[E-minutes] May 13, 2003 City Commission meeting minutes
Lisa Patterson
lpatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Fri, 23 May 2003 10:08:29 -0500
May 13, 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 Vice Mayor
Rundle presiding and members Hack, Highberger, and Schauner present. Mayor
Dunfield was absent.
Vice Mayor Rundle recognized the Hiratsuka student delegation.
With Commission approval, Vice Mayor Rundle proclaimed the week of May 10 -
18, 2003 to be "National Tourism Week"; the week of May 17 - 23, 2003 to be
"National Safe Boating Week"; and the week of May 18 - 24, 2003 to be
"National Public Works Week." Motion carried unanimously.
Vice Mayor Rundle said that consent agenda item No. 4 on the regular agenda,
Ordinance No. 7639, rezoning (Z-01-07-03) property located on the northeast
corner of 19th Street and Delaware Street, was deferred by the applicant
until next week's City Commission meeting.
Pat Sinclair, Lawrence, asked that the rezoning (Z-01-07-03) of Ordinance
7639 be placed 1st on the regular agenda, next week, for discussion.
Vice Mayor Rundle agreed.
Due to the possibility of the rising cost of natural gas the City of
Lawrence and Douglas County have negotiated an agreement to protect us
against the rising cost by locking in a maximum rate of $0.889 per therm.
This item was placed on the consent agenda as a walk-on item due to time
restraints.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of May 6, 2003. Motion
carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to approve the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of April 3, 2003 and
the draft meeting minutes of May 1, 2003; the Planning Commission draft
meeting minutes of April 23, 2003; and the Historic Resources Commission
draft action summary meeting minutes of April 17, 2003. Motion carried
unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to approve claims to 362 vendors in the amount of $1,185,709.61.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to approve a change order for the T-hangar project at the Lawrence Municipal
Airport for $16,672.56 to Hamm, Inc. Motion carried unanimously.
(1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for one rear load refuse truck for the
Parks and Recreation Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Roy Conley & Co., Inc. $48,526
American Equipment Co. $48,845
Roy Conley Co., Inc.
$49,532
American Equipment Co. $52,175
Westfall GMC
$54,655
Corbin Equipment, Inc. No Bid
Gunter's Service, Inc. No
Bid
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to award the bid to Roy Conley & Co., in the amount of $48,562. Motion
carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to set a bid date of May 27, 2003 for North 3rd Street, Industrial Lane to
North City Limits and 23rd Street, Learnard Avenue to Harper Street (KLINK),
milling, overlay, and pavement marking improvements. Motion carried
unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to set a bid date of June 3, 2003 for the Chip Seal Program. Motion carried
unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7646, establishing the Lawrence
Sesquicentennial Commission. The Sesquicentennial Commission was
established by City Commission motion in 1999. The ordinance is recommended
to ensure that Commission members can have Tort Claims Act protections.
Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7647, establishing "no parking"
along the west side of Ousdahl from 25th Street south to the property line
between 1603 West 25th Street and 2515-17 Ousdahl Road. Motion carried
unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7648, establishing a "disabled
parking zone" on the south side of Greever Terrace adjacent to Centennial
School and in front of 2535 Belle Haven Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
(7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7649, establishing a 50-foot "bus
parking zone" on the east side of New Jersey Street, north of 14th Street.
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to adopt Resolution No. 6469, adopting City policy on speed humps and speed
cushions. Motion carried unanimously.
(9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to approve an amendment (CPA-2003-1) to Horizon 2020, the City and County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Chapter 8 - Transportation, Figures 14 and 15;
and adopt the revised Major Thoroughfares Map for Lawrence Urban Growth Area
and Douglas County, so they are consistent with the adopted Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (T2025). Motion carried unanimously.
(10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to receive an annexation request for approximately 18.53 acres, Tract A,
Bauer Brook Estates No. 5, generally located between Wakarusa Drive and
Folks Road, north of Free State High School, and refer the annexation
request to the Planning Commission for recommendation. Motion carried
unanimously.
(11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger,
to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for David and Rita
Roberts, 2018 Miller Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
(12)
During the City Manager's Report, Mike Wildgen thanked City staff for their
efforts and response in helping with the clean up of last weeks storms.
Wildgen said that attached to the City Manager's Report, was an updated
report by City staff of departmental objectives, as a means to assess
progress being made towards the City Commission goals and priorities.
Also, Wildgen reported that along with the newly designed utility bills,
customers would receive an insert informing them as to how to access their
utility accounts on-line.
Lastly, Wildgen reported that the past City Commission adopted an Ordinance
prohibiting fireworks in the City of Lawrence. He said Lisa Patterson,
Communications Coordinator, had developed an awareness campaign that would
focus on this issue. (13)
Commission Schauner pulled from the consent agenda, Ordinance No. 7638,
rezoning property located on the northwest corner of Peterson Road and
Kasold Drive for discussion and separate vote. He said there was more to be
built and developed west of that property. He was concerned about the lack
of a thorough traffic study with respect to the impact that development and
others would have at that location. Another concern was the exact nature of
the benefit district which would be created for the developer of that
project. He was not willing to approve this rezoning when he took a
position against this item that was discussed at a previous City Commission
meeting.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to adopt on second 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. Aye: Hack, Highberger,
and Rundle. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried.
(14)
Paula Phillips, Emergency Management Director, Douglas County, said the two
purposes of the Emergency Management Board was to oversee the Emergency
Management activities in the County and also fulfill the Federally mandated
responsibilities under SARA Title 3 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, providing oversight for hazardous materials use,
manufacturing, storage, and spilling release in the community.
She said the board met quarterly and the working group met monthly. She
said they did an annual reorganization each June and when the board met last
June for its reorganization, they decided that instead of hearing reports
and educational type topics in the area of emergency management, they wanted
to take more of an active role in activities. As a result, they developed a
Homeland Security Advisory System Action Plan that was now in place and in
use by all of the Emergency Response Agencies. They formalized a threat
assessment team so that in the event there was a pre-knowledge of some
developing situation, that they could pull together some subject matter
experts on that particular topic and begin to consider the impact of that
possible event on our community. She said they had a threat assessment team
on West Nile Virus and should SARS become an event in the United States,
they would pull together an assessment team and preplan what type of impact
there might be in Douglas County.
