[E-minutes] City Commission meeting minutes, July 15
Lisa Patterson
lpatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:48:13 -0500
July 15, 2003
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular
session at 6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with
Mayor Dunfield presiding and members Hack, Highberger, and Schauner present.
Vice Mayor Rundle was absent.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to approve City Commission meeting minutes of July 1, 2003.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of June 25,
2003; Public Transit Advisory Committee meeting minutes of June 19, 2003;
Sesquicentennial Commission meeting minutes of April 23, 2003; and the
Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority meeting minutes of May 27, 2003.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to approve claims to 301 vendors in the amount of $3,370,403.69
and payroll from June 29, 2003 to July 12, 2003, in the amount of
$1,396,178.75. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Jim
Roberts to the Economic Development Board for a one year term which will
expire July 1, 2004; and appoint Rich Caplan to the Economic Development
Board for a two year term which will expire July 1, 2005. Motion carried
unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Cross Town
Tavern, 1910 Haskell Avenue; and, the Moon Bar, 821 Iowa Street. Motion
carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to set the bid date of July 29, 2003 for the Geometric and
Traffic Signal Improvements at 6th Street and Lawrence Avenue. Motion
carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to set the bid date of July 29, 2003 for 2003 Overlay and Curb
Repair Program, Phase 3. Motion carried unanimously.
(2)
Ordinance No. 7661, adopting the 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code, was read
a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger,
seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack,
Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(3)
Ordinance No. 7664, rezoning (Z-12-43-02) 0.51 acres from RS-1
(Single-Family Residence District) to RO-1A (Residence-Office District),
located at 501 Rockledge Road, was read a second time. As part of the
consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt
the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: None.
Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 7665, rezoning (Z-04-09-03) 1.81 acres from RS-1
(Single-Family Residence District) to RO-2 (Residence-Office District),
located at 505 and 515 Rockledge Road, was read a second time. As part of
the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to
adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay:
None. Motion carried unanimously.(5)
Charter Ordinance No. 35, allowing the sale of alcoholic liquor on
Sundays and holidays, and allowing the City Commission to establish hours of
Sunday sales and restriction of certain holidays by ordinary ordinance, was
read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by
Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield,
Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(6)
Ordinance No. 7666, allowing the sale, possession, and consumption of
alcoholic liquor on September 6, 2003 at Burcham Park for the Lawrence
Mountain Bike Club's "Tour De Fat" fundraiser, was read a second time. As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and
Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.(7)
Ordinance No. 7667, establishing Sunday liquor sale hours of 11:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and prohibiting retail liquor sales on Christmas Day and
Thanksgiving Day, upon the effectiveness of Charter Ordinance No. 35, was
read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by
Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield,
Hack, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(8)
Ordinance No. 7668, renaming West 15th Street from Iowa Street west
to the City boundaries as Bob Billings Parkway, was read a second time. As
part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger,
Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(9)
Ordinance No. 7650, establishing requirements for traffic impact
studies, as amended by the City Commission on July 8, 2003, was read a
second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger,
seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack,
Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6479, authorizing additional general
obligation bond authority in the amount of $500,000 for improvements at 6th
Street and Kasold Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
(11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt
the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-05-02-03) for a proposed Early
Childhood Center, generally described as being located at East Heights
Elementary School, 1430 Haskell Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
a. Provision of a parking schedule;
b. Provision of a site summary including the building coverage, previous and
impervious coverage;
c. Label contour lines;
d. Show location and dimension of existing curb cuts to property;
e. Show location of existing trash enclosure on site; and,
f. Correction to the note on the plan regarding the Floodplain Data to
removed the description "Lot 1;"
2. Re-stripe rear parking lot per city pavement marking standards;
3. Provision of a note on the face of the site plan that states:
a. "The applicant acknowledges the City will remove the island along Haskell
Avenue and extend the curb line as part of future street improvements and
repair work;" and
b. "This site has been designed to comply with provisions of the American
with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) for building and
facilities, appendix A to 28 CFR part 36."
4. Execution of a site plan performance agreement;
5. Access out of the parking area shall be limited to the driveway with
fencing or blocks; and,
6. Provision of a site plan meeting all requirements of Section 20-1431(1)
submitted to Staff prior to issuance of an occupancy permit.
Motion carried unanimously.
(12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt
the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-05-03-03) for Village Meadows,
a proposed continuum retirement community. The proposed community proposes
194 total support areas in the continuing care retirement center and 109
independent living units. The property contains approximately 21.65 acres
and is generally described as being located north of 24th Place between
Crossgate Drive and Inverness Drive, subject to the following conditions:
1. A site plane performance agreement be executed; (Per Section 20-1433)
2. Filing at the Register of Deeds of a replat prior to release of the plan
to Neighborhood Resources for building permits;
3. Show the storm drainage system completely. Show on the development plan
the layout, size and elevations of all inlets, manholes and pipes. Drainage
system layout must be shown to determine which portions are private and
which portions are public. Systems serving single-family residential
structures will be required to be public to ensure adequate design and
inspection. Systems serving parking lots should remain private to minimize
public maintenance cost. Provide public drainage easements for all public
systems;
4. Show the location of the floodway and flood fringe based on the recent
LOMR application;
5. Show the base food elevations based on the LOMR;
6. Provision of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) per City Code
Section 9-903(B);
7. Provide documentation on how traffic from this development complies with
TIS for entire area;
8. Submittal of public improvement plans for sanitary sewer and water before
prior to release of plan;
9. Provision of average daily water usage figures for the continuing care
retirement center;
10. Provision of a photometric plan;
11. Submittal of an approved Letter of Map Revision (LOMR);
12. Provide a general timetable for phasing of project;
13. Provide dimension of garages to west property line;
14. Show mail delivery boxes on the site; and,
15. Revise driveways for duplexes on east side to have separate curb cuts.
Motion carried unanimously.
(13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to approve a Temporary Use Permit Upon Review (TUPR-07-27-03)
for a Health and Wellness Expo at Therapy Works; 1112 West 6th Street on
Saturday, July 19, 2003, from 9:00 a.m., until 2:00 p.m., subject to the
following conditions:
1. Tents shall not be within 20' of property lines, buildings or parking;
2. Tents must be certified flame retardant;
3. Provide 2A10BC portable fire extinguisher;
4. "No Smoking" signs must be posted and enforced;
5. No open flame device or cooking permitted within the tent;
6. If walls are provided, Exit signs, emergency lighting and proper exit
opening must be provided; and,
7. Signs displayed in conjunction with this use shall comply with City sign
regulations and shall not be located on public right-of-way. Signs for this
activity can only be displayed during hours of operation.
Motion carried unanimously.
(14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission's recommendations to
adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-05-14-03)
of approximately .827 acre from RS-1 (Single-Family Residence District) to
C-5 (Limited Commercial District). The property is described as being
located at 1918 East 23rd Street; and, direct staff to prepare the
appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
(15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to approve the temporary placement of directional signs in City
public right-of-way as signs of community interest pursuant to the Sign Code
for the Dole Institute of Politics dedication events, July 18-July 22, 2003.
Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for
Kimberly Lynn Johnson, 2705 Trail Dust Court. Motion carried unanimously.
(17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for
Julee Smith, 2516 Crestline Court. Motion carried unanimously.
(18)
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
During the City Manager's report, Mike Wildgen said the City was
involved in a number of preparations for the dedication of the Robert J.
Dole Institute of Politics.
Wildgen also reported that Neighborhood Resources and Information
System staff had been working to develop a computer program that would
identify unregistered rental properties in single-family zoning districts.
Several of the inspections had been completed for rental properties that had
applied for licensing.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Pine Court rentals on Haskell
Avenue were subject to rental registration.
Wildgen said no, but he would check with staff. He said those
rentals were probably a denser zoning.
(19)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Hobbs-Taylor Lofts Development Proposal on the northeast corner of 8th
Street and New Hampshire Street.
Mayor Dunfield called a public hearing on the Hobbs-Taylor Lofts
Development proposal on the northeast corner of 8th and New Hampshire
Streets.
Ed Tato, President of East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, asked
the Commission to defer their decision on the findings-of-fact until all
information was available to the public. He said they did not have enough
time to address the issue of this magnitude.
At a prior meeting, they met with the applicant and Tenants to
Homeowners to discuss the idea of affordable housing. He said in terms of
this project having an affordable element was not originally considered. He
said that idea was based upon the increase in tax revenues to the City which
would be $3,000,000 overall for 10 years. He said they would like to see a
portion of that revenue allocated to preservation or the building of
affordable units in the East Lawrence neighborhood.
He met with Harris' and the Executive Director of Tenants to
Homeowners and they discussed how they would use that tax revenue from this
project. Tato suggested $60,000 a year for 5 years. After the 5 years, all
of the tax revenue would go to the City, but for those 5 years they would
use that money to acquire lots or rehab units in the East Lawrence
neighborhood to help with Tenants to Homeowners. He said with development
pressures, it would be nice to ensure that some of those homes were
affordable in perpetuity. The best way to accomplish that was to have those
homes institutionally owned and chartered to provide low income housing. He
said Harris Construction would be willing to participate at some level.
He said one of the beauties of infill development was the low cost to
the City. Generally speaking infill neighborhoods were neighborhoods that
needed redevelopment. This would be a way to turn a particular
redevelopment project that would generate cash into larger projects.
Another idea discussed was a small loan fund. He said residents
mentioned being priced out of their homes by taxes. He asked if it was
possible to have $5,000 or $10,000 available to make small loans to pay that
increase in property taxes to those residents and that loan would become due
upon sale of their property. He talked to Tenant to Homeowners about that
idea and it was something they said could be administered.
Commissioner Highberger asked if those ideas could be administered
through the Housing Trust Fund.
Wildgen said there were similar projects that had been approved
through that fund.
