
Thompson said the zoning of RO-1B did not involve a plan, just
zoning. The plans all related to the residential portion. To proceed with
removing access from this tract to 6th Street, by approving this tonight,
allowed for the facilitation of that as they moved to get north Folks into
place and limit the access off of 6th Street so there was some additional
advantages to the public at large from letting this go forward right now.
Compton said to reiterate, he was asking for the RO-1B, because he
had a doctor as a client for a building. He had no problem with the
stipulation of prohibiting multi-family development.
Mayor Hack asked when it was possible to do that condition of zoning
to prohibit multi-family residential structures.
Finger said they had the debate to whether that was conditional
zoning because this was conventional zoning, not a planned unit development
where you place conditions. What you would be doing was taking away the
right that everyone else had when you have RO-1B. Even though it was
voluntary, she would say the Commission's better choice was to obtain O-1
zoning.
Vice Mayor Dunfield asked if it was too convoluted to approve RO-1B
and initiate a rezoning to O-1.
Finger said it could be done, but you could also direct staff, with
the concurrence of the property owner, that no permits be pulled on this
property for residential while the O-1 zoning was going through the process.
Mayor Hack asked if they could pull other permits.
Finger said yes, if they had a site plan approved. One of the plans
adopted by the Planning Commission last month showed Folks Road connected
from 6th Street to Harvard and staff really needed a clear answer.
John Kriss, 4504 Harvard, said his concerns still went back to the
idea that the whole issue needed to be looked at as one piece with
everything involved such as the street, the property, the surrounding
property, and the traffic. This Commission said this needed to be looked at
as a whole now were at the point of cutting pieces up and he was afraid,
while it did make some sense, he did feel that it was best to look at this
issue as a whole and do it all at once for a variety of reasons.
Vice Mayor Dunfield said if the Commission approved the RO-1B and
initiate a rezoning to O-1, the applicant would have his rezoning and he
could proceed on the basis of the RO-1B, the only additional restriction the
Commission would place, was that there wouldn't be any building permits
issued for a residential structure on that piece of ground while the
rezoning was under reconsideration. That would take care of the question of
not having multi-family residential at that location and would guarantee to
the neighbors that that wouldn't happen and it would also give the developer
the right to proceed with the development plan for that office building.
He asked if this path that they were following of obtaining an Area
Plan endorsement to staff, was that provided for in our ordinances in terms
of creating a process.
Finger said they had been working on this issue for eighteen months.
The Planning Commission had the same three scenarios in their packet. They
met twice and failed to deal with these scenarios. She said staff was
waiting for someone to take an action because staff and the neighborhood
would like to know what Area Plan would be endorsed and did the road go
through which would allow staff to be much more helpful to both the
neighbors and developers.
Vice Mayor Dunfield said to those who were concerned about the
process, it was a situation where they had been in this floating state with
this property and everybody agrees that some decisions needed to be made and
that we needed to look at the whole area. He said they could not adopt an
Area Plan, only after the Planning Commission reviewed and sent it back to
the City Commission could it be adopted. In order to try to move that
process along and allow development to occur, the Commission needed to make
a recommendation and ask that the Planning Commission act on this
recommendation.
Mayor Hack agreed with Vice Mayor Dunfield. She said it was time to
push the right button to get it going.
Commissioner Rundle asked if any of the plans addressed the streets.
Finger said none of the plans show a street.
Commissioner Kennedy said in reality, if you look at residential on
Scenario 3, how were you going to get to those lots in the back if you don't
build a street through. He said you don't want to take this housing
development and completely separate residential from their neighborhood. It
would be like creating a Folks neighborhood in the middle of the Harvard
neighborhood.
Commissioner Henry had a preference for Scenario No. 3 because it
represented a fine compromise between the neighborhood and the developer.
He thought the developer had gone out of this way to reach a fair
compromise.
Commissioner Rundle asked if there was any reason why they could not
reference the plan that the neighbors showed earlier.
Finger said yes, you could reference that plan.
Commissioner Rundle would like for them to consider both of those
plans because they had the broadest support.
Mayor Hack said that was the complicated issue about that plan
because the streets were in and that was what made Scenario 3 more
appropriate to send back to the Planning Commission.
