[E-minutes] Minutes from the May 6, 2003 Lawrence City Commission meeting
Lisa Patterson
lpatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Fri, 9 May 2003 18:31:50 -0500
May 6, 2003
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at
6:45 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Dunfield
presiding and members Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner present.
Student Commissioner Elmore was present.
With Commission approval, Mayor Dunfield proclaimed May 10, 2003 to be
"Sertoma Bar-B-Q Off Day"; the week of May 9 - 16, 2003 to be "Police Week";
Thursday, May 15, 2003 to be "Peace Officers' Memorial Day"; May 11 - 17,
2003 to be "National Defense Transportation Day"; and the month of May to be
"Mental Health Month." Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Highberger was not present when the City Commission voted on
the consent agenda.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the City Commission meeting minutes of April 29, 2003. Motion
carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the Mental Health Board meeting minutes of February 25, 2003; the
Board of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters meeting minutes of January 15, 2003; the
Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 13, 2003
and March 27, 2003; the Practitioners Panel meeting minutes of January 16,
2003; the Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory meeting minutes of March
25, 2003; and the Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority meeting minutes
of March 25, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve claims to 309 vendors in the amount of $1,586,091.55 and payroll
from April 20th to May 3rd, 2003, in the amount of $1,292,152.93.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the Retail Liquor License for Dangermond Retail Liquor, 923 North
2nd Street; the Cereal Malt Beverage License - Off Premise, 501 West 9th
(Contingent Upon Departmental Approvals); and the Sidewalk Dining License
for Zen Zero, 811 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Kate Kelly to the
Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board, which will expire July 1,
2004; and appoint Bonnie Johnson and Dr. Terrance Riordian to the
Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission. Motion carried
unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the 2002 Phase II Waterline
Improvements at Jayhawk Boulevard/Oread Avenue, 13th Street for the
Utilities Department, Solid Waste Division. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer's Estimate
$523,566.51
Rose-Lan Contractors
$498,209.10
Redford Contractors
$542,823.00
Garney Companies
$546,968.20
Nowak Construction
$583,445.80
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
award the bid to Rose-Lan Contractors, in the amount of $498,209.10. Motion
carried unanimously.
(1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
authorize a purchase order for the Kaw Intake Pump Rehab Project to the sole
source vendor, Fairbanks Morse Pump Corp., for $19,720. Motion carried
unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the Yankee Tank Interceptor Sewer
Project for the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer's Estimate
$1,284,233.00
McLouth Excavating
$783,696.50
Rose-Lan Contractors
$823,402.13
Site-Rite Construction
$824,349.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
McLouth Excavating, in the amount of $783,696.50. Motion carried
unanimously. (3)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the 2003 Overlay and Curb Repair
Program, Phase 2 for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer's Estimate
$1,079,018.90
LRM Industries
$889,983.95
D.F. Freeman Contractors, Inc.
$986,209.90
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
LRM Industries, in the amount of $889,983.95. Motion carried unanimously.
(4)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for 2, 1-ton trucks with snow removal
equipment for the Street Maintenance Division of the Public Works
Department. The bids were:
BIDDER With Spreader Without Spreader
TOTAL BID
American Equipment $41,464 $37,549
$79,013
Olathe Ford $43,202 $39,427
$82,629
Laird Noller Ford $43,638 $39,836
$83,474
Shawnee Mission Ford $44,623 $40,848 $85,471
Ed Bozarth Chevrolet $44,756 $40,981
$85,737
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
award the bid to American Equipment, in the amount of $79,013. Motion
carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
set a bid date of May 20, 2003 for Oread Center Sanitary Sewer Improvements.
Motion carried unanimously.
(6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
place on first reading Ordinance No. 7638, rezoning (Z-01-01-01), 35.56
acres from RS-2 (Single-Family District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential
District), property located on the northwest corner of Peterson Road and
Kasold Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 7616, enacting City Code requirements for Street Vendor
requirements in the downtown area, was read a second time. As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adopt the
ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion
carried unanimously. (8)
Ordinance No. 7622, annexing 53 acres of City owned property by the
Municipal Airport, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda,
it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye:
Dunfield, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried
unanimously.
(9)
Ordinance No. 7643, annexing approximately 1.02 acres generally located at
3015 West 31st Street, was read a second time. As part of the consent
agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance.
Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried
unanimously.
(10)
Ordinance No. 7640, establishing the proposed maximum special assessments
for East 11th Street, East of Haskell Avenue was read a second time. As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay:
None. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
Ordinance No. 7641, establishing the proposed maximum special assessments
for 16th Street between Wakarusa Drive and Research Park Drive, was read a
second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle,
seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Rundle, and
Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
Ordinance No. 7642, establishing the proposed maximum special assessments
for Oread Center sanitary sewers, was read a second time. As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to adopt the
ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion
carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the site plan (SP-04-21-03) for Alpha Chi Omega Sorority Parking Lot
Renovation and Landscape Improvements, located at 1500 Sigma Nu Place,
subject to the following conditions:
1. A Site Plan Performance Agreement shall be executed (Per Section
20-1433); and
2. A photometric plan for the outside shall be provided to the approval of
the planning department. (Per Section 20-14A02)
Motion carried unanimously.
(14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations to approve the Final
Plat (PF-02-02-03) for Wakarusa View Estates No. 5, a replat of Lots 28 -
38, Block 1, Wakarusa View Estates No. 4, a proposed 11-lot subdivision
containing approximately 3.797 acres. The property is generally located
south of 27th Street and west of Crossgate Drive, and accept the dedication
of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) by FEMA prior to filing of
the Final Plat with the Douglas County Register of Deeds. Failure to obtain
approval of the LOMR will result in the Final Plat becoming null and void;
2. Provision of a Dedication Agreement with the City of Lawrence prior to
the Final Plat being scheduled for City Commission acceptance of easements
and dedications. Failure to obtain a dedication agreement will result in
the Final Plat becoming null and void or a revision of the Final Plat to
remove Tract A;
3. Dedication of a 10' perimeter utility easement;
4. Provision of a letter of tentative approval from Southern Star Central
Gas for encroachment prior to filing of the Final Plat;
5. Provision of an executed encroachment agreement with Southern Star
Central Gas prior to obtaining building permits for any construction within
the easement;
6. Change "Cities Service Gas" to "Southern Star Central Gas':
7. Provision of a note as stated in Sec. 21-708a.3.1 of the Subdivision
Regulations;
8. Revise the location map to show major nearby streets and SLT;
9. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
10. Submission and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan; and,
11. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Sec. 21-302.2 of the Subdivision
Regulations.
