[E-minutes] July 22, 2003 City Commission Minutes

[Lisa Patterson]

           July 22, 2003

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at
6:00 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Dunfield
presiding and members Hack, Highberger, Rundle and Schauner present.    
With Commission approval Mayor Dunfield proclaimed the week of August 1 - 7,
2003 as "Breastfeeding Awareness Week."
Mayor Dunfield commented on the Dole Institute dedication events over the
weekend.  He said the event was well attended and there were few problems
throughout the City.  He gave credit to the Police and Fire/Medical
Departments who contributed to those events.  He said Lisa Patterson,
Communications Coordinator, and Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager,
were both involved in coordinating the arrangements for this event over the
last several months.  Mayor Dunfield also wanted to thank the citizens of
Lawrence for participating in the events.    
CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve City Commission meeting minutes of July 8, 2003.  Motion carried
unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting
minutes of June 11, 2003; Practitioner's Panel meeting minutes of April 17,
2003; Housing Trust Fund Board meeting minutes of June 17, 2003; Public
Health Board meeting minutes of May 19, 2003; and, the Lawrence Public
Library Board meeting minutes of May 19, 2003.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve claims to 433 vendors in the amount of $1,723,653.84.  Motion
carried unanimously.  
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Caleb Morse to the
Traffic Safety Commission, which will expire April 30, 2006.  Motion carried
unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed a quote from the State Contract Bids using SBC
DataCom regarding fiber optic equipment for the Kaw Plant, City Hall, and
Waste Water Treatement Plant.  Staff verified the pricing with different
vendors and determined that the State Contract bid prices with SBC Data Com
were lower in comparison, with three other City vendors, for a total cost of
$82,584.  Also, the City Commission reviewed the bids for the cable and
patch panels that were not included in the State Contract bids for the
Utilities Department for the Utilities Department.  The bids were:
		BIDDER					BID AMOUNT	
		Accu - Tech Corporation			$7,125.30

		Graybar					$7,318.22
		R7R Communication 				$8,150.08
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the bid from Accu - Tech Corporation, in the amount of $7,125.30.
Motion carried unanimously.
(1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
adopt Resolution No. 6471, establishing the public hearing date of September
23, 2003 to consider the proposed annexation of approximately 2.99 acres,
located at 1241 North 1300 Road.  Motion carried unanimously.
(2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
adopt Resolution No. 6478, ordering the improvement and authorizing the
issuance of General Obligation Bonds for certain main Trafficway
improvements within the City of Lawrence.  Motion carried unanimously.
(3) 
	As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to receive the letter requesting annexation and rezoning of
approximately 7.54 acres, located in the northeast and southeast quarters of
Section 5, Township 13 South, Range 19.  Motion carried unanimously.
(4)
	As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Richard
League, 2810 University Drive.  Motion carried unanimously.
(5)
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

During the City Manager's Report, Mike Wildgen thanked City staff for their
involvement in the Dole Institute dedication events. 
Wildgen also reported that the growth of ridership on the Lawrence Transit
System for the last four month averaged over 25,000.
Finally, Wildgen informed the Commission that several Parks and Recreation
Projects had been completed.
(6)
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS

Because of pending legal action, the agenda item regarding the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (CPA-2003-3) to Chapter 6, the Commercial Land Use Chapter of
Horizon 2020 was deferred indefinitely.
(7)
Consider authorizing the publication of the 2004 Budget and authorize August
12, 2003 as the public hearing date.  

Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said the Commission needed to schedule a public
hearing for the 2004 City Budget.  The amount that would be published was
$110,678,698 which that amount consisted of various property tax levy funds
and the non-property tax levy funds and a proposed mill levy of 28.07.  The
public hearing was scheduled for August 12, 2003 and at that time, public
comment would be taken.  He said the mill levy could be lowered and projects
could be taken away, but once the budget had been published projects could
not be added.  Once the budget was published it would be certified to the
County Treasurer and they would assess that money to the various property
tax statements.
Mayor Dunfield said the actual public hearing date would be August 12, 2003.
Commissioner Highberger said he asked Frank Reeb, Administrative Service
Director/City Clerk, to provide copies of the memo that the City Commission
had seen at their last budget session on increasing pay grades at the City's
lower pay levels.  He wanted to address that issue again because he thought
it did not get the attention that it deserved, but he was reluctant to
suggest a change in the budget because of the time that was put into the
budget.  
He said the Employee Compensation Study that the Commission received
indicated that pay at the City's bottom grades was out of line with
comparable jurisdictions and since the Commission would be discussing a
living wage proposal for tax abatement firms in August, he thought the City
should take the lead on this issue.  He said there was a recommended
increase of 5% on the bottom 5 pay grades would get almost all of the City's
positions above that proposal for the living wage.  
He said Option 1 would cost an estimated $115,000 and he did not know how
much of that would come out of the general fund.
Wildgen said $44,000 under the general fund basically all the rest would be
out of guest tax, water, sewer, sanitation, and vehicle maintenance.
Commissioner Highberger said the $115,000 would represent approximately .17
mill levy increase and .44 would be 1/3 of that which was .06.  If the
Commissioners were worried about that financial impact another option would
be to delay the onset of the increase until July 1 which would kick in next
year, but it would save half of the annual cost.  He respectfully asked the
City Commission to consider amending the proposed published budget to
include Option 1 increases in the lower salary grades.  
Vice Mayor Rundle said it was promising news that a small portion of that
was out of the general fund.  He asked if the amount that came out of those
other funds would affect those funds in anyway.
Wildgen said staff would need to look at Sanitation to see if that made any
difference in the rate recommendation that was part of that process.  He
said there would not be any problems with the other funds.  
Mayor Dunfield said once the budget was published and accepted that would
set an upper limit on the City's spending, but it did not prevent them from
rearranging within those limitations.      
Wildgen said correct.
Mayor Dunfield thought it was a worthy endeavor to look at and if they were
going to adjust those pay grades, live within the limits that were set and
find places to save that money elsewhere rather than adding to the budget
that the Commission agreed upon at the study session.
Commissioner Highberger said he appreciated those comments and was happy
with Mayor Dunfield's suggestion.
Vice Mayor Rundle said it would also be possible when January 1st came
around, to take Commissioner Highberger's suggestion that they defer that
until July 1st, based on the circumstances the City was, at the end of the
year.
Commissioner Schauner asked how many employees were affected by those lowest
5 pay grades.  He asked if there were 15 employees affected.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk, said that would be
the number that would need to go up to catch up with the minimum of the pay
grade if it went up 5%.  He said it would be more than 15 employees.
Commissioner Schauner said it was a good suggestion and one that should be
implemented.  He would prefer that the City Commission implement it for the
full year rather than waiting until July 1, 2004.  He said relatively
speaking, it was such a small increase for those employees and if the
Commission waited 6 months to implement that pay grade, it would even less
meaningful.  He preferred to keep the mill levy the same and find some
savings to pay for that out of the general fund and move those employees to
a more appropriate pay status as soon as they could.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to request staff to implement Option
#1 in a memo dated June 26th relating to the 2003 Compensation Study
recommendation of increasing pay grades 106 through 110, effective January
1, 2004.       
	
(8)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to authorize publication of the
2004 Budget and set a public hearing date for August 12, 2003.  Motion
carried unanimously.
(9)
Consider approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Lawrence Police Officers Association and the City.