Finger said what happened when you show streets was all of a sudden
houses went away and it made people nervous and upset so staff took the
streets out and showed blocks of land use, hoping they could get action on
land usage relationships, then street connectivity and work for something
more precise.
Vice Mayor Dunfield said when they first started talking about this
property, they did reference the land use map in Horizon 2020, but they also
talked about the need for transitional zoning from arterial streets. It did
seem to him, especially as we look at where we started and where we were
today, that Scenario 3 really did represent a compromise that protected the
interest of the neighbors and allowed us to do some reasonable useful infill
development that would benefit the City as a whole. He agreed with
Commissioner Henry that Scenario 3 seemed to be good.
Mayor Hack concurred and supported Scenario 3. The gradation from
single-family up to the office was good planning.
Commissioner Kennedy also concurred with Scenario 3.
Moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to endorse Scenario 3 regarding
the "Oakley Property" near 6th and Folks Road. Motion carried unanimously.
(16)
Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to approve a request to
rezone (Z-02-05-0B) an approximately 3.9 acre tract at the southwest corner
of 6th and Folks Road from Agricultural to RO-1B (Residence Office). Aye:
Dunfield, Hack, Henry, and Kennedy. Nay: Rundle. Motion carried.
(17)
Moved by Kennedy, seconded by Dunfield, to initiate the rezoning of
approximately 3.9 acre tract at the southwest corner of 6th and Folks Road
from RO-1B (Residence Office District) to O-1 (Office District); and direct
that no permits or site plans for residential structures would be authorized
while the O-1 rezoning was in process. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Henry, Kennedy,
and Rundle. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(18)
Commissioner Kennedy said concerning the development at Folks Road,
in order to go forward and to have residential in Scenario 3, a contiguous
flow of our streets was needed so that the neighborhood could come together.
He recommended putting the street through in future plans.
Mayor Hack said the Planning Commission last month adopted a major
thoroughfare map that showed Folks connected to Mulberry with a function
classification of the collector.
Finger said yes. She asked if the governing body would be taking
any action to start a benefit district?
Vice Mayor Dunfield said everything he thought he knew about street
planning told him that Folks Road ultimately needed to go through. He felt
that the neighbors along Harvard Road were going to be the primary
beneficiaries when it finally did go through. On the other hand, he did not
know if there was any reason for us to push the actual development of that
road.
Finger said her concern was when the RO-1B site plan came before the
City Commission, staff would recommend they could not have access to 6th
Street and they did not have another street because there was a lot between
the Folks non-easement and the property the Commission just rezoned.
Vice Mayor Dunfield said then the Commission would need to take some
type of action to allow Folks Road to be extended as far south as the RO-1B
extended.
Finger said yes. Otherwise, they would meet this problem again in
several weeks when the Commission would see a site plan. Staff has
recommended denial for access to the highway and then there was no other
road. She said the Commission did not need to do the whole thing, just give
staff some idea that when they came back with a site plan that stated that
they needed to take their access from the east from a public street to be
named Folks Road so that they know that was moving in that direction.
Commissioner Rundle asked if this was covered under the temporary
access agreement with KDOT or it was the site to the west that had temporary
access.
Finger said staff disagreed that agreement really existed or was
valuable to the City. If you put it in it becomes a permanent curb cut.
Mayor Hack said it would be beneficial for the Commission to give
staff direction on completing Folks Road to where the RO-1B ends.
Moved by Henry, seconded by Kennedy, to recommend that City staff
work to get public street right-of-way for Folks Road to access the south
property line of the RO-1B area.
(19)
During public comment, Dudley Crow, representing the Lawrence Open
Shelter, said the Commission approved a one-year use of the property at 944
Kentucky. He addressed a couple of issues concerning why it would take the
LOS longer to become operational and second, as a point of clarification.