Tato said if they wanted to allocate money to the Housing Trust Fund,
instead of a particular entity, then it should be stipulated that the money
be used for affordable and low income rehabilitation or acquisition in East
Lawrence.
He said they liked the idea of a rental property that would stay
within certain income guidelines. He said that could probably be done
through a private person with a deed that ran with the land.
Commissioner Hack asked if the idea was to transfer tax dollars that
would be generated from this project.
Tato said correct, for approximately 4 or 5 years, once the money
started to come in.
K.T. Walsh, East Lawrence resident, supported the East Lawrence
Neighborhood Association ideas for low income housing. She asked if the
Housing Trust Fund gave loans or grants to individuals or only to groups.
Tato said both. The Housing Trust Fund gave loans to both
individuals and groups.
K.T. Walsh addressed the live music issue in the area. She said
Lawrence was famous nationwide for their live music venue. She said Austin,
Texas, was having problems with live music issues. A number of people moved
into those upscale lofts in downtown Austin and now they were suing to get
the live music venue shutdown. Austin was a town much like Lawrence in
which they were famous for their music.
She said when Tato was a City Planner in Arizona they handled this
issue by placing an addendum in the contract to purchase, that they were
aware that live music venues were in the area and that they bought the lofts
knowing that.
Marci Francisco, member of the League of Women Voters Land Use
Committee and President of the League, said they wanted to express some
concerns about some of the procedural issues with regard to the Hobbs-Taylor
Loft project. She said their concerns were not about the merits of that
project, but the manner in which it was almost approved.
She said there were three actions identified that they wanted the
City Commission to address. One action was from the Board of Zoning Appeals
because the board needed to find that five criteria were met. One of those
criteria was that the property was unique within that zoning district. She
said there were no arguments made in the minutes regarding that criteria and
the Board did not discuss those merits. It was important to note that there
was a zoning district that would meet those criteria. In the City
Commission's review of the action of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the
Commission would need to initiate design guidelines for that variance to be
upheld because that action of the Board of Zoning Appeals was conditioned on
the initiation. She said the site plan was dependent on the variance and
the variance was dependent on the City Commission's initiation of a review
of the design guidelines.
Another action was the review of the Historic Resources Commission
(HRC). She said the HRC determined that the project would encroach upon,
damage, or destroy the environs of the Old Post Office and the Eldridge
Hotel.
Finally, the last action was up to the City Commission to make a
determination that all feasible and prudent alternatives had been reviewed.
She said they were concerned that issue be addressed in a way that would
allow public review.
She said it was regrettable that the City Commission decided to hear
all four items at the same time because it made it hard to understand
whether the comments were regarding the feasible and prudent alternatives,
the site plan, or the design guidelines. She said we owe it to the
developers to have an orderly and understandable process.
Melinda Henderson, member of the League of Women Voters Land Use
Committee, supported all the points that were addressed in the letter from
their committee.
She said Tato had suggested to either defer or table the Commission's
actions until all members of the public had the opportunity to review the
resolution regarding the determinations of the HRC. She thought it was
critical that members of the public had the opportunity to review that
information.
She said it was important to realize that there were processes that
were in place, but she was not comfortable that all those processes were
followed. She ask the Commission to seriously look at each one of those
actions individually to determine what was needed to make the right
decision so that precedent was not being set and that it would not come back
on the Commission in the future.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Dunfield understood the procedures of the City and the
structure of the City Commission's actions in that the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA) actions could not be reviewed or appealed by the City
Commission.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said correct. It could be appealed
to the District Court. There was a condition placed on the action of the
BZA and that condition was something that was within the Commission's
purview which was exceptions that were adopted to the Downtown Design
Guidelines.
Commissioner Schauner said although the City Commission could not
amend the BZA decision, in order for the BZA decision to be put into effect,
the City Commission would need to amend the Downtown Guidelines.
Finger said the wording was, "The City Commission as a part of their
approval of the Hobbs-Taylor Lofts mixed use development site plan, initiate
a process for amendments to the Urban Design Concept Plan in the Downtown
Design Guidelines on building height and massing." She said it was not
conditioned upon the City Commission doing the revision, but initiating that
action.
Commissioner Hack asked if the City Commission initiated that action,
then what would happen next.
Finger said if the City Commission initiated the action, then the
Commission would ask staff to investigate drafting exceptions to those
documents that would go to height, setback, and angled parking. Staff would
then bring those documents back to the City Commission.
Commissioner Schauner asked how consistent from block to block and
street to street must those guidelines be in order to be defendable with
respect to future development proposals.
Finger said the actual surveys of downtown recognized that each block
had a character of its own, but the streets also had a streetscape. There
was a certain character to Massachusetts Street and defined within that
character was a different character within each block face. She said the
Commission would need to be internally consistent to a block, east and west
face of the 600 and 700 Blocks of New Hampshire and tie that consistency
back to the Vermont and New Hampshire Street corridor and then to
Massachusetts Street. She said there needed to be an overall integrity that
was tied back, but there was no anticipation in either document that they
were going to mimic Massachusetts Street.
Commissioner Schauner said the Hobbs-Taylor block face would not need
to become the standard for other blocks either on New Hampshire of Vermont
Streets.
Finger said it would need to be tied to a standard for the west side
and then a comparison of what was permitted there. For instance, the City
Commission decided that the exception that was granted to the Downtown
Design Guidelines for angled parking was appropriate also for this
development. She guessed that the Commission's direction to staff would be
to somewhat of a nature of finding criteria or parallels to when that might
be acceptable within the other blocks in the area.
Commissioner Highberger said they had been presented with a
resolution that would include findings that satisfied the HRC review. He
asked if this was something that could be adopted without 2 readings.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said
it could. This was a draft resolution that staff worked on. He said staff
recommended that if the Commission made those findings that they memorialize
those in writing. He said the City's practice had been that they would
adopt a resolution setting out those specific findings. This procedure was
similar to what was done with the Downtown 2000 project.
Commissioner Hack said that resolution summarized and formalized last
week's discussion about this matter. She did not see anything new in the
draft resolution that was not already discussed.
Mayor Dunfield said there had been a lot of talk about process and he
needed to take a good share of responsibility for problems with the process
as it played out last week. He said they did not handle the conclusion of
that meeting well, however, he added that their professional staff did its
job and professionally set the Commission on the right course and that was
why they were revisiting this issue.
He said while the Commission considerations were messy and not
appropriately planned, he thought that the public comment that went to the
project as whole, rather than to the individual items for consideration was
not inappropriate. When people look at a project that was before the City,
they were looking at the same thing that the City Commissioner's needed to
look at and that was how this issue affected this City as a whole and did it
provide benefits that outweigh the drawbacks of the project. To have the
public discuss the project in that light was entirely appropriate.
He supported the project and agreed with Commissioner Hack that the
resolution was essentially a summary of those issues that were discussed
last week. He said they wanted this piece of property to develop as a mixed
use development, accept the developer's argument about the economic
feasibility of the project as proposed. That resolution summarized and
placed those issues into the language which the Kansas State Historical
Society expected reviewing the action of this City Commission. It was a
formalization of the discussion that had been previously discussed.
Mayor Dunfield said the Commission would act on four different items.
He said the Commission should address the resolution and the response to the
HRC.
Commissioner Schauner said when he saw the drawings and general
outline of this proposal, he thought it was attractive and thought it had a
lot of potential for downtown, but he had a concern about the height of the
building. He said his concern at that point was appearance.
He said the last thing he would like the Commission to do was to take
action at this time. In doing so, it would create the belief among the
neighbors of this project that the Commission acted on a resolution that was
not seen by those neighbors as well as the general public until sometime
today. He said that was not an indication that this was a bad project, but
he wanted to give the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association another shot at
expressing their opinion.
He said this was a substantial infill project and he asked that this
consideration be moved to next week's agenda to give the neighbors to the
east of this project an opportunity to visit with the Commission before they
take any further action.
Commissioner Hack said in looking at recent information concerning
this project, she did not see anything that was different that the
Commission had not already seen and discussed. She said there had been
twelve meetings with the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association and she
thought there had been adequate time for public input. She thought the
public had not been slighted one bit in terms of the amount of time they had
to learn about this project and react to it. She disagreed on deferring
this issue and she thought it was not a fair request of the applicant to put
this issue off for another week.
Commissioner Schauner said there was some additional information that
he received from Harris which spoke about the economic model and said that
eliminating the 5th floor would decrease his return on investment by more
than 4% when compared to a 5 story project. He said that might be good
information that would provide additional support for the project in East
Lawrence. He went on to site more information that was included in that
report.
He wanted the Hobbs-Taylor project, if it was built, to have the best
relationship possible with East Lawrence and it seemed to him that seven
days was not too much to ask. He asked the Commission to consider deferring
this matter until July 22, 2003.
Commissioner Highberger apologized for the way the process had
worked. He was concerned that the Commission came close to approval without
consideration of the standards that the Commission was to look at and for
overriding the HRC decision. He understood that the public had a long time
to look at this issue. He said some of the information that the Commission
needed to evaluate some of those issues had not arrived until recently and
he was not sure there had been adequate time for public participation.
He commended the developer for his time spent working with the
neighbors and working to ensure this project met the design guidelines. He
said this project would affect our City for generation and he was not sure
one more week's delay was unacceptable. He preferred giving the citizens
one more week for review of the information that was provided in the context
of the reasonable and prudent alternatives.
As far as the other criteria which was "all possible planning could
mitigate harm" he thought was adequately addressed and the documentation
showed that.
He said the Commission could not review the BZA's findings, but they
could challenge it in court within 30 days of the decision. Given the fact
that staff recommended seeking the variance rather than seeking the zoning
change, he would like to see that decision rest and not be pursued anymore.
He supported deferring this issue until next week.