Debbie Van Saun, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report
concerning the Memorandum of Understanding between the Lawrence Police
Officers Association and the City.  She said by approving those limits on
the budget for 2004 and the activity that took place last week at the study
session to arrive at those amounts, they had addressed two of the three
outstanding issues that were in the Lawrence Police Officers Association
(LPOA) version of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).  Those two issues
were the employee health insurance and merit increases for eligible
employees.  Funding was included in the 2004 Budget to allow for departments
to administer the merit increase program for employees and the direction
from the Commission to include a health insurance plan that kept the
employee contribution levels in 2004 at those  2003 levels.
She said they had received comment from the City Commissioners at the study
session last week that they were interested in reviewing the information
that was gathered in the Comprehensive Survey of the total benefit package
that was being reviewed by Administrative Services as well as the Employee
Relations Committee and that information would be given to the City
Commission when it was completed later this year to allow the Commission to
look at that information in a more comprehensive manner.  She said there
wasn't anything in the City's version of the MOU that included any vacation
accruals pending that review.     
Vice Mayor Rundle said because of the City's Resolution governing those
negotiations, the City Commission needed to choose between the two
proposals.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After hearing no public comment, Commissioner Schauner said in their study
session concerning the budget, he asked that the City look other options for
funding the Health Insurance Plan for City employees.  He said insurance
rates continue to go up at double digit rates making insurance less
affordable for everyone including the City.  He would like the Commission to
make it a significant priority, between now and the next budgeting process,
to look at alternative methods of providing health insurance coverage for
City employees and find a way to make it less painful to provide good
benefits to City employees.  He said the Commission needed to look at
alternatives to fund the City's insurance plan and those alternatives would
be helpful in the 2005 Budget discussions.
Darren Othick, Chairman LPOA, concurred with Commissioner Schauner
concerning health insurance.  He said everyone was facing this dilemma,
nationwide, concerning increased insurance rates and the City needed to look
for other ways to address that problem.  
He said the City's version of the Memorandum of Understanding was the MOU
that the LPOA worked through.  He said the LPOA did recognize the City's
financial restraints and they appreciated the Commission's direction,
especially concerning insurance.   
He presented a letter from Ron York, a consultant who worked for Police and
Fire bargaining units and who spoke to the City Commission at an earlier
City Commission meeting.  York's letter was a rebuttal to Ed Mullins',
Finance Director, findings.
Mayor Dunfield thanked Othick for all of his efforts in working on the
negotiations as well as his work on the street.
Commissioner Hack said the Commission was committed to looking at the
compensation study.  She said the City was in a better position with regard
to other communities of similar size and financial resources.  
Commissioner Schauner complemented Othick, fellow LPOA members, and City
staff for working through that process.  He said any change in the way
insurance was purchased or the way the product was structured would probably
require some cultural shift by everyone who was covered by that policy.  He
thought they could not save money and offer an identical product.  He said
the cultural issue was one that everyone needed to take into consideration
as they work through the insurance question to try and keep City employees
appropriately covered with good and dependable insurance that protected
themselves and their families.  
Commissioner Highberger said the MOU accurately represented the Commission's
decisions and fairly addressed the concerns raised by the Police Department.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the City's version of the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Lawrence Police Officers Association
and the City and authorized the Mayor to execute the MOU.  Motion carried
unanimously. 
     (10)  
Authorize an ordinance approving the issuance of refund of bonds for
Lawrence Memorial Hospital.  Declare an emergency and adopt Ordinance No.
7673 on first and second reading.

Gene Meyer, President and CEO of Lawrence Memorial Hospital, said they were
asking for the refinancing of 1994 Bonds in which they would like to take
advantage of preferable interest rates as well as adding additional dollars
to save them money on a lease of their electronic medical record equipment
which was not to exceed $20,000,000.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the rate difference between where it was
now and what it would be financed at.
Meyer said the rates on the existing bonds were 5 1/2 percent and they were
looking at 4 1/2 or 5 percent at this time.  The lease agreement was similar
and they were rolling it together into one package.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the term of the debt would be extended by the
refinancing.
Meyer said it would be over a period of approximately 16 years which was
what was remaining on the current debt.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the bonds had a call feature.
Meyer said yes, those bonds were callable next year.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After hearing no public comment, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack,
to declare an emergency and adopted Ordinance No. 7673 on first and second
reading, approving the issuance of refund of bonds for Lawrence Memorial
Hospital.  Motion carried unanimously.
(11)   
Conduct a public hearing considering the vacation of a portion of the US 59
Highway right-of-way, located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection
of Iowa Street and 31st Street.

Mayor Dunfield, called a public hearing to consider the vacation of a
portion of the US 59 Highway right-of-way, located in the southwest quadrant
of the intersection of Iowa Street and 31st Street. 
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the
consideration for the vacation was at the southwest corner of 31st and Iowa
where Douglas County Bank was located.  He said when Target was developed
there was a frontage road along Iowa.  The Department of Transportation and
the City had various right-of-way interests connected with that frontage
road which no longer existed.  As the intersection improvements had been
completed at 31st and Iowa there was remaining property that staff did not
believe, at anytime in the distant future, that the City would need that
property for public right-of-way purposes.  He said there was almost 65 feet
right-of-way to the center line of Iowa so there was ample right-of-way.  He
said staff was recommending that the Commission conduct the public hearing
and approve the vacation order.
Mayor Dunfield said this was a vestige of the former frontage road layout.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Schauner, to close the public hearing.  Motion carried unanimously.	
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve an Order of Vacation,
reserving recommended easements, regarding the vacation of a portion of US
59 Highway right of way located in the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of Iowa Street and 31st Street.  Motion carried unanimously.
(12)
Receive Economic Development report from the Director Economic Development.

Lynn Parman, Vice President of Economic Development, presented a quarterly
update of their Economic Development Report.  She discussed three issues.
The first issue was activities and programs and how they were developing;
secondly, was their marketing efforts; and lastly, an update of the Economic
Development Strategic Plan.   
Parman presented to the Commission an update of the Douglas County Economic
Development Quarterly Activity Report.  She said when looking at existing
business activity and expansion projects, in comparing 2002 to 2003, in that
entire year there were four expansion projects and already in 2003 there had
been seven.  She said the economy was assisting the City's existing
businesses and there was more confidence in the economy.  She said they
anticipated further expansion of their existing businesses later in the
summer.  
When looking at business attraction activity there was a 53% increase on
prospect inquiries since 2002 and they hoped that was because of the economy
and marketing efforts.  She said they had been working with 72 different
projects this year whereas last year it was close to 45 projects.  She said
part of that increase was because of their outreach efforts.  They had been
calling on site selectors and consultants when they were looking at locating
somewhere in the United States.  They had been particularly focusing in the
Kansas City area.  She said this year there had been 71 site selectors or
consultants that they visited with and promoted Lawrence and Douglas County.