Phillips said the Emergency Management Board also sponsored a Terrorism
Seminar in November 2002 which was followed by a day of bio-terrorism
exercise in Lawrence. She said this exercise was well attended and they
learned a lot.
They also recently had sponsored Incident Command Training. Incident
Command was a system that response agencies use for the management of any
disaster or emergency operations. The Federal Government was putting
together legislation that would go into effect by 2005 which would mandate
an Incident Command System Structure be utilized in every emergency
response. She said they had been trying to provide training to all of the
local responders.
Phillips said the Emergency Management Board was the receiving agency for
all of the Tier 2 submissions for facilities in Douglas County. Those were
facilities required by Federal Law to submit an annual report on chemicals
that were listed and on the manufacture, use, or storing of chemicals and
those reports must be submitted on a yearly basis. She said that
information was compiled, summarized, and that report was community
Right-to-Know information. She said there were a lot of chemicals in this
community, but we were fortunate our manufacturers and users were
responsible and had worked well with the Fire/Medical Department in terms of
allowing pre-planning, inspection, and working with them.
Phillips said the tornado response by City staff was phenomenal. She said
Tim Pinnick, Rehabilitation Specialist, put together a damage assessment
that was developed under 24 hours of the actual touch down of the tornado
which was a record for any disaster response and she thought the Commission
should be pleased with City staff. She said City staff had to go door to
door and inspect every damaged structure within the scope of the incident
inside the City limits. She said they did not find any damage in the County
other then out buildings and by FEMA rules, they did not count. The Police
Department and Fire/Medical Department worked through the night making sure
the scene was secure and Public Works and the Forestry Division cleared the
streets of debris. She said these were all expectation that the citizens
had, but it was not a requirement of the City. She said the County
Commission was interested in extending their thanks to all of the agencies
that had participated.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the Emergency Management Board actually tried to plan
and think things through ahead of time. What the response was on the part
of City staff and many other people was a surprise. This was certainly
something City staff and others had a role to play in our preparations and
plans, but they responded to the occasion.
Phillips said yes, for example, before Chuck Soules, Public Works Director,
came on board with the City, they pulled together a Public Works Planning
Team made up of all of the Public Works Departments in the County and
developed a Debris Management Plan, a Public Works Response Plan, on how the
agencies were going to help each other because there were regulations under
FEMA that if they were to qualify for Presidential Declaration Reimbursement
Funds, they had to know what the rules were and be willing to play by those
rules.
Vice Mayor Rundle said it was helpful for him to meet with Phillips and
learn the City's responsibilities and roles of the elected officials and
governing body. He said the great comfort was that there was such an
infrastructure already in place.
Commissioner Hack heard many people say how fortunate we were to have
Phillips in this community and appreciated her preparedness to the tornado
issue. She asked if there was any part of the plan that responded to the
tourist that immediately congregate in the area which prohibits emergency
vehicles from responding.
Phillips said there were several advantages and disadvantages of being in
the technology age, but she believed it was an important part in helping
warn citizens. The down side of that was that because citizens were seeing
this issue broadcasted live, they wanted to see it in person. She said they
would have a debriefing asking all of the agencies that participated in the
response and recovery to talk about what worked and did not work well and
then create a corrective action plan.
She said there was a lot of confusion and frustration about outdoor warning
sirens, but there was no amount of pubic education they could do to convince
people that the best warning device was a NOAA Whether Radio System. She
had been working for the past year to get a vendor in our community to
partner with to provide NOAA Whether Radios at a low cost to our community.
She had been giving them away at every public presentation that they did.
They purchased 250 radios out of their budget and had been giving them away.
As a result of the tornado, Hy-Vee had stepped up to the plate and would
like to work with Emergency Management to provide NOAA Whether Radios in
their stores.
Commissioner Schauner mentioned that we did not have an "all clear" siren.
He asked what it would require to provide that after-the-fact assistance.
Phillips said there were several issues to take into consideration. One was
as we age and our hearing changed, scientific research clearly showed that
those of us in that group and older really could not differentiate between
the two tones. She said they would hear a siren and it would not matter if
it was the attack or alert siren, they would not be able to differentiate.
They tried to educate the community that the "all clear" was given on local
radio and television stations. She had a concern about putting in an
additional tone. She would talk to the board about that issue so it could
be addressed.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Emergency Management Board had the
ability to make recommendations, with respect to designing new apartment
complexes, so that citizens could be provided with shelter other than an
interior room. He said we were fortunate not to have any serious injury or
death. He said for instance, at the Aberdeen Apartments, there was no
shelter below ground level.
Phillips said correct. The majority of apartment complexes had no storm
shelters. She said they did meet with the Apartment Managers Association
once a year to talk about literature they could provide to their residents
about self protected measures. A mitigation technique would require an
Ordinance or Resolution on the part of the City to place in the building
code that would require storm shelters as some communities did with Mobile
Home Parks, but there was no State or Federal mandate.
She said Brian Kabota, developer, had worked diligently to begin putting
safe rooms in homes that he had built. She said FEMA recommended that new
construction should have safe rooms built into closets in these homes. She
said those plans were provided to Kabota.
Commissioner Schauner asked Phillips if methamphetamines were considered in
her jurisdictions. He said they were a highly toxic substance in the
materials used to make methamphetamines. He asked how the clean up of those
areas would fit into her jurisdiction.
Phillips said technically they did not, but they were aware of what was
going on. She said it was a law enforcement issue because the Kansas Bureau
of Investigation provided the resources for the cleanup and removing of
those products. There had been situations where it was suspected that a
house fire or property damage was a result of a laboratory in which the
hazardous material team was called in. If this team was called in, they
were notified and the board would need to make a report. She said they did
not directly relate to that type of toxic substance because it was a law
enforcement issue.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the methamphetamines were not substances
which the Emergency Management Board was mandated to maintain reports.
