[E-minutes] City Commission meeting minutes of April 15, 2003
Diane Trybom
dtrybom@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:14:02 -0500
April 15, 2003
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at
6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Dunfield
presiding and members Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner present.
Student Commissioner Elmore was present.
With Commission approval, Mayor Dunfield proclaimed April 19, 2003 to be
"Kansas Relays Day"; the week of April 14 - 19, 2003 to be "Trinity Respite
Care Bear Fair"; and, the week of April 21 - 27 to be "National Community
Development Week."
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the City Commission meeting minutes of April 8, 2003. Motion
carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting
minutes of February 12, 2003; the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of
February 6, and March 6, 2003; the Planning Commission meeting minutes of
March 26, 2003; the Convention and Visitor's Bureau Advisory Board meeting
minutes of February 25, 2003; and, the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing
Authority meeting minutes of February 25, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve claims to 321 vendors in the amount of $2,134,024.41. Motion
carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for one dump truck for the Utilities
Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
KCR International $54.464
KCR International $55,424
Rusty Eck Ford $54,507
Rusty Eck Ford, Alternate $55,855
Bennett Paul Chevrolet $55,000
Midway Ford Truck Center $58,812
Custom Truck Sales $58,870
Custom Truck Sales, Alternate $61,511
Westfall GMC $58,556
KC Freightliner Sales $59,539
Merle Kelly Ford $61,926
Merle Kelly Ford, Alternate 1 $55,790
Merle Kelly Ford, Alternate 2 $60,763
Merle Kelly Ford, Alternate 3 $54,636
Midwest Ken worth No Bid
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
award the bid to KCR International, in the amount of $54,464. Motion
carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for one air compressor for the
Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Victor L. Phillips $10,781.00
Hoidale Co. $10,936.92
Hertz Equipment Rental $11,252.00
Anderson Rentals $11,448.00
Bledsow Rentals $11,705.85
Apex $12,722.77
Martin Rental $12,563.52
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
award the bid to Victor L. Phillips, in the amount of $10,781.00. Motion
carried unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for one towable lift for the Public
Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
BKB $17,454.98
Martin Rentals $17,462.00
Frahm Equipment $17,739.00
Anderson Rentals $18,225.02
Anderson Rentals, Alternate $28,607.30
Bledsow Rentals $22,173.50
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
award the bid to BKB, in the amount of $17,454.98. Motion carried
unanimously. (3)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for one backhoe for the Utilities
Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Olathe Tractor $43,407
Victor L. Phillips $46,657
Martin Tractor $46,749
Sellers Tractor $48,138
Murphy Tractor $48,250
Kan-Equip $55,708
Kan-Equip, Alternate $49,765
Hertz Equipment Rental No Bid
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
award the bid to Olathe Tractor, in the amount of $43,407. Motion carried
unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve Change Order No. 2 with CAS Construction for work related to the Kaw
Lime Residuals Project for $40,000. Motion carried unanimously.
(5)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the 2003 Overlay Program, Phase 1
for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer's Estimate $779,190.00
Asphalt Improvement Company $708,544.20
LRM Industries, Inc. $723,910.30
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
award the bid to Asphalt Improvement Company, in the amount of $708,544.20.
Motion carried unanimously.
(6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the purchase of land only portions of two tracts of property at 1209
and 1225 Haskell Avenue, for the planned 13th and Oregon Stormwater
Improvements, in the amount of $71,000. Motion carried unanimously.
(7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
place of first reading Ordinance No. 7467, annexing approximately .466 acre
generally located north of North Street and east of North 3rd Street.
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the site plan (SP-03-14-03) for a remodel and renovations to the
Yacht Club, an existing licensed premises at 530 Wisconsin Street, subject
to the following conditions:
1. A Site Plan Performance Agreement be executed; (Per
Section 20-1433);
2. Show the exiting 8' utility easement on the east
property line;
3. Show the existing 10' non-buildable area on south
property line;
4. Provision of an Agreement Not-to-Protest the
formation of a benefit district for improvements to Wisconsin Street and
storm sewer;
5. Provision of a note stating that the parking lot
will be resurfaced as needed where necessary
6. Show a minimum 15' radii on the driveway apron
entrance;
7. Show the location of the existing 15' parking lot
setback variance; and
8. Provision of a note regarding traffic control signs
per Ordinance 7542.
Motion carried unanimously.
(9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the site plan (SP-03-15-03) for a remodel and renovations to an
existing restaurant at 1700 West 23rd Street (formerly Magic Wok), subject
to the following conditions:
1. A Site Plan Performance Agreement be executed; (Per
Section 20-1433);
2. Provision of cross-access easements to Ousdahl Road
and West 23rd Street, to be filed by separate instrument with the Register
of Deeds Prior to release of the plan to Neighborhood Resources. Show
easements with book and page;
3. Provision of an agreement with the adjacent property
owner for the shared trash enclosure. The applicant will work with the
Sanitation Department to identify a suitable location for the enclosure;
4. Provision of an Agreement Not-to-Protest the closure
of the driveway entrance to West 23rd Street, and a note referencing this
agreement on the face of the site plan;
5. Removal of the existing pole sign on the property;
6. Provision of a note that all curb and gutter is City
standard;
7. Provision of a photometric plan; and,
8. Provision of a note regarding traffic control signs
per Ordinance 7542.
Motion carried unanimously.
(10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the request for a variance from City Code requirements for separate
meters at Harper Square Apartments, 2201 Harper Street (E&F). Motion
carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Doug Byers, 1325
Pennsylvania. Motion carried unanimously.
(12)
Commissioner Schauner pulled for separate discussion, PDP-01-02-03, a
Preliminary Development Plan for Briarwood PRD. He asked if this
Preliminary Development Plan was just for the north portion of that
development or was the plan for the entire site.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said it was for the entire site. It
brought the single-family homes into compliance with what happened on the
southwest corner, which was a separate PRD that started out the same and
then was pulled and done separately. There were things that didn't match
up. This came up as part of a title search.
Commissioner Schauner read the materials that supported this PDP and it
struck him that there was a lack of coordination in the development of this
property. He asked for Finger's perspective of why this clean up was needed
in order to protect the current homeowner's ability to refinance their
homes. He said it was his understanding the reason why they were doing this
was to protect current homeowners from the future vagaries that have arisen
out of some of the mistakes that were made in the development of this
ground.
Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, said this was a piece of
property that developed over a period of time and with multiple property
owners, which accounted for some of the inconsistencies over time in terms
of how it was developed. The development originally was single-family and
office to the south. The office portion wasn't feasible and that was
rezoned to allow for the multi-family component. It was a matter of
shifting and changing over time and there was not an overall survey done
until the cottages were completed that all of these setback issues were
first identified. The reason that staff suggested that the entire PDP be
re-approved would be so that all parties within the overall development plan
would be part of an approved plan and that any type of title search on any
of the single-family homes would not indicate that they were part of a
development that was no longer in conformance with the approved plan that
the staff had on file in terms of open space or setback issues.
Commissioner Schauner asked what could have been done differently to provide
a more seamless development of this property without the need to go back and
approve this development plan tonight.
Stogsdill said this development plan was unusual in that there were changes
along the way when it was first rezoned in 1995 such as the concept of how
it was going to be developed. Obviously, if there were requirements for
surveys to verify building placement prior to the foundations being poured
some of those setback issues would have been identified before there was a
building in place.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any way that staff could
institutionalize processes, which would minimize the opportunity for this to
happen again.
Stogsdill said staff was more aware of some of those setback issues because
mortgage lenders were requiring surveys on a regular basis where 5 to 8
years ago that was not a part of the package. Hopefully that means that
upfront, when properties were laid out, there was more attention to how they
were laid out before the structure was put in place.
Commissioner Schauner asked if part of swimming pool was put in the wrong
place.
Stogsdill said there was a different plan submitted for a building permit
then the plan that had been approved by the Planning Commission. It was a
smaller building and the orientation of the swimming pool was east/west
instead of north/south. She thought there was more coordination between the
Planning Department and Neighborhood Resources now in terms of making sure
plans that were submitted for building permits look like the plans that were
approved.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning
Commission's recommendation to approve a Revised Preliminary Development
Plan (PDP-01-02-03) for Briarwood PRD, containing approximately 20.22 acres,
property generally described as being located north of 6th Street and east
of Folks Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. Revise the Preliminary Development Plan to include
the following items:
a. Provide note that indicates property
owners and/or Homeowners Association are responsible for maintenance of
common open areas;
b. Revise parking summary to indicate
distribution of parking spaces provided (102 in garages, 102 in driveways
and 77 in bump-out areas along streets);
c. Provide note that indicates no
building permits well be issued (for remaining undeveloped lots) until
sidewalks are installed or until the property owner receives City Commission
approval to receive a building permit with a written promise on when
sidewalks will be installed; and
d. Provide additional landscaping along
Folks Road to screen existing transformer equipment boxes.
Motion carried unanimously.
(13)
Pat Sinclair, Lawrence, Johnson Avenue, pulled for separate discussion, the
Preliminary Development Plan and the rezoning request for The Woods on 19th
Street. She discussed the history and current status of this project to the
new Commissioner's. She asked the Commission to honor good neighborhood
planning which looked at the whole neighborhood and considered the best use
of the land; made use of existing planning documents such as Horizon 2020,
Adequate Public Facilities Study; the principles stated in our Zoning Code;
and the Year 2000 Master Plan - Lawrence Parks and Recreation Department.
She asked the Commission to deny this request for the project known as The
Woods at 548 East 19th. If the Commission chose not to deny this request,
then she asked that the Commission defer this item, both the rezoning and
the PDP, based on the need for additional information and assessment of that
information. If the Commission had any doubt, she asked that the Commission
hold their decision tonight. She said if this was a good plan, this plan
would hold up to scrutiny.
On January 7, 2003, she stood before some of this Commission as a previous
request for rezoning of this land was presented by the Planning Department
staff, as the developer did not appear. At that time, the Commission denied
the rezoning and declined to send it back to Planning as requested. She
said Mayor Hack and others specifically stated that they advised the
developer to meet with neighborhood residents before submitting another
plan. That did not take place. The next day, a day later than they
believed City Code allowed, the developer submitted an affidavit of
substantial change. Before the Planning Commission could rule on that, the
person with the option on the land dropped out. The developer and
Commissioner Dunfield stated that there was neither a plan nor a developer
anymore and that it might be withdrawn. Subsequently, multiple plans were
submitted.
The plan before the Commission, at this time, was never submitted for public
review or to the City departments for review prior to its going to the
Planning Commission on March 26th nor was it included in the staff report,
prepared for this meeting. As of this afternoon, the City Stormwater
Engineer told her that he had not reviewed a plan since the plan dated
January 23rd. The plan was also not available for the public to review, but
was the result of a last minute meeting between the developer and perhaps 5
or 6 residents in which the developer offered compromises and the residents
accepted. She said the developer coerced this agreement because the
neighbors feared that something worse would be built.
Their neighborhood meeting of March 12th had a vote to choose a park first
and single-family home second. This meeting was not well attended because
of the flyer for it did not mention the parks proposal or the impending
Planning Commission Meeting. The rezoned plan was not accepted by the
neighbors.
In November 2002, the neighborhood declined to endorse any rezoning of this
property. Many of the problems that were heard about in the past, still
exist.
Sinclair said Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, promised her that she
would have Traffic Department comment before this came before the Commission
again, but she had not seen those comments if they existed. Traffic was so
bad, two blocks west on 19th that the City was constructing a roundabout.
This project had only one access point on 19th Street. This plan had 37
homes while the entire half mile of Learnard Avenue from 15th to 39th Street
had only 30 homes.
She said they formally proposed in January that the City acquire this land
to serve as and adjunct to the City's coming Rails to Trails Project which
staff had told her that optimistically this project should be finalized
within weeks through donation of land to the City from the railroad. This
land, which has many old woods and a stormwater ditch or creek as well as
floodplain, would be a lovely nature spot with low maintenance costs. It
could also accommodate a staging area for bikes and cars for those using the
trail, which now went from 29th to 23rd Streets and in the future would go
from 23rd to 12th Streets, along the railroad track bed.