She said they also saw a pickup of activity in their sites and/or buildings
referrals.  She said they maintained an extensive site and building database
on their website.  When they were working on a project they would refer
buildings or sites, if appropriate, if it was something that met the
criteria for that project.  She said there was a 67% increase in sites and
buildings referrals from the second quarter of this year compared to the
first quarter which was due to the war, economy, and timing.  They often saw
much activity with referrals that they were providing to site selectors when
they were inquiring about real estate options in Lawrence.  
As far as new jobs and investments they were at $12,645,000 in new
investment consisting of those expansion projects and 141 new jobs had been
created at this time.
She discussed website activity.  They had seen a 26% increase in their
website hits this year and that was to the economic development side of the
Lawrence Chamber of Commerce Website.  They worked with Meta Tags which was
a search engine that allowed more accurately listed site addresses in their
indexes.  She said when typing in the internet "Lawrence and Economic
Development" or "business expansion in Lawrence, Kansas" the Chamber of
Commerce website would come up.          
She said shifting her discussion to programs and initiatives, during their
Business Appreciation Month, they celebrated by having a cookout for
businesses and their employees around Douglas County and the four business
parks to show their appreciation for their services.  She presented to the
City Commission facts and figures of that event.  
She said they had started a new award program called the "Excellence in
Commerce Awards."  On October 17th, at 7:30 a.m., they would host the first
annual "Excellence in Commerce Awards" ceremony.  This was a new initiative
of the Chamber of Commerce to provide recognition to existing businesses
that were excelling.  They would be giving an award to a manufacturer,
technology company, service company, as well as another award called the
"Bob Billings Rising Star Award" and that was for a company that had been in
business for less than three years.  There was an oversight committee that
was going through the 60 nominations that were received and on October 17th
they would be recognizing the finalist in each of those categories as well
as announcing who the award recipient was.  
She said they had been involved with marketing effort this summer.  She
attended the Bio 2003 Trade Show in Washington D.C. which was the largest
Biotechnology Trade Show that currently existed.  There were 25,000 Bio Tech
Companies and President Bush made a key note address.  She exhibited in that
trade show along with Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, MRI, K.U.
officials, as well as the Kansas City Area Development Council.  This was a
good way for them to have a presence for that particular sector.  Also,
individuals from Serological Corporation had attended and they were able to
network with their vendors and suppliers.  That was a positive event to
attend to further their efforts to attract more Bio Tech companies to the
Lawrence area.  In addition, because of the Serological's project, they have
continued to receive a lot of positive coverage around the Country.  In fact
in June, there were 3 articles that were written in Site Selection Journals
that featured Lawrence and the Serological's project.  Those journals had a
readership of approximately 45,000 around the country, and Lawrence was
featured as growing area in Life Sciences.  
Lastly, she addressed their new marketing brochures.  She thanked the City
Commission for allocating funds for those brochures.  She said the brochure
encapsulated the beauty and quality of Lawrence and Douglas County as a
place to do business as well as to try to attract future companies to come
to this community.  They would use those brochures to distribute to
businesses that were looking to locate to this community.  They also would
use the brochure with existing companies in promoting the area.  Eventually,
all of their direct mail, advertising, and website would have a similar look
to that brochure.  She said they planned on using this brochure for the next
five years.  In back of the brochure there was a tri-fold brochure that was
called "The Douglas County Advantage" which contained demographics, facts,
and figures and it would be updated each year.
Mayor Dunfield commented on the brochure.  He said there was talk about how
our Economic Development efforts needed to play to our strengths as a
community and this brochure did a nice job of doing that by focusing on
people, our environment and letting the fact and figures go into the
background.
Commissioner Highberger thanked Parman for her hard work because it was
clear in the statistics that were shown.
Parman discussed their Business Retention Report.  She said the 51 surveys
were completed and they were working with the printer to have the final
report of the Business Retention Survey.  She said there was so much
information to absorb and she asked for a study session to cover that
information.  She said the Commission did receive some preliminary data
through an article that was in the Journal World that only covered a section
of that report, but there was a lot more information in that study.  She
heard that the Planning Commission was interested in that data as well.
Commissioner Schauner asked about a reference made to Kansas being a right
to work state in that brochure.  He was curious if that was an idea that was
promotional and asked if that reference would attract site selectors.
Parman said that question came up often in their searches that companies or
site selectors were only looking for right to work states.     
Jean Milstead, past Interim President and CEO of the Lawrence Chamber of
Commerce, commented on the Strategic Economic Development Plan.  This plan
was adopted in 1994 and was part of the Horizon 2020 Land Use Plan.
She said they began this effort two years ago when they held public meetings
in Douglas County to obtain input and visions for their communities and to
update their plan.  The goal was to remove the strategies that had been
completed and to update and add strategies that better met today's economic
times and our future goals for our community visions.  
A subcommittee of the Economic Development Board (ED Board) was established
and they utilized the input that they received.  They contacted other
agencies that dealt with economic development such as the K-10 Corridor
Group, the Lawrence Regional Technology Center, and the K.U. Small Business
Development Center and added their input to help meet their three goals. 
The three original goals in the Economic Development Plan were employment,
tax-base, and income growths and those goals remained the same.  Targeted
businesses included life sciences, information technology, aviation or
aerospace, value added agriculture, and light manufacturing or distribution.
The Economic Development Board reviewed the draft and a public meeting was
held in the Douglas County Courthouse to receive input from the public on
the changed plan.  The majority of the changes that were talked about had
been incorporated into the draft plan.  However, the draft plan was a copy
that the Economic Development Board saw at their meeting last week.  Since
then, they had voted to make one change to that plan that was not included.
The change concerned an ordinance formalizing the role of the Economic
Development Board and to stipulate the by-laws of the board.  She said the
board voted not to include the by-laws in the ordinance because they felt it
was inefficient.  If the board wanted to change by-laws then the ordinance
would need to be changed.  Therefore, the board amended the draft to read
that the by-laws would be adopted and developed by the board itself.

She said this draft plan was presented to Eudora and Baldwin City and they
would be presenting the plan to the County Commission.  They would also
present a shortened version to the Planning Commission at their August
meeting.
The plan would detail the work that would be done in the next 5 to 20 years
by the Economic Development Department of the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce.
She said Parman used this plan daily in the work that she did.  It was their
job as the ED Board to guide that work and make certain that what was in the
plan was implemented, and the budget needs as the partnership for the City,
County, and Lawrence Chamber Commerce were being allocated and spent as
their budget details.
Commissioner Hack thanked Lavern Squier, new President and CEO of the
Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, for attending the Commission meeting.  She
said the City was truly fortunate to have someone of Squier's caliber here
in Lawrence and the Commission looked forward to working with him for many
years.  She thanked Milstead for all her hard work as the Interim President
and CEO.  Commissioner Hack also thought Parman should take credit for a lot
of those rising statistics that were depicted in her report.
(13)
Hobbs-Taylor Lofts Development Proposal on the northeast corner of 8th
Street and New Hampshire Street.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, presented an amendment to the
resolution for the Hobbs-Taylor Development Proposal.  He said in section
C(1) concerning compliance with the City's downtown guidelines, the word
"historic" should be removed and replaced with "design." 
Vice Mayor Rundle said in reviewing the McAllaster property, he asked if the
Commission needed to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said no, that was the Historic Resources
Commission's responsibility.
Vice Mayor Rundle said another concern was the height and a condition which
stated: "height would be reduced to scale compatible with existing
streetscape."  He asked what would happen if this was approved with a
different height.  
Finger said when the Commission took action then staff could go back and
administratively amend that condition to the Certified Local Government to
make it compliant with the City Commission's action.  What was being done
had to do with the Certified Local Government's action.  She said it would
be inconsistent policy to leave one in conflict with the other.         
K.T. Walsh, Lawrence, said it had been a good process working with the
developers.  East Lawrence Neighborhood Association and the neighbors had
been meeting with them for 1 1/2 years and they had addressed most of their
concerns.
She said in terms of scale it was too tall.  She said the Commission had
heard from the preservation community and the neighbors to the east and the
building was still too tall.  She reminded the Commission that the
volunteers that worked on the Downtown Design Guidelines worked long and
hard.  She asked the Commission to respect their choices.                  
She had previously talked to the Commission about developers building
upscale lofts in the music districts downtown in other cities.  She said a
City Commissioner in Austin, Texas said while we know that the music venues
bring in millions of dollars, because of that, they needed to ask people who
build homes nearby to be acoustically responsible.
Mayor Dunfield said the four actions concerning this proposal were
interconnected and interdependent and he did not think any one of those
actions stood if it was not consistent with the other three.  As they talked
about the particular actions it needed to be understood by everybody that
those actions formed a piece in terms of the overall view that was taken of
this project and questions of one action following another would be resolved
by the time the Commission finished their action on all four items.
Marci Francisco, member of the League of Women Voters Land Use Committee and
President of the League, appreciated seeing the alternatives, but it seemed
that one alternative should be that it be a four story building.  The
alternative that was addressed, the building was kept to the same height.
The design guidelines called for two stories higher than the surrounding
buildings therefore, four stories seemed appropriate.      
	Commissioner Schauner asked for the Commission to determine a
decision on the appeal from the Certified Local Government (CLG) which
stated, "Finding that the development did "encroach upon, damage, or
destroy" the Eldridge Hotel and (old) Post Office," did the Commission need
to find, in order to reverse the CLG finding, that there "was no feasible
and prudent alternative."  He asked if that was the standard that the
Commission would use to determine that appeal.  
Mayor Dunfield said in order to uphold the appeal, the City Commission
needed to find no feasible and prudent alternative to the development
proposal for this site and that all possible planning had been done to
minimize harm.  Those were the legal phrases that were required by the
SHPO's office and those were the phrases that this resolution was the first
of the Commission's actions to consider addressed.
Commissioner Schauner asked how they could sustain the appeal from the
Certified Local Government and if that was done, did that mean that the
Commission must find that this project, as the exceptions were provided, was
consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines.
Corliss said no, those were two separate instrument of analysis.
Wildgen said it was not a reversal of the Historic Resource Commission's
decision.      
Corliss said it did not matter if the Commission concurred or disagreed, the
Commission had higher authority to find that there were no feasible and
prudent alternative and the appropriate planning had been done to minimize
the harm to the historic properties, if the Commission thought that was the
appropriate finding.   
Commissioner Schauner said if the Commission was to conclude that there was
no feasible and prudent alternative, then there needed to be some facts on
which to base that conclusion.  He said there was nothing in the record that
would support that conclusion.  He proposed that the Commission take the
memorandum from Harris and incorporate those facts, statements, and
conclusions, as the basis for the Commission's decision that there was no
feasible and prudent alternative.  
	Corliss said staff  tried in the draft resolution to recognize
information that the 8th and New Hampshire, LLC, had provided staff in the
form of the memorandums, other documentation, and the presentation they had
made before the Commission in regards to their ability to build a structure
of fewer stories.  He said that was part of the record as far as the minutes
and also those documents.  
He said when you look at the draft resolution, in section 2(B) in support of
those findings and B(2) which stated: " The property owner has presented
evidence indicating that while a building with a reduced number of stories
would be technically feasible, it would fail to make the project
economically viable.  
	Commissioner Schauner was concerned about not receiving that packet
of information.
	Corliss said it had been available through different avenues.  He
did not see any legal requirements that information be available in the
packet or in the agenda materials as long as the Commission received that
information and it could be documented that it was available for public
review was sufficient.
Commissioner Schauner said some citizens commented to him that they had
asked for that information and it was told it was not in the packet.
Although he received that information directly from Harris, he did not know
what availability it had to the general public.  In fact, it was that packet
information in which he was not aware it was made public that prompted him
to ask for a one week deferral on this matter.  He would like a direct
reference, made to that material, on record for completeness sake.
Corliss asked if Commissioner Schauner wanted that reference in the
resolution.    
Commissioner Schauner would like a reference in the minutes to that material
as supporting material for the resolution.
Mayor Dunfield said that material was already part of the public record.
Corliss believed it was generally available.  A letter and other documents
were available to people who had asked for that information.  
Commissioner Schauner was thinking about the multiple page document
memorandum dated July 10th which was entitled "Proposal and Appeal of CLG
Finding of Negative Impact on Eldridge Hotel and Old Post Office Landmarks
and Historic Register Properties" that concluded with Attachment D that had
color photographs of surrounding buildings.  He was asking that this
information be directly referenced in the minutes of supporting material for
this discussion.  He said if the Commission would have had that material on
July 8th, the process probably would have gone significantly more smoothly.