Mayor Dunfield said this project could not move forward without
finding that there were no feasible and prudent alternatives and overturning
the decision of HRC. He wanted to see this project go forward with as much
support as could be developed. He could not imagine that anyone was going
to change their minds in this process other than the enthusiasm of the City
Commission in moving ahead with this project. He said deferring this
project for one week was entirely reasonable.
He commented on the notion of feasibility because some people had
stretched what was required in terms of the language about feasible and
prudent alternatives and had suggested that city Planning staff should not
be writing pro-forma's for developers. He said it was clear to him that
there was not an investor or developer in the country working with any city
Planning staff, in any city, who would accept a pro-forma developed by city
Planners. That was not a city Planner's role and it was not their decision.
The City had been involved in looking at the financial status of a project
downtown, but it was a project that had City taxpayer dollars at risk. He
said only those parties that had dollars at risk were in any position to
take part in the type of economic decision that went into a project of this
type. The investors and developers of this project were going to take an
enormous risk whatever the pro-forma showed. He wanted that to be on the
table when the Commission came back to talk about feasible and prudent
alternatives. He was not going to be looking for Planning Staff to indicate
whether that 4% was critical to the success of the project or not, because
that was not the Planning Staff or the City Commission's business.
Commissioner Schauner said that was not his point, but it was
information that the neighborhood did not have.
Mayor Dunfield understood Commissioner Schauner's point and he was
not intending any criticism upon his statement.
Commissioner Hack said it had been suggested that Planning Staff
needed to prepare information for the Commission to help the Commission make
a decision as to whether or not this project should move forward, but she
thought that was not in their purview to make that decision. Anytime you go
into business, you were taking a huge risk. She said the Commission's job
was not to put up roadblocks so that doing business in Lawrence was
impossible. She was reluctantly in favor of the deferral.
Commissioner Schauner would not support a delay of a motion beyond
next week. He gave Commissioner Rundle credit for raising the issue of
whether they made the appropriate findings on this matter. He thought it
would be a good idea for Commissioner Rundle to participate in the vote of
this issue.
Commissioner Highberger said there were two items raised that should
be given consideration during next week's City Commission meeting. One item
was the suggestion of possible financing of affordable housing activities by
using the revenues from the proposed project and this would not involve the
developer.
The second issue was regarding live music across the street from the
developer. Those issues were not relevant to the HRC determination, but
before going on with the design criteria, he would be interested in seeing
if the developer would be willing to include a clause in the condominium
deeds.
Commissioner Hack said it would be interesting to know the legalities
and possibilities of shifting revenue dollars to help existing
neighborhoods.
She said regarding live music and noise downtown, anyone downtown
should be aware that there would be noise because downtown was an active
place. She thought asking Harris to place information in a lease, which
stated that occupants of the condominium knew there was live music downtown,
was putting the Commission in an arena where they did not belong.
Mayor Dunfield said it would be interesting to know what the
disclosure would be with regard to the live music issue.
He was open to discussion concerning affordable housing. Affordable
housing was a big and complicated issue for the Commission and to make
policy on affordable housing on the basis of approval of a single site plan
seemed inappropriate. It might be a good way to initiate the discussion
just as the diagonal parking might be a good way to initiate some discussion
of amendment to the Downtown Design Guidelines.
Commissioner Highberger thought the Commission did not need to
condition the approval. He said this proposed project would generate a
certain amount of tax revenue then the Commission could decide whether to
allocate those revenues.
Commissioner Schauner said the project would be a jump-start for an
eastward redevelopment of the City. It was a great opportunity to have
discussion about affordable housing in that part of the City. He also
thought the Commission should not condition the approval of the project
based on low-income housing projects or shifting of tax dollar for that
purpose.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to defer, until next
week's meeting, all of the regular agenda items regarding the Hobbs-Taylor
Lofts Development Proposal on the northeast corner of 8th Street and New
Hampshire Street. Motion carried unanimously.
(20)
Consider a proposed study concerning a median cut in planned improvements to
West 6th Street, at approximately the 4800 block of West 6th Street.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report
concerning the median cut in planned improvements to West 6th Street, at
approximately the 4800 block of West 6th Street. He said last April 2002,
KDOT provided a supplemental agreement allowing for a median break.
However, providing specific trigger and thresholds were met, that would
imply that the City would need to close the median or the loss of 6th Street
on the State system. He said within that supplemental agreement was all
costs for any design, construction, right-of-way, and closure would be
assumed by the City.
In September 2002, the City sent to KDOT a conceptual drawing of a
median break in which he presented to the City Commission. Earlier this
year in 2003, the City met with KDOT and the Secretary of Transportation to
review the supplemental agreement. In May of 2003 the Secretary of
Transportation met with the owners and representatives of the Westgate Plaza
Development and City staff to discuss the secretary's review of that
supplemental agreement that allowed that median break. On May 23rd the
secretary sent to the City, correspondence stating that KDOT had not
reviewed the City's conceptual drawing that was submitted in September 2002.
Therefore, if the City desired, staff could initiate a review.
The City contacted Bucher, Willis and Ratliff Engineering Consults,
and they were hired for the 6th Street project. They met with KDOT
representatives to discuss the scope within the study to inform staff if
this median break would be allowed. Last week they met with the engineering
consultants and Westgate representatives to discuss what was included in
that scope. The scope was a CORSIMS model that was discussed and developed
with KDOT. KDOT was proceeding to bid this project in January 2004 and they
had initiated some condemnations.
KDOT had expressed that any redesign with a median break, additional
right-of-way or additional construction cost would be at the owners cost
which was the City.
Commissioner Schauner said when he first learned about this median
break issue, the comment he heard was that the Westgate property had been in
a contractual relationship with the City to provide "full access" for that
property. He asked about the contract history in relationship with the
property.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said
when the Westgate Development was in its earlier stages, the City's western
growth was also in its early stages. He said the City acquired property
interest for the widening of both Wakarusa and 6th Street and as
compensation for the acquisition of property interest, one of the bargaining
elements was curb cuts or access points along Wakarusa and 6th Street. He
said those were recorded instruments and property interests of the Westgate
Development. It was the City's opinion that those access points did not
provide for full access points that would need to be compensated for if the
access was restricted. He said it was fair to say that Westgate Development
disagreed with that. It was staff's understanding of those instruments and
the law that the City had the police power authority to restrict access
points as long as they were not taking away reasonable access.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the median break was not there, access
to the Westgate Development would be through two access points on Wakarusa
and one at Champion Lane.
Soules said there would still be a right in/right out at the Peoples
Bank, but there would not be left turn access in or out.
Commissioner Schauner asked what would be the cost to the City if the
median break was permitted.
Soules said that number was preliminary. At this stage, because KDOT
had proceeded with the final design, it was estimated at $9,500 for an
additional engineering study. He said it could possibly cost an additional
$10,000 for the different type of construction and traffic control. He said
if the median break needed to be closed and that cost would be borne by City
as well.
Commissioner Schauner asked for the purpose of the proposed CORSIMS
Study.
Soules said the CORSIMS model was a detailed view of the intersection
and median break. The scope was from McDonald Drive to Champion Lane. He
said the study would take into account, for instance, how the traffic came
into the intersection and how traffic reacted in turning at that
intersection. He said the model would take that information and assimilated
traffic now and in the future. He said they would calibrate traffic to the
current habits of the driver and project into the future.
Jane Eldredge, speaking on behalf of Westgate Center, was there to
respond to a suggestion that she received from the City Manager in looking
at funding sources for this proposed additional study. One of the
suggestions was to ask Westgate owners to fund the study. She said the
Westgate owners were willing to fund an objective study using standard
criteria. Funding was not the issue that they wanted to address to the City
Commission. She said this had been a lengthy project. She said they had
collected a number of public documents and she had used the Freedom of
Information Act to obtain documents both from City Hall and the Kansas
Department of Transportation. She said their point in reviewing those items
was not to malign any individual, but complicated project sometimes get off
on the wrong foot for the silliest of reasons and then it was difficult to
stop that train once it started.
She said in May 1999 there was a recorded agreement between the City
and Westgate. In 1995 Westgate received its commercial zoning. In July of
1996, Free State High School was landing at its location and the City
anticipated a need for a traffic signal at 6th and Wakarusa. At that time,
a consultant was hired and that consultant designed that traffic signal for
Free State High School and then went on to design a 2016 Plan. She
presented that Plan to the Commission. She said when that consultant was
working on the 2016 Plan, others in the City were also diligently working on
Horizon 2020 that was adopted in 1997 which showed the Planned Commercial
uses on the two quadrants of that intersection on the south. Close on its
heels was the adoption by the City Commission of the Northwest Plan and that
showed the commercial uses on the two corners to the north. In February of
1997 Westgate's Preliminary Development came in and was approved by the City
and KDOT. She said Preliminary Development Plans were typically sent to
KDOT for review as well as needing to be reviewed and approved by the City.
That Preliminary Plan showed the three full access points and also severed
as the Preliminary Plan. In March 1997 the City adopted the 2016 Plan and
adopted it not only for transportation planning purposes, but to use as the
standard for reviewing all other Plats and Site Plans as they came into the
City. She said that was important because it did mean that the owners of
the property had to adjust their Preliminary Development Plan, which they
did. They then started initiating Final Development Plans.
She said concerning the Westgate Center, it was not developed all at
one time, but in pieces. The first piece that came in for final development
approval that was approved by both City and KDOT was Arby's with that
access. She said in August of 1998 and January 1999 more of those
businesses were approved for building and for final development plans. KDOT
and the City both looked at the access and concurred. In February of 1999,
the City and KDOT approved the highway permit. She said you could not build
an access drive on a state highway without a permit from the state. The
City was cooperative in getting this approved by all necessary parties. The
Final Development Plan for Westgate was approved in March and KDOT said in a
note to the Planning Office, at that time, that they found that the proposal
to be satisfactory in regard to the proposed access management along U.S.