The parks proposal would help configure a neighborhood that had suffered
degradation through increased traffic and loss of schools and would be an
asset to the entire community. It was in keeping with both the Parks
Department Master Plan - Year 2000, which encouraged green spaces, hiking
and biking trails, and the preservation of existing environmental resources,
so did Horizon 2020. When talking about creating housing and this proposal
being better than others, you were overlooking all the other factors that
constitute good planning and particular the preservation of unique
environmental spaces. The City agreed to spend $670,000 to buy the Orchards
Golf Course even prior to any talk of a benefit district and avoid infill
housing there. She asked why didn't the east side deserve the same.
She said their proposal was unanimously received by the City's Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board. They also submitted as a neighborhood to the
Planning Department for the Capital Improvement Program.
She received comments from the President of the Jayhawk Audubon Society and
a doctrinal student in ornithology at K.U. He reviewed the property and
commented in part that the most compelling reason not to develop this site
was the floodplain drainage issue. The second most compelling reason, which
was wildlife related was as if these woods were an island of habitat for a
variety of native species, which were otherwise not so common in town. The
quality of which was enhanced by its connection to other wild areas along
the Kansas River via the relatively undeveloped railroad track and had
brushy areas along most of its length allowing it to serve as a corridor.
It was a nice buffer and enhancer of watchable wildlife.
Sinclair said there were other technical objections that might be made to
this study. She believed the Hydrology Study was done by an engineer from
the Peridian Group. Lance Johnson, President of this company, told her that
he had a financial interest in this project. She believed this might
constitute a conflict and an irregularity of his engineer's license to the
State of Kansas if that was true. It might also be in violation of another
section in the zoning code.
In conclusion, she asked that the Commission not approve the rezoning.
There was more information that needed to be presented. The public has not
had an adequate chance to either review or comment on this plan. She said
please tell developers that it was not business as usual in Lawrence and
that they would be expected to follow the rules and work to improve
Lawrence. She asked the Commission to start the process of smart growth
tonight.
Lance Johnson, Engineer and Developer of the property, said he was going to
contradict Sinclair's comments and asked the Commission to approve the PDP
as well as the rezoning. He said they were there tonight as a result of
quite a bit of work with the neighborhood group as well as adjacent property
owners to this project. Over the history of this project there had been
concerns as far as the density. They wanted to see this development as
single-family housing. There had been proposals in the past of mobile homes
and town homes, a lot denser project than what they were proposing at this
time. In addition, there had been some direction from the neighborhood to
consider making this property a park. He had met with some of the neighbors
and explored the option if they could come to a compromise and provide
single-family housing in conjunction with an extension of Parnell Park if
the City so desired. In addition, the neighbors had mentioned they would
like to see more connectivity to Johnson Avenue, Delaware Street, and
Parnell Park. This plan provided that via nature trails that would provide
that connectivity. There had also been discussion about the Rails to Trails
Program if the City ever desired to turn the existing railroad tracks to
trails and basically this plan was proposing to go along with this idea and
the plan showed a trail to connect to the Rails to Trails Project for future
use.
He felt this plan was a great addition to the Barker Neighborhood. He said
this was a perfect example of an infill project. He said we talk about
development and growth going on the outside of town and here was a great
example of a vacant piece of property that he believed in Horizon 2020
called it out for low-density residential housing. This was a project that
would provide that.
There had been some concerns about drainage. The property did contain a
floodplain. A Hydrological Study was performed and it was approved by the
Stormwater Engineer, but the Hydrological Study allowed for fill in that
floodplain in a no rise condition. Even though the study allowed for that,
there were some Planning Commissioners that addressed concerns about
building in the floodplain. The Planning Commission asked the developer if
he could move the structures out of the floodplain. This proposal provided
no fill or no structure in that floodplain. In addition, at the request of
the Stormwater Engineer, they would provide a table of MEBO's (Minimum
Elevation of Building Openings). They were establishing those elevations
and in addition, they were setting on their grading plan, finished floor
elevations to be in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 feet above that regulatory
elevation. In addition, the City had earmarked a drainage structure on 15th
Street, as a Capital Improvement Project to improve or replace that existing
structure which basically acted as a constriction and impedes the flow at
15th Street. With that new structure there, that structure would be sized
to accommodate developed flow. He said they were proposing to clean up that
existing drainage creek because there was a lot of trash and brush that
impedes stormwater flow and with cleaning this creek out, it could improve
the situation.
Currently the City had no such ability, unless the existing property owner
allowed them to access this property. With this plan they were proposing to
deed a portion of this property to the City for access and provide on-going
maintenance to that drainage creek. He said there was a sanitary sewer line
that was a public line and did not have an easement. He said they were
proposing to provide that easement for that sewer line.
He said at the last Planning Commission, he was commended for working with
the neighbors, but he wanted to point out that the neighbors had done a lot
of the work and he was going to let them attest to notifications being
apprised of the plan, and let them voice their concerns.
Mayor Dunfield said the issue of single-family detached houses had been on
the neighborhood's agenda from the first time the proposal was seen for this
property. He asked Johnson if he would be willing, as an additional
condition on this development plan, to indicate that only single-family
detached houses would be built?
Johnson said yes. This plan was to be a single-family residential plan. He
said in fact, Condition No. 28 referenced the Code that states the
definition of a family and the number of unrelated individuals allowed.
Mayor Dunfield said the additional condition would make it clear that they
were talking about detached homes as opposed to duplex or any other form
that might still be single-family, but would be attached rather than
detached.
Johnson said he would agree right now. He said his intent was to show
single-family detached on the plan.
Vice Mayor Rundle said that reinforces the last condition that stated that
buildings would comply substantially with the elevations, which show the
models of single-family detached homes.
Johnson agreed. He had met with the neighbors to try to blend the
architectural character of the Barker neighborhood most notably some of the
houses on Learnard to try and get that feel and style.
Commissioner Schauner said apparently there was some conflict among
neighborhood activist about whether the neighborhood organization either
supported or opposed this proposal. He asked Johnson to share with the
Commission some of the conversations that he had with the residents in the
Barker neighborhood.
Johnson was contacted approximately in January or February by Mike Randolph,
who at the time was the President of the Barker Neighborhood Association.
On February 6th, he met with Mike Randolph, Emily Wellman, Jim Carpenter,
and Russ Livingston at Babcock Place to talk about concerns and thought they
were representing the adjacent neighbors.
On March 12th, he attended the Barker Neighborhood monthly meeting,
presented the plan and answered questions. The next day, he followed up
with a conversation with Livingston and Wellman on the comments and
consensus of the neighborhood.
On March 14th, he met with Mr. and Mrs. O'Toole who lived off of 19th Street
and at the entrance of this development and heard their concerns about
traffic and buffering.
On March 23rd, he met with Carpenter, Livingston, Wellman, Sinclair, and
others at Carpenter's residence to talk about the proposed plan.
Commissioner Schauner said as a result of those conversations, he asked if
Johnson came away with an opinion about the position that the neighborhood
association had with respect to his proposal.
Johnson heard that there was some discussion towards a park; discussion
concerning if it was not a park, his plan of a single-family project; and,
the compromise of single-family homes in this neighborhood in conjunction
with providing the extension of Parnell Park.
Commissioner Schauner said one of his concerns was the single outlet from
the development onto 19th Street and the visibility issues that might be
created at that access point for traffic coming from the east. He asked if
Johnson had given any thought to the development having two access points.
Johnson said they considered the two access points, but in conversations
with the City's Traffic Engineer, David Woosley, their conclusion was that
the traffic generated from this plan did not warrant two access points. In
addition, the engineering reason was the access point shown lined up with
Delaware and it was at a vertical curve somewhat of a high point in the
road. It was the most visible location along the property frontage. As you
go to the east it started to dip down towards the railroad tracks. Moving
the access point as far west helped.
Schauner asked if any traffic studies were recommended at this access point.
Johnson said no.
Commissioner Schauner asked if any traffic studies were conducted that he
was aware of.
Johnson said no, other than City staff indicating that there was not a
problem with this access point. They had a Capital Improvement Project for
a roundabout at 19th and Barker, so the City was addressing traffic calming
at that intersection.
Highberger believed that it was one of the conditions of Planning Commission
approval that the front elevation be redesigned to show less than 50%
frontage as garage door.
Johnson said he did not think that was a condition. He said the condition
talked about the garage door not taking up more than 50% of the façade of
the building.
Commissioner Highberger asked again if that was not a condition of the
Planning Commission approval.
Johnson said if it was, he could put that on the plan.
Sandra Day, Planner, said the discussion came about on how do they define a
façade, whether it was a single or two story. If you look at a single
story, the garage doors would amount to 50%. The entire façade, what they
concluded was several different definition sources that staff checked out.
The façade would be the entire front face of that building, so it included
both the 1st and 2nd story. The note on the plan stated that they should
not exceed 50% and the design for that building complied with that note. It
did not exceed 50% of the face of the front façade.
Commissioner Highberger said he had a concern about that note because if you
had a façade that was 2 stories and the top was the same, the whole bottom
could be garage door. The idea behind the requirement would be to have a
street friendly face on the house. He asked if Johnson if he would be
willing to consider a redesign of the second unit.
Johnson had no problem with looking at more design concepts. He said the
intent was front porches and garages, which was today's market in looking at
houses. Secondly, the homebuyer wanted the convenience of driving into a
garage to take groceries inside and not walking from a detached garage. He
said they were looking at bungalow style homes that detract from the look of
the garage elevation.
Commissioner Schauner asked, with the current model proposal, would the
first level be 50% garage.
Johnson said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said not 50% of 2 stories, but 50% of the first floor
frontage would be garage.
Johnson said he believed it was the total façade, counting both stories.
Mayor Dunfield said the garage door occupied more than 50% of the first
floor.
Commissioner Hack said, but not more than 50% of the whole front of the
building.
Commissioner Schauner said the definition of façade of a 2 story dwelling
was considered to be both the full frontage, both stories.
Finger said the typical definition of facade was from the eave line to the
ground regardless of the number of stories.
Paul Ryals, Lawrence, presented a drawing of the plot. He had a vested
interest in this project and vehemently opposed this proposal to cram these
single-family residences into this lush riparian urban area that we have.
He dittoed Sinclair's request to deny the rezoning.
He was never notified of this proposal or meetings. He recently moved into
his property and found out about this proposal coincidentally from Sinclair.
As a resident of the area, he had a cute little bungalow that was built in
1905 and this development would be entirely inconsistent with this area.
Martha O'Toole, Lawrence, lived just west of the proposed Woods Development
on 19th Street for 38 years. They had attended the City and Planning
Commission meeting in regards to the different developments proposed at this
location for over 3 years. She commended developer, Lance Johnson, for his
proposal for single-family attached homes. She said they were also meeting
with the neighbors for input into the development. The neighborhood's first
choice for the property was for City park, but the Parks and Recreation
Department Advisory Board liked the idea of the park, however, they
specified that the land would need to be donated. The developer of The
Woods Development has proposed to give approximately half the acreage to the
City making the extension of Parnell Park on 15th Street and also for trails
that would lead to the Rails to Trails Project, which the City had proposed
just east of this property.
She said they feel that the single-family development along with the park
addition was a great compromise and they supported this plan. They would
also like to see this property keep the RS-2 zoning for single-family homes,
but if the zoning was changed to PRD-1, they thought it was imperative that
the City of Lawrence restrict the development for this property for the
single-family detached homes and that no other use could be made for this
property.
She said they were still concerned about the density of this development
because of the added traffic to 19th Street, but they had been told by the
City's Traffic Division that this was an arterial street and there could
only be one entrance. She said they presumed that the City would deal with
the traffic problems as they develop if it became a problem.
She said they were also concerned with the stormwater drainage, especially
the stormwater improvements which were presently made to stop at 19th Street
and pick up again at 15th Street. She said adding the extra water to the
existing open drainage ditch between 19th and 15th Street without cleaning
it out and maintaining it seemed unwarranted. According to a memo from Chad
Voigt, City Stormwater Engineer, a study was done to evaluate the impact of
the floodplain. She quoted from the study, "The study assumes increased
flows at 19th Street resulting from an efficient upstream system." After
completion of all planned stormwater improvements and proposed development,
the only properties that would not see a benefit were those properties west
of the proposed development."