Mayor Dunfield asked how the Commissioners would like to proceed with the
CLG ruling.
Commissioner Schauner said in reading the material that Harris provided, one
of the comments made was the reduction of 4 percent on return of investment
if it were not 5 stories at the south building.  He did not know what that
meant and he did not know what a reasonable rate of return on that risk was.
He said it had to be better than the current CD rate.  He said it gets to
the question of feasible and prudent alternative and what rate of return
would one expect before it became feasible and imprudent to develop that
property.  He asked if a 4 story building would be a profitable venture, but
not as profitable. 
	Mayor Dunfield said this was complicated and he addressed his
earlier comments about Planning and City Staff not being developers of
pro-formas for development.  The fact was that this development could never
make a profit whether it was built at 5 stories or 3 stories.  He said the
risk was there no matter what development was proposed.  He found it
presumptuous for the Commission to demand specific percentages of return of
a developer who was taking a risk of this type of magnitude.      
	Commissioner Schauner said when he first saw this project, his first
comment was that he liked the way the project looked, but his only negative
comment was the height and it continued to be his concern from a shadow line
perspective for those houses on both the east and west of the project.  He
did not know if that was a sufficient concern to stop the project, but it
was an issue which deserved comment, consideration in this approval process,
and direction to future developers who want to build similar sized masses
downtown.  
	Commissioner Hack asked Harris to address the Commission and share
his thoughts.  She asked what information was found in discussions with
lenders with respect to this project in terms of the financing,
profitability, and risks involved. 
	Bo Harris could not answer the questions directly because he
believed it was private information.  He knew the document that was produced
would leave a dilemma in the Commission's mind relative to, what did 4
percent mean.  He made general comments about risk.  He said it would seem
this would be the hardest part of the project, but it wasn't.  The
demonstration of the least understanding of this process was in a document
that he received which was from a commentary from a professor at the
University of Kansas.  The professor compared this project to a Real Estate
Investment Trust which was like buying a stock at 7.07 percent.  He also
compared this project to AAA investments such as buying into a group such as
Walgreen's Drug Stores which had a cap rate of 8 or 8 1/2 percent.  
He said this was a project that they might receive approval at this time
after many months of work.  He said they had approximately 1.5 million
dollars at risk in ground and the interest meter was running on those
dollars. 
He said relative to the interest rate rising, the cost to the project was at
a magnitude of $600,000 and that was a lot of affordable housing.  He said
time did affect this project, but he was not saying the Commission caused
that because the rates could have gone down.  
He said to obtain financing they had to obtain leases for retail space for
the bank.  The same procedure had to be done for a percentage of office
space.  He said half of those condominiums needed to be sold or the project
would not start.  There was no way to define the risk that was being taken,
and what the return should be.  He said the project could not move ahead at
fewer stories than it was now.  He said the return would not be acceptable
with lower stories.  
Harris commented on the scale of the project.  He sat on the Downtown
Guidelines Board and he was convinced through conversations that the
patterns of downtown should slope away relative to rooflines and over the
last two years, regardless of the project he was working on, he changed his
mind.  The reason was because of the South Iowa plan.  He said millions of
dollars of retail was going to take place that wasn't there two years ago.
Eventually the same thing would happen on 6th Street and other locations.
As this happened each one would create a magnet away from the center of
activity which was retail, office, and part of our living environment and
this would not take place unless we change our mind relative to the scale on
the side street and provided more density downtown.  
He hoped the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association would have realized
sometime ago that he heard about the height of this project over year ago
and if he could have changed the height, it would have gotten done along
time ago.  He could have saved himself and all the parties involved in the
project untold hours and they could have moved ahead with the project. He
apologized again for not being able to answer the question directly, but
those were the only facts that could be provided. 
	Commissioner Schauner asked if a 4-story building would cause this
project's return to fall below the bubble rate.  
	Harris said yes. 
	Vice Mayor Rundle said he felt that the project would proceed.  He
said those were challenging issues when dealing with special regulations of
historic preservations and those relatively new Downtown Design Guidelines.
He said it was unfortunate that the procedure was not clear and they weren't
better about getting through those processes, but they were relatively new
in the historic preservation regulations.
He said the Commission was adding a layer to the development process and
some people had expressed that they were adding difficulty unnecessarily.
He recognized that the Preservation Guidelines and the Downtown Design
Guidelines were proactive measures to protect downtown and other
irreplaceable treasures in terms of history.  The project contained a great
deal of risk and investment on the part of the developer, but it was needed
for downtown.  He hoped this project was successful and if it was, it would
be a positive impact on our community.  
He recognized that homeowners near this project, business owner's downtown,
and owners of historic property had also made an investment.  He said the
Historic Preservation Ordinance was meant to create a climate that made
stability for those investments and to make sure they were as viable as this
proposed project.
He said the Commission was not delaying this project, this was a state law
and they did not have those written materials that they needed from the
applicant to make a decision two weeks earlier. 
In terms of the language of the draft resolution, Section 2, under B(1), the
last sentence that stated that the property was vacant and therefore there
was no viable alternative proposal for this development.  He said this
failed to recognize the context that the property owner was trying to
maximize profits.  The fact that there was a Downtown 2000 project and a
Request for Proposal Project, focused attention on one area of downtown and
other areas were not going to necessarily redevelop when there was other
major activity that might be competing.  
Another concern was if the Commission was making exception to their policy
then the Commission needed to do it in a positive process, and not make
exception decisions that became a precedent. 
	 Commissioner Highberger said it was not the Commission's job to
reevaluate the Historic Resource Commission's determinations.  It was the
Commission's job to determine whether all possible planning to mitigate harm
had been done and whether there were no feasible and prudent alternative.  
In respect to planning, it was clear that the process had been documented to
show that planning was done to mitigate harm and it was reflected in the
design of the building.  
As far as whether there were feasible and prudent alternatives, he would
like to see detailed calculations as to the finances, but it was not fair to
ask a project developer to the put those figures in the record.  He said the
Commission had to rely on the assertions that were given in good faith.  
He said the scale of the building was a concern.  He could talk about mixed
use development, but he was not going to make it happen.  He said Harris was
here with a project that he would take substantial risk on and this project
had the potential for a positive impact on downtown Lawrence.  
	Commissioner Schauner said downtown Lawrence was a lot like a child.
It was something that everyone valued, nurtured, cared for, and nobody
wanted to cause harm to.  Harris was correct that the amount of retail that
was developed on South Iowa and other locations in town would continue to
pull retail numbers away from downtown.  He said the challenge was finding a
balance between allowing your child to grow, mature, and change as time
passed on, and clutching it so tightly that you suffocated it.
He sensed that the building was too tall for the balance, but it was not
just the height because the project had a lot of appealing aspects.  This
was an opportunity for him, as a Commissioner, to give this child a chance
to mature and grow in a way that helped it continue to be competitive in the
retail and residential markets.  Those were difficult infill and mixed-use
questions.  Even though he had concerns about the height, he was also
willing to find that there was no feasible and prudent alternative in
developing this particular proposal downtown.  
	Commissioner Hack was in support of the project and concurred with
the other Commissioners.  She thanked Harris for taking a risk and investing
in downtown and to provide the City with an attraction that they would
enjoy.   
	Vice Mayor Rundle appreciated the remarks KT Walsh made
acknowledging the process and positive strides made in accommodating the
concerns.  He also recognized Harris for his commitment to downtown and
other projects to adaptive reuse which was one of the kingpins of
preservation efforts.  
He attended the Dole Dedication and it seemed appropriate to that type of
matter.  Those guests were an interesting collection of political
adversaries who were long-term friends and all equally committed to our
country.  In those types of situations they had agreed to disagree.
He had not seen all of the alternatives and they were not necessarily
weighted.  He disagreed with that finding, but he hoped people would
recognize the importance of having those processes and learn from those
projects.  He said the Commission needed to revisit those policies and make
those policies better and more appropriate to the current time.  He was not
comfortable that it had not been proven that there were absolutely no
feasible and prudent alternatives.         
	Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to uphold the appeal of the
Certified Local Government with the determination that there were no
feasible and prudent alternative to the development proposal for this site,
and all possible planning had been done to minimize harm to the historic
register properties as expressed in Resolution No. 6480.  Aye: Dunfield,
Hack, Highberger, and Schauner.  Nay:  Rundle.  Motion carried.
(14)
Mayor Dunfield said concerning the Hobbs-Taylor loft project the Commission
would need to discuss finding that the angled parking, 5-story building
height, and greater than 0' New Hampshire Street setback were justifiable
exceptions to the Downtown Design Guidelines and to the Downtown Urban
Design Concept Plan and direct staff to investigate amendments to the
Downtown Design Guidelines and Downtown Urban Design Concept Plan to develop
criteria for when exceptions were appropriate.    
Commissioner Highberger said the Commission just adopted a resolution that
said the Commission had already made this finding.  He said the resolution
needed to be changed.
Mayor Dunfield concurred.  He reiterated that all of those issues were
interlinked items.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to direct staff to investigate amendments
to the Downtown Design Guidelines and Downtown Urban Design Concept Plan to
develop criteria for when exceptions are appropriate. Aye:  Dunfield, Hack
Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay:  Highberger. Motion carried.
(15) 
Commissioner Highberger said the reason he voted nay on the previous motion
was because, although he was willing to make exceptions, he was not sure he
was willing to initiate the process that made those exceptions easier to
come by in the future.  
He also had a concern about the angled parking.  He said after reviewing the
staff report, the angled parking has potential to seriously impact traffic
flows and bicycle safety on New Hampshire Street.  He did not want to
initiate that change without having giving this item more attention.  He
said if the Commission did not allow parking on this development, it would
cut down on the number of parking spaces and it would impact their future.
He was not willing to approve the angled parking.   
Mayor Dunfield asked if any criteria developed would come back to the
Commission for adoption.
	Finger said yes.  It was her understanding that the Commission was
asking staff to look at amendments that could occur to the Downtown Design
Guidelines and the Urban Concept Plan dealing with the height, angled
parking, and the setback.  The parking issue would go to the Public Works
Department for additional study to give insight.  
	Vice Mayor Rundle did not feel that it was a foregone conclusion
that anything that came out of this, but there would be a process. He
supported the process.    
	Finger said staff would bring a report back to the Commission of
possible ways to amend it and the Commission would need to hold a public
hearing and do an amendment. 
	Commissioner Schauner voiced his support for Commissioner