Motion carried unanimously.
(15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve an agreement with Garber Construction Co., concerning the 31st
Street right-of-way adjacent to Ranch Road Subdivision (O'Connell Road and
1300 Road). Motion carried unanimously.
(16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the distribution of Police Department Resource Plan Request for
Proposals. Motion carried unanimously.
(17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
authorize the Mayor to sign a joint City/County letter to the Governor
concerning air quality regulations. Motion carried unanimously.
(18)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement with Edward and Irene
Nieder, 1017 East Home Circle. Motion carried unanimously.
(19)
As a walk-on item to the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint the
following individuals to the Task Force on Homeless Services: Mike Rundle,
Vice-Mayor - Chair; Rich Forney, Salvation Army; Tom Wright, Lawrence Open
Shelter; Bruce Martin, Pelathe Center; Tami Clark, Drop-In Center; Randy
Beeman, LINK - First Christian Church; Sara Terwelp, WTCS; Barbara Tucker,
Haskell Indian Nations University; Helen Hartnett, University of Kansas;
David Johnson, Bert Nash; Candi Davis, Oread Neighborhood; Sara Taliaferro,
Pinckney Neighborhood; Jim Schneider; Barbara Huppee, Lawrence-Douglas
County Housing Authority; Shirley Martin-Smith, ADECCO; Bruce Beale, DCCCA;
and Katherine Dinsdale, former Salvation Army Board member. Motion carried
unanimously. (21)
During the City Manager's Report, Mike Wildgen said the Lawrence Transit
System's Marketing Plan would be used in a number of events around town to
increase ridership.
Wildgen also reported that Congressman Moore requested to earmark funding
request for 2004 for: the completion of Hobbs Park Memorial; improvements at
the Lawrence Municipal Airport; and construction of a maintenance facility
for the Lawrence Public Transit System.
Finally, Wildgen said the employees from the Wastewater Treatment Plant
received State Safety Award recognizing them for their hard work in safety
at the plant.
Mayor Dunfield said concerning the Transit System with Transportation Week
ahead, he appreciated the efforts being made to expand the ridership. He
noted that the ridership of the Transit System was primarily taking people
to and from their places of work. This was a service that helped people
obtain and maintain jobs in our community.
(22)
Margene Swarts, Community Development Manager Neighborhood Resources,
presented the 2003 Annual Update of the Consolidated Plan. She said by
Federal Regulation the City was required to submit a 5-Year consolidated
plan or an annual update each year regarding the CDBG and HOME Programs.
This year the City would submit a new 5-Year plan, which would cover the
years 2003 - 2007. The plan would discuss housing and community
development needs and priorities for the community and the investment
summary detailing the activities that were recommended for funding to
address those needs.
Priorities were determined both by the assessments of needs and which prior
activities had already been completed. The Neighborhood Resources Advisory
Committee would make the final recommendation to the City Commission for the
CDBG and HOME Program with input from the Practitioner's Panel as well as
the public. Direction also would come from the Annual City Commission Study
Session that was held every year.
As previously directed by the City Commission in their last study session,
the Advisory Committee paid special attention to the "Stepping Up to Better
Housing" strategy that had been previously adopted and was used for making
those spending allocations in the past. Input was also derived from other
interested parties as well as the new 2002 Census Data that the City was now
receiving. This was data received during the Homeless Count Survey that
staff conducted in December 2001.
The Advisory Committee conducted a public hearing on April 24, 2003, which
opened the 30-day written comment section. So far their department had only
received 1 written comment, which was included in the draft plan and any
additional written comments would be submitted to HUD with the final
document.
With regard to the Investment Summary it was important to note that by
federal regulation, expenditure funds were limited in 2 areas. No more than
15% of the CDBG Grant could be allocated or expended for public services.
The administration cap was 20% for the CDBG Program and 10% for the HOME
Program, which staff was within those caps in the recommendations that the
committee made to the City Commission. She said there was no cap for
Capital Improvements.
The next step in the process was adoption of the Resolution that authorized
the submission of the grant documents for both the CDBG and HOME Programs
and also, the Consolidated Plan and Investment Summary.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Vern Norwood, Chair, Neighborhood Advisory Resources Council (NARC),
informed the City Commission of the council's responsibilities and duties.
These duties entailed:
1. Reviewed applications and proposals;
2. Requested certifications from agencies through the Neighborhood Resources
Council and if necessary, clarification on proposals;
3. Conducted deliberations and public hearings based on the preliminary
recommendations; and
4. Revised allocations if desired, and if not, they forwarded those
allocations to the City Commission for approval.
She said during their regular meeting times, these meeting were allotted to
the public for comments. The NARC listened to public comment and these were
discussed. The public also had access to the NARC minutes. This council
placed a lot of time and effort and thought into the work they did. She
believed that the individuals serving on the council took their task
seriously and they wanted to do the best job possible.
Norwood said last fall there was a joint Study Session held with the City
Commission and the NARC and at that session, the City Commission affirmed
their continued use of the "Stepping Up for Better Housing" strategy. She
said the City Commission at that time, viewed that the Salvation Army was
the primary provider of general emergency shelter for our community.
She said the NARC had received a proposal from Lawrence Open Shelter (LOS)
in which that proposal generated a lot of public comment. She said there
were two reasons why the council thought the proposal was not appropriate to
allocate funds. Those were:
1. The LOS was renting the space and if the activities ceased, the funds
that were used for renovation would be lost because there were no other
agencies that would step up to take their place and the only one that would
benefit would be the landlord; and
2. The City Commission had approved a UPR for LOS, which must be reviewed
every year. It was determined that if they could no longer use that permit,
then again, the landlord would be the ultimate beneficiary.
The decision to not fund the LOS was not made because of the location or the
issue with the Oread Neighborhood Association. The council listened to the
neighborhood and other interested parties concerns and whether or not it was
an appropriate site. The committee felt that the expenditure of
approximately $20,000 was too great for this type of situation. Even though
there were some contingency funds, the council did not allocate funds to a
project simply because they had money available.
Rich Forney, Salvation Army, thanked the City Commission and Neighborhood
Resources for funding them in the past. He said they had gone from a 6
month shelter to a year round shelter. He said people coming through the
services of the Salvation Army were receiving education in finding jobs and
a place to stay to become a productive member of our community.