The developer had agreed to clean the open drainage ditch on his property.
She believed that the City should take the responsibility to get the
additional right-of-ways from homeowners that border that drainage ditch so
the City could take care of any problems that arise from either stormwater
drainage improvements or the proposed development. She said they supported
The Woods Development on 19th Street as it has been proposed. She said they
greatly appreciated the City of Lawrence as well as Lance Johnson for
listening to the residents, responding to their concerns, and working with
them to enhance their neighborhood.
Russ Livingston, Lawrence, said Johnson had been really good to work with
and he has tried to address a lot of the concerns of the neighbors. It was
difficult to get 750 neighbors all into one spot and get a consensus. The
only thing that could be guaranteed was that you would have agreements and
disagreements.
He said the O'Toole's paid to send 60 postcards out to the property owners
that abut all of this land. They had accumulated names and addresses
primarily from staff and from him going door to door. Additionally, members
of the Barker Neighborhood Association canvassed the entire neighborhood and
passed out flyers inviting them to come to the church for the discussion on
this topic. He said there were only 13 or 14 people who showed up at this
meeting. He has personally walked the entirety of that property the last 4
years visiting with people. The one thing that they had consistently said
over the last 4 years was that they supported single-family detached
housing. The park idea was a great idea and he commended Sinclair for all
her efforts. He said they had a great opportunity presented to them when
Johnson came along and he took Mayor Hack's advice, at that time, and came
out and visited and listened to the neighbor's concerns. He said they were
hoping this was a model for future infill development. They did not want to
be seen as a blocking device, but they wanted to participate in this plan.
Some of the things that were discussed were traffic concerns, style of
architecture, and all the things that were in Horizon 2020. There were
multiple access points, if you consider pedestrians and bicycle paths, that
was multiple access points and it would be nice to have that for motorized
vehicles. Additionally he would have a City park in his back yard instead
of growth and neighbors on the other side would also have a City park. He
thought it was a wonderful addition to the neighborhood.
He said they were asking architecturally that we try to get some character
and feel that represented the Barker neighborhood. He was given two
drawings that might address Commissioner Highberger's concerns about garage
doors because these were nice looking plans. He asked the Commission to
direct staff to look into the remaining pockets of ground, which he owned at
least two along the Atchison/Topeka/Santa Fe tributary and he would be happy
to visit with the City about giving control of that area of his property so
that it could be maintained. He said if they clear out this channel and
make it move through there quicker, it would be safer and healthier for
everybody.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Livingston if the easements that were brought up by
Mrs. O'Toole were part of his property and was his property included in the
area where there was no stormwater drainage easement.
Livingston said on the property he owned at 530 East 19th Street, it would.
He was not certain of the property he owned at 1712 Learnard Street.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there were additional properties bordering it
that were included.
Livingston said yes. This was from Maryland Street to Johnson Avenue and
there would be many property owners.
Vice Mayor Rundle said they had the two A and B elevations on their plan.
He asked if these drawings A or B or were they A and B.
Johnson said they were variations of both.
Livingston said front porches were a big issue for them. They wanted to see
front porches and garages down played. He said they understood people
needed double garages, but they wanted to see front yards and porches.
FRANK PLEASE START REVIEWING AT THIS POINT.
Denise Gibson, Lawrence, lived on Learnard for 17 years. One of the points
she appreciated about this development was that it did get at infill
development. She thought Johnson did a good job at looking at the needs of
the neighbors.
She said as we bring 37 new homes into this neighborhood an issue that they
all dealt with was the issue of closing neighborhood schools and the
vitality of our older neighborhoods. She said this was a prime example of
how they could bring in infill development, quality development with the
neighborhoods to help keep those schools and neighborhood vital and keep
their children within walking distance of those schools. She supported this
development plan and she would appreciate the Commission support on this
plan.
Melinda Henderson, Lawrence, said she had been involved in several of the
discussions over the past 1-½ years concerning this area. She asked Mayor
Dunfield if he was asking for another condition to be put on the PDP or did
they need to make that a condition of the rezoning based on restriction of
uses, building types, and the rezoning ordinance.
Mayor Dunfield's thought was to attach it to the Preliminary Development
Plan.
Finger said you could attach it to both the PDP and the rezoning.
Henderson requested that this condition be placed on both the PDP and the
rezoning. She said 20-1004.1 indicated that you could designate it on the
actual rezoning ordinance.
She received the list of the people who were notified in September of last
year when one of the rezonings was being presented to the Planning
Commission. She assumed that City staff sent out notices again when this
was on the March agenda.
Finger said staff did send out new notices, but she could not tell her
specifically if it was for March. She had a concern about Mr. Ryals being
new in the neighborhood.
James Carpenter, Learnard Street, said he lived in this neighborhood for 10
years and for 9 years he has been either an officer or a member of the
Executive Board of the Barker Neighborhood Association.
He reiterated the agreements and the various processes they went through to
arrive at those agreements with Johnson over the past few months, but this
issue has gone on for 4 years and three different developers. This plan
started out as a proposal for 72 trailers disappeared for 1-½ years and came
back as a proposal for 64 town homes, which they opposed and was rejected,
by both the Planning and City Commissions. During the time that significant
changes could be entered, Johnson entered as a new developer and his plan
for single-family homes came in. He said they had heard for 4 years that it
was impossible to have single-family homes in this area, but all of those
myths had been exploded.
There had been certain members of the neighborhood that had been active
about this particular development project for the last 4 years and those
people were there tonight. There had been every attempt made to notify the
neighborhood of what was going on. They did have a neighborhood meeting in
March and for some reason they only had 15 people attend which was due to
the weather. In the past, anytime they mentioned that they were going to
discuss the development of this particular piece of property in a newsletter
without any details, they would have 65 to 70 people show up.
He said if you review the records for all those various developments, you
would find letters that he had written on behalf of the neighborhood for
every meeting with the exception of the last one, which Livingston wrote.
It has always been the neighborhood's position that they would prefer a
park, but they would not oppose single-family detached housing that complied
with RS-2 zoning. They initially did oppose any change in zoning to a PRD.
Because of the process with the Planning Department, essentially the
neighborhoods were always placed in the position of reacting to plans. When
plans were submitted, they usually had 3 days to fire off a letter and show
up at the meeting, prepared to argue against the plan. He said they were in
a very defensive posture throughout and had maintained that until after
their March meeting, when suddenly Johnson was open to real negotiations and
compromise with the neighborhood.
The goal of PRD's was the ability to add conditions to suit an area, but the
reality of how it was set up was neighborhoods never have any input other
than to oppose it when it came down to a Planning Commission meeting, which
generally they could predict what would happen with that and then they would
need to do a protest petition to the City Commission. He said they hardly
ever were able to give any input into those additional conditions. This
time, they were able to negotiate those conditions. Now, what they had was
11 acres and approximately half of those acres were being donated to the
City as a park, which the neighborhood saw as remaining a wild area. He
said they would have trails through the park; 36 to 37 new families with
children hopefully in that neighborhood which would help with the schools;
and worked out a way to facilitate the ease of gaining any necessary
easements for the Rails to Trails Project. They were addressing storm water
concerns and asked the Commission to direct staff to look into what it would
take to get the additional easements along that right-of-way or to actually
purchase the floodplain properties.
He said at the last Planning Commission meeting they had talked to Johnson
and he indicated that they would make efforts to not cut or fill, preserve
trees and clean out the creek bed. He said they would have easements to a
sewer line, which has caused problems to several houses on the corner of
Learnard and 19th Street. He thought they had addressed every issue
possible that might be involved in this piece of property and it was done in
an open and fair way. Anyone that was interested in being at meetings had
been invited. He asked the Commission to approve this plan and send it back
to the Planning Commission for their final approval.
Mayor Dunfield said there had been a lot of talk about the meetings that had
happened recently since Johnson started working with the neighborhood on
this project. He asked for clarification, if the original mobile home
proposal was presented to a full membership meeting of the Barker
Neighborhood Association as was the town homes a 1 ½ later.
Carpenter said yes. The town homes plan was presented to the full
neighborhood and every time the vote has been from the full membership that
they opposed the change in zoning to a PRD if it was for mobile homes or
town homes. He said they never had a vote that said they opposed
single-family detached homes. He reiterated that the first preference of
the neighborhood was a park, but they would not oppose single-family
detached housing in this area.
Wendy Griswold, Lawrence, was a Barker Neighborhood resident for
approximately 3 years. She was concerned about how communities were
engaging in these types of decisions. Some of you have given some thought
to the question of whether meaningful community involvement has happened in
Barker Neighborhood regarding this issue. She said the answer was probably
no, although she thought some of us had the opinion of what has happened
isn't so bad. She said an attitude like that was an indication that you
have never been fortunate to see meaningful community involvement happen
because if you had, you would not settle for anything less. Meaningful
community development wasn't a lofty ideal. It was not something that we
wish we could achieve, but was never attainable. It was a very practical,
attainable goal and one that the City as a whole was capable of realizing.
If a commitment to community involvement had been made to this project at
its inception, we would have a different reality today. Instead of
submitting endless variations to this proposal to the Planning Commission,
we probably would only had to do it one time. This project would probably
not be winding its way through the planning phase, it would be in
construction.
She said there were some questions she wanted her neighbors to consider
about community involvement as went through this process. She said their
answers would tell them whether meaningful involvement occurred or not. She
asked: 1) Did you consider the City and the developer to be our
neighborhood's partners? 2) Would you characterize relationships between
these groups to be collaborative or were they adversarial? 3) Were you
satisfied with the outcome or do you feel that you had to settle? 4) Are
you happy at this point, or did you feel relieved that it was finally over?
5) Did you feel that the Barker Neighborhood Association was stronger than
it was 4 years ago? 6) Did we have new strategies for engaging our
neighbors and making decisions and being involved in our community? 7) Did
we have better communications tools? 7) Were we better prepared to face
our next challenge as a result of this process?
She said if your answers to those questions were anything like hers, she
would urge you to request that our City Commission adopt community
involvement requirements for developments which impact our neighborhoods.
She said challenge them to engage us, insist that they help us strengthen
our neighborhoods and don't settle for a process that just merely isn't not
so bad. She asked the Commission to defer a vote on this plan until
meaningful community involvement had occurred.
She said they had a community wide meeting in November and there wasn't
another meeting until March. In November they elected a new board and
officers. That information on who was elected has never been communicated
to the neighborhood as whole. She asked the Commission again to delay this
vote to give the neighborhood time to consider this plan fully and to let
all of their neighbors participate.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if that sanitary sewer easement was conveyed by
another document?
Finger said the sanitary sewer easement would be conveyed on the final plat.
Finger said she had a response for Henderson's question about the notice.
Staff's most recent property list prepared by the County Appraiser's Real
Estate Division was January 8th, which was approximately prior to submittal
of this application for the March meeting based upon deadlines. She said
staff usually went with a 3-month turnaround and then asked that the list be
updated. Letters went out to property owners on February 28th, based upon
the January list and January's list still listed Mark and Michelle Wilson as
property owners. There was a note on the letters, which asked that if you
had recently transferred ownership of your property that you forward this
letter to the new owner or contract purchaser.
Highberger asked if there was any traffic analysis performed in this area
concerning the impact of this development.
Finger said to her knowledge, there was never a formal study written. She
said staff had sent it to the Traffic Engineering section and they looked at
the number of houses and the counts and based their response back to them on
that. It was more of a quick look rather than what they had on larger
projects, which was the actual study being done by an engineer.
Highberger asked what was the general sense of that.
Finger said there was no official comment on record. The general comment
staff had verbally was that the traffic engineers did not think it was an
issue.
Highberger said in the future, he would like to see more documentation on
the projected impact of traffic.
Commissioner Schauner asked Finger to share with the Commission the density
of the existing Barker neighborhood. He said this particular proposal was
something just over 5 or 6 as a density number.