Highberger's comments.  He said the Commission was asking for information
and a report. The Commission would then have discussion as to whether to
accept the recommendations.  
	Mayor Dunfield said the Commission was being asked to find the
exceptions for this specific project were acceptable.
Commissioner Schauner said but not with respect to the entire traffic
pattern on New Hampshire.  What might happen on the rest of New Hampshire
would not be governed by this exception.  He said the Commission was looking
for additional information about whether any other changes would be
permitted or what guidelines they would use in addressing those requests.
Finger said you would be taking it out of step because for this specific
project you would be granting those exceptions to building height, angled
parking, and greater than 0' setback.  The second action which the
Commission addressed first was to initiate a review of those elements of the
two plans and bring back alternatives to the Commission to find out how
those could be addressed.
Vice Mayor Rundle said his initial reaction regarding angled parking was a
concern about bicycle traffic.  The three lane concept downtown was brought
up to the attention of a bicycle rider.  That bicycle rider thought that the
fact that they eliminated four lanes, actually made it safer for bicyclist.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, that the angled parking and the greater
than 0' New Hampshire Street setback were justifiable exceptions to the
Downtown Design Guidelines and to the Downtown Design Concept Plan.
Aye: Dunfield, Hack, and Rundle.  Nay:  Highberger and Schauner.  Motion
carried.	     	     (16)
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, that the 5-story building height
was a justifiable exception to the Downtown Design Guidelines and to the
Downtown Design Concept Plan.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and
Schauner.  Nay:  Rundle.  Motion carried.
(17) 
Mayor Dunfield commented on bicycles in the downtown area.  He said the only
close call he had with a parked car downtown was in a parallel parking
situation where someone opened their door without looking.  He said the
issue that he found with angled parking that was advantageous was that he
could see the reverse lights on cars before they moved out of their parking
spaces.  On the other hand, he could see justifications either way.
Commissioner Schauner said his concern was less to do with bicycle safety
than it did in impeding the flow of traffic on New Hampshire and Vermont as
those streets had been used to get through downtown without going down
Massachusetts.  He said traffic on those streets could be impeded with
significant exceptions to the parallel parking rules.
	Mayor Dunfield said traffic flow on those streets was an important
concern and suggested that a staff report be provided as this project moved
forward.
	Commissioner Schauner had a question about the number of parking
spaces.
	Paul Patterson, Planner, said this item was a site plan review for
mixed use development.  During this review of the site plan staff came up
with 4 issues.  
The first issue was the angled parking on New Hampshire Street.  He said
there were 10 parallel parking spaces metered on New Hampshire Street.  The
redevelopment would take those 10 parallel parking in the street
right-of-way and turn them into 19 angled parking spaces.  Staff felt this
would be detrimental to the circular pattern of the downtown traffic flow.  
The second issue was the bank drive through lane.  The turning radius was
not acceptable as initially presented.  The applicant's agent was working on
the bank drive through lane to make the radius more acceptable and hopefully
do away with the stacking problem.  As currently proposed there was some
stacking difficulty on the cars going through the bank drive through.  It
would backup stacking to the internal parking traffic flow and also possibly
overflow into 8th Street parking.  
The third issue was the height and the mass had been dealt by the Commission
by initiating the amendments to the Downtown Design Guidelines.  
The fourth item was the public parking spaces.  With the Winter's Project in
the Border's Site Plan that was previously approved, the City acquired 67
public parking spaces that the City purchased of $100,000.  Those 67 public
parking spaces were in existence and were located on the Winter Block.  This
project would effectively move those all to the southern lot, the
Hobbs-Taylor Loft lot.  He said there was a condition requiring revised
written agreement do they know where those 67 parking spaces would be
located and incorporated into the overall parking on the site plan.  The
project by itself had ample parking.  They were only required to have 50
spaces for their own use and they were showing a total of 67 parking spaces,
46 of those spaces were in the basements.  There were an additional 8
parking spaces that staff did not count because they were double park spaces
and then there was an additional 21 spaces for their own use that were on
site.  Staff was recommending approval of the project subject to the
conditions.  If the Commission chose to go with angled parking, then the
Commission needed to strike out condition 1A.  
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a net number of parking spaces
sufficient enough to satisfy the retail and office components of this
project. 
Patterson said within the C4-A Zoning District, the project did meet the
parking requirements.  The project was required to have 1/4 the parking per
bedroom.  There were 32 bedrooms, which equals to 8 parking spaces for the
residential component.  He said the project was also required to have 1
parking space per 1,000 square feet of the net retail office component.
There was about 41,000 square foot of office/retail space, which equals to
42 parking spaces for the office/retail component plus the 8 parking spaces
for the residential for a total of 50 parking spaces.  The project was
showing 67 of their own parking spaces.  There was also an additional 67
public parking spaces to be shown on the site.
Commissioner Schauner said those were the transferred parking spaces from
the Winter Block.
Patterson said correct, from where Border's was currently.  
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City and the project gained a sufficient
net number of parking places on the entire block to satisfy the current
parking requirements for the retail, office and residential development.
Patterson said yes.  Per City Code, they were showing on their own privately
controlled parking spaces, enough for their project. 
Commissioner Schauner asked if the parking behind the Hobbs-Taylor Loft on
the east would be private or public parking. 
Patterson said it would be a mixture of both.  
Commissioner Schauner asked if any of that parking would be metered.
Patterson said it would be through the written agreement that it could be.
Commissioner Highberger was concerned about the issue raised by KT Walsh
regarding the closeness of this project to traditional live music venues.
He asked if it was possible to condition the site plan on deed restrictions
for the condos indicating there was acknowledgment that they were located in
a live music district.  
Patterson  was not sure it would be an appropriate condition.  He said most
likely the windows of the project would be built in such a manner that
residents wouldn't be able to hear that live music. 
Commissioner Highberger asked if it was a condition on the site plan.
Patterson said no. 
Vice Mayor Rundle said this live music issue has been brought up in the past
with previous downtown projects.  It was made clear, at that time, to let
the public record show in the minutes that this project was being approved
with full knowledge that live music existed downtown.  If someone came back
in the future to complain about the noise ordinance, it was clearly shown as
part of the record to mediate that future potential difficulty.  
Commissioner Schauner said this project would gentrify that block and would
have a significant impact on the live music venues in that block.  He
believed that the noise problem would become a future agenda item.  
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Finger if this was an issue that could be added to
the review of the Downtown Design Guidelines.  He suggested investigating if
this was done in other communities as an official regulation or a public
relations manner.     
Finger said staff could look at the issue from the standpoint of the
architectural design of structures that were next to live music venues, but
not as a deed restriction because that was outside the concept of the
Downtown Design Guideline's.  The Downtown Design Guidelines dealt with the
architecture and the historic character.  She said staff could look at this
from an architectural element. 
Commissioner Hack said those music venues were already in place and those
people who would be purchasing those loft apartments would be aware of that
existence.    
Vice Mayor Rundle said there was nothing in that motion that dealt with
height because that was a separate issue.  He did not want to be
inconsistent with his earlier position.
Finger said the only way Vice Mayor Rundle would be inconsistent was if this
project would be 71 foot that was part of the site plan.  She commented on
Condition No. 1a.  She thought Condition No. 1a was worded that the angle
parking be revised to parallel, but that was in fact what the Commission's
failure to approve it did.  She said if the Commission wanted to remove
Condition No. 1a because that would leave it as angled which would then be
in conflict with the Commission's last vote.   
Commissioner Schauner said the Commission voted to grant the exception to
permit angled parking for this project.  He said it was a 3 -2 vote. 
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan with
conditions as recommended by staff, except for Condition 1a which was
eliminated.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner.  Nay:  Rundle,
Motion carried.	     (18)
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said
Patterson did a good job of outlining the parameters of the parking
agreement.  He said during 1997 Border's development, the City paid $100,000
for the use of 67 public parking spaces.  Those 67 public parking spaces
were transitioning to the southern portion of the Winter Block.  He said the
site plan showed where the public spaces would be on the private property
and they were also counting some of the additional angled stalls on New
Hampshire as part of those 67 net public spaces.  The public parking behind
the project would likely be metered parking and longer term and the parking
on the north side of the project would be short-term parking and there would
be more short-term spaces in the angled parking along New Hampshire.    
Commissioner Schauner asked what happened to the 67 spaces that were part of
the Winter Block agreement in which the City paid $100,000.  
Corliss said that would be for Border's to decide.  
Commissioner Schauner said Border's ends up with its land back and the City
paid $100,000 for short-term use of that property which the City now had
released any interest in exchange for the 67 spaces angular and otherwise on
the Hobbs-Taylor Project.  
Corliss said Border's was transferring their burden onto 8th and New
Hampshire LLC which they would maintain those spaces and would allow the
City to meter those spaces and enforce the metering requirements on those
public spaces.  He said the City  would have the same arrangement that they
had with Border's that the public could use those spaces.  They would be
able to have those parking spaces metered and that would place some revenue
into the parking system.     
Vice Mayor Rundle acknowledged an email from a businessperson who had a
concern about parking.  He said it has been demonstrated that the City was
not losing existing public parking spaces and there would always be parking
concerns downtown.  
Mayor Dunfield said in the C-3 District and the C4a Overlay District, the
assumption was made that the City has the responsibility to provide some
measure of public parking for downtown.  He said the City benefited by not
requiring each individual property to provide its own parking because of
what that did to a pedestrian oriented environment.  The City was meeting
that obligation to provide public parking in a considerably way in the
downtown area and within 1000 feet of this project.
Commissioner Schauner agreed.   
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the amendments to the
Parking Agreement.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.
Nay:  None.  Motion carried unanimously.
(19)
Mayor Dunfield has supported this project and was convinced that it would
provide a great benefit to downtown.  The 32 new homeowners on the edge of
downtown was a tremendous asset.  The City has been able to capitalize on an
opportunity that has arisen because of good planning.   He suggested in the
course of this discussion and another unexpected opportunity that had arisen
had came from the East Lawrence Neighborhood and it concerned how they might
provide some funding for affordable housing in the future.  He said the
proposal was made the they take some of the property tax increment that the
City would gain by this project or project like it and reserve that money
for affordable housing use.  He said that was an interesting proposal and
one that he would like to see the  Commission explore.  He said the
Commission talked a lot about affordable housing in relation to the City's
older neighborhoods and infill development, this idea seemed like it
proposed an opportunity that the Commission should be looking seriously at.