40/West 6th Street. She said KDOT was completely satisfied with the final
plan and the access points.
She said they began to run into difficulties in July. She said a
memorandum was received between the consultant and the road designer at
KDOT. The Traffic Division at KDOT had a problem with the fact that the
lanes to the east of the intersection, Westgate Development, would not
lineup with the new proposed section and KDOT wanted one of two things to
happen. One was either to extend the project to the east or end the project
to the west of Wakarusa.
She said in a letter from the consultant to George Williams, former
Public Works Director, said that an additional study be done, studying 375
meters to the east of the Wakarusa intersection and that additional design
would provide for the construction of the full intersection configuration as
defined in the previously adopted 2016 Plan. In November of 1999, the City
approved that extension to the east and appropriated the necessary funding
for that extension. Following the extension, the City and KDOT approved the
location of People's Bank for that full access and had simultaneously
approved the KWIK Shop location.
In March of 2000, the property owners received notice from KDOT that
their highway permits were completed and accepted and that included the
permit in question. The City had put Bucher, Willis and Ratliff on hold
while they were trying to decide what to do about the alignment problem,
conducting a study, and applying for System Enhancement Funds. The City
simultaneously applied for those System Enhancement Funds for a fifth lane
from Kasold to Wakarusa and for the widening of 6th Street from Wakarusa to
the SLT. The System Enhancement award was given in August 2000 for the
widening of 6th Street. While Bucher, Willis and Ratliff was on hold with
the design, they were asked by the City Public Works Department to review
the traffic study for the proposed Westgate and also perform an analysis for
the full build out for the proposed development and compare the results to
those provided by George Butler for an ultimate lane configuration. When
George Butler did their study in March 1997, a third study which was called
the Ultimate Lane Configuration.
In their study at that time, Bucher, Willis, Ratliff found that the
basis of sound access management would require that the access points on
either side Champion Lane, including the one that was at issue, would allow
right turns in and out and left turns into the development. She said at
this point in time Bucher, Willis, and Ratliff did the construction designs
for meeting the 2016 Plan and they also did another study to make sure that
the traffic impact study would be consistent with not only the 2016 Plan,
but the future plan and they said the easterly and westerly entrances on
West 6th Street were expected to operate at acceptable levels of service
under future conditions. She said if this was not the most studied
intersection in the State of Kansas, it was certainly the most studied
intersection in Lawrence.
Following the granting of the System Enhancement money there was an
initial meeting with KDOT's staff and preliminary thoughts about how to
handle the System Enhancement Program were published as a result of that
meeting. At that time, the only access issues that were raised was whether
McDonald should be a right-in/right-out or whether that access should be
closed. There was no mention, at that time, of any access problems on the
east side of Wakarusa.
However, there was a meeting with City staff in August and this was
where the problem began. Following that August meeting there was a letter
from Bucher, Willis, Ratliff to the Project Manager at KDOT which stated:
"As per your direction, they would be revising the plan sheets pertaining to
the Wakarusa intersection to reflect closure of the first driveway, east of
the intersection on the south side of 6th Street and the first driveway on
the west side." They anticipated completion of the plan revisions to the
intersection within the next three weeks. She said they were already
acknowledging that they had to make changes in the plan that was already
made in order to close the intersection. She said proposed agreement
bullets were given to the other members of the KDOT team who were present at
their internal meeting and the proposed bullets talked about access to the
intersection east of Wakarusa being closed as part of the project. She said
there were a number of interesting emails sent regarding that issue. She
said this was a problem with a premature decision that then began to take on
a life of its own. It was a decision without consultation from the City
Commission and without the input of City staff. She said in October the
City received the proposed bullets for the agreement which included closing
the access point.
She said once that issue went to the City Commission, she and the
property owners were agitated. City Commission minutes from March 1997 and
copies of the initial agreement were obtained and again, this was after the
fact of making the decision, publishing the KDOT request. The KDOT request
for closure of that access had not yet been discussed by the City Commission
or approved and yet they had a letter from the City Engineer indicating that
it was acceptable.
In December 2000, KDOT was asking themselves questions about whether
it was a good design or not and in minutes from one of their meetings, it
asked for the study calculations to justify putting the median in front of
that interest. Following the meeting at City Hall, the City Engineer
stated: "Eldredge said the City was trying to close the access, and lets all
stick together." She said the City Manager was ready to cave in because the
argument was that they had a plan that showed a cut in the median for them
to make left in and out and the City should be representing the developer.
She said the meeting continued in Topeka discussing what to do about
this issue in January of 2001. She said Jerry Cooley, City Attorney,
pointed out that the agreement for Westgate did not provide full access and
it was stated as the City's position. There was an instruction to write a
letter requesting left turn in at Champion Lane for consideration. She said
discussion about whether to update the earlier 6th and Wakarusa study and
provide engineering reasons to eliminate cut in median, east of Wakarusa.
However, the general counsel asked KDOT not to provide engineering reasons
for eliminating left turns, but to let them hire the engineer to say why it
should stay.
As requested and discussed at that January meeting, the City Engineer
wrote a letter asking to have left turns considered at Champion Lane and
stated that the City believed that constructing left turn lanes and Champion
Lane intersection would allow for safe left turns into the development on
the south and reinforce the KDOT no cut in the median policy at the People's
Bank access. She said it was inconsistent with an adopted plan and anything
that happened at the City Commission.
After those meetings in January 2001, the property owners on all four
quadrants met with the Assistant Secretary, KDOT staff, and City staff and
at that time they were given a handout telling them what was going to happen
at each intersection. For the southeast corner the handout stated that:
"KDOT and the City, during review of the project scope, had agreed that the
first entrance on south side of 6th Street, east of Wakarusa could remain
open as a right-in/right-out." She said it was located on the exiting side
of the intersection and it was for the protection of left turns off of 6th
Street and KDOT had control of medians on state highways.
The discussion about whether there should or should not be a study
continued with KDOT and in an email dated April 6, the email said: "I'm
getting conflicting stories about whether we need data to complete our
design of this project. One day I hear people saying you need a study the
next day I hear just the opposite. The purpose of the meeting is to have
everyone tell me what we need. I don't want to do extra work, but I do want
the data we need to do our job and justify our positions."
The City Commission reviewed this in November 2001 in a study session
and at that time, each of the five City Commissioners indicted that they
would like to have a compromise and that a reasonable compromise would be a
left turn in with no left turn out. The staff supported the compromise as
well as the property owner and KDOT and the consultants agreed to review the
compromise which was in November 2001.
In the spring of 2002 Representative Sloan and Senator Praeger who
were supportive of the City's and owner's position, also joined forces and
talked with Governor Graves. Governor Graves and Secretary Carlson agreed
to allow the median cut and that was when KDOT proposed the triggers.
The concept drawing had been sent to KDOT in September 2002 and they
were surprised to learn at the May meeting that KDOT had not reviewed that
concept drawing at that point. She said that was a large chunk of time and
certainly explained some of the miscommunications about triggers and plans.
At that time, the Secretary did ask that the plan be reviewed by the City's
consultant. The City Manager agreed, but he wanted to know exactly with
they were asking for.
She said all those property owners were asking for, since 1996 when
the first plans were done, was simply to be treated the same way every other
property was treated and to have the same standards and conditions apply.
She said before the cut had been approved by the Secretary and the
Governor, there had been an additional KDOT Study of this intersection. She
said the interesting thing about that study was that the volume counts were
not substantially different from the developer study, Landplan study, from
the earlier Bucher, Willis, and Ratliff review, nor from the George Butler
studies.
The owners found themselves being asked to pay for this study and
they were willing to pay the money, but they were concerned about the
purpose of the study and would like some clarification of the purpose of the
study and the Commission's continuing support of this median cut. This was
important because when you look at other similar intersections, in the City
of Lawrence, they did not seem to be treated differently whether there were
left turns at 9th and Iowa, 31st and Iowa, and 6th and Kasold, those seemed
to be held to different kinds of standards.
She said they met with the engineer at KDOT that had been
instrumental in drawing up the scope of work and he told them it was his
understanding that the Secretary needed to know if the median cut work at
the time of construction and that would indicated whether it was allowed or
not. The Secretary was not interested in trigger, it was understood that
both KDOT and the City had the total power to close the median at any time
they felt it was important to do so. She said this intersection was not one
of the top safety problems. The worst intersection concerning safety was at
6th and Kasold.
She said this CORSIMS was an interesting idea because there were few
people who knew how to operate it. There were two vendors in the Country
which were located in Florida and the other was at the University of Kansas.
It might have been used by TranSystems in some of their work on 31st Street
although it had not been used on anything that a report was done. It was
typically used on heavy traffic urban highways, it might or might not be
appropriate for this and as with any modeling it would depend on the
validity of the data. The process of continuing to support adopted plans of
continuing to use the same standards so that somebody down the street was
not treated differently than you were for better or for worse, she thought
was an important one. She would like to have the Commission look at a
comparison of the 6th and Kasold and 6th and Wakarusa intersection and then
it could be told what they wanted added to the scope of work in order to
proceed. She wanted to make it clear, in agreeing to pay for this study,
that was not an endorsement and they reserved the right to analyze it just
as KDOT and the City would.
Duane Schwada presented a comparison of 6th and Kasold and 6th and
Wakarusa to the Commission. He said the 6th and Kasold intersection was the
top crash intersection that was documented in 2002.
The fact was that this solution was made jointly with the City, KDOT,
and a consultant, they all agreed and it was voted on by the Commission last
week in excess of one million dollars to accomplish this. While the traffic
on 6th and Kasold by KDOT's own measurement was approximately 29,000
vehicles at 6th as opposed to 13,000 vehicles at 6th and Wakarusa almost 2
1/2 times the traffic on 6th. The north/south traffic on Kasold also
exceeded the north/south traffic on Wakarusa.