Day said depending on what portion you look at in the Barker neighborhood,
you would find a range of anywhere from 2 ½ to 6 to 7 dwelling units per
acre. There were some areas of Barker neighborhood, specifically on Johnson
Avenue, that was characterized by small lots that would have a higher
density than some of the other areas along Learnard that have much larger
lots and was characterized by a lower density.
Commissioner Schauner went back to the traffic question. It was his
understanding that there was a traffic-calming device to be installed at
19th and Barker based on traffic volume. He assumed there was a reason for
the traffic calming device specifically that there was an increase in
traffic flow on 19th and Barker. Essentially what this proposal would
create was another 4 way intersection that would go across and connect north
into this development and that traffic would need to cross 19th Street. He
asked if there were any plans to 4-way stop that intersection or signalize
it.
Day said no. The traffic coming out of this proposed development must yield
to the traffic on 19th Street. It would have a stop sign.
Commissioner Schauner asked what would it require in terms of traffic counts
to signalize that intersection?
Day said that was a specific engineering study that would need to take
place.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Day could give him some idea of what that
number would be.
Finger said it was based on the warrants that had to do with left turning
movements and accidents related to this movement and looking at the ratio
over time of how much that accident percentage increased at that
intersection.
Wildgen said there were numerous warrants that could trigger a traffic
signal such as volumes.
Terese Gorman, City Engineer, said there were 11 warrants for a traffic
signal. Several of them were based on traffic and pedestrian volume and
also accidents and types of accidents that could be corrected by a traffic
signal. She said left turns could be corrected by a traffic signal. She
said there were 37 proposed units, times 10 trips a day for an average
single-family household would be 370 total trips per day and that was not
even close to meeting warrants.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any study performed on the number
of left turns that might occur as a result of these 370 trips per day.
Gorman said no. She did not believe there were any traffic studies
performed.
Mayor Dunfield said if you look at the raw numbers, you're talking about a
2% increase on the volume of traffic that was moving down 19th Street. He
did not have personal concerns about how this was going to affect the
traffic in his neighborhood. In every other way it seemed to him that this
proposed development was a huge victory for the Barker neighborhood. It did
start out as a proposal for mobile homes and they did face down a proposal
for town homes.
He said what they were looking at was the possibility of adding 37 new
families. He said we would gain parkland. Right now this property was
brush, weeds, and impassable and this plan would add 6 acres of parkland to
the City's park system which would connect to the potential Rails to Trails
in the future and connect to Parnell Park. He said the parks space would
come to the community at no cost. By virtue of clustering single-family
homes together, we were gaining protection for that floodplain area. We had
a development that did not trespass on the floodplain at all, allowed the
City to control the floodway so that we could keep brush cleared out and
made sure it did its job and operated as it should, and with all of this, we
had a developer who had shown an amazing willingness to work with neighbors
to design a project that would fit into this neighborhood. He thought it
was a good proposal that deserved the City Commissions approval.
Commissioner Hack said it was an unusual piece of property because
of the dimensions, length, and location. The developer, neighborhood, and
staff were all on positive terms when it came to working together. She said
it was a great project and it was a good compromise. It was infill
development and that was what they were looking for and it was in compliance
with Horizon 2020. The portion of the drainage easement being cleaned out
was a bonus and also parkland. She said there had been meaningful community
involvement in this process. We would never all agree on the same thing,
but this was the best compromise the City had at this point. She was in
support of this plan along with Mayor Dunfield.
Vice Mayor Rundle said everyone involved in the discussion of the
proposal outlined why this was coming forth with a positive recommendation.
The two choices were a park and a residential development and you always
want to hold out for that preferred idea of having a park, but he heard that
the record had been from the Neighborhood Association that they would not
stand in the way of single-family detached housing. He said the City rarely
saw a Planned Unit Development that truly realized the potential of that
tool to preserve fragile areas and cluster the area with housing. He said
we far more often saw Planned Unit Developments manipulated to the benefit
of the developer. This was one of the models of why we have Planned Unit
Development available to the City. The nearby property owners, with the
exception of Mr. Ryals unfortunately coming at that awkward time of
transition, had been able to make peace and supported this proposal. He was
in support of this proposal.
Commissioner Highberger commended Johnson for taking great efforts
to work with the neighborhood and concurred with his colleagues. He
supported preservation of open space in the City, but as far as infill
development went, he heard a lot of things that made it an attractive
project. He liked the pedestrian connectivity to the surrounding parks and
neighborhoods. He had a few floodplain concerns because some of the lots in
the development did go into the FEMA floodplain. He supported this project,
but he thought our neighborhood process could be better and he hoped we
could improve our process in the future.
Commissioner Schauner concurred in part and dissented in part with
his fellow Commissioners. He had a concern about the fact that no traffic
study was conducted on this property. He preferred that any development
that had a single access point to a major street would need a traffic study.
He would like better information upon which to make a decision.
He said secondly, he was not a big fan of PUD's. He said if you looked at
this development, this development looked on to itself. It was a loop
street and every house in that development looked at another house in that
development. They did not share a street with other Barker neighbors other
than 19th Street and it would be difficult for the 37-unit to integrate well
with the existing Barker neighborhood. He said the physical layout of this
PUD and most PUD's, created a situation where they were easily isolated from
their neighbors.
He said the density was a concern as he looked at this particular plan. He
said it was only 37 houses, but those houses were all on 40-50 foot frontage
lots, which was tight and there was not much setback from the street. He
was concerned about the stacking on those short driveways. He said you also
end up with a fairly narrow street, which made street parking difficult for
passing traffic.
He appreciated the work Johnson had done with the neighbors and it
had been above and beyond what most developers would do. He said the
neighbors had fought long and hard against undesirable projects. He hoped
the neighbors were not just settling with this project. Based on the
information that was presented to the Commission and in combination with
tempered by his dissent, he would support this project, but it was not
without some reservation. He wanted it put on record that in the future the
Commission should take a hard and factual look at traffic counts for any
development and also, he preferred to see much wider street access in PUD's
for safety and traffic flow in those units.
He saw that there was a down point to a second access point and that
was that it might make it a drive through area. He said that would be a
negative, but on the other hand, all the traffic in that development, all
370 trips, would go by a fair share of those lots. He supported the project
with certain reservations.
Mayor Dunfield said we had discussion about conditions on both the
zoning and the Preliminary Development Plan indicating that single-family
detached houses would be only permitted on this property.
Vice Mayor Rundle said Griswold presented a model for how we needed
to work in this community and we could always improve.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning
Commission's recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan
(PDP-01-05-03) for The Woods on 19th Street, with an additional condition
that the housing type be limited to detached single-family homes, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Provision of a note on the face of the Preliminary
Development Plan stating;
a. "Density shall not exceed 6 dwelling
units per acre;"
b. "Occupancy of these units shall be
subject to the definition of family per section 20-2002.5(1)(a);"
2. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan
to include the following changes:
a. Provision of a table on the face of
the Preliminary Development Plan that shows the MEBO's and MFE for all lots
adjacent to a drainage easement;
b. Provision of a Preliminary
Development Plan to show that Lots 17, 18 and 19 have 40' of frontage per
section 20-1006(a);
c. Show lot width and depth dimensions;
3. Provision of a landscape plan with the submittal of
a Final Development Plan to show that tree requirements (1 tree per dwelling
unit have been provided) and address Parks Department comments found in the
body of the staff report;
a. Provision of a revised development
plan to reduce conflicts of proposed trees and utility lines;
b. Relocate trees that are in conflict
with other structures such as Lot 1 street tree is shown on top a rock wall,
trees on Lot 37 and 36 shown in sanitary sewer easements and trees on Lots
21, 24, 25, and 29-30 shown in utility easement;
c. Provision of a landscape plan with a
berm that provides substantial screening along the west property line per
staff approval. Also to include a wrought-iron fence along the berm,
adjacent to the O'Toole property;
4. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan
to show natural pedestrian paths connecting the development to Parnell Park
with a low water crossing per approval of staff. Similar paths shall be
shown connecting the property to Delaware Street and Johnson Avenue;
5. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan
to show that portion of the drainage easement to be conveyed to the City of
Lawrence as public property;
6. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan
that updates the open space summary numbers based on the changes to the
parcelization of Tract A;
7. Provision of a note that states the drainage
easement shall be cleaned by the adjacent prior to conveyance of ownership
to the City;
8. Provision of a note on the Final Development Plan
that states the applicant will not protest the conversion of the railroad
right-of-way to the Rails-to Trails Program; and
9. Provision of a note stating the buildings will
comply substantially with the elevations shown on the Preliminary
Development Plan.
10. The housing type be limited to detached
single-family homes,
Motion carried unanimously.
(14)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning
Commission's recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the
request for rezoning (Z-01-07-03) of a tract of land approximately 11.726
acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District) to PRD-1 (Planned
Residential District) with an additional condition that the housing type be
limited to detached single-family homes. Motion carried unanimously.
(15)
Wildgen said Sinclair had asked for an item to be placed on the
agenda concerning the purchase of this park. He asked Mayor Dunfield if he
wished this to be placed on next week's agenda?
Mayor Dunfield said he believed that the City Commission's action
made that a moot point.
During the City Manager's report, Mike Wildgen said the City often
received funds from KDOT to be used to improve safety at intersections.
KDOT did a follow up report 2 or 3 years later and it was interesting to see
that some of that work did improve the traffic history at these
intersections. The project at 14th and Massachusetts was widened and the
signal was improved and it resulted in approximately a 75% reduction in
accidents. He said if the City Commission wished to proceed, they would
have similar funding for 7th and Kentucky.
Wildgen also reported that anyone interested in giving feedback to
the 2004 Budget, this could be done via the City's website.
In conclusion, Wildgen reported that the City's Wastewater Treatment
Plant would soon be completed.
(16)
Mayor Dunfield said the Commission would hear reports for the
following boards and commissions; Traffic Safety; Parks and Recreation,
Douglas County Community Corrections; and the Mental Health Board.
Jeremy Henderson, Chair of Traffic Safety Commission, said the majority of
their work dealt with parking, infrastructure, and neighborhood changes
brought to them by neighborhood groups. The main problem regarding parking
was changes in different neighborhoods based on living areas and whether or
not the planning for the neighborhood set up enough parking spaces on the
land or whether they needed to use street parking. There were a lot of
areas where there were more non-single family dwelling units. In that
capacity maybe the Planning Commission only allowed or required a certain
number parking spaces on the property. There was a lot of street parking
and that has created a lot of problems for the last three years. The other
reason for parking problems was the increased need for parking because of
other developments.
Infrastructure changes that they had dealt with in the past for some
reason they had ran out of maps showing the primary truck route for the
City. It had been 13 years since these truck routes had been established,
so they looked at establishing new primary truck routes. This was an issue
that needed to be looked at more in depth. He said there were a few
neighborhood associations who wished to remove the streets in their
neighborhoods from the primary truck routes specifically those dealing with
transportation to the University.
They also worked on neighborhood changes that had come about. Some
of those changes were on Schwartz Road, by 6th Street where they had a
situation where neighbors felt that their road was being used for a pass
through. They started with that project working with the Neighborhood
Association and setting up additional meeting outside of their Traffic
Safety meetings to find out their needs. This was an example of a two-way
street where you could only enter from one area and because of that the
neighborhoods were happy and they had not had too many complaints from
anyone and they were allowed to keep the bike route moving through there.
He gave another example of Harvard Road between Wakarusa and Monterey Way.
He said most of their issues that came through were placed on the
consent agenda almost immediately so there was not much the City Commission
had to deal with concerning this board, but if there was something they
could do better, they wanted to here it from the City Commission.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any plan to update the
truck route map.
Henderson said they updated the map adding in some areas streets
that were not there 13 years ago. He said they updated the map because the
City ran out of maps. He said there were some questions about some areas
out on the western part of town where there had been growth. He said one
question that came up was that there was no enforcement. It really did not
matter what they signified as a primary truck route because there was no
penalty if you're not on that route.
Commissioner Hack said the City had a Truck Route Task Force that
was approved last week and they would have their first meeting the in May.