Phillips said no.
Vice Mayor Rundle said Habitat for Humanities might be including safe rooms
in some of their houses.
Phillips said that discussion was on-going with the former Director of
Habitat for Humanities. The Emergency Management Board had provided those
plans to them, but she did not know where they were with that issue.
Commissioner Schauner would like the City Commission to consider at some
future setting, design standards that required a protective location for
people in either mobile home parks or apartment complexes where there was
nothing below ground. He thought there should be other ways to protect our
citizens.
Phillips said there were costal areas that had wind resistant building codes
which required tie downs on roofs for single-family homes. Those wind
resistant building codes were appropriate mitigation.
Tom Waechter, Chair, Fire Code Board of Appeals, had been involved with this
group since 1997. The board's activities were managing appeals made to the
board regarding certain fire protection or fire preventive measures that
were required for building in the City of Lawrence. Typically, in the early
days, some of those appeals were more structured towards the "out of the
ordinary" incident. He said more recently, they had run into several issues
that pointed to a future project for their board. Recently, they heard a
couple of appeals brought to the Fire Code Board of Appeals that were
indicative of what might be on the horizon for the City of Lawrence which
had to do with the changes in the code and the adoption of the new fire
code.
He said currently, their Ordinance written for the City of Lawrence was
based upon the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. The Uniform Fire Code was derived
from the Uniform Building Code and essentially that line of code development
was not being updated as of the year 2000. The Fire Code Board of Appeals
had been asked to look at the City Fire Code and Ordinances with the idea
that they had moved to the International Fire Code. They had taken on that
task last fall and in the course of having a couple of appeals, they
recognized some of the challenges that came about when you did not have
consistent definition of building and fire code terminology. In some cases
it was something as simple as the definition of "awning canopies" where the
building code officials would look at an awning on a building and dimensions
would be noted relative to building code. The Fire Code Board of Appeals
would look at the fire code that would site "awnings" or "canopies" and not
find a consistent reference to dimensions. As a result, they had a
difficult time passing a judgment regarding the suitability of awning that
was placed on a recently constructed building in Lawrence. The issue was
flammability and whether it was an "awning" or "canopy."
He said what was really highlighted was the need for a consistent set of
definition so that as board members, they could approach an issue from the
building code as well as the fire code side and know that they were all
talking the same language.
He said what was on the horizon was the need to look at the next generation
of the fire code in the context of the larger building code issues in the
City of Lawrence. He said the one insight they could provide from the Fire
Code Board of Appeals was that it would be an advantage if building and fire
code officials were sharing the same basis of their decisions about
approving buildings or the evaluation of on-going existing structures.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked how many colleagues were on the Fire Code Board of
Appeals.
Waechter said there were 5 members.
Commissioner Schauner asked Waechter to give an example of the types of
appeals that were brought to the board.
Waechter said occupancy appeals which building were rated by use type,
square footage and accessibility or the need for existing.
Commissioner Schauner said for example, if there was a two-story building
downtown in Lawrence and the second floor was going to be turned into a
commercial enterprise, he asked if that building permit request would
trigger any activity with the board, unless, there was an appeal from a
denial.
Waechter said not with the board itself. It would be reviewed through
Lawrence/Douglas County.
Commissioner Schauner said if an appeal came to the board, they would look
at the Uniform Fire Code to find an answer.
Waechter said yes, as amended by City Ordinance for a number of areas of
that code.
Chrisy Khatib, Special Alcohol Fund Advisory Board, said the purpose of the
board was to recommend funding for programs that reduced people's long-term
decisions about alcohol consumption to the City Commission. She said
approximately three years ago, they had difficulty getting people on the
board, but now they had six members. Right now, they were in the process of
looking at 2004 grant applications and making recommendations for funding.
She said in 2003 they recommended funding for 14 programs. Eight of those
were preventions programs, one was an intervention, four were treatment, and
one was a coordination program. She presented a report to the City
Commission outlining the outcome of those programs.
She said they had recently been approved for funding to bring Dr. Carl
Erickson, one the nations leading researchers on the physiology of drug
addition, from the University of Texas to Lawrence. In today's society it
seemed that people saw addiction as a moral disease, but Dr. Erickson would
talk to our community about the neurobiology of addiction. This would be a
six hour training course offered to the entire community.
Commissioner Highberger asked how much money was disbursed last year.
Khatib said this year they disbursed approximately $550,000.
Commissioner Schauner asked when the training would take place.
Khatib said they were looking at August or September 2003. The University
of Kansas had offered one of their auditoriums for training at no charge.
Commissioner Schauner asked how Lawrence ranked in comparison to other
cities, its size, in its alcohol related issues.
Khatib said did not know.
Wildgen did not know if there would be a measure on how cities were ranked.
Khatib said that one of the risk factors for the community was the number of
bars in the Lawrence community.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the number of bars were considered a risk
factor in alcohol dependency.
Khatib said it was considered a risk factor. It was one of the factors that
you would look at in the community. Other risk factors were high school
dropouts, teenage pregnancy, and the number of times a family would move.
She said there were also different domains. She would supply the City
Commission with more information on this issue.
Commissioner Schauner said $550,000 was a lot of money for a community this
size to spend on alcohol issues. He was curious how we would compare in
terms of expenditure or our "problem" that would drive this type of a
program.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the City Commission would like to convey their
appreciation to the board members for their efforts in going through the
many requests which surely exceeded the amount of funds available.
Commissioner Hack thought it was important to look at the number of
prevention program request that dealt with children. While there were some
treatment programs with concerns for alcoholism, there were a lot of other
issues the board dealt with to stop young people from getting to that point.
(15)
Vice Mayor Rundle called a public hearing on the vacation of the east 10
feet of Florida Street right-of-way from 6th Street south 100 feet, adjacent
to Lot 1, Benefiel Number One Subdivision.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report concerning
the vacation of Florida Street. He said the application was for a fueling
station on the corner. The right-of-way of Florida Street was currently 80
feet wide and the required setback would not allow the expansion. The
applicant would not be building in this area, he merely wanted to extend his
canopy. With approval of this vacation of right-of-way, it would move his
setback requirement 10 feet to the west.