The solution was a small raised median. The comparison was the
protected two left turn lanes was simply painted on the pavement. He said
the reason for a raised median at an intersection was to protect those left
turn lanes.
He said it did not take an engineering degree to understand the
relative importance of what happened at one street and one happened at
another section. He said the relative safety of people at 6th and Kasold
should not be treated any different than 31st and Iowa or at 6th and
Wakarusa.
Tim Fritzel, one of the owners of Westgate, said an important issue
regarding this study was to make sure they had input with regard to what the
engineers would be providing. Even though there was a meeting with the
engineer, the scope of the work had already been determined. He said they
thought the scope of work needed a goal that would analyze the feasibility
of a median cut with the year of construction. He said the design was based
on the same geometric standards used in other locations and there was not
reason to place a hold on this intersection because they made them feel like
they would come up with a study that would close that intersection. The
intersection study should be based on safety and soundness. He said the
intersection should not be based on a bad decision that KDOT made and they
were trying to reinforce that decision. The standards should be applied
uniformly which should be the goal of the City. The data placed in the
study should be objective and quantifiable. He said the items that he
discussed should be added to the scope of work and he would like City
Commission input.
Commissioner Highberger asked if they had anything indicating the
suggested scope of work for the study of those proposed additions to the
scope of work.
Wildgen said that information was in the staff report.
Commissioner Schauner said there had been KDOT studies of the traffic
volume at that intersection. He asked what those studies recommended with
respect to closing that access point for left turns.
Soules said KDOT's recommendation was that no median cut be allowed.
Commissioner Schauner asked what KDOT's recommendation was based on
concerning that median cut.
Soules said KDOT performed their own traffic in-house study.
Wildgen suggested that the Commission review a letter dated May 1,
2003 from Deb Miller, Secretary of Transportation, KDOT. At that meeting
Secretary Miller pulled the trigger proposal off the table and there were
also discussions that led to the May 23rd letter that opened up the idea of
the CORSIMS study. In the current design there was no median cut.
Commissioner Schauner said the letter dated May 1, 2003 from
Secretary Miller indicated that disallowing that median break was not the
answer that Fritzel wanted, but she thought it was the best answer when
considering safety and traffic needs. He asked if that was part of the
denial of that request for a median cut at that location.
Wildgen said yes. He said they had another meeting that day that led
to further study. He said in the May 23rd letter that he received from
Secretary Miller, the concern was "The new conceptual drawing appeared to
have an adequate queue length for the westbound US-40/6th Street to
southbound Wakarusa Drive left-turn movement. However, there were still
operational and safety concerns regarding the left-turn into the People's
Bank entrance and concerns about whether or not the new conceptual design
could meet ASSHTO and MUTCD design standards." He said that was his
understanding of the purpose of the CORSIMS study.
Commissioner Hack said at that meeting, Secretary Miller indicted
that they had not seen that conceptual drawing and they did not have a
chance to study that drawing.
Wildgen said Secretary Miller did not have a chance to study that
drawing, but her staff studied that drawing.
Commissioner Hack said KDOT had not applied the standards. She said
there might be a way to address that issue as long as a study was done, but
KDOT did not want to pay for the study nor did they want to delay the
project. She said Secretary Miller, being new to the job, felt that in
fairness to all parties that conceptual drawing should be looked at.
Commissioner Schauner said the May 23rd letter from Secretary Miller
indicated that if the City wanted an additional study, KDOT would not pay
for that study.
Commissioner Hack said yes. She said the owners of Westgate knew
that the City would not pay for that study either so Westgate had agreed to
pay for that study provided their issues and concerns were addressed.
Commissioner Schauner said what concerned him was that Westgate would
pay for that study; add to the scope of work; and reserve the right to
re-analyze the data from that study. He did not hear any finality in
Westgate's comments even if there was another study performed. He did not
think another study would add closure to that issue. He said Westgate
owners wanted left and right in and out of every current access point and
anything short of that might not be acceptable.
Commissioner Hack thought the owners of Westgate would not put
something in place that was going to endanger their customers. She said
KDOT had been clear that when certain numbers or triggers were met, then
that would need to be closed. She said KDOT had made it clear to the City
that they could place the median break, but the City would be taken off the
system.
She said Westgate owners had agreed to pay for the study. The goal
was to have an enhanced 6th Street. She questioned the numbers at the
intersection in the CORSIM study and if she looked at the task of the
outline, it would look to the future build out of that intersection.
Soules said the model would be calibrated based on the current
traffic counts and then the model would be projected.
Commissioner Hack said if the Westgate owners were willing to pay for
the study, the Commission should allow that. She also would like to place a
timeline on the project and encourage participation and input among the
City, Consultants, and the owners of Westgate.
Commissioner Highberger asked if implementing the study would delay
the work on 6th Street.
Soules said KDOT was going to continue to proceed. Right now KDOT
was working on acquisition with the intent of bidding this project in
January. If for some reason the study showed that the cut was permissible
and KDOT allowed that to happen, staff could also do a change order. He
thought the study would not slow down the progress.
Commissioner Hack asked what the timeline for a study like this was.
Wildgen said two months. He mentioned that the Commission needed to
be careful about the additional scope of work. He said those general
comments had been discussed for a long time and KDOT indicated that they
were not just studying it the first year, but long-term. The reasoning for
this amount of money being spent was they wanted a problem solved for a
longer period of time.
Commissioner Hack said the Westgate owners would appreciate the fact
that if the study came back and KDOT said no, the City did not have much
recourse. She said the City would want to make sure they had exhausted all
possible studies.
Eldredge said the owners of Westgate had adhered to the principals of
planning and long-range planning along that northwest quadrant of Lawrence.
She said it looked as though there had been a history of wanting to justify
that decision that was not made properly in the first place. She said they
wanted to be careful in receiving input that would go into that modeling.
She said this design year for this project was 2018. If there was going to
be projections of what happened, they should be based on approved land use
decisions. She said the Northwest and Comprehensive Plans were the best
plans they had to do those projections. She said this project should not be
based on speculation or something that could not be verified.
Commissioner Schauner said that if the median cut were built today,
the triggers that KDOT would use to close that median cut would have already
been met.
Soules said some of the triggers what were in that supplemental
agreement had already been met.
Commissioner Schauner asked if enough of them would have been met to
close the median cut once it was built.
Soules said it took one trigger to be met to close the median cut.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any reason to believe that
the traffic study that KDOT performed was not objective and reasonable.
Soules did not know why they would feel that any of the studies were
invalid. Those traffic studies were done by engineering experts from KDOT,
but they were educated estimates.
Commissioner Schauner said the CORISMS study would be another
educated estimate of current and future traffic on that intersection.
Soules said yes. He said the better input the better output, but it
still was an educated estimate.
Commissioner Hack said part of this issue was whether or not there
was enough stacking in the turn.
Soules said there were design standards which were the ASSHTO and
MUTCD design standards.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the median cut based on traffic
counts, keep them from meeting those ASSHTO and MUTCD standards.
Wildgen said that was one of the reasons for the study.
Commissioner Schauner thought the KDOT study would had already
considered those issues.
Soules said KDOT looked at a different design.
Mayor Dunfield said the question of an additional study had to do
with the amount of stacking length in that left turn lane. KDOT's studies
to date had been based on a different configuration than the conceptual
design that City staff presented. He said that was the reason performing
another study.
Soules said ASSHTO did not have standards in opening or closing a
median cut or access point. The design standards were geometric only.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the appropriate length for the queue
line for left turns be determined, in part, by traffic volumes of that
intersection.
Soules said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked what it was about this design standard
that was different from prior design standards that would necessitate or
support the need for additional study.
Commissioner Hack said it was not a design standard, but the design
itself, the length of that turn lane and stacking. She said that particular
drawing had not been studied.
Mayor Dunfield said after hearing this presentation, he was convinced
that the time has come to make a decision, to inform KDOT to move ahead with
their street design. He said for 2 1/2 years KDOT had said that median cut
was inappropriate. He said staff had argued with that fact and had invested
an enormous amount of time in working with KDOT on that issue, but KDOT had
consistently said that it would not work. He said the City would not design
for the year of construction, but design to make sure the City solved a
problem for the future. He said the City would not get themselves in the
same position as on Kasold and 6th, where they were creating a median to
close a left turn access onto Arizona Street that was 410 feet from that
intersection. He said what they were talking about now was closing a left
turn that was 480 feet from the Wakarusa intersection which would probably
in the future be as busy as the Kasold intersection.
He said they were spending taxpayer money to fix a problem that
resulted from a set of standards that was different than the standards that
they were designing today. He said standards do evolve for a reason and
part of that reason was so they did not end up in the same retro fit
situation at 6th and Kasold.
He said west of Wakarusa there was an Access Management Plan and that
plan was not going to allow left turns on or off of 6th Street at the kind
of distance to the intersections that was being discussed. He said KDOT's
decision was clear and the Commission was going to be in the position of
closing that median cut whether this Commission allowed it to be done as
part of this project or whether another City Commission would need to deal
with this issue again in the future.
The fact that the owners of Westgate would not endorse the results of
the study meant that this was an open question. He said the time had come
to close the question. He said the City had gone to bat for Westgate on
this issue for the last 2 1/2 years and he thought it was time to accept the
inevitable which was that this median was going to be closed.
Commissioner Schauner concurred with Mayor Dunfield.
Commissioner Highberger also concurred with Mayor Dunfield. He said
KDOT's position seemed solid. He did not want to put a future City
Commission in having to spend City money to close that median cut in the
future.
Commissioner Hack wanted the City Commission to consider that this
was not a study that the City would be funding. She said there was a
drawing that had not been completely study.