She said the new Commissioners were welcomed to join them to begin looking
at this issue with a wide range of people.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if any of the board members ever talked
about trying to take a more proactive look rather than looking at these
smaller issues.
Henderson said they did at many meetings. He said what they did
with a lot of the Neighborhood Associations was trying to look at what their
needs were for the big picture. The majority of their request was, for
example, eliminating parking for this 20 foot stretch or change the parking
from the east side to the west side of the road. He said they try to be
consistent in what they do when they eliminate parking. He said there had
not been a big picture of trying to put standards in or ways to look at
this.
Vice Mayor Rundle said it seemed if these problems kept resurfacing
then maybe they could come up with some development standards to prevent
this.
Henderson said when he first started there had been some discussion
with the Planning Commission specifically on parking and problems the City
continued to see. He said a lot of the parking problems they dealt with
would not be changed until there was a requirement that in new developments
there would be a set number of parking spaces allowed on the property versus
on the street. He said that was not easy to do when some of these
developments were actually going to have 4 or 5 cars for the people living
in that development area.
Mayor Dunfield said of all the City services that were provided,
traffic was the one that consistently gets the most complaints and concerns
from citizens and he appreciated their efforts to deal with these issues as
they come up.
Tom Bracciano, Chair, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, said it
had been exciting to be part of this board to help with acquisition of land
for future parks, new facility development, and infrastructure improvements.
He said they appreciated the support of the public for the 1-cent sales tax,
which was a blessing to our community to improve the quality of life for all
and to help with investments for the future well being of Lawrence.
He said since 1995 over 25 million had been invested in parks and
facilities at both new sites as well as renovated existing facilities to
bring them up to today's standards. It had been a pleasure to help with the
initial visions for the Indoor Aquatic Center, Eagle Bend Golf Course,
Prairie Park Nature Center trail expansion and many other projects.
He said the 2002 Parks and Recreation Year End Report gave the
statistics for last year and provided a comparison in some cases for the
last 5 years of activities. The report summarized a wide variety of
services offered by the City.
Lawrence Parks and Recreation lost several key staff last year and
an reorganization had been implemented and a park districting plan put into
place this winter to save money and be more responsive and effective in
meeting individual park care.
One of the nice things about working with Fred DeVictor, Parks and
Recreation Director, and his staff, on this board was that they were able to
borrow some of these ideas and what they had done in their maintenance plan,
he was able to take some of those ideas and try to make them fit at the
school district level.
Staff wanted to make access to programs easier this year by
implementing on-line registration for activities and continuing to cooperate
with the School District and other agencies to provide services. He said
they shared facilities with the Parks and Recreation Department and visa
versa.
He said thanks to the City's vision and support Lawrence already had
great parks and many state of the art facilities. The completion of the
Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, several years ago, laid the
foundation for the future and many things had already been accomplished
using that plan as a guide.
One main project they were excited about was the Master Plan for the future
regional park on the 1500-acre lease land at Clinton Lake. Their board had
been part of the public input meeting since last October for this project
and they looked forward to presenting this plan to the City Commission in
the next several months. Many in the community were excited about the
possibility for preserving open space in this area and providing additional
recreation facilities for the future. Their board appreciated working with
the City to provide these services and improve the quality of life in this
Community. He said there was so much interaction that happens with the
School District and the Parks and Recreation Department and it has worked
very well for the last 18 years.
Mayor Dunfield said Lawrence did have a spectacular Parks and Recreation
Department and facilities and the Advisory Board was an essential part of
that whole process and the Commission appreciated all that they did.
Pam Weigand, Director of Youth Services for Douglas County, was representing
the Community Corrections Advisory Board. Basically the Advisory Board
provided advice to the Douglas County Commission on justice related matters
for adults and juveniles. The members participate in drafting the
Department of Corrections Annual Adult Community Corrections Comprehensive
Plan and Board Members also assist in the review of the 7th Judicial
District Comprehensive Funding Application for juvenile prevention and
intervention programs in the 7th Judicial District which equated to about
$700,000 in funding that funneled from the State through the County into
agencies in our community.
She said they were currently active in the planning process for the State
fiscal year 2004 and the board would be meeting next week to discuss what
they were doing with adults and juveniles for 2004.
The Advisory Board also provided direction on the Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grants that were federal monies that flow through the State
that were earmarked specifically for communities and they help in the
decisions in terms of what they were going to do with their federal monies
at the local level.
The members were also responsible for compliance with federal mandates such
as jail removal for juveniles, but basically membership advised the County
on justice matters for juveniles and adults. Many of the members were
statutorily required to be on the board and the City Commission also
appointed some of the membership because they were dealing with issues in
Lawrence and the County.
David Johnson, Mental Health Board, said the big story of Bert Nash last
year wasn't the cuts, but they did more than they ever did despite these
cuts. Their admissions for the last 6 months of 2002 were 30% higher than
they were for the same period the year before. He said last year they
served 6,677 people. What that has meant for them was that they had to be
creative and the City had been helpful on that regard. For example, the
entrance to their children's building had been sterile, antiseptic and was
not a welcomed place for kids to come. They worked with Van Go Arts and
they received a beautiful mural. It was through these types of things that
they had been able to not just deal with the cuts, but trying to move
forward in the face of the cuts. He hoped all of the Commissioners would
take the time to come by the building.
Commissioner Schauner asked what he saw as the biggest challenge for the
upcoming year in terms of service delivery.
Johnson said the big problem was from people who had no source of payment.
He said they were seeing an increase in people who either could not afford
insurance, did not get insurance, or have lost their jobs. The biggest
problem he faced in that regard was that the State did not really care about
those people. It was the majority of the people they served. He said it
was the people who can't pay where they saw the growing need.
Commissioner Schauner echoed the comment about the lack of apparent State
care for people who were suffering from depression or other mental
conditions. As they had closed State hospitals over the past years and
essentially opted for neighborhood programs which had not been as successful
as they would like them to be, he wanted to commend Bert Nash for all of the
good work that it did.
Mayor Dunfield said the Bert Nash center certainly had a reputation as a
leader in community mental health in the State and the Commission was proud
of the work they did.
Mayor Dunfield called a public hearing on the proposed maximum assessments
for 3 public improvement projects, which were 31st and Neider Road Traffic
Signalization, 6th and Comet Lane Improvements, and the Crossgate Drive
retaining wall.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said this
evening was the appointed time to conduct a hearing in regards to 3 special
assessment ordinances. These projects had previously been approved by the
City Commission by establishing a benefit district. They had begun the
design of all 3 of these projects. State law allowed them to establish the
maximum assessments that would be place on those properties and that was
what the Commission was conducting a hearing on this evening.
The City Clerk, Frank Reeb, had sent notices to the property owners by
obtaining a list of the property owners from the County records. A notice
had been published of this evening's hearing and the ordinances the
Commission would adopt which would establish the maximum assessments that
those properties would bear for the pending improvements. After the
Commission adopted that ordinance, the property owner had 30 days from the
publication of that ordinance to challenge the assessments in court. After
that 30 days had ran, those assessments were solid and there would not be a
legal challenge to the maximum assessments on that property. Once the
projects were finished, then Terese Gorman, City Engineer, determined the
total project costs and then the actual assessments that would be placed on
these properties. The actual assessments would not exceed the maximum
assessments.
The three projects this evening were the traffic signal that would be built
at 31st and Nieder along with West 6th at Comet Lane and the retaining wall
at Crossgate Drive.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the signalization of an intersection. For
example, 31st and Neider, he asked why was that a benefit district as
opposed to a City-at-large expense.
Corliss said that was a good question and it was discussed as they were
considering the benefit district improvement. He said Resolution 5614,
which established the development policy and he anticipated that they would
be looking at that whether it was through their discussion about adequate
public facilities or other discussions. It was the document that said who
paid for what in City infrastructure such as street or sewers. What it did
not specify was who should pay for this type of improvement and we had
struggled as a community to determine who should pay for this improvement.
For example, the City was making an improvement on 6th Street and the
decision of the Commission was that in that case the City-at-large would
bear some of that cost. The discussion in regards to 31st and Neider was
that the entire benefit district would bear the entire costs.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there were any standards against which you
would apply facts to determine whether it was a benefit district or a
City-at-large expense?
Corliss said the standards go to public policy advocacy and really were not
legal standards, they were really who should pay for certain things. You
have the "but for test", but for the development would this public
improvement be required. In many cases where that "but for" question was
very strong, the City had said the properties had to pay for that entire
improvement. Where it had been a mix of development and the City-at-large,
the Commission had tended to include a mix of financing. Where it was in an
older established neighborhood, the argument was that they were bearing
increased traffic as the community grew and it was appropriate for the
City-at-large to pay. This had been a continuum that probably could be
articulated in a policy. He said you probably would also need to look at
exceptions in that policy as well.
Commissioner Schauner said so the general rule would be the "but for" rule
that Corliss talked about.
Corliss said that was probably the main test, but he would caution that it
was by no means clear and it was certainly open to advocacy on both sides.
Commissioner Schauner said it seemed rather fluid.
Commissioner Hack said every intersection was different. There were certain
development policies that applied, but there were also situations where it
was unique to that particular setup.
Commissioner Schauner said he understood, he was just curious what the
standard was.
Corliss said the desire for a standard had been discussed many times.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment on the 3 benefit districts.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle,
to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adopt on first reading, Ordinance
7628, levying the maximum assessments on properties in the Crossgate Drive
retaining wall benefit district. Motion carried unanimously.
(17)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adopt on first reading, Ordinance
7634, levying the maximum assessments on properties in the 6th and Comet
Lane left turn lane benefit district. Motion carried unanimously.
(18)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to adopt of first reading, Ordinance
7635, levying the maximum assessments on properties in the 31st Street and
Neider Road benefit district. Motion carried unanimously.
(19)
Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, presented a staff report on a
revised Preliminary Development Plan for the Home Improvement Center located
at 31st and Iowa Street. She said this was an integrated Preliminary
Development Plan that combined what had been the Home Depot/Best Buy planned
commercial development and the Commerce Plaza planned commercial
development, which was the Iowa Street frontage. The reason why it was
before the City Commission was the developer had asked to be able to add
parking which would be along the west side of the Best Buy property and the
pad site south of Best Buy to provide additional parking above and beyond
the City's zoning requirement for restaurant uses on the Iowa Street pad
sites. They had interest from restaurant developers who would like to have
additional parking above and beyond which could be provided strictly on
those individual lots. By combining the 2 PCD's, it would allow that
greenspace that had originally been the perimeter of the Best Buy property
to now be an interior property line and to relocate that additional
greenspace to the Iowa Street Corridor. What the plan did was if that
additional property was developed for parking and those pad sites were
developed for restaurants, the footprint of those pad site buildings would
be reduced by corresponding amount of square footage so that there was
additional greenspace and less building to support that restaurant use.
Mayor Dunfield asked if it would be fair to summarize this as essentially
trading interior greenspace and moving it to the Iowa Street site of the
project.
Stogsdill said yes. They would be moving the greenspace to the main arterial
corridor.
Commissioner Highberger asked if there was a reason why these two plans were
combined in the first place.
Stogsdill said the development timing and the developer of the Home
Depot/Best Buy property did not have ownership control of the Iowa Street
frontage at the time that Home Depot was first presented to the City.
Commissioner Highberger said there was a note in the Planning Commission
report that as a Preliminary Plan, this application would give the
Commission the opportunity to revisit part of the original plan. He asked
if that was correct.
Stogsdill said it provided the Commission the opportunity to revisit the
entire development. Staff specifically focused on the specific request
because they did not feel that the specific request altered any of the
interior circulation issues from having them separate.
Commissioner Schauner asked if this plan increased the retail square footage
on the entire northeast corner of 31st and Iowa over and above what was
originally approved in the two plans.
Stogsdill said no. It actually, potentially decreased the square footage.
Commissioner Schauner asked if increased the number of pad sites.
Stogsdill said no.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it increased, decreased, or change in any
fashion access to the property.
Stogsdill said no.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there would there still be access from the
frontage road off of Iowa into this parking area.