Vice Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by
Hack, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Order of Vacation of the
east 10 feet of Florida Street right-of-way from 6th Street south 100 feet,
adjacent to Lot 1, Benefiel Number One Subdivision. Motion carried
unanimously. (16)
David Guntert, Planner, presented the Capital Improvement Plan for 2004 -
2009. This was a document that the Planning Commission considered at their
recent meeting and they had forwarded the plan to the City Commission with a
recommendation for approval on a 7 - 3 vote. The plan represented 160
projects that were submitted by various departments within the City, other
agencies, and citizens. Those projects ranged from work that would involve
improvements in the downtown area, recreational facilities through the Parks
and Recreation Department and a variety of Public Works projects including
intersection improvements, traffic signal improvements or traffic calming
devices.
The total estimated expenditure, if all of these projects were to be built
within the six year time span, would be over $324,000,000. This was a plan
that was to be used to help implement the Comprehensive Plan recommendations
in Horizon 2020 and this was not a budget document. This plan should be
used in concert with the preparation of the Capital Improvement Budget.
He said there were a couple of communications received as part of the
Planning Commission consideration of the Preliminary Draft of the Capital
Improvement Plan. The letters of correspondence that came in were part of
the record of the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting. Those
communications identified concerns about the timing or need for the project
which was the intersection improvement at 15th and Iowa and also the
parkland acquisition of property in the vicinity of 19th and Delaware. The
discussion at the Planning Commission meeting centered on whether or not to
remove the parkland acquisition project that had been requested by a
resident in that area and also the timing of on the 15th and Iowa Street
intersection improvement. The suggestion had been to move those projects
out to beyond 2009. That was the reason for the split vote that occurred at
the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission's decision was to
leave the projects in the documents as proposed.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the Planning Commission members who opposed
approval, wanted to remove those projects from the plan.
Guntert said yes. One was to remove those projects and the other was to
move the timing of the intersection project further out in the plan.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if it was in their action to remove or add projects
to the plan.
Guntert said the City Commission had the ability to approve the document
with changes from what the Planning Commission had approved if the
Commission desired.
Commissioner Hack asked about the 15th and Iowa project. She asked if that
was a question to move, remove, or move the project until later.
Guntert said moving the project further out in time. There were concerns
that were presented about the environmental impacts of improving this
intersection, particularly to the north of 15th Street where there were
slope issues that need to be addressed depending on how far north you extend
the left turn lane.
Vice Mayor Rundle said this issue was discussed at a previous City
Commission meeting. He asked what the action was of the past Commission.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said this issue was dealt with at a City
Commission level and the outcome of that meeting was that the projects were
delayed.
Wildgen said there had been some engineering design on that project, but
there had not been a City Commission that wanted to proceed with this
project because it was expensive.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there was any study on reconfiguring the
intersection to avoid those cost.
Wildgen said no. That was why they did the study. He said if that design
could not be done, there was no point in proceeding with the project.
Commissioner Schauner asked if 15th and Iowa was improved with traffic flow
and left turns, what impact would that have on 23rd and Iowa. He said if
you go another mile south, then you were right at another intersection that
had its own set of problems.
Wildgen said 19th and Iowa, 23rd and Iowa, and 15th and Iowa, had all been
examined at various times in the last ten years. The City had tried to get
grants for 19th and Iowa because it was more practical at that location.
23rd & Iowa was like 15th Street, the buildings were close and you would
need to buy portions of right-of-way. In terms of capacity, they would
leave that up to an engineer. He said there was still that east/west
movement into the campus and the turn movements both on and off Iowa would
be improved. He said there would not be a major change at 23rd and Iowa.
He said people might see this as an easier way to get to Iowa.
Commissioner Schauner said in reading the notes of the Planning Commission
on this issue, one of the strongest objections were from neighbors who were
going to lose a substantial portion of their visual and noise barrier from
Iowa Street. He asked if this was discussed at prior City Commission
meeting.
Wildgen said it was brought to the City Commission's attention.
Commissioner Hack said it was essentially the same petition. She said that
concern would not go away.
Commissioner Schauner asked it there was a matrix or some other device that
was used in order to figure out which projects were incorporated into the
six year plan, what projects did not, and was used by the City Commission.
Guntert said the Planning Department's role in this issue was the
facilitator of coordinating the preparation of the document. This began in
January when staff sent out a packet of information to all of the
departments, agencies, neighborhood associations, and other special interest
groups to let them know it was time to begin thinking about the Capital
Improvement Project needs over the next six years, updating projects that
they had submitted in previous years or submitting new projects. He said
staff received those projects back from those departments and agencies, pull
that document together, and then meet with the Capital Improvement
Administrative Committee that would look at the projects.
He said in the plan that the City Commission received this year included
rating sheets summarizing individual scores on project. He said the
committee used some criteria to evaluate those projects. He said staff
looked at the projects that were submitted by the departments or agencies
and brought those forward for consideration.
Commissioner Highberger said if a project was suggested, it would be
incorporated into the plan.
Guntert said there were a couple of projects that were not included in the
document that were citizen submitted projects that involved some drainage
improvements. There was another project in the document that dealt with a
street improvement project that would include stormwater system improvements
as part of the street improvement project.
Wildgen said sometimes submittals come in that dealt with maintenance items.
He said staff tried to weed those types of projects out because it was not
the purpose of the plan.
Commissioner Schauner said maintaining an existing facility would fall under
maintenance, creating a new street or a new drainage way would be a Capital
Improvement Project.
Finger said all of the departments that bring forward plans, staff thought
of those plans as a forecasting document when addressing the Capital
Improvement Program because it came from Comprehensive Plans that brought
forward issues. She said you could not possibly fund everything in this
document, but staff wanted to incorporate those projects in the event there
was Federal or other special grant funds available, particularly in road
projects.