Hilda Enoch, Coalition of Homeless Concerns, said services for the homeless
were not in place in our community. She said when talking about "Stepping
Up to Better Housing", the first step was to have an overnight shelter and a
place to be during the day which had not been achieved. This was the most
essential service that a community did to provide for its most vulnerable
citizens. She appreciated the work that the Salvation Army was doing, but
unfortunately, these other organizations had sprung up because the Salvation
Army chose which of the homeless it would serve and what hours it would
serve the. There were big gaps in homeless services.
In the past 2 years, one of the gaps that had been filled was by the
Community Drop-In Center, which had tried to take people off the street at
8:00 a.m. when the homeless were released from the Salvation Army. The
Community Drop-In Center provided food, showers, a place to wash clothes,
and put in several counseling services to accommodate the homeless, but they
could barely make ends meet because the Drop-In Center's landlord now had
included utilities which would raise their expenses tremendously. She said
they would have a tough time keeping that place open in the morning, and the
center was only open for 5 days a week.
She appreciated that the Salvation Army was open in the evening year round,
but in the coldest part of winter, the only way it was kept open in the
afternoon was if there were volunteers to run the Salvation Army. She said
though the Salvation Army received the bulk of money in this community for
homeless services, they were not accountable for the money that they did not
use.
A comprehensive plan and effort was needed for our homeless, which involved
many groups in the Lawrence Community. She voted against the City's
Consolidated Plan for 2003 to 2007 and asked that they reallocate the funds.
Tami Clark, Director, Community Drop-In Center, thanked the City Commission
for their support. She knew how hard the NARC worked and labored over their
allocations. She said there were gaps in services, but she thought there
were plans in place to try and address those gaps. She said the Drop-In
Center would use the $1,500 that was allocated to them to continue providing
services with the support of the NARC and the City of Lawrence.
William Dann, Lawrence, was concerned with the small segment of the populous
of the homeless. There was a segment of the populous that he categorized as
"meandering drunks", who go up and down Massachusetts street begging for
money, which happened frequently. He said there was a segment to this
populous to which a compassionate answer by this Commission or public body
would not be a response that would work. There should be a decisive
response for people who break the law to greatly reduce and eventually
eliminate the problem. Expanding the services available to people who
behave in this way, part of the answer would need to be a punitive one. He
was not talking about all of the homeless people, only the segment that
acted inappropriately. He said the City might need more police officers,
more than expanded services for the homeless, for certain members of this
group.
Mary Siegrist, Lawrence, thanked the City Commission for the local
transportation for our working poor. She said one of the City's homeless
persons lived out in the Clinton Lake area and he was grateful that he only
needed to ride his bike 5 miles to the "T", to get him to his job in town.
She explained all of the great attributes of Lawrence, but asked why
Lawrence was failing with the homeless. She said the Coalition of Homeless
Concerns, along with the caring people of the City of Lawrence, had faith
that the Commission could and would step up to the plate to meet the
homeless needs of this community.
Commissioner Hack thanked the staff from Neighborhood Resources Department.
She knew this 5-Year Plan represented much public input from this community.
She also wanted to thank the NARC for their leadership and the hours of work
and commitment to this community. Commissioner Hack complimented the Mayor
on the selection of the Task Force on Homeless Services to obtain workable
solutions to Lawrence's long-term concerns for the homeless. She supported
the 5 Year Plan.
Commissioner Highberger concurred with Commissioner Hack in terms of
the hard work that was put into this plan. He had concerns that needed to
be addressed on a long-term comprehensive basis and hoped this task force
was a step in that direction. He said for a City as wealthy as Lawrence, it
was inexcusable that anyone would freeze to death in the wintertime for lack
of shelter. He understood that addiction problems made this issue
complicated. He had faith in this community that they would come together
in finding a solution to this problem. In the meantime, he supported the
funding proposal that was before the Commission.
Vice Mayor Rundle's understanding from staff in terms of the LOS funding was
the timing sequence would not work. The LOS would come to the City to try
and seek other funds. He said this City was long overdue to step up to the
plate to come up with a comprehensive solution. The City had been allowing
people in this community to come forward and largely handle this situation
on a volunteer basis. He felt a personal sense of urgency to establish
results in the next year.
Commissioner Schauner echoed the community's comments. He said clearly this
was an issue that defied an easy solution and tended to divide people along
a variety of lines. He also echoed the Commission's comments concerning
finding a seamless solution to address the homeless issues. He was
confident if the City put its shoulder to the wheel in the next few months,
they would find a way to resolve this issue, in a way that would move the
agenda in the right direction.
Mayor Dunfield said there was no question that this City was in a situation
and had been for some time in providing services in a piecemeal/haphazard
fashion. The need was there to put together a comprehensive approach to
this issue concerning the homelessness. He said the Commission would expect
results from the new Task Force for Homeless Services. He said they would
recognize that there would always be disagreements in those areas and that
there would never be unanimity of opinion on what services were appropriate
and how they should be offered. He said they could work to create a
comprehensive approach that would represent the community's values and that
would provide those services that the community could agree upon and go
forward.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the 2003 Annual Update of
the Consolidated Plan and adopt Resolution No. 6468, authorizing the Mayor
to execute agreements for 2003 CDBG and HOME Programs and other such
documents as may be required to be submitted to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Motion carried unanimously.
(23)
Mayor Dunfield called a public hearing on the proposed vacation of
right-of-way, located north of East 23rd Street and east of Haskell Avenue.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said the City Commission would consider
the vacation of a "Dedication of Public Street." This street lies on the
northern property line of a tract of land owned by D.C. Holdings. The
dedication was a 40-foot wide strip.
This issue was brought to the City earlier this year, however if the
"Dedication of Public Street" was to be vacated, then the tract labeled Lot
1 of Parkway East Subdivision would be "land locked" which was currently
owned by Pines International. He said Pines International raised some
objections when they were notified and they withdrew their application.
Since that time, there had been a purchase contract by the same corporation
who would acquire the D.C. Holdings tract and the Pines International tract.
The contract would not be consummated without the vacation of the "Public
Street Dedication." However, staff had concerns about vacating the only
public access to a tract of land. The conditions staff placed on the
vacation that the current owner "Pines International" would file a waiver of
rights to public access; and the "Pines" property should be replatted with
the D.C. Holdings property prior to development of either tract to provide
adequate public access.
Additionally, Southwestern Bell had some facilities within the existing
proposed vacation. Soules asked that the City Commission reserve any
utility easements. When this easement was replatted, the easement issues
would be worked out again.
Mark Anderson, representing the contract purchaser, said they were talking
about 2 separate real estate contracts, one for the D.C. Holdings property
and one for "Pines." Both contracts were contingent upon this right-of-way
being vacated.