Eldredge said in the May 23, 2003 letter from the Secretary of
Transportation, that it was her suggestion that the study be done and her
acknowledgement that the concept had not been studied. This suggestion for
a study so that the concept could be studied did not delay the project or
cost the City money.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to direct staff to not
proceed with a proposed study concerning median cut in planned improvements
to West 6th Street, at approximately 4800 block of West 6th Street. Aye:
Dunfield, Highberger, and Schauner. Nay: Hack. Motion carried.
(21)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Dunfield deviated from the printed agenda to move to the
public comment portion of the City Commission meeting because a citizen sat
through an intolerably long meeting last week and she did not get a chance
to speak.
Mary Siegrist, Lawrence, said they needed to find a way to keep the
Acceptance House open for another year, continuing with July 18th. She said
some time ago the Federal Government dumped the responsibility of the
mentally ill on the State. The State then dumped the responsibility of the
mentally ill on the communities. She said the community was only given one
year worth of financial help.
Approximately two dozen mentally ill homeless people had benefited
from the Acceptance House. The Acceptance House was opened 5 hours daily,
Monday through Friday, from 12:00 p.m. to 5 p.m. She said during that
period, it was a haven for the mentally ill.
She said Kansas rejected the $40,000 grant request, so those 5 hours
would be taken away from those two dozen mentally ill homeless people. She
hoped that the Commissioners would take the leadership role to enable the
Acceptance House to remain open for another year.
Commissioner Hack asked for the hours of operation at the Drop In
Center.
Siegrist said the center was opened from 8:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m.
Commissioner Highberger shared Siegrist's concerns, but he was not
sure the best means to address that issue.
Commissioner Hack said there was a budget study session tomorrow and
that would be an opportunity to discuss the matter. She would like more
information on the Drop In Center and the possibility of extending those
hours.
Commissioner Highberger said there should be a formal budget request
from the Acceptance House or from the Drop In Center for extended hours. He
asked if it was possible for the Acceptance House Director to provide a
funding request to the City.
Siegrist would notify the responsible people and those people would
address a formal budget to Mayor Dunfield.
(22)
Consider Planning Commission recommendations for annexation and rezoning for
property generally located north of Peterson.
Sandy Day, City Planner, addressed both the annexation and rezoning
request. The area was generally located north of Peterson Road and east of
Monterey Way (extended). She said both were initially presented as requests
for single family residential development. She said during the discussion
with the Planning Commission, the applicant indicated an interest in
pursuing a different zoning request at the southern portion of that parcel.
Staff indicated upon annexation, it needed to carry forward with city
zoning. The property was currently zoned R-1 and additional zoning request
for the area was expected as further land use decisions were made about the
property. The annexations and rezoning follow each other procedurally, so
staff was looking at a uniform zoning district across the property once it
was annexed.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Phil Struble, Land Plan Engineering, said the development community
was trying to listen to the Commission's concerns and comments about getting
appropriate infrastructure needs in front of the development. He said
previously, a completed project would be brought to the Commission and the
client would be ready to work before conversation was reached about benefit
districts, financing, street improvements, etc. He said there had been a
major focus over the last year in getting annexed, zoned, and have
discussion with the Commission about the infrastructure needs before going
to work. He said this was the first step, and it might not be perfect, but
the only way to get to the point where the infrastructure was ahead of the
development, was to annex and zone the area and have discussion about the
needs as early as possible. He said all five issues were intertwined.
Commissioner Schauner asked if currently there was no infrastructure
in place on those two parcels.
Struble said there was sanitary sewer touching both of those
parcels. There were insufficient road networks touching both parcels, but
there was no internal city approved design criteria improvements. He said
Schauner was correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the sanitary sewer touched both
parcels.
Struble showed Commissioner Schauner where that sanitary sewer
touched the node.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Struble was aware of any discussion
about development either as low or median density to the west of the western
most of those two parcels.
Struble could not speak on behalf of those property owners.
Commissioner Schauner said it seemed logical to assume that west of
the proposed annexed area would be developed at some point in the future.
Struble said yes. He said the area being discussed concerning future
expansions was relatively small until you get into the floodplain property.
Mayor Dunfield called for City Commission discussion.
Commissioner Schauner asked if annexation was not a legislative
function.
Corliss said it was a legislative function.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the property was annexed, what legal
requirements were needed to go forward to create a benefit district and
provide the infrastructure in order for the property to be developed.
Corliss said the property owners that have property within the city
could point to the city's policies and laws as to how to extend public
infrastructure. The development policy, Resolution No. 5614, sets out the
mechanism as to how to extend public infrastructure and defined who paid for
what statement of the City. He said as a property owner within the City
they could point to that Resolution and request that a street be placed on
their property. The City would then ask who was going to be paying for that
street and staff would present the specifications to that street. He said
the Commission had the discretion of whether or not to allow for a public
infrastructure to be built.
He said the issue could be better explained when getting into
platting. He said there were also Subdivision Regulations and if a property
owner met the requirements of the Subdivisions Regulations then it had been
the City's practice to plat for property according to the Subdivision
Regulations which set out the revision of that property. They could come
back and build the road according to the City's Development Policy. He said
there was still some discretion as to extend the facilities and the
Commission had within their legislative powers the ability to establish
reasonable rules where that could be built.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the annexation and build out through a
benefit district of those parcels require improvement south of Peterson.
Corliss said there had not been any study of the need to improve
Kasold, south of Peterson. He said staff was recommending improvements at
that intersection to the north.
Commissioner Schauner said they did not know what the consequences
were if those two parcels were fully developed as either low density or
medium density.
Corliss said based on the Comprehensive Plan and the land uses that
document projected was that staff prepared a Master Thoroughfare Plan that
indicated where arterials, collector streets should be located in the
community. In reviewing that rezonings and annexations, they were looking
at that map as well and seeing whether or not that property being within the
City and those appropriate land uses was congruent with that Master
Thoroughfare Plan. He said there was a desire to improve Kasold and
Peterson as arterial streets and Monterey Way as a collector street. He
said they were following that plan in how to build that infrastructure for
this area.
Mayor Dunfield said the annexation of property as indicated brought
with it the expectation that City service would follow at some reasonable
time. In terms of the discussion about benefit districts and the discussion
that would be on-going as they get into the adequate public facilities study
session that was coming up, he asked if there was a timing issue for the
City Commission in terms of its consideration. He said hypothetically, if
the Commission decided to throw out who paid for what policy, and rewrites
it, was the city still obligated by the previous policy.
Corliss said there was no legal obligation, but there was a strong
management obligation to tell the development community what the time
horizon was for the review of the development policy, and how soon they
could expect to know who would pay for what and how would infrastructure be
installed within the community. He said developers had obligations as well
as far as financing and they needed to know when those rules would be in
effect so that they could calculate and request services. He said the
Commission might be able to let certain development proceed and there might
be other developments that the Commission would not because it would raise
significant questions.
Commissioner Schauner asked what benefits did the City derive from
annexing parcels of land. He asked how this annexation dovetailed with
talking about adequate public facilities.
Mayor Dunfield said one issue found in the Adequate Public Facility
Study showed that one of the mechanisms that were often used as part of that
process was to annex early and more aggressively. The primary reason was
that it allowed for more control and predictability of the future
development of infrastructure. He said getting this project on the table
early, allowed them to plan better for those infrastructure needs.
Commissioner Hack said annexing larger area allowed more control and
for future developers to know what the Commission's expectations were. She
said there was an economic issue of supply and demand. She said a main
concern was the issue of affordable land in Lawrence. She believed there
were planning issues and economic issues in the price of this property.
Commissioner Highberger understood the advantages of an aggressive
annexation policy, but he also realized that the Adequate Public Facility
Study coming up and his preference would be to conduct a major annexation of
this type after that study. He said since there was no time frame for
implementation and provided that they could set up an adequate benefit
district to pay for public improvements, he was in favor about proceeding
with the annexations and rezonings at this time.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve a request to rezone
(Z-05-12-03) a tract of land containing approximately 76.20 acres from R-1
(County Single-Family Residential District) to RS-2 (Single Family Residence
District), the property is generally described as being located north of
Peterson Road and east of Monterey Way (extended). Motion carried
unanimously. (23)
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve an annexation
(A-05-07-03) of approximately 76.20 acres, the property is generally
described as being located north of Peterson Road, east of Monterey Way
(extended). Motion carried unanimously.
(24)
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve a request to rezone
(Z-05-13-03) a tract of land containing approximately 55.95 acres from R-1
(County Single-Family Residential District) to RS-2 (Single Family Residence
District), the property is generally described as being located north of
Peterson Road and west of Monterey Way (extended). Motion carried
unanimously. (25)
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve an annexation
(A-05-08-03) of approximately 55.95 acres, the property is generally
described as being located north of Peterson Road, west of Monterey Way
(extended). Motion carried unanimously.
(26)
Benefit District consideration of property generally located north of
Peterson.
Corliss provided a matrix to the Commission that listed the five
different benefit districts to be discussed. He said this was not a public
hearing on the benefit districts, but a general discussion about the benefit
districts and also to receive Commission direction. He said one of the
benefit districts had been created, and an amendment was requested from the
Commission. He would like to receive direction from Commission on how to
proceed. In August staff would present a resolution that would set a public
hearing date and all property owners would be notified. A public hearing
would be held to consider the establishment of the benefit districts.
The first benefit district did not directly involve the property
that was annexed and rezoned, but it was the area called Monterey Way south.
There was already a benefit district established and it did not have the
history of the Westgate project, but it might rival it. He said there were
significant design problems that accelerated the cost of the project,
specifically, there was a gas pipeline that traversed the western side of
Monterey Way that needed to be relocated in order to build the collector
street and the roundabout at Monterey Way and Peterson. He said those costs
were not included in the benefit district. He said since the road needed to
be moved because of the gas pipeline, they need to acquire additional
right-of-way.