Commissioner Highberger concurred with Mayor Dunfield.  He said this project
could be beneficial for downtown, but he had concerns about its affect on
old East Lawrence.  In addition to looking at Mayor Dunfield's suggestion,
he would like to look at the possibility of rezoning the neighborhood, down
zoning, to protect single family units and possibly the use of development
restriction easements to make sure that downtown grows up instead of out
into the neighborhoods.  
Commissioner Schauner said this process was almost designed to be impossible
to move through and be internally consistent.  The fact that this proposal
for developing a particular piece of ground which the HRC said was
encroaching upon and other things, then the Commission was faced with making
a finding that there was no feasibly and prudent alternative.  At that same
moment you have a developer might want to go forward with the project, but
there was no reasonable way to say to that developer to sit and wait until
the Commission found a feasible and prudent alternative.  The way this was
set up did not protect the historic environs, but placed the HRC and the
City Commission in a position to do an impossible task because they did not
know what was possible on that ground that would be appropriate for the
historic area.      
Vice Mayor Rundle said the Commission was not aware of the determination of
no feasible and prudent alternative and the applicant was not adequately
prepared.  He said the Commission could improve that process.  He said any
future project should be made aware that when they came in with a proposal
that was going to be in an area of environs, that they would know that in
the end they would need to meet the guidelines or able to substantiate that
claim of no feasible and prudent alternative.    
The Commission recessed for 5 minutes.
Consider a staff memorandum concerning the proposed improvements to Folks
Road and the establishment of a benefit district and associated policy
issues.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Service Director, presented the
staff report concerning the proposed improvements to Folks Road.  Corliss
said there might or might not be improvements to Folks or Mulberry to the
south, but there would be discussion on the north where there would be an
improved street, south of 6th Street and an east/west connection to the
Oakley Addition Tracts.  A memo that was given to the Commission from Soules
laid out a number of issues.  Significantly there was no dedicated
right-of-way for any of this street so all of that right-of-way would need
to be acquired.  
The proposed improvement would be a two lane collector street with a third
left turn lane at 6th Street with sidewalks on both sides.  He said the
estimated cost of the project was $430,000 which included no right-of-way.
They anticipated significant cost of acquisition of right-of-way.  There was
a square footage method as proposed assessment.  
One of the issues that needed to be discussed when talking about this
benefit district was the apportioned cost.  He said this was a collector
street and under the Development Policy the City did not have to pay for the
improvement of collector streets.  In all of their discussions with the
developer of the Oakley Addition they had received requests that the City
pay for a portion of Folks Road because it would provide access to property
that did not have access and they were proposing to close access onto 6th
Street.  He said Folks Road was a left over of a rural subdivision and there
were other situations where infrastructure had not met City standards such
as the Western Hills Neighborhood with sanitary sewers.  The City had paid
for a portion of those improvements at large. When you have this type of
situation it was appropriate for the City to pay for that as part of the
argument and that would be one of the City Commission's issues which were
the costs to the City in participation of that street.
When the City annexed that area in the mid 1990's, the property owners
voluntarily agreed to consent to annexation.  One of their concerns was this
issue which was whether or not they would need to pay for Folks Road.  He
said there were agreements with a couple of the property owners in this area
in that the City would not establish a benefit district unless 51% or
greater of the property owners agreed to that proposition to create the
benefit district.         
Mayor Dunfield asked if it was possible to look at a deferred payment on the
benefit district from single-family property owners who, at this time, would
not benefit from this benefit district. 
Corliss said that the issue would be talked about during the adequate public
facilities discussion as an additional tool to get those public facilities
in, in those unusual situations.  A collector street cost on properties that
were existing residents that did not have any income producing potential
from their property, as opposed to properties, was a significant challenge
for those property owners.  The cost has not been calculated, but they would
be significant, particularly if the right-of-way costs were included.  He
said it was important that the Commission have a policy for deferring
special assessments. 
Commissioner Highberger asked if 51 percent of the property owners were in
support of the benefit district at this point.  
Corliss said staff had not notified all of the property owners about the
potential benefit district.  He said direction was needed from the
Commission as to what to tell the property owners about a potential benefit
district.  
Commissioner Highberger asked when determining the 51 percent, was staff
counting tracts or property owners.
Corliss said the total number of property owners within the district.
Commissioner Highberger asked if someone owned two tracts, did they get
counted once or twice.
Corliss said once.    
Michael Keeney, Peridian Group, said his company did the planning,
engineering, and the surveying for the Oakley Tract during the last 1 1/2
years.  He said there were currently 8 properties that would be
participating in the proposed benefit district.  There are 8 property owners
and 5 of them were in agreement with the proposed benefit district.   He
said 4 of the 5 property owners in agreement were located on the west side
of the Oakley Tract and the other owner in agreement was located on the east
side.  
He said Folks Road started with an access point off of 6th Street into the
northern area of the Oakley Tract.  An access point was granted by KDOT.
The agreement with KDOT stated that the access point was allowable until
such time as there were two access points onto Folks Road.  It was the
desire of everyone involved that the problem with Folks Road be resolved.
He said for them to put in a temporary access points with the deceleration
lanes and construction would cost approximately $70,000 to $80,000 which
would go away once Folks Road was put in.  
He said typically a benefit district is paid for by the properties abutting
the street.  He said this was a real good opportunity to get Folks Road
built and minimize the cost to the adjacent property owners.  He showed a
map to the Commission depicting the benefit district. 
The reason why the City was being asked to participate in some portion of
the construction of the benefit district was because there would be an
elimination of an access point onto 6th Street and this was a benefit
district that they did not abut.  There were significant issues with 3 of
the property owners to the west regarding their participation in the benefit
district.  He said the developers were in support of a deferred special
assessment.  
He said one of those property owners had an issue with the alignment of
Folks Road and his goal was to have that bend to the west.  He thought
realigning the street was not a good idea, but instead of a full 80 ft of
right-of-way, he thought 30 feet on the east side and 40 feet on the west
side would be a good idea or take the 40 foot on the property owners side
and put into the benefit district the cost of making new what the property
owners loses in his front yard.    
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if it would still be a viable option if the
Commission chose to bend Folks Road and keep all property owners in the
benefit district.
Keeney said an 80 foot right-of-way could easily fit there and a 70 foot
right-of-way, 40 on one side and 30 on the other, keeping the alignment
straight and fitting in all the utilities required was the best alternative.
He said if there was an engineering reason or a public, health/safety, or
welfare reason to bend that road it would be done, but if the reason was to
save a flower bed and some bushes, it was a stretch and it could be solved
in other ways. 
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the road went straight through would it make any
of those properties on east that were already developed out of compliance in
terms of setbacks.  He said there might be reasons to bend that road.      
Commissioner Schauner asked when the access point on the northwest corner
would be closed by KDOT when what future event occurred.
Keeney said when 2 access points were given to this property to Folks Road.
This road would not be built by benefit district, but privately.  He said
they had agreed to acquire an easement through this property to give them
that access point into the multi-family that achieved the two access points
into the overall Oakley Tract.  
Commission Schauner said in order for them to build the multi-family and
single-family, they needed two access points which would cause their
permitted access point on Highway 40 to go away.
Keeney said correct.  He presented a map of an option for a possible
solution.            
Commissioner Hack said the more the City could restrict multiple access
points onto 6th Street, the better.
Debra McVey, 612 Folks Road, said she lived on the east side of Folks Road.
She asked about the deferment and implications for the proposed benefit
district.  She planned on retiring at the location, but still might wish to
sell the home.  If they deferred payment on the benefit district, they were
still paying the full amount of being in the benefit district and she did
not see any particular advantage, since she would be paying the full amount
of a benefit district up until the retirement.  She asked for clarification
on what deferment meant.
Mayor Dunfield said the special assessment would come into affect if the
property were sold for another use.  If it the property was going to be
redeveloped commercially or multi-family or for other types of use, then at
that point, they would say there was a benefit to this property from having
this collector street in front of it, therefore it was appropriate for that
property to pay its share of the assessment.   
McVey asked if it would be their responsibility as the seller or would it
become the responsibility of whoever bought their property.    
Corliss said there would be an encumbrance on the property so that when a
future buyer purchased the property they would be knowledgeable about that
encumbrance on the property.  As long as the use stayed the same, under the
Mayor's criteria which was the deferred special assessments, that would stay
as an encumbrance on that property as long as it was not used or redeveloped
for a different purpose then the encumbrance would be there for a certain
period of time.  There were certain legal rules that would not allow it in