Stogsdill said yes, at the northwest corner of the property, the frontage
road ends and that property was returned to the property owner by KDOT and
turned into a private driveway which accesses south along the common
property line between the relocated service station and the middle pad site
and that provided internal cross access all the way across and in front of
Best Buy and Home Depot.
Commissioner Schauner asked Stogsdill what would the net affect be in her
opinion of closing the frontage road access to that property in terms of
traffic flow. He was thinking about people trying to access Iowa out of the
northwest corner.
Stogsdill said at the time that Home Depot and Best Buy were first proposed
the potential redevelopment of the Iowa Street Corridor was included in
their traffic studies as well as their drainage studies. All of the traffic
improvements that were now under construction were contemplated in light of
this potential redevelopment. Planning staff and Planning Commission
originally recommended that the Home Depot/Best Buy property have cross
access across that property to the frontage road before there was ownership
control of that property so that there were multiple ways in and out of this
site. That issue had been discussed multiple times at the Planning
Commission. Planning staff and Public Works staff had looked at this and
they believed that having that access to the frontage road was a benefit to
the development and to the community because it provided choices in how
people access that site.
Commissioner Schauner asked if this proposal increased the depth or density
of the greenspace buffer from Iowa to the pad sites.
Stogsdill said yes, if they were developed with restaurants.
Commissioner Schauner asked Stogsdill what if they were not developed with
restaurants.
Stogsdill said if they were not developed with restaurants, then they would
not provide the additional parking on the east side of those pad sites and
would be able to use the footprint that was originally approved, which was
approximately 9,500 square feet for a retail building.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the request was one based on speculations.
Stogsdill said this was based on a request that they were pursuing
restaurant uses, but want to be able to provide the flexibility should that
not happen.
Commissioner Schauner asked if all the pads needed to be restaurants for
this to be approved.
Stogsdill said no.
Commissioner Schauner asked if one of the pad sites became a restaurant and
the other became a shoe store, would the City have given them the authority
to reduce the greenspace in the interior.
Stogsdill said no. The additional greenspace along Iowa Street happened if
they were developing additional parking on the east side of the property.
If they would choose to forego that additional parking improvement and build
a retail store then they would not need to reduce the building size. She
had serious conversations with architects working for at least two different
restaurants because she had questions on both Lot 2 and Lot 3 in terms of
timing and where the project would be in the development phase and building
permits.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the height changes that were part of this
plan. He said there was an interest in moving the height from 20 feet
maximum to 25 feet.
Stogsdill agreed. She said the Planning Commission added that as a revision
to the plan. The plans were labeled at 20 feet and the Planning Commission
had the authority to set what that building height was. The 25 feet was to
provide some parapet space for screening roof top equipment.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Phil Struble, Landplan Engineering, said Mayor Dunfield talked about trading
interior greenspace for exterior greenspace, but another way to look at
that, which was in the same light, was trading building footprint space and
reducing that building footprint space for additional parking space so there
was a net/net gain or a net/net loss in this project.
Commissioner Schauner said as he was trying to visualize what this parking
lot would look like, he saw a significant sea of asphalt with or without
this change. He asked if there had been any attempt made to provide a
pedestrian friendly walkway across this lot.
Struble said in the original proposal they looked at a number of different
ways to get from 31st Street north, but it did not show up in their drawing
because it was all shown as greenspace, but there were a number of walkways
through there. What they did when they put in the additional parking was to
add additional landscaping. What happened when you add additional
landscaping was that you make it a lot more difficult to add walkway and
pedestrian ways because your trying to find ground to plant trees and
shrubs.
Struble said Lot 2 and Lot 3 were standalone lots as far as parking was
concerned, which was a priority for everybody. He said they were not trying
to share their parking space with Best Buy or Home Depot. He said they did
not fully focus on the pedestrian ways because they had a lot of other
priorities they were trying to take care of.
Commissioner Hack quoted from the staff report: there was no new additional
uses; there was no increased pad sites in fact there was a decrease; there
was increase of greenspace on the west and she thought that was a good
buffer along Iowa street; and she thought it was an enhancement of the
original plans and provided an improved plan for both the development and
the community. She supported this plan because it looked like a good
combination of these two plans.
Commissioner Highberger said he knew it was required by our rules, but these
whole islands agreeing and these vast seas of asphalt did not do a lot for
him. He did not have any problems with this proposal, but he had concerns
that had been expressed to him by citizens about traffic flow from this
project, north toward 27th Street and the neighborhoods. If the Commission
had the opportunity to look at this again, he thought they should do it.
Although he did not have any difficulty with what had been presented, he
recommended sending this back to the Planning Commission for further
analysis of traffic impact flowing north.
Commissioner Schauner concurred. Although the frontage road leading north
and west out of this development did provide another ingress and egress
point to the businesses, it also provided a greater opportunity for traffic
to flow through the neighborhood on 27th Street. He said that was
inconsistent with protecting that neighborhood and inconsistent with good
neighborhood planning. He asked that this matter be sent back to the
Planning Commission for further work on that issue.
Mayor Dunfield said he had not been terribly enthusiastic about this project
all along, however, the situation that we were in right now was that the
approvals had been given and the building permits had been issued. He did
not know if the Commission had any standing to ask for that type of a change
at this time. When this last piece of the development plan was approved
that they did need to monitor what the consequences were of that frontage
road and they did need to consider there were various possibilities that
were opened to them such as closing the frontage road at some point, north
of where it connected to Iowa and there were other options that neighbors
proposed. The situation that they were in right now, from his point of
view, was that they needed to go ahead and finish this project and monitor
the impact that it had on 27th Street and on the neighborhood and if
necessary, revisit and come up with a solution because right now the
developer had every right and reason to finish the project. He said it did
not seem that the Commission had the authority to alter that right now.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the main request that the neighborhood was
making, was to make that a one-way in?
Mayor Dunfield said there were 3 different versions about what might be done
with that frontage road, including cul-de-sacing it near 27th Street,
including blocking it at the 29th Street access and the one-way idea was
also presented.
Finger said you could come to the conclusion of what you needed to do to
manage safe traffic along the frontage road particularly north of this
project totally independent of this project if there was a problem assessed
by this Commission or community at some point in the future. She said the
Commission could determine a one-way orientation, ask for cul-de-sacing of
the property, instigate cul-de-sacing at the north end before it intersects
with 27th Street, or make it a one-way flow south of where 29th came across.
She hoped they would do a traffic study first to see what that impact was
because it would have echo effects back onto other streets in the
neighborhood.
Mayor Dunfield said as Stogsdill mentioned the whole development plan that
was under construction now was based on traffic studies that included that
frontage road.
Finger said yes. There was a percentage of traffic designated to go out
that way. The improvements being done today, if they did not want access
there, were not designed to accommodate 100% of the traffic because that was
not what the traffic study allocated.
Commissioner Hack thought 27th Street was bearing a difficult burden as 31st
and Iowa has been improved. Once that was a totally functioning
intersection, she believed traffic that was scooting down 27th Street would
be pulled off and would go on a much-preferred route. Hopefully that would
alleviate some of that traffic.
Commissioner Schauner said it was not his intent now or was it earlier that
the Commission somehow caused this project not to be completed. Clearly,
this project would be completed without regard to this issue, it was just a
matter of would there be greenspace traded for retail footprint. His
concern was that the Commission understood that they did need to monitor the
impact of traffic flow down that frontage road on 27th Street and that
neighborhood. If they needed to conduct additional traffic studies to
identify whether there had been a significant change in that neighborhood
traffic flow, he hoped they would do that. His number one concern was to
not put additional traffic through that neighborhood. He also was concerned
about at some point they could only close that frontage road at certain
locations and not have that considered to be a taking. There were some
limitation of what they could do with that frontage road at some future
point.
Wildgen said a past Commission directed staff to do a before and after
traffic study and staff has done the before volume counts. He said those
counts did not mean too much until 30 or 40 days after the opening and staff
would follow up on those counts. He said 31st Street had 2 ½ lanes so there
was some capacity that would be there, but wasn't there now. He said by
July, staff should have additional counts and they would be able to make
those determinations.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he appreciated the concerns of Commissioners
Highberger and Schauner because they were the same concerns they had in
considering this project as it developed. He said the question about why we
did not do this all as one piece in the beginning was answered by the
historical record. He agreed with Mayor Dunfield that without a great deal
of enthusiasm, the Commission needed to approve this plan.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Landplan did any work with the City on
alternatives for treatment of the frontage road as part of the initial plan
for this project?
Struble said they exhaustively looked at a number of ways that they could
take this frontage road. He was not enamored with the solution they came up
with, but with the cards they were dealt, it was very much the best one that
they had available given the mix of property ownerships and mix of uses in
the neighborhood. He said this was not a trade off between greenspace and
retail footprint.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to concur with the Planning Commission's
recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-02-06-03) for
a Home Improvement Store, containing approximately 28 aces in which the plan
proposed to reduce green space and add parking on the west sides of Lots 2
and 3, First National Addition No 1, located at 31st Street and Iowa Street,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Revise the Preliminary Development Plan to include
the following items:
a. Correct spelling in Note 41 and
clarify that Lots 1, 2 & 3 are in First National Addition No. 3 (Sheet 1);
b. Correct boxed notes to indicate 'the
total amount of pervious surface shall be increased.' (Sheet 2);
c. Correct parking required and parking
provided totals in summary table [874 spaces required if pad sites developed
with restaurants 984 total - Lot 2 - D only contains 72] totals in summary
table (Sheet 2);
d. Relocated trash enclosure for Lot 3
- C as indicated on Sheet 2 (Sheets 4, 5 & 6);
e. Correct restaurant square footages
shown in buildings on Lots 2 & 3, First National Addition No. 3 (Sheets 4, 5
& 6);
f. Correct Plant Schedule totals to
reflect numbers from previously approved plans [64 Shingle Oak; 70 White
Pines; 103 Spirea; 112 Burning Bush; 102 Mugo Pine] (Sheet 5);
g. Update open space provided and total
number of trees in summary (Sheet 5);
h. Update total interior landscaping
requirements (Sheet 5);
i. Update building area/turf areas in
interior landscaping summary for Lots 1, 2 & 3, First National No. 3 (Sheet
5);
j. Update restaurant square footages
for Lots 2 & 3, First National Additional No. 3 as reflected on plan view
(Sheet 5);
k. Update site summary to reflect
correct changes to Lots 2 & 3, First National Addition and Lots 2 & 3, First
National Addition No. 3 (Sheet 5); and
l. Update building height to 25 for
Lots 2 & 3, First National Addition No. 3.
Motion carried unanimously.
(20)
Sandy Day, Planner, presented the staff report for a Preliminary Development
Plan for Tuckaway North. She said the subject property was in the northwest
corner of the intersection of Peterson Road and Kasold Drive. This was a
fairly unique project in terms of what they had looked at both this evening
and historically in our community for Planned Unit Developments. The
subject property was part of an 80-acre tract of land that was originally
annexed into the City of Lawrence in 1998. It was rezoned at that time to
single-family around the middle part of 1999. The rezoning request was
submitted two years ago to the Planning Commission with a concept or idea of
doing the type of development that you see proposed. However, the planning
and the refined details did not occur until fairly recently. The zoning was
approved and was subject to the approval of a Preliminary Development Plan
with the condition that the overall density be limited to not exceed 12
dwelling units per acre. The Preliminary Development Plan that the
Commission had to consider this evening did that. It was unique in the
amount of acreage that was included in this project, the type and the
variable of housing that was included in the project, and it was a treatment
of private streets and the use of alleys. Day said what was unique about
this project from a planning perspective was that they cluster the housing
together in various pods and they all face onto either each other or another
amenity within the development and then there was a significant parking
element that was provided internal to this development that made use of
garages and rear alley access that left the front face of the private
streets to have some areas for on-street parking in a removed manner in that
it was set back and that was an element that varies from our current street
standards as well as some of the width of the street. She said this did use
narrower street profiles although it included stand up curbs which was
something both City Public Works staff and City Planning staff had argued
that provided a benefit to controlling parking from rolling up onto
sidewalks and to also conveying stormwater and providing good access and
internal circulation.