Pat Kehde, Lawrence, had sent a letter to the City Commission addressing the
satellite library which was a project listed for the year 2004. She knew a
lot about public libraries and had a library degree from Emporia State. She
was not addressing this issue because she owned a book store and did not
want competition. In fact, she thought a strong public library downtown
would be more competition for her store than would a branch to the west.
She was deeply concerned because she loved public libraries. Many people
view libraries as one of the few places that everyone could go and learn
about civilization.
She said when she saw this repeated request in this document, even though it
was a wish list and not a budget plan in stone, she was concerned because
asking for 5,000 square feet was much more than a minor pick-up and drop-off
spot for books. She said her book store was 1,100 square feet and Arensburg
Shoes was slightly less than 5,000 square feet.
She said the request was for $245,000 in the Capital Improvement Plan and
she presumed that was for the building. She submitted to the City
Commission that the cost of operating this satellite library which included
staff, utilities, rent, and acquisitions would be one million dollars a
year. She said if the City Commission approved $245,000 for this satellite
library, then you would be committing the City to spending a million dollars
every year. She said this was not just about money, but attention and
focus. Downtown's library could be so great such as expanding or adding a
floor. She said even half of the million dollars would give the downtown
library, materials, programming, longer hours, and great staff.
She said Topeka had always refused to spend money on a satellite or a branch
library even though Topeka's area of a City was much larger than Lawrence.
She talked with the Library Board in Topeka and the reason why they did not
want those satellite or branch libraries was that it was their conscience
decision to always focus money, time, and attention on their downtown
library. She encouraged the City Commission to remove this proposed
satellite library from the 2004 Plan or place it further out in the plan
especially considering the financial constraints that the City was under.
Vice Mayor Rundle commented that a satellite library would address a
collection of high circulation and it was not just a drop-off and pick-up
site. He noted that the idea of a vision for the future of that library
came up at a study session and the Library Board took a clear signal from
the Commission that they needed to come back to the City Commission with a
vision of the future for the library. He said the Library Board was the
place for input concerning that issue.
Commissioner Schauner asked what synergism Kehde was seeing between the
library's location downtown and other businesses downtown.
Kehde said the library and post office were two of the crucial sites for
downtown to maintain a central business district. She said removing the
library or post office or watering them down would be detrimental to
downtown. She would support tax increases or bond issues to help the
library remain downtown.
Commissioner Schauner said there was discussion at that study session with
Mr. Flanders from the downtown library about the future of the downtown
library and what it might look like in a revised format. He said there
would be some additional discussion before this Commission would make any
final decision about any satellite or branch library.
Emily Wellman, Barker Neighborhood Association, said when the Co-Chairman of
the Barker Neighborhood Association submitted his ideas for the Capital
Improvement Plan, he asked for help in cleaning out the ditches and culverts
and it now has been expanded to include resurfacing the street. She said
the people on Learnard Avenue were concerned about damage to the trees and
having a larger street that allowed more traffic.
Jim McCrary, resident in the Barker Neighborhood, wanted to address the
prior comments made by Wellman. He said Learnard Avenue was unique. He
said the request by the neighborhood group was to look at cleaning the
drainage ditches. What came back in the document was widening and paving
the street, covering the ditches, and curbing. The only problem with
Learnard Avenue was that people occasionally drive fast and with those
proposed improvements, more people would be driving even faster down
Learnard Avenue. As a result, the City would need to address this issue
with speed bumps, speed humps, traffic circles, roundabouts, and other
traffic calming devices.
He said the widening process would remove some of the most beautiful
landscape in the City from 15th to 23rd Streets He submitted that the City
Commission historically look at that street because it was one of the few
left that reflect the history of Lawrence. He asked the City Commission
that this item be removed from the plan.
Russell Livingston has been resident on Learnard Avenue for approximately 20
years. He said the biggest problem with the ditches in that area was that
residents were not aware that they could request the City's Street
Department to help them clean out those tubes that run under their
driveways to help the water run down through there. He said many people did
not know that was a service that the City currently provided.
He agreed that paving Learnard Avenue would increase the traffic and the
speed of the traffic. He said it would be detrimental to the neighborhood
and the public at large. He asked the City Commission to withdraw this item
from this plan.
Melinda Henderson, resident of Barker Neighborhood, said this item
concerning Learnard Avenue was removed from the Capital Improvement Plan at
one point, and she was disappointed that this item was placed back in the
plan. She seconded everyone's request to remove this particular item from
the CIP and help the neighbors preserve Learnard Avenue.
Commissioner Highberger asked if this was the project on the Capital
Improvement Plan identified as Learnard Avenue, 15th to 23rd Street.
Finger said yes.
Commissioner Highberger asked how this project was placed on the Capital
Improvement Plan in its current form.
Finger said by the City Engineer in the Public Works Department. It was in
their long-range plan to improve roads that were substandard.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the City Commission's action was to approve the
Capital Improvement Plan with the option of making changes to this plan. He
said a lot of information has come up over recent years for traffic calming
devices. He said it seemed that Learnard Avenue was a traffic calming
street already in tact. He said the Commission should come up with a way to
deal with streets that fit into neighborhood goals.
Commissioner Hack agreed that there were natural traffic calming devices
that existed on Learnard Avenue. She was in favor of removing this item
from the CIP.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked about the 15th and Iowa Street project and how it
related to KDOT's long-range plan in terms of getting road improvement done.
Wildgen said the City has asked for money for this project because it was a
State Highway and could qualify. He said the City would not get the
$2,000,000 for that project.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there was any way to do a superficial type of
investigation. He said looking at some alternative had been discussed in
the past like reconfiguring the intersection and not planning to widen the
street north of the intersection. He said these options might be equally
expensive, but it would be nice to know if there were other options.
Commissioner Hack said Vice Mayor Rundle had a good suggestion. She said
obviously it was an intersection that needed help as did 19th and Iowa. She
agreed with the people on the northeast corner concerning the buffer. She
would like to know if there were other alternatives.
Mayor Rundle said the branch library would be part of the budget discussions
with the City Departments and the library was included in those discussions.