Since they met last week and approved the one-year use of the property as a
shelter, they appeared before a Grant Review Board asking for $22,000 for
the showers that the City was requiring them to install. They were turned
down for that request. The reason given was that the committee did not feel
it was a good use of money for capital improvements that might not be
applicable a year from now. This led him to the second issue that was of
some concern of the LOS Board and that was the definition of "temporary"
versus "permanent." He asked if they have a permanent use of the property
or do they have a temporary use of that property. It was their
understanding that if the temporary permit had continued that it would have
not been necessary for them to install the four showers. He said they had
the permission from the Drop-In Center to use their handicapped accessible
bathroom including the shower. There were two additional bathrooms in this
facility. As it stood with the City's interpretation of the code, before
they could receive the certificate of occupancy that they would need to
install at least four shower heads in addition to all of the other required
improvements. He said they did not have the money to install all of the
showers that they were being asked to install. He said they estimated that
it would cost approximately $22,000 to install these showers and they had
approximately $18,000 in the treasury now. The sprinkling system would be
installed at the expense of the property owner and the LOS would pay back an
additional $500 per month rent to amortize the cost of the sprinkling
system. He asked the Commission if there was any way at all that they could
appeal for any leniency in this trial period of one-year.
Wildgen said when looking at the Code there was no permanent use
under Use Permitted Upon Review. He said the Drop-In Center was also
running under a Use Permitted Upon Review and the City Commission had a
right to take that use away. All code requirements related to that
long-term, public welfare and safety use. He said the showers were included
as part of the requirements. He said they were trying to be consistent in
addressing this issue.
Finger said what she was hearing was that the LOS wanted a variance
from building codes which dealt with shower installations and handicapped
restroom. She said the UPR approval did not deal with building code
variances.
Commissioner Rundle asked Crow if they had to go outside to access
the Drop-In Centers restrooms.
Crow said yes.
Mayor Hack asked Crow if there was anyone on their board that would
have access to people who could help or were their volunteers to help
install these showers?
Crow said they had explored the costs in terms of modifying the
building and they did have people who were willing to volunteer labor. He
said they would buy the material and they would do the labor and this would
help in terms of knocking down some walls and adding doors. They did not
have the solution for the 4 showers. There might be someone out there that
was willing to help them alleviate that particular problem, but as he
understood it, until all of these improvements were done, they would not be
issued a certificate of occupancy.
Wildgen said staff would gladly go to the Grant Review Board and
explain the Use Permitted Upon Review process. Possibly, if there was a
time issue, you could say that the year started upon the date of occupancy.
Mayor Hack said it seemed that making adjustments in the dates would
help. She said the Commission would amend that date to reflect that the
year would start upon occupancy and place this amendment on the consent
agenda at next week's City Commission meeting. (20)
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Henry, to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Sue Hack, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 1, 2003
1. Ordinance No. 7629 - 2nd Reading, amend 2000 Edition of
Uniform Mechanical Code.
2. Ordinance No. 7630 - 2nd Reading, all-way "stop" signs at
intersection of Inverness/Legends/Wakarusa Drives.
3. Ordinance No. 7631 - 2nd Reading, all-way "stop" signs at
Kasold & Peterson.
4. Ordinance No. 7632 - 2nd Reading, "yield" signs on KS St. at
Utah St.
5. Resolution No. 6460 - $25,000 additional bond authority,
23rd & Barker & 27th & Iowa.
6. Resolution No. 6461 - $350,000 in GOB for Fire/Med Station
No. 3, 3708 W 6th.
7. Site Plan - (SP-02-04-03) temporary trailer bank, W side of
Wakarusa, S of Harvard.
8. Site Plan - (SP-02-05-03) Harper Square Addition, 22nd &
Harper.
9. Site Plan - (SP-02-07-03) Contractor's office, 912 N 3rd.
10. Endorsement of application - Van Go Mobile Arts, for KS Dept
of Commerce Community Tax Credit Program.
11. Signs - Community interest, Lawrence Home Builders Assoc
Annual Spring Parade of Homes.
12. Mortgage Release - 421 Elm, Leland & Alvera Grammer.
13. Site Plan - (SP-01-03-03) Deferred for 3 weeks, Alpha Gamma
Delta Sorority House.
14. Rezoning - All denied Z-01-02-03, Z-01-03-03, Z-01-04-03 &
Z-0105-03 (6th & Wakarusa).
15. Prelim Dev Plan - (PDP-01-01-03) 6th & Wakarusa.
16. Oakley Tact - Scenario No. 3, 6th & Folks.
17. Rezone - (Z-02-05-0B) 3.9 acres, SW corner of 6th & Folks.
18. Initiate Rezoning - from RO-1B to O-1, 6th & Folks.
19. Public street R-O-W, Folks Rd to RO-1B.
20. Lawrence Open Shelter - Change dates for occupancy issue.