The "Pines" property currently did not have a public street or a public
point of access. He said there was the 40-foot right-of-way across the top
of the D.C. Holding property and that was the right-of-way they were asking
for vacation. As a condition to that vacation, they had offered to the City
that they would condition the vacation upon replatting of both properties
"if" and "when" they developed those properties. He said they would
provide for public access to all of the property at that time.
He said there had been discussions about possible public access across
another property as well, so this was not the only alternative for public
access. He said vacating this right-of-way did not affect the private
property rights of other property owners. Immediately to the north of this
property that property owner had improvements that were built up close to
the property line. In order for a public street to be opened through this
area, additional right-of-way needed to be taken from the property owners to
the north, but that was unlikely to happen where you have improvements that
were built up almost to that property line.
He said there had been no objections received by the City to their
application to vacate with the reservation of the easement for the electric
company and there should be no loss of public convenience. He said vacating
the right-of-way allowed both of those property owners to go forward with
the sale of their properties; allowed the contract purchaser more
flexibility in how this property was developed in the future; and it would
restore nearly a 1/2 acre of real estate to the commercial property
increase, ad valorum property tax roles in this community and start
generating tax revenue for the City. He asked the City Commission to
approve their application to vacate this right-of-way.
Commissioner Highberger asked what the current zoning was on those 2
properties.
Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, said the current zoning for
those 2 properties was C-4 (General Commercial District).
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Service
Director, if this conditioning was a normal procedure.
Corliss said this conditioning was not usual, but it was entirely
appropriate for this situation.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve the Order of Vacation with
conditions, regarding vacation of right-of-way, located north of East 23rd
Street and east of Haskell Avenue.
(24) Sandra Day, Planner, presented the site plan for Alpha Gamma Delta
Sorority House. She said the subject property was unique in that it was an
undeveloped parcel, an infill proposal, and there were significant
topography issues with this property. Those elements that made it unique in
the fact that it was an existing wooded lot and had been for some time that
was adjacent to detached single-family homes. It also made it a unique
piece of property for development purposes in which the applicant would
address the City Commission.
Staff had provided the City Commission with letters from the applicant,
minutes from the neighborhood meeting, as well as a staff memorandum to
cover some basic issues and elements. She said staff was available to
answer specific questions about the traffic impact study as well as the
study of the traffic analysis staff had conducted regarding the surrounding
neighborhood.
She presented the City Commission with an aerial overview of the subject
property, which was located at the end of the Sigma Nu property. The
subject property was adjacent to other fraternal and sorority uses as well
as a vacant lot. There was quite a bit of topography meaning any
development of this property would require significant grading of the site.
That would essentially clear the lot of the existing vegetation. In most
cases staff tried to encourage development to retain as much vegetation as
they could, but there were instances where there was severe terrain and
retaining vegetation was not realistic.
The subject property was part of a platted subdivision that was platted in
1967 as the Sigma Nu Addition No. 2.
She said before staff brought a staff report on a particular site plan to
the City Commission, there were certain findings that staff needed to go
through. She said they did not spell them out as findings of fact the way
it was seen in zoning reports, but the information was provided in a
specific or listed type of manner.
Day said in a letter from Price Banks, attorney representing Sigma Nu, he
pointed out that this was a conditional use. The condition that was
stipulated in the zoning code was that a site plan be approved. That would
mean that staff would look at what was the proposed use and how did it
comply with the design criteria in terms of zoning, building setbacks,
parking lot requirements, landscape ratios, and other similar design
elements. There were other elements to look at including, how it related or
was compatible with adjacent land uses. She said they did, in many
instances, have adjacent land uses that were not necessarily compatible and
that you would see a gradual kind of transition of land uses such as
single-family, duplex, triplex, multi-family, office, and commercial. This
would be a hierarchical type of land use transition that would be typically
seen. In this instance, the land use that abuts this property on the west
side was single-family homes and that was the controversial issue before the
City Commission.
She said the Public Works staff and the applicant were available to talk
about the Traffic Impact Study that the applicant prepared.
Day asked the City Commission if there were any specific questions or items
that they would like staff to go over. She said this was a proposed
building for approximately 35, 000 square feet. There were 88 occupants
proposed for this site plan. The parking proposed for the use exceeded the
minimum code requirements. The applicant was providing 1 off-street parking
space for each occupant within this development, not all sorority or
fraternity organizations that had been developed in the past could claim
that.
Vice Mayor Rundle said Day's memo outlined the issues that to date ends with
the goal of providing the City Commission traffic counts in June.
Day said that was Public Works. It was part of the discussion of an
assessment of what type of traffic was occurring in the neighborhood, which
would be addressed by Public Works staff.
Commissioner Highberger had a procedural question. He asked if there was a
reason why staff did not address each finding specifically in the staff
report?
Day said that were not called out as "findings of fact" the way staff did
with a zoning report. The format of the reports had evolved over the years
and certainly if there was a particular format, the Commission wished to
see, staff could adapt to that format. The format that the Commission had
at this time had been historically used for some time. She said staff tried
to touch on the significant issues or outstanding issues and also, provide
the City Commission with an overall summary of the compliance of a
particular application with minimum code requirements.
Commissioner Highberger asked if he was correct in assuming that staff had
found that the site plan had met all of the 7 criteria.
Day said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there had been a Traffic Impact Study
conducted by the applicant.
Day said yes. The applicant prepared the Traffic Impact Study and that
study was provided to the Public Works Department, Transportation Planner,
Traffic Engineer, and the City Engineer reviewed that document.
Commissioner Schauner asked what studies had been done to determine the
financial impact on the surrounding neighborhood by staff.
Day said that type of analysis had not been historically done.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the applicant made that type of analysis.
Day said no.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was another traffic study to be
completed in June.
Day said that was a continued assessment of traffic within the neighborhood.
There was one street that staff saw quite a bit of traffic on, but the
assumption was that traffic was related to the elementary school. It was
intra-neighborhood traffic.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that intra-neighborhood traffic would impact
the traffic analysis. He said traffic in the neighborhood was traffic in
the neighborhood regardless of the generator. He asked how the two sets of
traffic information worked together.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said his staff had taken current
traffic counts to take a look at what the traffic volumes were. He said
there were some concerns about traffic on Avalon, Emery, Cambridge, and
Sunset Drive. He said traffic counts were taken on April 22 2003, while
schools were in session so staff was assuming the maximum traffic in the
area. He said they saw 310 total vehicles on Avalon Road, 1600 to 1700 on
Sunset Drive, 1000 on Cambridge, and on Emery Road the traffic volumes were
higher. All those roads were classified as local residential streets and
9th Street was the arterial. Emery Road acts as the collector street for
the area. He said when the semester ends staff would take another traffic
volume study to see how many people were attributed to the K.U. traffic. He
said staff wanted to get an idea where traffic was coming from. He said
staff would discuss how they would like to get the traffic to the collectors
and arterial streets.