The closest similar project they had was Briarwood and it made use of the
same alleys although that had more of a standard street section, shorter
front yards, use of front porches, etc. She said staff had spent a lot of
time talking with other City departments making sure that they could
adequately provide services to this property as well as talking with
residents about their concerns. What resulted out of those discussions was
some changes in orientation, moving some of the community facilities that
were proposed with this project further down into the development, changing
the duplex units that were along the north side to single bedroom duplexes
that were still attached townhomes. She said staff believed that their
function and behavior would be similar to what a detached single-family
would have and still providing alleys garages and rear entry access.
There was also a substantial peripheral buffer that was required and there
was extensive landscaping throughout the development that provided both open
space separation, but yet integration of the different housing components
and there was a transition throughout the development between very low
density at the southern end characterized by some single-family detached as
well as some attached housing with some breezeway treatments.
She said they also had conventional town homes, duplexes, triplexes, and
quadplex buildings throughout this development.
Mayor Dunfield asked if there was an agreement not-to-protest benefit
districts for street improvements that was attached to this property.
Day said that was a specific condition of approval for this project. That
was a lengthy discussion that they had with both the applicant and with City
staff. There were 3 separate agreements that were recommended with this
project, which was a benefit district for Kasold, Peterson, and for the
intersection of Kasold and Peterson. The applicant was required to provide
a traffic impact study as staff was reviewing this to help them determine
which improvements were necessary now and which could be deferred until
later phases of the development.
She said what concluded out of that traffic impact study was that the
intersection currently was at or near failing. They recently installed
4-way stops to address the traffic accidents. They had Kasold in the
Capital Improvement Plan for sometime. They had several agreements
not-to-protest benefit districts that had already been executed with other
projects along that street and this would be the final component to make
sure they had over that 51% that was necessary to pursue that.
Day said Peterson Road would be the first component in that they would not
have too much by way of existing agreements. She said they had also been
working with the developers on properties on Monterey Way making sure staff
was coordinating what was going on with necessary improvements at the
intersection of Monterey Way and Peterson Road as well as trying to balance
that with the requirements of Peterson Road currently and the intersection
of Peterson and Kasold making sure all those individual projects worked
together even though the timing of those projects was something that was not
on the same timeline.
Commissioner Highberger said there was a note in the Planning Commission
report that Planning Commissioner Schachter said he could not support the
plan because of its non-conformance to the recommendations in the
Comprehensive Plan. He asked Day to address this issue.
Day said her observation of Planning Commissioner Schachter's discussion in
the Planning Commission meeting was that he found himself in a unique
position where he seemed to be generally in support of the concept and of
the plan, but the fact that this particular plan proposed multi-family units
at the extreme northwestern portion of that property where they would
typically see the more intense housing style at the intersections of
arterial and collector streets. The difficulty in achieving that was the
fact that the low point of this property was in that location and that was
where the detention pond was located. She believed his vote reflected his
philosophy of what they should be doing.
Commissioner Hack said geographically the area drained to that so they were
taking advantage of the natural topography of the site.
Commissioner Schauner asked when the benefit district percentages were
established and did Day know what those percentages were going to be for
this project.
Wildgen said staff did not know. He said if the City Commission directed
staff to look at benefit districts, they would come back with proposals for
benefit districts and advise the Commission of the City policy. At this
point, staff did not have an estimate on the costs.
Commissioner Schauner asked what was the current scheduled date for
replacement or upgrade of that intersection at Kasold and Peterson.
Wildgen said it was in the Capital Improvement Plan and you might see a date
in that plan, but it was more of a planning tool than a funding tool.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the building of this project and the creation
of a benefit district would accelerate the construction of that
intersection.
Wildgen said staff's intent would be to bring back to the City Commission
proposals to make those improvements happen.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Commission was being asked tonight to
approve this in the absence of that information about the infrastructure
improvement at that intersection.
Wildgen said the Preliminary Development Plan required the owner to provide
the City with a not-to-protest a benefit district agreement. He said the
Commission did not need to take any action, but the natural action staff
would expect would to bring back the means to provide those improvements
with a benefit district. At that time, the Commission could have discussion
about the method of assessment, the shape of the benefit district, and a
variety of other questions.
Commissioner Schauner said but at the risk of using a cliché "tonight they
were going to decide whether to go to the dance and later they would decide
what to wear."
Wildgen said this was a Preliminary Development Plan. They would need to
come back to the Planning Commission for the Final Development Plan.
Day said staff would not expect a submittal of a Final Development Plan
until the June meeting at the earliest. What this did was that it gave the
tentative approval and staff has been having the discussion internally about
that being the next step and staff needed to bring that to the Commission.
Vice Mayor Rundle said Day stated that the traffic study indicated some
things that needed to be done.
Day said the traffic study indicated that the intersection was at or near
failing currently with no addition of development from this property.
Vice Mayor Rundle said so the Commission would probably proceed with those
improvements and the other ones would be deferred.
Day said some of the other improvements that were discussed in the TIS were
the need for left turn lanes, a dedicated turn lane at the intersection, and
how many bedrooms could be constructed before they would need that secondary
access. The need for a turn lane exists essentially the length of Kasold
because of the number of curb cuts and streets that they already had
intersecting that particular road. One of the other discussions was the
difficulty in asking the developer to make those improvements now as a part
of this project. She said they would be temporary in nature and there would
be no way to include the developer's improvements in any of the City's
construction projects. It would all need to be removed and reconstructed
and that seemed impractical in some ways.
Finger said it became a matter of timing and coordination. At the
Preliminary Development Plan stage it was a draft or conceptual document
that you were looking at. She said they did not have the rights-of-way yet
to do those improvements and the dedication of rights-of-way would come at
the final plat stage. The Final Development Plan would go to the Planning
Commission along with the final plat. The final plat then comes to this
body for acceptance of easements and rights-of-way, which was where they
would get the additional right-of-way on the two county roads on the west
side of Kasold and the north side of Peterson to accomplish that. She said
what staff needed at this stage of the proposal from the City Commission was
direction to go ahead and proceed with looking at those benefit districts so
that staff could be in step when the development was ready to proceed on
this project. She said staff would have the road at the same level of
readiness to be improved and completed. It came down to if they just had
incremental changes and you had a County road base then you have thrown good
money after bad because you had to tear it all up and do it all over again
once you really needed to improve that road.
Commissioner Schauner said that did not make much sense. He was concerned
that they were stepping on a slippery slope. This tentative approval asking
staff to find out additional information about the benefit district, that
did not commit the Commission to approving this development in its final
form.
Finger said the Commission action on the development plan tonight would
commit the Commission to approving something that was substantially similar
to what you saw in the Preliminary Development Plan tonight. She said it
did not commit the Commission to making those development improvements right
now, but it certainly forecasted that those were necessary to come forward.
She said the Commission could stipulate as a condition on the Preliminary
Development Plan that X, Y, and Z as far as the benefit districts and the
progress you make on that needed to occur before a final came back. Again,
it was a matter of timing basically adequate public facilities in this sense
making sure that your roads were there at the same time that homes would be
there so that property owners were not put at harm or risk having
substandard improvements.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked was the timing of those improvements and the
construction going to be possible so they could have the improved
intersection by the time this was occupied?
Finger said that was always staff's intent.
Wildgen said if the Commission gave staff direction, staff would come back
soon with some ideas on a benefit district.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the Commission could condition the approval on
the completion of the roads.
Finger said yes.
Vice Mayor Rundle told the new Commissioners that the only thing the
Commission did on the Final Development Plan was to accept easements and
rights-of-way. It was the Planning Commission's job to approve that and it
had to be substantially the same.
Finger said at this point, the Preliminary Development Plans served as the
preliminary plat, but when they get to the final plat, they separate it and
you would actually get a final plat and a Final Development Plan. The
development plan stayed at the Planning Commission and the final plat came
forward with easements and rights-of-way.
Commissioner Schauner said approving this tonight did limit what the
Commission would be able to do in the future, unless the Commission
conditions this in a tight way.
Finger said she believed the answer was yes. If the Commission approved
this tonight to introduce a new element that wasn't discussed tonight or
conditioned, would not be consistent with the zoning ordinance the way it
was written.
Paul Werner, applicant, presented the Preliminary Development Plan. He said
they had worked long and hard with City staff on this unique project. This
project was low density and held it to 8 units per acre. The initial zoning
was 12 units per acre. Their first phase was 103 units and 189 bedrooms and
the number of bedrooms came from the Traffic Impact Study. There were
substantial road improvements that currently the conditions were to agree
not-to-protest the benefit districts.
He said they had met with staff in Public Works and they were working on a
draft proposal to get all those agreements done. He said their first phase
entrance was off Kasold toward their north property line and it was
specifically chosen because they felt Kasold was easier to improve. He said
that far north works really well as opposed to dealing with all of the
intersections and another entrance along Peterson Road.
This project was unique in that it was small buildings. They had
single-family duplex and the largest building on the property was a 4-plex,
which was rare in Lawrence. They had used the idea of alleys with attached
garages for almost all of the units. He urged the Commission for their
support.
Commissioner Schauner asked how many access points were there into this
project.
Werner said there were two access points, which were at Kasold and Peterson.
Commissioner Schauner asked what comments did they receive from the
Fire/Medical Department and other public safety departments as a result of
these narrower streets.
Werner said the narrower street was designed with a 25 foot back of curb to
back of curb. A standard local street in Lawrence was 27 feet. He said
this plan was unique since it was a PRD and there were not right-or-ways
going through the property. A standard isle width for a parking lot was 25
feet. The Fire Department's clearance for fire trucks was 20 feet wide,
which they certainly had throughout the site. Their alleys were 22 feet
wide, which were a lot wider than Briarwood.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Solid Waste pickup was in the alley or
the front.
Werner said both. They did have some clusters of 4-plexes that would
probably have some dumpsters and the rest would be in the alley.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the total number of units in this
development.
Werner said 241 units on approximately 31 or 32 acres.
Mayor Dunfield asked if they could reduce the alleys to 20 feet.
Werner said he could go 20 feet.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if they reduced the alleys would they make the
streets wider.
Werner said they would add more greenspace.
Commissioner Schauner asked Werner if he had built anything like this
before.
Werner said specifically like this, no. The 4-plex models were somewhat
similar to the apartments at Briarwood. The north part of Briarwood was
done before they were involved. He said they had used these units before.
Commissioner Schauner said for the parking to be adequate, people needed to
use the garages that were available to them.
Werner said yes, but there were actually many more extra parking spaces.
He said these people needed to use those garages.
Commissioner Hack asked if the streets in Briarwood were the same width.
Day said the streets met City requirements.
Commissioner Hack said the intent of the narrower streets was good because
it would automatically slow people down.
Finger said a visual that you might want to use for a 25-foot street was if
you think of Michigan between 6th and 9th and try to put curbs on that.
Commissioner Schauner said the 27 feet was outside curb to outside curb, so
you lose about a foot of drivable surface.
Werner said you would lose a foot. It was back of curb to back of curb.
Finger said since we improved it, it was not, but it was 25 foot before the
improvements.
Commissioner Schauner asked how she believed a rental development of this
size complied with Horizon 2020 Plan for this area.
Finger said Horizon 2020 did not get into ownership of property. It talks
about densities of use. This type of development would be comparable, but
considerably less dense than the Meadowbrook Development that took 20 years
to develop. At one point in time it had a facet that was residential which
were the homes that were north of the apartments, but that separated out
from the original PUD and became conventional zoning.
The ownership in this size of development made it necessary to monitor how
it was managed so there was not an instability created for the adjacent
neighborhood. She said that was a general planning principle and she could
not point to something in Horizon 2020 that said it all had to be
owner/occupied. It certainly encouraged that we stabilize neighborhoods and
create traditional neighborhoods. If you went towards neighborhood planning
and the theory, you would want to keep 70% at least single-family
owner/occupied.
Commissioner Schauner asked Finger if she had any idea what else was planned
for the abutting property, which was now empty.
Finger said they had somewhat of a Master Plan for the Preliminary
Development Plan, which, was approximately 640 acres.