He said traditionally what was done was they had received the equal
amount of right-of-way from one side of the road or the other. The roads
were called section line roads. In this situation, there was a
disproportionate amount of right-of-way from the property on the eastside of
Monterey Way. He believed it would be appropriate to compensate the
property owner for the acquisition, as opposed to assessing that
right-of-way cost back onto the adjoining property owner. There was a State
law that allowed the city to assess right-of-way costs onto properties that
did not dedicate right-of-way use. In a situation where a road was taking
equal shares of right-of-way, it was a fair and equitable way to make sure
all of the right-of-way was dedicated for a road project. He said in this
situation the City would need to acquire a disproportionate amount of
right-of-way on the property on the east side of Monterey Way so they needed
to amend the benefit district to reflect what was believed was the property
costs for that right-of-way acquisition. He said they had the estimated
costs and method of assessment was originally established on a front footage
basis. He said Spring Hill was looking into the method of assessment on a
square footage basis.
The second benefit district project was Monterey Way to the north of
Peterson Road. This involved the two tracts of properties that were annexed
by the Commission. He said Monterey Way would go north from the roundabout
and eventually connect up to Grand Vista Drive. He said there was no
right-of-way dedicated, but they had a preliminary plat for that property
for staff to review and look at the necessary dedications and perhaps a plat
from this parcel. A portion of the costs was based on the current
development policy resolution.
The third benefit district was Peterson Road from Kasold to west
Monterey Way. He said Peterson Road did not meet city standards. This
would be a three lane facility and similar in design to Peterson Road east
of Kasold, along with a bike and recreational path on the north side of
Peterson Road and the city would pay for the overage share of that path and
the road. He said there was existing county right-of-way for Peterson, but
the City would need additional right-of-way from all of those property
owners.
The fourth benefit district was Kasold from Peterson Road to the
turnpike. This was an existing standard county road facility. He said it
was in better shape then Peterson Road and it would be built to a three lane
configuration, with sidewalks on both sides. There were a number of
established residents and institutions in that area. He said there was also
a property that was outside of the city, but would abut Kasold as well and
staff was contemplating annexing that property. He had talked to the
property owner and his concern was not the annexation, but paying special
assessments. He said Kasold, at one time, was on the list of transportation
projects asking the State for 80/20 funding. He said it was no longer on
the list because it had been replaced.
The final proposed benefit district was the improvements at the
intersection of Kasold and Peterson Road. He said the design study had to
be complete. The cost estimate was the same for either a roundabout or a
traffic signal. In early presentations by one of the property owner's
representatives, a suggested method was to share the cost based on projected
traffic volumes.
He said there was discussion with bond council, who would be making
additional legal inquiry about the propriety of this benefit district. He
said there would be solid answers for the Commission at the next hearing
because they were not including all of the corners of the intersection, but
this was not a street that all of the corners of the intersection had access
to. He would like to hear the Commission discussion and public comments
about the various benefit districts, and then receive direction from the
Commission.
He said those projects were illustrative of the issue that were
discussed concerning adequate public facilities, the timing of
infrastructure along with development. Kasold was being built towards the
later stages of when this area was being developed. Monterey Way north of
Peterson was along with the development request. If you look at Monterey
Way, south of Peterson it was illustrative of the different timing desires
of property owners and developers. The Spring Hill development had been
seeking to develop their property for a number of years. The property
further to the south had recently come in with a request for development.
The property on the east side, Fall Creek Farms, was not ready to develop
that portion of their Master Plan for that area. There were different
timing requirements that placed challenges on how the Commission wanted to
install facilities to adequately meet the community's needs.
Soules said there were a couple policy issues that were in need of
direction from the Commission. He said direction did not need to be given
at this time and it could wait until the adequate public facility discussion
took place or before more benefit districts were developed. One of the
issues was construction-engineering fees. He said costs had been looked at,
both in Utilities and Public Works Engineering Divisions. The costs right
now were low. He said those costs were established in 1989 by a sliding
scale. He said smaller projects pay more, anywhere from 2.5 percent to 3
percents for development of benefit districts. He said larger projects pay
.5 percent. Staff was proposing to increase that to a 3 percent
construction-engineering fee.
The other issue that the Commission needed to discuss was including
waterlines in benefit district developments. At this time, all waterlines
were paid upfront by the developer. If a property was not ready to be
developed, it was a big burden onto the person that wanted to develop
because the Utility Department Policy was that fees had to bed paid before
the project began. He said there had been discussion and it was concluded
that the costs should be included in the benefit district developments. He
said staff would like to acquire 50 percent of the costs up front, within
the current development policy on other infrastructure. He said those
issues needed Commission direction at some point.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Craig Van Metry, Attorney for Spring Hill, presented exhibits showing
the period of time of involvement in the project. He said the property was
bought in 1996. It was a reasonable assumption that Spring Hill would be
able to develop the entire tract that was acquired, not just Phase 1. In
the context of coming forward with a plat for Phase 2, which was the
property that was now part of the Special Benefit District proposed, they
learned that the City was concerned that building that portion of Monterey
Way directly adjacent to their property would leave an unusable street.
Since Monterey Way was in such bad shape, the city would not allow that.
He said Spring Hill came back on September 18, 2001 and presented a
halfway measure to do some of the lots with chip and seal on Monterey Way.
This would give them the ability then to recover some of the large amounts
of costs that were incurred by Spring Hill in acquiring the property. It
was in the context of that discussion, that it incumbent upon the city to do
the right thing and to make sure Monterey Way was not done in a halfway
manner. City staff felt that Spring Hill could not go ahead with their
project and finish out Phase 2 unless there was some assurance that Monterey
Way would be built. He did not fault the decisions made by City's staff,
but there was an 8 year history of trying to get something done on 20 acres
and now that Spring Hills was in the process of having this special benefit
district consummated, they find that they were being folded into a macro
concept review on the City's part. If the Commission wanted to do justice
in the macro sense, then it must also be done in a micro sense as well.
He advocated two things. It was Spring Hill's understanding that the
Monterey Way district, which related to the property already in the city
limits and had been sewers and allowed them to build a substantially similar
development which was moderately priced housing. He said the gas line staff
wanted the assurance from the district before proceeding. If this was
delayed for too long, it would place them on the agenda for gas line
improvements some time next year. Another year would be lost to recover the
substantial costs they had invested in this property.
The second issue was a result of continually nagging the city to help
them out, which then, a benefit district was created in that area. He said
Spring Hill encouraged people to start looking at those problems and it was
only fair as a result of looking at those problems in that area, that Spring
Hill was treated in the exact same manner as everyone else in the other
special benefit districts which was to assess the cost thereof on an area
basis. He said Spring Hill believed they have been patient and paid their
fair share. He asked for parity and promptness in the Commission's
considerations.
Mark Anderson, Attorney, representing a number of property owners
involved in this process who would be affected by those benefit district
improvement districts, said the property owners came together in April and
proposed a collective process for establishing benefit improvement districts
for Kasold, Peterson Road, and Monterey Way, as well as the intersections
that were included. Those property owners, at that time, had a letter
prepared and sent to the city. The following week a meeting was held at the
city hall with the property owners and several members of the city's staff.
The letter proposed moving forward with those various benefit improvement
districts. The letter also proposed that the property owners would move
forward based upon the concept of front footage assessments, not on a square
footage assessment.
He said in the city's policy, under Section II, it was stated that
the petitioner, not the city, was charged with the duty of specifying which
type of assessment that the petitioner wanted to proceed with. He wanted to
make it clear that the property owners were the petitioners for the benefit
improvement districts and they had asked for a front footage assessment. He
said the property owners would not agree to a square footage assessment, but
in a memo from Chuck Soules, it was suggested that the property owners go
forward on a square footage basis.
He said Dave Corliss pointed out that the existing benefit district
from Monterey Way was currently on a front footage basis. There had been no
substantial change that would alter going forward on a square footage basis.
Mayor Dunfield asked if a front footage assessment on Kasold would
include only those lots that directly address Kasold.
Mayor Dunfield had a concern about the Kasold benefit district and
the front footage versus the square footage. He asked if it was not the
case that a front footage assessment on Kasold would include only those lots
that directly address Kasold.
Corliss said in the past, when doing a front footage assessment, the
front footage was taken on each side of the road and then that was
established as the proportion share for that side of the road. He said when
the square footage contribution was looked at on each side of the road and
was assessed by the square footage on either one of those sides for example:
On Kasold, if the front footage length of Kasold was the same and there was
a $2,000,000 project, that would mean that the east side would pay
$1,000,000 and the west side would pay $1,000,000 if there was no city
contribution. He said staff would then look at the square footage
contributions on the east side and assess that $1,000,000 accordingly as
well as the west side.
Commissioner Highberger asked if those cost were assessed to the lots
that bordered Kasold.
Corliss said no, the entire benefit district.
Commissioner Schauner asked how far back from the road would the
benefit district go.
Corliss said all of the property in the benefit district.
Mayor Dunfield said it would be all the properties that take access
onto that portion of Kasold.
Commissioner Schauner said it sounded like a mix of front footage and
square footage in terms of how you would determine individual property
owner's costs.
Corliss said it was if you did it solely on a front footage basis,
then you would rely on the properties that directly abut the road that you
were improving. He said there were problems with that method because you
would not be including all the property that benefited and you would be
placing a sizable assessment on some relatively small parcels.
Commissioner Hack asked how feasible it was to the get the Monterey
Way project started early.
Corliss said the Commission could make a motion on how they would
like to proceed. He said they could amend the other resolution and have the
public hearing before the other projects. He said this was seen as related
projects as they were constructed. He said there were a number of policy
issues that related to the discussion about adequate public facilities which
was an important goal of the Commission and staff wanted to make sure that
they were following the Commission's direction for implementing those
benefit district.