Commissioner Schauner asked over what period of time did staff get the
current traffic counts.
Soules said this was a 24-hour count.
Commissioner Schauner asked what day of the week those traffic counts were
taken.
David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, said April 22, 2003 [Friday].
Jeff Shinkle, Project Architect for BCS Design, thanked the City Commission
for considering this site plan. He said at the last City Commission meeting
there were several issues that came up regarding this site plan and one
issue was the Traffic Impact Study. He said they had hired TranSystems
Corporation to do that impact study.
He said another issue was drainage. He said as they discussed at the last
meeting, 95% of this new impervious surface would drain into a detention
pond. He said most of the drainage from the parking lot would come down
into an inlet and drain down into another inlet and then into a detention
pond where it would be held and slowly drained out into the original
drainage pattern. He said they believed their design would help the
situation. With the current topography that water had nowhere else to go
but down and straight out at a rapid rate.
He said there were concerns brought up by the adjacent neighbors of this
building being out of scale and massive behind their homes. He said they
tried to address these issues using the City Code. There was an area in the
City Code where this project could not exceed 45 feet in height without
using setback requirements to go higher. With the setbacks that were set at
this time, by the City Code they could essentially place a 70-foot or more
building on that site. He said they intentionally kept that 45-foot marker
as their basis. The last time they addressed this issue the building was 52
feet in height and by reducing top of steel lines, roof pitches, and
dropping the top down, they were able to get that building down 45-foot
above grade. He said going any lower with this building would be a
difficult thing to do with the floor-to-floor heights to keep with the
mechanical systems.
He said they had a meeting with the neighbors on April 15, as requested by
the City Commission, and they had a favorable turnout. He said they talked
about the house scale and during that meeting they found some things they
could reduce on the house that would help with the square footage.
He also said that he wanted the City Commission to be aware that they were
not putting a massive parking garage within 20 feet from a house. He said
putting a parking garage underneath a building was not economically feasible
for this project. Parking garages could be dangerous and there were
security concerns for the women. He said the requirement for a parking
garage was massive because there were certain turnaround requirements and
fire requirements.
He said they discussed in the neighborhood meeting of reducing some of the
parking on the site. He said they could go down to 66 cars by City Code,
but it would not help. He said it would save some space for some trees,
however, there were still run-off issues. He said they would simply be
eliminating parking and a few feet of retaining wall.
Another issue brought up at the meeting was the retaining wall. There was
some misconception that that retaining wall was going to be concrete cinder
block, but that was not the case. They had talked with some manufacturers
of some higher-end retaining block that looks like natural limestone. He
said they also explored the opportunity of putting some ground cover vine
that would creep down on the wall to give it landscape vegetation.
He said they had not asked for a variance on the project. The building was
oriented to be sensitive to the neighbors. He said they did not want to
create a hotel look. He said they tried to angle the building and orient it
with pitches in order that each house on the site would not have a straight
massive building to look at.
Commissioner Schauner asked what was the height of the retaining wall.
Shinkle said at the highest point it would be 20 feet, which was 20 feet
from the bottom of the pond. He said it was actually 16 feet above the
grade level.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the retaining wall was on the southwest
corner of the project.
Shinkle said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked what was the run of that retaining wall.
Shinkle said this retaining wall runs along an entire side, which was 200 or
more feet. He said this was to hold the retention pond that was required
for drainage.
Commissioner Schauner asked where the shortest part of the retaining wall
was.
Shinkle said it went down to approximately 1 or 2 feet with the grading.
The site essentially comes up, peaks out, and goes down to the drainage
area. He said the lowest part of the retaining wall was 6 feet.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be parking on the west side of
the building.
Shinkle said not on the west side. The majority of the parking was on the
north side. He said there was another misconception about this project
concerning the term "loading dock." He said it was not a loading dock, but
a door. He said this would be where the delivery trucks would come and it
would not be any different than a UPS truck coming to a house.
Commissioner Schauner said there were some concerns by the neighbors that as
cars enter the parking area their headlights would be facing into the
neighbor's property.
Shinkle said there might be a light that would shine on a house at some
point. However the elevation of the driveway and the landscaping would
help.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be an expectation that there would
be late traffic.
Shinkle said lights were expected to be out by 11:00 p.m. He did not know
if that was the curfew.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the building would be locked at 11:00 p.m.
Shinkle said yes.
Commissioner Highberger said the place on the site where the retaining wall
went the farthest west, he asked how far that was from the property line.
Shinkle said where the retaining wall went the furthest west was
approximately 23 feet.
Commissioner Highberger asked how far it was from the nearest house.
Shinkle said from the retaining wall to the nearest house was 80 feet.
Commissioner Schauner had observed in that neighborhood there were fairly
narrow streets and a fair amount of cars parked on those streets. He said
essentially the street was a lane and a half wide with no parking signs on a
couple of those streets. He said when a traffic impact study was done, he
asked how do you account for those conditions in adjusting permissible
traffic counts during a 24-hour period on a residential street.
Tom Swenson said their study did not extend on the residential streets in
that area. The Traffic Impact Study was done from the development to the
nearest collector or arterial street, which in this particular case was from
Sigma Nu Place to 9th Street. He said their study did concentrate on Emery
Road from 9th Street through Sigma Nu Place to the next intersection to the
south. In addition to that study, he rendered an opinion as to what he
thought traffic from this particular sorority might mean to Avalon Road. He
said this was not a comprehensive study of the entire neighborhood in that
area.
He said that was a good question about how much traffic could be tolerated
with on street parking with certain widths. He said what you see today had
evolved many times over to the condition it was, to a level or condition
that the City and the neighbors find acceptable or reasonably safe
conditions for everyone that drove in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Schauner asked if this traffic study did not take into account
the impact on the neighborhood of this project and only took into account
the impact from the project to the nearest collector intersection, which was
the 9th Street intersection.
Swenson said yes.
Commissioner Highberger asked if in Swenson's study, the study estimated
that 25% of the traffic from the sorority would be heading south on High
Street.
Swenson said yes, behind the private drive.
Commissioner Highberger asked what that was based on.