Commissioner Hack appreciated Kehde's comments and agreed that the City was
woefully under funded in our public library.
Vice Mayor Rundle said with major concerns with acquisition of materials to
meet the Northeast Kansas Library Standards and finding the revenues to meet
that goal was going to be a challenge.
Commissioner Schauner said as a person that lived on the west side of town,
he heard some of his neighbors comment that they did not want to come
downtown because they either could not find a parking spot immediately in
front of where they want to shop or other important reasons. It seemed that
anything they could do to preserve the attractiveness and the destination
quality of downtown was in the community's long-term best interest. Most of
our documents recognize that downtown is our primary shopping area.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the 15th Street project was going in and out of
the plan or had it been there and was moved out in the plan.
Wildgen said that project had been there. He said Learnard Avenue was on a
list at one time and the past Commission did not pull it off.
Commissioner Schauner said 15th and Iowa was not on the CIP. There became
State money available for some substantial rework of that intersection. He
asked if the absence on the CIP of this project hindered the City's ability
from receiving that Federal or State money.
Finger yes. The fact that it was not on the CIP meant that it would not
make it to the TIP which was the Transportation Improvement Plan. She said
you could not receive State funds for projects that were not on your
approved TIP.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the ability to receive substantial money
from the State for that improvement at 15th and Iowa project.
Finger said this was a substantial amount of money given the current state,
but she pointed out that it was a U.S. Highway. This street was one where
they would throw more weight if they felt that there was a serious traffic
issue. What they would look at were the left turn movements as well as
through movements occurred. Those seemed to be their critical points. If
it gets to a point where it became a concern to the State, there tendency
had been to find money because they were then at the same liability level as
we would be.
Commissioner Schauner said if at some point in the future there was an
interchange built at 15th and the SLT, he asked if staff had an opinion
about what impact that interchange creation would have on the 15th Street
Corridor including the 15th and Iowa intersection.
Finger said it would have an echo effect all the way down 15th Street.
Wildgen said it would take traffic off of 6th Street. He said people would
choose that as an alternate route. That had been recognized as a gateway
into the University and to the City if that was ever built. He said KDOT
had the right-of-way, but they had never been able to fund the actual
construction.
Commissioner Hack asked if not having this project in the plan, we would not
receive any funding, but having it in the plan did not commit the City to do
anything with it, it just allowed that project to be there in case of any
funding from the Federal Government or KDOT.
Finger said at the Capital Improvement Plan level, staff thought of this
plan as a forecasting document because it did not physically constraint the
City. At the TIP level, staff had been told that those needed to be
physically constrained. She said there were certain steps that the State
and Federal Government wanted the City to follow and if we did not follow
those steps, than the City would not get the use of their money.
Commissioner Schauner asked what was the process for getting a project not
in the CIP, into the TIP.
Finger said the first step would be to amend the CIP and then amend the TIP.
Vice Mayor Rundle said this proposal was based on the 1990 study, he asked
if that study anticipated the 15th and SLT intersection.
Wildgen said that study was for the design of 15th and Iowa.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if it was possible to put this in, predicated on the
fact that you would have and updated study.
Finger said this had been done before. She said KDOT believed it was
significant, but they were reluctant to restudy that issue until the
situation had changed because KDOT felt that they had thrown money at a
project that there was no working result.
Vice Mayor Rundle said there was no reason to keep that project in the plan.
Commissioner Hack asked if the satellite library conversation would be
included in the overall funding, and then remove Learnard Avenue and 15th
and Iowa projects.
Commissioner Highberger said he was sympathetic to the entire
request being raised. He said this was not the place to make some of the
decisions because it was a non-binding document. He said a lot of effort
had gone into the document and by adopting it by the way it was, the
Commission was not committing to anything and keeping options open. The
satellite library discussion had been already funded for two years. He said
with the exception of Learnard Avenue, he was in favor of approving the plan
and making the other decisions as part of the Capital Improvement Budget
decision or as part of our transportation decisions. He said leaving 15th
and Iowa in the plan, did not take away any options.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he assumed if the City could take projects
out by amendment, they could add projects in by amendment.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to remove the Learnard Avenue
improvement from the Capital Improvement Plan. Motion carried unanimously.
(17)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to defer any further action
on the Capital Improvement Plan for two weeks. Motion carried unanimously.
(18)
Finger presented the staff report concerning Transportation Impact
Studies. She said staff arrived at the conclusion that the Olathe model was
a workable model by the research done by the Transportation Engineer, David
Woosley. She said Woosley did a web site search. Through those web sites
he could specifically get into that type of discussion regarding the
criteria's for Traffic Impact Studies. She said similar communities were
looked at and staff came up with four that were applicable to Lawrence.
Staff then came up with a general set of guidelines. The guidelines
provided the basic data so that if the City had to go further in asking more
specific information that a professional would have to do, the base work
would already be done. If it were part of a development that increased in
size it would also have those guidelines as a threshold. She said staff had
not relied on their own knowledge, but had been talking for the last two
years while working with other engineering consultants who had worked and
updated the Transportation Comprehensive Plan and corridor studies for 31st
Street and 23rd Street and conducted Access Management Study Session and
Workshop. She said staff had asked them to talk about what was done in
other communities and give the City some models. She said the information
presented in this memo was the basic criteria that would not be a big hurdle
for the community to transition into whenever the City did a development
proposal. The Institute for Traffic Transportation Engineers uses local
thresholds that made it more specific to the user and less generic across
the board. She said staff had proposed that the local threshold might be 11
or more dwelling units. This was an arbitrary figure and staff did not want
the Commission that there was a science involved. It the Commission thought
it should be 2 or 4 that would be acceptable. She said when you get to 100
trips that were where you would start to see an impact. Every residential
dwelling they looked at was about 10 trips per unit as an average.