Mayor Dunfield said the information received had been helpful. He
said in terms of the five proposed benefit districts, the Monterey Way
benefit district should proceed ahead of the others because it was one that
had been under consideration for a while.
Commissioner Schauner said if the Commission moved the Monterey Way
benefit district to the front of the line, did they also need to discuss
costs.
Soules said that project on Monterey Way was established prior to
this discussion. He said as far as engineering fees and waterline costs,
they were not included in the benefit district.
Commissioner Highberger said according to the matrix the city would
pay construction costs for the bike lanes. He asked if that was established
in the development policy.
Corliss said it was not in the current development policy. The
Commission was asked several years ago as how to proceed with costs for the
bike lanes, and it was the direction at that time that the city at large
would pay those costs. He said staff had not gone back to the development
policy and made it explicit which was one issue to be discussed at the next
Commission meeting as to whether they fine tune development policy. It had
been the city's practice, in the past, to pay for the construction of bike
lanes.
Commissioner Highberger said that was something that had been
developed despite the fact that our policy did not say so.
Corliss was trying to be concise and distinguish between "practice"
and "policy." Policies were written, but the City's practice has been when
benefit district were done, the City has paid the overage share for the bike
lanes.
Commissioner Highberger said in reading the current policy it
mentioned sidewalks and bike trails, he would like to consider having the
full cost of the roadway and bike lanes be included in the benefit district.
Corliss asked if the Commission wanted staff to put those costs in
the Monterey Way south benefit district or did they want that to be part of
the discussion of changing the policy. He said the way staff had read
sidewalks and bike trails was there was a substantial difference between a
sidewalk and a wider street for bike lanes.
Commissioner Highberger said if the current policy addressed that
issue then he would stick to the current policy. He said since it was just
city practice, he would feel more comfortable making the change and
including the full cost of bike lanes in the Monterey Way benefit district.
Mayor Dunfield thought those costs were addressed in the policy in
terms of having this 31 foot width issue that was part of the policy and for
one reason or another when going beyond that 31 foot width, then it was
expected the city tax payers to pay that cost.
Corliss said the policy lacked a formal acknowledgment about where
bike lanes would be constructed and where they would not. He said there was
an interpretation from the Commission that the overage would be picked up by
the city.
Soules said a bike lane would be 4 feet wide and the city was only
picking up 5 feet of the 36-foot wide street, which was the overage from 31
feet to 36 feet.
Commissioner Hack said since this had been the city's practice she
was not in favor of incrementally changing those policies before looking at
the whole policy.
Commissioner Schauner said Commissioner Highberger made a good point
in that the city did not have a policy, but a practice. There was a good
chance that the Commission would adopt a policy regarding who would pay for
the bike lane, but for the developer's interest in developing this area, the
Commission would not be upgrading Monterey Way anyway. He said it would be
appropriate for the bike lanes to be part in parcel of the assessment to the
benefit district as opposed to the city at large.
Commissioner Highberger withdrew his suggestion. He was not opposed
to the Monterey Way, Peterson south benefit district proceed, with the
portion proposed in the matrix.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to extend the meeting until
10:30. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Dunfield heard an interest on the part of the Commission to go
ahead with the Monterey Way, Peterson south benefit district under the
current policy. There was the question of whether to continue with the
front footage or the square footage method. He asked the Commission for
their opinions.
Commissioner Schauner was not sure, based on the earlier discussion,
what the difference was.
Corliss said when a benefit district was done by a hearing method,
property owners were notified and at that time you could change the method
of assessment at the public hearing level. He said if the Commission
decided to proceed on the front footage basis, then the west side would pay
the same amount as the east side, and the cost would spread out on a square
footage basis on either side. If it was done on a square footage basis,
then the property on the east side would have a larger cost because of more
square footage on that side.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the method of assessment was done on a
square footage basis, you would aggregate all the square footage in the
benefit district and assign each square foot its pro-rated share of the
improvement cost.
Corliss said that was correct.
Commissioner Schauner said in the case of Spring Hill they would pay
significantly less of the share of the improvement.
Anderson said if this benefit district was changed from front
footage, the assessment for one of those land owners for all of Monterey Way
south would go up approximately $370,000. He said you would be shifting
$370,000 from one side of the street to the other.
Mayor Dunfield said in this case there was a petitioner on each side
asking for a different method of assessment.
Commissioner Hack suggested asking staff to schedule a public hearing
to provide data for both methods of assessments and during that public
hearing the Commission could make their decision rather than deciding at
this time.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to proceed with
putting back on a future agenda a resolution setting a public hearing date
for a new benefit district from Monterey Way south of Peterson. Motion
carried unanimously. (27)
Conduct a public hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of
right-of-way of Terrace Lane, south of Oxford Road in Valley View Addition
No. 3, a replat of Valley View Addition No. 2.
Mayor Dunfield called a public hearing to consider the vacation of a
portion of right-of-way of Terrace Lane, south of Oxford Road in Valley View
Addition No. 3, a replat of Valley View Addition No. 2.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report to
consider the vacation of a portion of right-of-way of Terrace Lane. He said
this was a 90 foot right-of-way that was platted and City standard only
required 60 foot right-of-way. However, because it was 90 foot, Westar and
City utilities were located on most of that right-of-way. He said if the
Commission desired to proceed with the vacation, the City needed to retain
utility easements for this area.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by
Highberger, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve an Order of
Vacation, reserving certain easements, concerning a portion of right-of-way
of Terrace Lane, south of Oxford Road in Valley View Addition No. 3, a
replat of Valley View Addition No. 2. Motion carried unanimously.
(28)
Conduct a public hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of the
platted 15' utility easement located on Lot 1B, a lot split for Lot 1, Quail
Crest Addition.
Mayor Dunfield called a public hearing to consider the vacation of a
portion of platted 15' utility easement located on Lot 1B, a lot split for
Lot 1, Quail Crest Addition.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report to
consider the vacation of a utility easement for Quail Crest Addition. He
said on Wakarusa Drive, Commerce Title was constructing a facility on Lot 1.
They had erected the foundation for a sign within the platted easement.
There was an adjacent 15 foot utility easement where all the utilities were
currently located. There were no utilities needing this easement at this
time.
Mayor Dunfield 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 an Order of Vacation,
reserving certain easements, regarding a portion of the platted 15' utility
easement located on Lot 1B, a lot split for Lot 1, Quail Crest Addition.
(29)
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Hack said at a School Board meeting there was
conversation about the permissibility of a sales tax and Superintendent
Randy Weisman suggested conducing a meeting with the School Board, City and
County as soon as possible to address that issue.
CALENDAR ITEMS
Wildgen said given the load on the City Commission's agenda for next
week, he suggested starting the City Commission meeting at 6:00 p.m.
The Commission agreed.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 10:15 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 2003
1. Bid Date Set - Geometric & Traffic Signal Improvements for 6th & Lawrence
Ave. on July 29th.
2. Bid Date Set - 2003 Overlay & Curb Repair Program, July 29th.
3. Ordinance No. 7661 - 2nd Reading, 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code.
4. Ordinance No. 7664 - 2nd Reading, Rezone (Z-12-43-02) .51 acres from RS-1
to RO-1A, 501 Rockledge Rd.
5. Ordinance No. 7665 - 2nd Reading, Rezone (Z-04-09-03) 1.81 acres from
RS-1 to RO-2, 505 & 515 Rockledge Rd.
6. Charter Ordinance No. 35 - 2nd Reading, Sunday alcohol sales.
7. Ordinance No. 7666 - 2nd Reading, Temporary alcohol sales, Sept 6,
Burcham Pk "Tour De Fat."
8. Ordinance No. 7667 - 2nd Reading, Sunday alcohol sales hours from 11 am
to 7 pm.
9. Ordinance No. 7668 - 2nd Reading, Rename W 15th from Iowa to City
boundaries as Bob Billings Pkwy.
10. Ordinance No. 7650 - 2nd Reading, Traffic impact studies requirements.
11. Resolution No. 6479 - GOB for $500,000, for 6th & Kasold.
12. UPR - (UPR-05-02-03) Early Childhood Center at E Heights Elementary,
1430 Haskell.
13. UPR - (UPR-05-03-03) Village Meadows, retirement community, N of 24th Pl
between Crossgate & Inverness.
14. TUPR - (TUPR-07-27-03) Health & Wellness Expo at Therapy Works, 1112 W
6th, July 19, 9 am to 2 pm.
15. Rezoning - (Z-05-14-03) .827 acres from RS-1 to C-5, 1918 E 23rd.
16. Directional Signs - Dole Institute of Politics.
17. Subordination Agreement - 2705 Trail Dust Ct., Kimberly Johnson.
18. Subordination Agreement - 2516 Crestline Ct, Julee Smith.
19. City Manager's Report - Dole Institute/Rental properties.
20. Hobbs-Taylor Lofts - defer for 1 week, NE corner of 8th & New Hamp.
21. Median Cut - Do no proceed, 4800 Blk of W 6th,
22. Public Comment - Acceptance House.
23. Rezone - (Z-05-12-03) 76.20 acres, R-1 to RS-2, N of Peterson & E of
Monterey Way.
24. Annex - (A-05-07-03) 76.20 acres, N of Peterson & E of Monterey Way.
25. Rezone - (Z-05-13-03) 55.95 acres, R-1 to RS-2, N of Peterson & W of
Monterey Way.
26. Annex - (A-05-08-03) 55.95 acres, N of Peterson & W of Monterey Way.
27. Benefit District - Monterey Way S of Peterson.
28. Order of Vacation - Terrace Lane, S of Oxford Rd in Valley View Add No.
3.
29. Order of Vacation - 15' utility easement, Lot 1B, Quail Crest Add.
July 15, 2003
City Commission Minutes
Page 52
_____________________________
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