Swenson said that was based on an estimate of other patterns they had seen.
He said it was an estimate of where parking facilities were relative to ways
in an out of that Greek area.
Commissioner Hack was assuming as the residents leave the house, he was
looking at the most direct route to get out as opposed to winding around
Emery Road and back around Cambridge to Avalon.
Swenson said and that was typical of how all of us drive.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Price Banks, attorney, representing the neighbors of the proposed
development, said the distinction between conditional and permitted uses was
important because it gives the Commission broad discretionary authority in
approving a site plan. Because this was a conditional use, there was no
guarantee that someone could build to the density that was permitted in a
zoning district. There was no guarantee that a person could build to the
setback lines as long as they provide appropriate parking. If that were the
case, the situation that just occurred with Wal-mart would have had a
different ending. The Commission had the authority to scale a project so
that it fits with the community's needs and so that it was compatible with
the neighborhood.
Those 7 site plan approval requirements might need to be dealt with as
finding of fact because those were requirements in the code for the approval
of a site plan. He said that site plan must be compatible with the
neighborhood. The very basis for zoning when it was originally envisioned in
the first zoning ordinance were put into place for the reason for making
land uses compatible with each other.
He said there had been a lot of talk about scale. He said they were talking
about a 45- foot structure like the City Hall Building adjacent to
single-family lots.
He said there had also been discussion about the loading dock and it would
be a place for a bread truck to come. He said those bread trucks would be
serving restaurants that served 2 or 3 meals a day for an 88-seat
restaurant. He said the dock would accommodate bread, meat, produce, and
dairy trucks and this traffic would be frequent. He said this would be a
service area in the back yard of single-family residences.
There also had been conversation about the difficulty of the sites and the
fact that if this site was developed in any use, it was likely that you
could not save any trees. There were attractive developments done on steep
sites around this country and it was not necessary to level the site.
Banks said there had been conversations at the City Commission as well as
the neighborhood meetings that solutions that had been proposed were too
expensive. He said if they scaled down the numbers in the project, it was
said it would be economically unfeasible. If the site could not be managed,
as to minimize the impact on the neighbors, then perhaps the project was not
feasible. There was never a guarantee when you buy a piece of land that it
was going to be appropriate for the project that was in mind. He said that
was why lawyers invented contingency and due diligence clauses. Those
determinations needed to be made before the final commitment was made. If
the project was unfeasible, then it simply could not be done. If it could
be scaled back or if things could be done to make it compatible with the
neighborhood, then those should be done. He said the City Commission had
the authority to make substantial changes.
Rick Stein, resident at the south end of the proposed site, agreed with
Banks' comments. He said when you listen to an architect describe their
project and you put it where this site happens to sit, then you could see
how difficult it was to avoid the conflict and incompatible usages that
project presented. He said when they met before much of the argument had
to do with the project being out of scale. He said the case that was made
revolved around the idea that the intensity of use adjacent to the
single-family homes on Avalon Road was extreme and was essentially by its
nature, not compatible without barriers and transitions to duplex and
multi-family.
He said there were potentially serious traffic issues. He was particularly
concerned about the conclusions that were drawn in that report that
referenced Avalon Road. He said the traffic report was inferred from other
data.
He said at the meeting on April 1st the Commission asked the neighborhood to
get together with the architects and property owners and progress was made.
He said they were thrilled with the reduction of height and width of the
entry. The product found for the retaining walls was okay, it was not
great, but it was not awful.
He said they were also receptive to using wooden fences rather than the open
wrought iron type fencing to help cut the light transmission that might or
might not escape their property as cars approach the lot.
He said the scale issue still remained. In talking about the relative grade
and the various floor heights, he thought it missed the point. He said it
was a perception and reality issue. He said when you look across an open
space and see 47 foot of structure from whatever its topographical position
was, that was what affected the response to scale. He said the perception
was that they had a structure similar to scale to City Hall or the parking
garage across from the Arts Center that was 23 feet east of the property
line. He said this project was out of scale.
Stein said Tim Keller came to the meeting to address this issue. He said
Keller felt there was a direct and negative impact of 5% plus or minus on
the homes directly adjacent to the west of the proposed site. He said it
was a significant amount of property value loss when you look at the 4 or 5
lots that abut this project. He said there were 5 lots that would
accumulate a significant amount of negative property value.
He quoted from the minutes that were taken at the meeting. He said it was
explained that as an organization attempting to remain competitive among the
other Greek organizations on the campus, the number of beds were determined
by the required cash flow needed to maintain the viability of the
organization. Regarding our suggestion to look at parking beneath the
structure it was cost prohibitive. Finally, their wish was as a
neighborhood to get this project moved as far east as possible. It was
explained to the neighbors that the current design of the site plan was the
result of 100's of hours of engineering, design, and most of the issues
discussed if not all, had been pursued at one time or another.
He said the piece of earth that the applicant wanted to build on was rugged,
steep, and not big enough for 88 beds with the constraints of the
topography. He said it was an extremely difficult site to build on. He did
not fault the applicant's effort or their desire to mitigate. He said it
would serve all of their interest if it was an easy site to build on and
nobody complained, but that was not the reality. It was trying to put to
many people in the wrong location. This level of intensity was required
because of the topography and that was an inescapable fundamental truth of
the conflict that there was.
He addressed the noise issue. He said the location of the mechanical
systems on the west side of the building, they had a type of device called a
"chiller" and thought there were fans associated with pushing air and these
units were on the west side adjacent to property owners, rather than those
devices being on the east side where nobody would care about the noise. He
said this mechanical design was done because of economics. He asked the
Commission to exercise their legally mandated discretion and require that
this plan be scaled back in size.
Bill Mitchell, Lawrence, was struck by the ridiculousness of living traffic
wise up stream and that the traffic impact study considered the traffic from
the Sigma Nu Place to 9th Street. He said where the traffic was going to
affect the neighborhood was to the south. He urged the City Commission to
consider the neighborhood.
Robert Morrison, resident that lived directly west of the proposed project,
chose to live in this neighborhood. He had lived in the Old West Lawrence
neighborhood for 21 years primarily because he was fortunate enough to find
his dream home. He paid a premium price for the property as a price of a
desired neighborhood did not come inexpensively.
He had concerns about the property value reductions that would come forth
with this development. He said his investment was being threatened by the
scope and scale of this proposed project. The implications of the decreased
property, non-compatible use of the home, the increased noise and litter
were all concerns to the neighborhood.