She said Vice Mayor Rundle second question was, how did this work
with our current policy? She said there were no written policies other then
what was referenced in Horizon 2020 regarding how it worked with the current
policies. The Transportation 2025 Master Plan was much more specific and
went into the type of detail reflected in this memorandum. Staff currently
did not have a consistent policy and response. The Transportation Impact
Study included in the memorandum was a brochure that was handed out to
individuals who had development proposal requests. This was the information
staff needed for a TIS and there was no real threshold developed. If the
Commission adopted the policy as an interim policy until the TIS Guidelines
were completed by TranSystems and our Access Management Policy was given to
the governing body, it would give the Commission a consistent level of
information on definable boundaries. That information provided the basic
data for any type of TIS that might need to occur in the future. She said
staff thought it had long-term viability, could be updated, and reviewed.
She was not aware of any other models. She said this was a baseline
model that was used for Land Use Impact Assessment. The Institute of
Traffic Engineers (ITE) was the body that developed that model and they were
basically the Industry Standards for Transportation Engineers. She said
communities had taken models that were available through the TIS and had
personalized them or made them specific to their community. Communities
like California and Florida had a much more complicated model and probably
had a better comprehensive database which could tell what traffic movements
were at every intersection.
Commission Schauner asked Finger that she mentioned for every
single-family detach dwelling, she anticipated ten trips per "what period."
Finger said per "day." She said what the ITE Standard was that
through all of the models that they had looked at, they averaged for a
single-family detached dwelling, there were 10 trips per day that were made.
Commissioner Schauner asked what aggregate point do those numbers
impact a residential or collector street?
Finger said 100 were typically where they begin collecting data and
anything less than 100 was off the charts.
Commissioner Schauner said if there were 50 single-family detached
residents in a development that would generate 500 trips per day.
Finger said yes.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the first seven guidelines seemed parallel to
the Olathe guidelines. He asked about the 8-14 guidelines.
Finger said 8-14 guidelines was what TranSystems would develop
personalized for Lawrence.
Soules this was an interim policy which was a starting point. These
would also be criteria that staff had been evaluating with unknown
determination of whether or not developments needed to provide full blown
traffic studies. He said this was an interim policy that allowed staff to
evaluate and to continue.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a difference between
single-family detach, traffic generation, and multi-family unit traffic
generation.
Soules said there were charts that give averages for uses. He said
a Transportation Engineer would use his best judgment, based on averages, to
make that fit.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Commissioner Schauner if he was getting the
information from the presentation that he requested.
Commissioner Schauner said yes. He referenced Finger's comment
concerning significantly larger cities having a better database on traffic
at all of their intersections. He said his anecdotal experience was that
Lawrence was seeing a much greater increase in traffic then the Planners had
anticipated 10 or 15 years ago because the growth of this City had been
greater faster than anticipated. He said since Lawrence was a surface
street City, the movement of traffic was a growing and there was a critical
need to maintain it. He had significant interest in having better data with
which to make decisions when looking at improving current or additional
developments.
Anything the City could do to provide more reliable information with which
to make decisions about approving or not approving those development
proposals based on traffic impact which also had a significant impact on the
quality of life. He said we needed to pay more attention to this traffic
impact issue whether in-fill or new development.
Finger said the one thing the consultant would be doing was looking
at the level of service at the intersection and then staff would get
information on how to set the cycle criteria. Many cities that do TIS and
Access Management set expectations for intersections.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the policy would move the City closer
to that goal.
Finger said yes because it allowed staff to set those threshold
standards.
Commissioner Schauner asked if this policy document over time would
give us that information.
Finger said yes.
Vice Mayor Rundle said concerning the in-fill project and
recognizing that the traffic analysis was specific to that site whereas they
wanted to know the affect on the system.
Finger said the first 7 did not get you into the system. The first
7 were 99 or fewer. The concept over the years was that it would not be
significant on any flow.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the No. 5 guideline addressed arterial
streets.
Finger said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said he liked the idea of a system approach.
He said instead of looking at each proposal in a vacuum, staff should have
enough baseline data to know what the impact of that proposal would be on
the system. Ultimately it was the system driven and not that particular
curb cut. He liked the idea of moving toward a systems approach on traffic
impact.
John Selk, Lawrence, asked if the 11 dwelling units that were
discussed earlier generated 110 trips per day, yet the chart indicated 100
trips in the peak hour. He said the peak hour represented 10% to 12% of the
daily trips.
Finger said yes.
Selk asked if they were comparing peak hour or daily trips.
Finger said the threshold was greater and from an interim step it might be
acceptable. She said it was not peak hours and staff assumed that when they
receive a completed document there would be a better threshold. She said
was being more conservative.
Selk said 11 dwelling units would generate roughly 110 per day and
if you were trying to set a threshold of 100 trips in the peak hour, it
would translate to 110 dwelling units. He said they had done numerous
traffic impact studies throughout Lawrence, Topeka, and Kansas City to those
standards. It was good to get a baseline threshold that everyone needed to
adhere to regardless of what type of development. He said there was a
certain level that did impact the streets and street systems. He asked
Finger if she had a transportation model from Olathe for planning purposes.
Finger said it was available for the City's use. She said KDOT had
prepared that model for the City and they were still running the City's
numbers.
Selk asked if it would be a public offering.
Finger said no. What staff anticipated coming out of the consultant was
that there would be information regarding the model so the City could run
and check whatever figures were done and there would be a list of engineers
who met the criteria who could also run that model.
Selk said they were in a unique position because they typically
address 100's of acres for development purposes and it would help them to
have access to that information at times to determine the necessity of
transportation improvements and/or requirements for the developing area. He
said that would be a useful tool that could be incorporated into this whole
scenario.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to draft an interim
policy concerning Transportation Impact Studies. Motion carried
unanimously. (19)
Alan Cowles, West Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said there was
a neighborhood concern about the developments along 6th Street and he
acknowledged the Commission's concerns as well. He said the neighborhood
would like to ask the Commission to initiate a rezoning of the 19.199 acres,
zoned PCD-2, located at the northwest corner of 6th and Wakarusa. These
19.199 acres were referred to in Ordinance No. 7491, dated February 26,
2002.
He said the neighborhood felt that it should be zoned agricultural.