Mayor Dunfield said there was a substantial amount of single-family housing
immediately north.
Day said the original 80 acres that this was part of was discussed around
the 1998 or 1999 timeframe. They approached the developers at that time and
asked them to give staff an idea of how they would foresee for the remainder
of this acreage. We knew that there were development concepts out there.
Landplan provided an overall drainage study for over 300 acres of that whole
area, but it did not extend all the way over to Martin Park. It did stop
just to the east of that because of some change in ownership, but for what
staff was looking for at that time, staff had some conceptual ideas of where
generally collector streets would be located. That was not an adopted plan
per se, but a concept plan provided by the development community. She said
it did give staff the concept of where some of our collector streets would
be going. Staff always had the understanding that when they looked at that
property in 1998, that this corner was always going to be somewhat contained
type of development. The surrounding areas were continuing to be projected
as low density residential. Whether that low density occurred as
single-family detached or single-family attached would be something that
would go through a public hearing and a land use decision process through
the rezoning hearings. The projection of land uses was almost exclusively
single-family.
Commissioner Schauner said as a planner wouldn't you want to have a good
idea of what that entire 80 acres would look like when finished rather than
doing his 30 acre piece and then having to build the other 50 acres.
Day said this was the remainder of that 80 acres. The other portions of
that 80 acres was what was now Stonegate Subdivision. The additional
acreage that went off, there were several streets that stub in from the
Stonegate Development down and then where Monterey Way would eventually be
extended to the north on some alignment and then there would be some other
collector streets connecting into that. The rest of the area would be
served by some pattern of local street connections. She said they had the
idea or concept both in the adopted Horizon 2020 which projected that area
as low density residential as well as some concept plans that staff had been
working with the development community making sure as they move through
their planning process, they recognized what the communities process was in
terms of where we expect collector and arterial streets to be located as
well as major utility corridors that we need to work around.
Vice Mayor Rundle was ready to approve this, but also direct staff to keep a
pace with the benefit district planning so we could make sure that the
street improvements were in place before this was occupied.
Corliss said he had conversations with Gorman and the contract purchaser of
property, which was at the northwest corner of Monterey Way and Peterson.
He also talked to the people who owned the property to the west of this
property and it was staff's understanding that they were going to provide
staff some timetable for their development because staff had been trying to
do a benefit district for Monterey Way for some time and staff had
difficulty in building Monterey Way between Peterson and Stetson that
involved a number of property owners that owned property to the north of
Peterson. He hoped staff could proceed with Monterey Way. He said what
staff was asking from the Commission was their approval to go ahead and
start some of the concepts of benefit districts that the Commission would
see in resolution form in the weeks to come for Kasold and Peterson.
Corliss said he wanted to point out that the City did have a development
policy that did speak to who paid for these road improvements. Our
development policy, Resolution No. 5614, indicated that the adjoining
property owners would pay for the first 31 feet of the road improvements.
Anything above that was paid for by the City-at-large.
Commissioner Schauner asked if we would need to signalize Kasold and
Peterson with that volume of traffic.
Corliss said that was a good question. He said staff did not know the answer
to that yet. It was likely to be some type of controlled intersection. It
was controlled now with stop signs. This would be a challenge to put in a
benefit district because you have residences at the southeast corner and
then the development on the northwest corner.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was possible to do some benefit work
before this Commission acts to approve this Preliminary Plan.
Corliss said they were related in the sense that we see this as one of the
final pieces on Kasold. It made sense to improve Kasold and because we know
some of the things that would happen on Peterson, we think it made sense to
go ahead and start those discussions as well. This was a major policy
discussion as far as the linking of the development plans and
infrastructure. Through our planning process we identify the infrastructure
needs. Through our policies that exist, we talk about who paid for those
improvements and to some extent, the timing, but they were concurrent paths.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to extend the meeting until 10:15.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Dunfield said, given the process that we currently use, the situation
that we find ourselves in here was that we had a developer who was
interested in getting a project done and who recognized that improving the
streets was integral to the success of that project and therefore the two
issues of the benefit district and the approval of the development plans did
mesh together in terms of being beneficial to all parties.
Commissioner Schauner said, as he looked at this issue from his new
perspective, it seemed that we had the cart in front of the horse. He
thought we should know who was going to pay for infrastructure in terms of
benefit district assignment before we say let's go ahead and build a project
and concurrently work on putting together a benefit district. He would like
to know as a representative of the citizens of this City who was going to
bear what share of a significant cost to improve Kasold, Peterson, and that
intersection. To signalize that intersection alone could be a couple
hundred thousand dollars. With all the talk of a tight City budget, and a
fairly quick interest in starting that project, he needed more information
about what the City's share would be and what impact that share had on other
Capital Improvement Projects already in line for work in the City. It
seemed to him that the Commission would be rushing to judgment on approving
this Preliminary Plan. He would like more information about the intended
and unattended consequences of approving this Preliminary Plan.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if staff could come back next week with information.
Wildgen said two weeks would be better.
Commissioner Hack said the benefit district should be discussed, then the
Commission would answer that question and it was up to the Commission to
determine what percentage. It was the "but for" question, Corliss talked
about. She said approving this plan did not hook the City into paying any
of the benefit district. Without approval of the plan, there was no reason
to proceed with the benefit district because there was no one else in that
corner to benefit from it therefore placing all the cost on the City. She
asked Commissioner Schauner if that made any sense.
Commissioner Schauner said except that the benefit district would also
include the southeast corner. As Corliss indicated earlier, they would
benefit from that improvement as well. They were probably happy with the
intersection the way it was and not looking forward to a couple of hundred
extra bedrooms and all the traffic that would be created at that
intersection. He thought going about the benefit district in advance
because he thought politically it was going to be difficult to say that the
benefit district would pay 100% and the City paid nothing. He would like
more information about the big picture before the Commission voted on this
piece even with conditions.
Commissioner Hack said the Commission was looking at three benefit districts
and this particular developer would not be responsible for 100% of these
benefit districts. There were benefits to the adjoining and connecting
properties.
Werner said that was correct and over a period of years, the City had a very
different development on the south side of Peterson and the east side of
Kasold in which some had agreements and some did not. If you don't bring a
plan, the developer would not want to sign an agreement not-to-protest a
benefit district if he had no idea what he had.
Commissioner Hack asked if the plan triggered the formation of a benefit
district.
Werner said yes. He said their traffic study showed that it failed today.
He said they knew the way the development policy was today and there was no
way they could get a project approved without signing an agreement
not-to-protest. He said they would need to sign 3 agreements for these
intersections. He said this was 18 to 24 months worth of work to get this
far.
Commissioner Schauner was not suggesting that we not approve the Preliminary
Development Plan at some point, but he was suggesting that the City staff
provide us with more information about what the likely costs to the
City-at-large were and what that benefit district structure might look like
as part of our consideration about whether to approve or not approve the
plan. He said unless staff could tell him that some way we could structure
an approval tonight and condition it in such a way as to leaving the door
open to saying no because the numbers don't work for the City's involvement
in terms of Capital Improvement costs and signalization cost, he could not
approve it this evening. If the intersection failed today, adding that much
traffic to that intersection told him that stop signs were not enough.
Commissioner Highberger said he saw where Commissioner Schauner was coming
from, but the way it was explained that if there was no plan approved, then
the City was looking at paying the entire cost of signalization. The way it
stood now, if the intersection was failing, and we did not have a benefit
district, the City would shoulder all of that cost. He was inclined to
support the project. He liked the neighborhood feel and it mimicked
Briarwood.
Vice Mayor Rundle said it was refreshing to have someone with fresh eyes
like Commissioner Schauner looking at this and asking us, was this the way
we always do these things and could we maybe take a serious look at how
these come into sequence. The questions that Commissioner Schauner was
asking, needed to be kept on the table as we look at the way we do business
and how we could do a better job of moving these projects ahead.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning
Commission's recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan
(PDP-11-13-02) for Tuckaway North, a proposed 250-unit exclusive residential
community containing approximately 32.28 acres, property is generally
described as being located northwest of the intersection of Kasold Drive and
Peterson road, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan
to show all existing and proposed utility and drainage easements per the
minimum preliminary plat requirements;
2. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan
that shows a maximum 30' wide entry way from Peterson Road into the
development;
3. Relocation of STOP signs out of the public
right-of-way;
4. Execution of separate agreements not-to-protest the
formation of a benefit district for the following:
a. Kasold Drive
b. Peterson Drive
c. Intersection improvements at Kasold
Drive and Peterson Road;
5. Provision of proposed private street names and an
addressing scheme with the submission of a Final Development Plan;
6. Provision of a not on the face of the development
plan that states the use of the clubhouse and activity buildings is
restricted to use of these residents and their guest;
7. Provision of a revised Preliminary Development Plan
to show a pedestrian access from the southwest portion of the development to
Peterson Road; and
8. Provision of a revised landscape plan for the
Preliminary Development Plan that shows extensive landscape materials along
the north property line that will be mature within two growing seasons.
Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger and Rundle. Nay:
Schauner. Motion carried. (21)
Vice Mayor Rundle said that he wanted to see staff proceeding ahead with
looking at benefit districts and the safety aspects so that we could try to
stay ahead.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
During Commission Items, Vice Mayor Rundle voiced a concern about taking
minutes from by the various boards and commissions. He said if we could
give clear direction to all of those boards, with concurrence of his fellow
Commissioners, that the minutes are the only public record of the meetings
of those boards and commissions and they should be an accurate and complete
record of the substance of the deliberations of those boards, including
public comment. They should reflect the issues discussed and the points made
and concerns expressed related to those issues. And they should include any
general concerns that are of public interest. He stated that we did not
expect a verbatim transcript.
When he mentioned general concerns that are of public interest he meant that
we don't need to know who was wished a happy birthday. But if, to give a
couple of examples, there is a matter that deals directly with issues of
health and safety that the building codes are based on or questions of code
interpretation, the city commission should know that those matters have been
brought to the attention of your board.
The other Commissioners agreed with Commissioner Rundle's comments.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 15, 2003
1. Bid - Dump truck for Utilities, to KCR International for
$54,464.
2. Bid - Air Compressor for Utilities, to Victor L. Phillips
for $10,781.
3. Bid - Towable lift for Public Works to BKB for $17,454.98
4. Bid - Backhoe for Utilities, to Olathe Tractor for $43,407.
5. Change Order - CAS Construction, Kaw Lime Residuals Project
for $40,000.
6. Bid - 2003 Overlay Program, Phase 1, to Asphalt Improvement
Co., for $708,544.20.
7. Land Purchase - 1209 & 1225 Haskell, for 13th & Oregon
Stormwater Improvements, for $71,000.
8. Ordinance No. 7467 - 1st Reading, Annex .466 acres, N of N
Street & E of N 3rd.
9. Site Plan - (SP-03-14-03) Yacht Club, 530 Wisconsin.
10. Site Plan - (SP-03-15-03) remodel & renovate 1700 W 23rd,
(formerly Magic Wok)
11. Variance - Separate meters at Harper Square Apts, 2201
Harper (E&F).
12. Mortgage Release - 1325 Pennsylvania, Doug Byers.
13. Prelim Dev Plan - (PDP-01-02-03) Briarwood PRD, 20.22 acres,
N of 6th & E of Folks.
14. Prelim Dev Plan - (PDP-01-05-03) The Woods on 19th, 11.726
acres, 548 E 19th.
15. Rezone - (Z-01-07-03) 11.726 acres, RS-2 to PRD-1, 548 E
19th.
16. City Manager's Report - Status Reports - TSC/ Parks & Rec/DG
Cnty Community Corrections/Mental Health Board.
17. Special Assessment - Public Hearing, Crossgate Drive -
retaining wall.
18. Special Assessment - Public Hearing, 6th & Comet - left turn
lane benefit district.
19. Special Assessment - Public Hearing, 31st & Neider - benefit
district.
20. Prelim Dev Plan - (PDP-02-06-03) Home Improvement Store, 31st &
Iowa.
21. Prelim Dev Plan - (PDP-11-13-02) Tuckaway N., 32.28
acres, NW intersection of
Kasold & Peterson.