He did not think the parking was being satisfactorily dealt with the Traffic
Study. Most of the parking problems had occurred in the evening and he
would get overflow parking onto Avalon Road. He asked that the approval
of this proposal be conditional upon a reduction in the size and scope of
the project.
Muriel Cohen said in terms of parking in the neighborhood, there was already
illegal parking. She said it was dangerous and the streets were narrow and
with building a new structure, certainly parking would not improve. She
said all of her neighbors had been drawn to this space because of the beauty
in that area.
Patrick Suzeau said those trucks that stop on Cambridge to go to the
fraternities and sororities to deliver, park in the middle of the street.
He said the traffic was already unbearable. In addition, the activity at
night in this area was wild especially in the summer.
Duane Morris, Stephens Real Estate, speaking on behalf of the sorority,
pointed out that he had been selling real estate since 1975. He said saying
that these houses would go down in value was not a fact of life. He did
appraisals in the West Hills area for many years. There was currently a
house for sale in the West Hills area and the house values surrounded by the
campus were higher in price, in generally, than any other part of the City.
To tell the Commission that your house would decrease in value might or
might not be correct.
Jill Krebs, resident in the proposed site area, said the West Hills
neighborhood which was on the east side of Sigma Nu had a large area of land
that was built as a bird sanctuary and isolated the West Hills neighborhood
from the fraternities and sororities.
She said the neighborhood was not happy with the parking and traffic in
their area. She said the parking at various times of the year could be
highly variable and people were prone to park illegally. She said the
comment concerning the delivery trucks parking in the middle of the road was
accurate.
Commissioner Highberger said when looking at the project design that was
submitted, it seemed like a much higher percentage of surface area that lot
was taking up with the building and parking lot than most of the other lots
in that development.
Day said staff did not do that calculation. She said staff could get those
numbers by looking at stormwater assessments. From the aerial photograph
map, the impervious surface was comparable to what you see in other
developments in this area. She said without looking at each one of those
lots individually, she could not answer that question.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the lot immediately north of the subject
property and was there any reason why that lot would be subject to future
development?
Day said there had been some preliminary conversation and as a
pre-submittal, she thought there was development interest of this parcel as
well. It was her understanding that the terrain was equally as challenging
if not a little bit more.
Commissioner Hack asked if the zoning was the same on that particular parcel
as the proposed project.
Day said yes.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the current version of the regulation did refer to
impact on property values.
Day said the language was in Section 20-1432 of the conditions of approval
in Subsection (b) stated: "The proposed arrangement of buildings,
off-street parking, access, lighting, landscaping, and drainage is
compatible with adjacent land uses." She said the question of compatibility
was with properties on the west side of the subject property.
Commissioner Highberger said there was a reference to property values in
20-1428.
Day said 20-1428 talked about property values in terms of looking at the
site plan approval. This section of the code stated: The purpose and intent
of the requiring site plan approval is to encourage the compatible
arrangement of buildings, off-street parking, lighting, landscaping
pedestrian walkways and sidewalks, ingress and egress, and drainage on the
site and from the site, any or all of these, in a manner that will promote
safety and convenience for the public and will preserve property values of
surrounding properties.
Commissioner Schauner said this as an issue was one that drew him to this
bench in the first place and presented the most challenging issues that
would face this Commission, not just this evening, but for many evenings to
come. He said not this particular project, but this type of issue.
He said there was an existing neighborhood with people who purchased
property there with certain expectations about its current and future use
and appearance. He said there was also on the east side of that drainage
way a number of fraternity or other social activities associated with Kansas
University. He said this was a classic tug of war between competing
interest for the use of some remaining undeveloped ground. He said it was
easy to set the stage for discussion, but it was much more difficult to move
through the issue in a logical fashion and arrive at a decision which
hopefully would be based on the rules that the Commission was there to
apply.
He read site plan approval as consisting or requiring both review of 20-1428
and those section that follow which included the 7 conditions under 20-1432.
He did not have any particular question about whether there would be a
sufficient number of trees and shrubs and so forth because he was confident
that the architectural renderings would produce compliance with those
conditions. He had substantial concerns about whether or not this building
would have a negative impact on the property values that abut this
development to the west.
He heard neighbors share an opinion that they had heard from a realtor that
it would have a negative impact on their property values and heard from
another person with real estate experience suggest that that would not be
the case.
He said there was also the question about whether this project was
compatible with the adjacent land uses. After not only listening to the
conversation and the testimony and had taken opportunity to drive through
that neighborhood, what he noticed was fairly narrow streets, a fair amount
of bumper to bumper parking along a couple of these streets and a highly
congested, not particularly well maintained, roadway. He could not support
this particular site plan because he had substantial reservations and he was
unable to resolve in his own mind, what the impact on property values in the
surrounding areas would be. He said once built, what ever the result was,
was the result. Once constructed what ever damage, if any, would be
permanent. He was not suggesting that there was damage to those property
values, he simply did not know. He was not willing to approve a site plan
without some better sense of what the impact on those adjoining property
values would be.
He also had substantial concerns about whether this structure, a 200 foot
length of wall, with a high point at 23 feet and faced with limestone,
cinderblock, or concrete, struck him as consuming a substantial amount of
his visual space as he used his property. He could not square that
substantial size of development with what he viewed as a compatible use.
For those reasons, he could not stand and support this project. A lesser
version, he would not speak to what his view might be because he had not
seen a lesser version. He was hopeful that this sorority had made
provisions for due diligence clauses in this purchase of property. He said
it was not this Commission's purpose or responsibility to protect the
purchasers of property. He did not want his vote to be part of an attempt
to turn the heat up a little bit more on the West Hills neighborhood and he
hoped his fellow Commissioners would agree.
Commissioner Highberger agreed with Mayor Dunfield in that this was a
difficult decision. The first thing he did when reviewing this issue was to
be clear on the criteria the City had on approving or disapproving site
plans. He said it was important to note that this was a conditional use.
When discussing this issue with Corliss, it was his understanding that the
zoning on this property, residential dormitory, was not vested like
single-family zoning until a project started. He said the Commission had
the authority if so desired, to change the zoning on this project without
incurring any liability. He was not suggesting that should be done, but
wanted that on record.
He said Horizon 2020 supported infill development and in a growing City like
ours, to make most sufficient uses of our resources and infill development
was crucial. It had to be balanced against the needs of existing
neighborhoods. He was concerned that this project did not provide for any
transition between an extremely intensive use and a single-family use. He
said the neighborhoods here had been a victim of incremental changes over
the years that basically had raised the temperature of the pot of water to
an undesirable level.