He said if agricultural was not an option then there should be other options
available. He said it was complex because if you go from PCD-2 to PCD-1,
you eliminate only some types of businesses that were not even being
considered at this point. A super center type of business would not
necessarily be affected. He said they were concerned about the size and
traffic volume.
In addition, there were other options then merely considering those
19 acres, but to consider the whole area because if you look at the zoning
map for that area there was existing RO-1A, PCD-2, undeveloped O-1,
undeveloped agricultural, undeveloped PRD, and an undeveloped PCD-2. He
said this was a complex corner and the Commission might want to consider
looking at that area as a whole. As a minimum they would like to see a down
zoning of the 19 acres on the northwest corner.
Rundle asked Cowles what he was including in the area as a whole.
Cowles did not have sharp boundaries. He was thinking of area
within a half mile of 6th and Wakarusa. He said citizens in the area had
other concerns about 6th Street.
Commissioner Hack asked Cowles when he was looking at the complex
corner was he including the land on the northeast corner.
Cowles said not the northeast corner, but northwest corner. He said
there was one other possibility for the City Commission. He said Use Group
12 was businesses which have a small service area. He did not know how the
various proposed Wal-mart development could be considered businesses with a
small service area. Perhaps the City Commission could clarify that issue.
Finger said in 1966 when that Ordinance was written and adopted,
that was exactly what it did mean. What we have today was an evolution of
commercialization. She said it appeared to be an anomaly, but the anomaly
was that our code did not define what a variety store. She said it might be
appropriate to initiate a text amendment to the zoning regulations to define
the terminology for variety store and department store. She said the
Commissioners could initiate down zoning, but they needed to do it within
categories that were adopted in the zoning regulations. She cautioned the
City Commission that if you initiate a down zoning, it should do be
consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Schauner said in this particular case, what was the
down zoning.
Finger said the Comprehensive Plan and the adopted Northwest Area
Plan were both going to show a mixture of commercial and higher intensity
residential at this intersection.
Commissioner Schauner asked specifically what zoning category would
amount to a down zoning of the current designation.
Finger said you would have the greatest control over planned
districts because you have the ability to restrict uses, make clarifying
points and to look at architectural compatibility at a greater level then
you do under our conventional C-5, C-4 or C-2. The one district that it
wouldn't be acceptable was C-3 because that was the downtown area.
Commissioner Schauner said there was previous discussion about the
intersection of the SLT and 6th Street and there was an action by the
Commission to forestall any decision making about what would be allowed
there until there was a master plan.
Finger said they had that Nodal Plan and staff was contacting
property owners this week to meet with them to share that plan. The Nodal
Plan would then come back to the Commission.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was realistic to extend that Nodal
Plan that additional mile east.
Finger said you would be looking at a developer's argument to extend
a node for a mile. She said the Nodal Plan itself was to provide
specificity where planning documents did not. In this case you have the
Northwest area plan that provided specificity
Commissioner Schauner asked for more specific feedback from the Planning
Department about this request and what the Commission's options were.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there were any particular deadlines that the
Commission should be concerned about with respect to addressing this issue
of down zoning.
Corliss said it would be appropriate to proceed with asking for the staff
report as soon as possible and it was likely that staff would be discussing
this matter in a more confidential setting because of the legal concerns.
He said the direction that the Commission was providing staff was
appropriate.
Commissioner Hack said this issue would be more prominent on the
Commission's plate.
Melinda Henderson asked about the down zoning issue. She said timing was an
issue and she asked how this would play into the proposed revisions for the
Commercial Chapter for Horizon 2020 because this particular intersection had
been discussed.
Finger would go with adopted policy documents and not worry about what
hasn't been adopted.
(20)
Zach Bassin discussed the tornado issue. He lived in a dwelling at an
apartment complex and had no idea where to go. He would like to see a safe
area for all residents.
Moved by Highberger, 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 13, 2003
1. Change Order - T-hangar project at Lawrence Municipal Airport for
$16,672.56
2. Bid - 1 rear refuse truck for Parks & Rec to Roy Conley for $48,562.
3. Bid Date Set - N 3rd, Industrial Ln. to N City limits & 23rd, Learnard to
Harper, KLINK, May 27, 2003.
4. Bid Date Set - Chip Seal Program, June 3, 2003.
5. Ordinance No. 7646 - 1st Reading, Lawrence Sesquicentennial Commission.
6. Ordinance No. 7647 - 1st Reading, "no parking" along W side of Ousdahl
from 25th, S to property line between 1603 W 25th & 2515-17 Ousdahl.
7. Ordinance No. 7648 - 1st Reading, "disabled parking zone", S side of
Greever Terr adjacent to Centennial School.
8. Ordinance No. 7649 - 1st Reading, "bus parking zone" E side of New
Jersey, N of 14th.
9. Resolution No. 6469 - Establish Policy on speed humps & speed cushions.
10. Amendment to Horizon 2020 - (CPA-2003-01) City/County Comprehensive Land
Use Plan.
11. Annex - 18.53 acres, Tact A, Bauer Brook Estates No. 5, between Wakarusa
& Folks , N of Free State H.S.
12. Subordination Agreement - 2018 Miller, David & Rita Roberts.
13. City Manager's Report - Storm Cleanup/Commission Goals/Fireworks
14. Ordinance No. 7638 - 2nd Reading, (Z-01-01-01) 35.56 acres from RS-2 to
PRD-2, NW corner of Peterson & Kasold.
15. Boards & Commission Reports - DG County Emergency Mgmt Board/Fire Code
Board of Appeals/Special Alcohol Fund Advisory Board.
16. Vacation - E 10' of Florida R-O-W from 6th, S 100', adjacent to Lot 1,
Benefiel No. 1 Sub.
17. Capital Improvement Plan & Capital Improvement Budget - Remove Learnard
Ave. from CIP.
18. Capital Improvement Plan & Capital Improvement Budget - Defer for 2
weeks.
19. Transportation Impact Studies.
20. Rezoning - 19 acres, NW corner of 6th & Wakarusa discussion
_____________________________
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