perpetuity.  
Commissioner Highberger said it could affect the sale price of the property.
Corliss said absolutely, it was an encumbrance on the property.  
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was possible to carve Tracts 1 and 2 out
of the benefit district.
Corliss said the only way to do that was to not carve them out, but have a
separate side agreement where their assessments were paid by someone else
whether it was paid by the City or the other property owners in the benefit
district.  
There was a state law that was changed this year to allow for a benefit
district to exclude property that clearly benefited from a public
improvement, if all 100% of the other property owners agreed that they were
taking on the costs of property that benefited from an improvement, but did
not need to pay those cost.  He said the City's bond counsel had told staff
that would need to meet federal tax law requirements so they were not going
to pursue that.
Commissioner Schauner asked if bond counsel believed that would become
income to the property owner whose share was assumed by someone else.
Corliss said that issue was complicated and it had to do with federal tax
law and the fact that the City could not issue debt on something that would
be deemed to be a private benefit and because they were not including all of
the benefits apportioned based on how the property was benefited it would
violate that tax law structure.  He said they could include them in the
benefit district in name and then have a separate agreement to take care of
their assessments.
Commissioner Schauner said there would be an underlying contract, someone
else would be assuming their benefit costs.
Corliss said in other communities when they want a public improvement and
they want the City-at-large to pay that cost, then you include them in the
benefit district and then the City did not access those costs because there
was an agreement not to levy those costs on that property.  
McVey said there was a concern regarding speed control on Folks Road.  She
asked the Commissioner to consider that concern.
Brenda Jackson, Lawrence, gave a presentation to the City Commission on
three options that were presented to the neighborhood on January 2003, but
the neighborhood wanted to look at other options.  In a January 16th memo to
the City Commission two additional options were mentioned and the
neighborhood came back with their modified priorities.  
She said their point was that the item being discussed, at this time, was to
consider a staff memorandum concerning the proposed improvements to Folks
Road and the establishment of a benefit district and associated policy
issues, but she asked where the neighborhood's requested improvements were
for Folks Road for traffic calming devices.  
She said the issue that concerned the neighborhood was during a scheduled
Planning Commission meeting Stephens Real Estate was going to voluntarily
build part of this road privately, but now the discussion was about creating
a benefit district which would leave a block of land undeveloped.  She said
if you leave that block of land undeveloped it would be a matter of time
before both sides were purchased and the street would go straight through.
She asked the Commission while talking about a benefit district and a
privately built road to also talk about what the developer and what the
neighborhood had agreed on which were speed humps, curbing the road, and
traffic calming devices.  She said this was the last time there would be a
chance to connect Harvard to 6th Street.                
Commissioner Schauner asked which of those options had the greatest support
of the neighborhood.
Jackson said there were two options with equal amount of support.  The
neighborhood showed a lot of support for option 4.  The top priority would
be neighborhood Option A, which was a turnaround circle with the two
entrance tracts through the Oakley Tract and a one way access out.  She said
there was a traffic model ran on that approach which was one way access out
as well as two way access.  She presented the neighborhood's priority list
to the Commission.   
Commissioner Hack said the Commission was not looking at a road design.  She
said they were looking at who was paying for what and the benefit district.
The actual design of the road had to include the calming issues that were
discussed at the Harvard Traffic calming meeting.  
	Mayor Dunfield said if it was acceptable to the neighborhood for the
road to go through and carry traffic in both directions, then the Commission
needed to consider traffic-calming issues and find ways to calm that
traffic.   
	Jackson said the neighborhood proposed memos to City staff included
options for the road going through.  The problem was that the neighborhood
has not seen any feedback from staff or the Commission that were anything
other than a 2-way collector street with no traffic calming.  
	Mayor Dunfield said in order for the Folks Road connection to make
sense from a planning point of view, it needed to be a 2-way collector
street.  If that was an acceptable condition for the neighborhood, then the
Commission could address the traffic calming issues.  If the 2-way collector
street could not be achieved, then an alternative that stopped it at both
ends might be the best that could be achieved at that moment.
	Mayor Dunfield said this was a new assumption that the neighborhood
would be willing to except a two-way collector at this point.  He said this
was something that the Planning and Engineering staff could start to look at
if that was the direction that the Commission proposed.
	Jackson would send the Commission the neighborhood's proposals.  The
first priority had always been a dead end, but there also had been proposals
for two-way collector streets with traffic calming devices.     
	Commissioner Schauner said assuming there was some further
discussion on a two-way collector that would hook 6th to Harvard that would
make this benefit district Option 6 needing to be changed dramatically
because they would be doing a significantly different road project.  
	Corliss said yes.  He said the proposals were put together under the
assumption and based earlier discussions that the roads would not connect,
because of the property owner opposition to the south.  
	Commissioner Hack said part of the Commission's discussion should be
whether they supported the road going all the way through or not.  
	Roger Mayhugh, Lawrence, said three owners in this benefit district
would not benefit.  He only saw one not five votes for the proposed benefit
district because there was only one property owner on the west side.  
	Roger Bain, Lawrence, said the Commission needed to take into
consideration the amount of traffic being put onto Harvard Road.  He said
not everybody in the neighborhood was 100% for the 2-way street, but if it
did happen, then a traffic-calming device needed to be installed.  
	Keeney said there was no need to discuss traffic calming devices, at
this point, because that would be getting ahead of the proposal. 
	Mark Anderson, Attorney of record representing property owners on
the west side: Dennis Oakley, Gregg Polk, Jeff Hatfield, and Kevin
Flannigan, said the four property owners he represented were much in favor
of this proposal.  He said normally in a benefit improvement district, the
Commission would be discussing whether or not 50% or more of the property
area was owned by individuals who supported the benefit improvement
district.  The only reason why the Commission was discussing the number of
property owners because there was some agreement with one or two property
owners years ago where the language that was drafted into those agreements
referred to the number of property owners as opposed to the amount of
property.  In this proposed benefit improvement district, if you look at the
area that was owned by the property owners who supported this benefit
improvement district, it was a vast majority of those owners.
	Corliss said as the drafter of that particular agreement, the reason
why that language was drafted into the agreement was because the City asked
the property owners to become part of the City and they were completely
surrounded by the City.  One of the property owners concerns was what they
would need to pay for.  He said they talked about the various public
infrastructure and requirements such as sanitary sewers.  Another concern
was about a road that would eventually need to be built.  He said they did
not know whether it would be Folks Road.  The owners said, at that time,
that they would pay their share, but they did not want to pay their share
unless 51% of the property owners agreed to it.  
	Commissioner Schauner said the more that ground was divided into
different ownership names the less justice it did to the spirit of the
agreement's intent.
	Corliss said one of the issues discussed at that time was not the
Oakley Tract, but Folks Road.  He was explaining the history of that
annexation agreement.  
Commissioner Schauner said it would also be possible that they could do a
front footage assessment as opposed to a square footage assessment on this
benefit district.
Corliss said correct.  When staff walked through the Development Policy on
the Adequate Public Facilities discussion, the Commission would see the
range of benefit district options.          
	Anderson said at the time the agreement was drafted, there were
three tracts on the west side that fronted Folks Road, which were owned by 3
individual property owners.  He said that had not changed.  Therefore, it
would not infringe on the spirit of those agreements.
	McVey said part of the spirit of the agreement was that the City and
the people who lived on those properties were the people who entered into
the agreement.  She said at that time, those properties were owned by people
who did not live on those properties.  She was one of the few people living
in the area and it bothered her that they would be included in a benefit
district that was being requested by developers to develop a road when they
did not live there.  
	Doug Compton, Lawrence, said the reason why they were there was
because they all agreed that their access would be removed off of 6th
Street.  In order to remove the access off of 6th Street, this 15 acre
tract, Oakley Tract, was landlocked.  When they agreed to remove that access
they had to be able to provide access to that land someway and that was
through Folks Road.  If they wanted to go back to access on 6th Street,
which KDOT was okay with that idea then he thought they did not need to talk
about Folks Road.  He said the City-at-large benefited by not having a curb
cut on 6th Street.  He did not care if the road went all the way through or
not.  
When they had the office zoning approved, part of the approval of the office
ending on the front, that same night, the Commission directed staff to
design and build the access of Folks Road to get to the office lots that
were approved.       
	Corliss said that was when it started generating some of the maps,
that Jackson presented earlier, and discussions where they tried to look at
different options and handle the multiple issues.
(20)
A request to rezone (Z-01-06-03) a tract of land approximately 11.0855 acres
from A (Agricultural District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development
District).  The property is generally described as being located south of
West 6th Street and west of Folks Road; and,