He said they approved a site plan earlier this evening without findings of
fact, but as a lawyer, when the code stated that the Planning Staff was
supposed to find that certain conditions had been met, there were 7
conditions where there was supposed to be findings. He said for him as a
governing body member, approving something would be easier when having
findings of fact. He also had some concerns about the scale of this project
on this lot and he would not support approval of this site plan at this
time.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the Commission would like to have an impact study,
whether traffic or property values that would give the Commission a clearer
direction, but that had not been the case, which means they were left with
the judgment of the Commissioners. He said they had to make a decision on
the issues that the 2 legal minds had articulated clearly. He agreed that
compatibility, in his judgment, was not met.
Commissioner Hack appreciated the analogy of the tug of war. It was
certainly a tug of war between neighborhood issues and existing zoning
situations. Anytime you have transition from one use to the next, somebody
would be at the end of the transition and would not like what was next. She
understood the neighbors desire to keep the greenspace, but on the other
hand, she supported staff's recommendations. She said staff had looked
diligently at these issues and she supported this project.
Mayor Dunfield looked through these issues, not at a legal point of view,
but tried to weigh what he saw as the gains and losses to all of the parties
involved. He said there would be losses to the single-family residences in
terms of greenspace, which had remained greenspace because this piece of
property was difficult to develop. There had been many fraternities and
sororities that had looked at developing this property over the years and
had not gotten to this stage because that piece of property was steep and
difficult.
However, he looked at the other side and based on what he saw in the traffic
study, he was persuaded that this development would not have an impact that
would be felt throughout the neighborhood. He said they did promote infill
development, but he knew it was hard to achieve infill development because
while everyone likes it in the abstract, hardly anyone ever likes it when it
was there backyard.
The property value issue was one where he could not get a clear sense that
there was significant damage. As everyone had said, one of the gains that
we could point to, was that this neighborhood would be gaining some good
neighbors that might provide a bit of a buffer from some of the other
affects of the Greek houses further up the hill. He said it was potentially
a gain for the neighborhood. He was leaning towards approval of this
project. He said this was difficult and he did not see that we had a
winning solution one-way or the other.
He was concerned about the question of "transition" and he did not
understand what could be developed on this piece of property other than a
Greek House, just by the nature of its relationship to the rest of that
development.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to deny approval of site plan
(SP-01-03-03) for the construction of an 88 resident Alpha Gamma Sorority
House, located at 1520 Sigma Nu Place. Aye: Highberger, Rundle, and
Schauner. Nay: Dunfield and Hack. Motion carried.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, requested that findings of fact be prepared
regarding the Alpha Gamma Sorority House site plan denial.
The findings of fact for the Site Plan SP-01-03-03 are as follows:
* the financial impact on the surrounding neighborhood by staff.
* concerns by the neighbors that as cars enter the parking area, there
headlights would be facing into the neighbors property.
* much higher percentage of surface area that lot was taking up with the
building and parking lot than most of the other lots in that development.
* Substantial reservations about the impact (negative) on property values in
the surrounding area and not willing to approve a site plan without some
better sense of what the impact on those adjoining property values would be.
* The plan was not consistent with the expectations of adjacent property
owners about its current and future use and appearance. This was a classic
tug of war between competing interests for the use of some remaining
undeveloped ground and because of this it was much more difficult to move
through the issue in a logical fashion and arrive at a decision which
hopefully would be based on the rules that the Commission was there to
apply.
* Approval of the site plan was not consistent with both section 20-1428
and the seven criteria listed in 20-1432, specifically, there were
substantial concerns about whether or not this building would have a
negative impact on the property values that abut this development to the
* There were also questions of incompatible with the adjacent land uses of
the proposed development.
* The substantial size of development could not be supported, a lesser
version, was not presented so it was not considered.
* Did not want to turn up the heat on the west hills neighborhood by
approval of this development.
* This is a conditional use and the standards of compatibility with the
existing neighborhood were not met.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M. Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING MAY 6, 2003
1. Bid - 2002 Phase II Waterline Improvements at Jayhawk Blvd/Oread Ave,
13th St. to Rose-Lan for $498,209.10
2. Purchase Order - Kaw Intake Pump Rehab Project to Fairbanks Morse Pump
Corp., for $19,720.
3. Bid - Yankee Tank Interceptor Sewer Project to McLouth Excavating for
$783,696.50.
4. Bid - 2003 Overlay & Curb Repair Program, Phase 2, to LRM for
$889,983.95.
5. Purchase 2 1-ton Pickups for PW on May 6, 2003.
6. Bid Date Set - Oread Sanitary Sewers on May 6, 2003.
7. Ordinance No. 7638 - 1st Reading, (Z-01-01-01) 35.56 acres from RS-2 to
PRD-2, NW corner of Peterson & Kasold.
8. Ordinance No. 7616 - 2nd Reading, Street Vendor Requirements in downtown
area.
9. Ordinance No. 7622 - 2nd Reading, Annex 53 acres by Municipal Airport.
10. Ordinance No. 7643 - 2nd Reading, annex 1.02 acres, 3015 W 31st.
11. Ordinance No. 7640 - 2nd Reading, levy assessments for 11th, E of
Haskell.
12. Ordinance No. 7641 - 2nd Reading, levy assessments for 16th, Wakarusa &
Research Park Dr.
13. Ordinance No. 7642, 2nd Reading, levy assessments for Oread Center.
14. Site Plan - (SP-04-21-03) Alpha Chi Omega Sorority Parking lot
Renovations.
15. Final Plat - (PF-02-02-03) Wakarusa View Estates No. 5, Lts 28-38, Blk
1, Wakarusa View Estates No. 4, 11 Lt Subdivision, 3.797 acres.
16. Agreement - Garber Construction, 31st r-o-w adjacent to Ranch Rd
Subdivision.
17. Police Dept. Resource Plan RFP.
18. City/County letter to Governor, air quality regulations.
19. Subordination Agreement - 1017 E Home Circle, Edward & Irene Nieder.
20. City Manager's Report.
21. Resolution No. 6468 - 2003 Annual Update of Consolidated Plan, 2003 CDBG
& Home Programs.
22. Vacation - R-O-W, N or E 23rd & E of Haskell.
23. Site Plan - (SP-01-03-03) 88 resident sorority house, 1520 Sigma Nu Pl.
_____________________________
Lisa K. Patterson
Communications Coordinator
City of Lawrence
PO Box 708
Lawrence, KS 66044
(785) 832-3406
fax (785) 832-3405
lpatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
http://www.lawrenceks.org