A preliminary Development Plan for Oakley Court.  This residential
development contains approximately 10.79 acres.  The plan proposes
construction of 31 single-family homes and 32 multi-family units (2
16-plexes) containing a total of 64 dwelling units.  The property is
generally described as being located south of West 6th Street and west of
Folks Road. 

Brian Pedrotti presented a request to rezone a tract of land located south
of West 6th Street and west of Folks Road.  The Planning Commission
recommended approval on March 5th 2003, for the rezoning from A to PRD-2,
subject to a maximum density of 9.38 units per acre and subject to the
approval of the preliminary development plan for Oakley Court.  The zoning
has been held by the City Commission until the preliminary development plan
was ready and was addressed by the Planning Commission. 
The Preliminary Development Plan for Oakley Court involved 31 single-family
and 32 multi-family units which were two, 6-plexes for a total of 63
dwelling units and overall that represented 5 units per acre.  The Planning
Commission on June 25, 2003 recommended approval subject to the conditions
listed.  In addition, they also approved a waiver request from the
peripheral setback on the east side from 30 - 0.
Mayor Dunfield said it made a lot of sense to discuss the rezoning and
Preliminary Development Plan together because this was similar to the Villo
Woods issue in several ways, including the notion that the zoning approval
was contingent upon the approval of the Preliminary Development Plan.  He
asked if the zoning went with the particulars that were shown in terms of
the development and if those aspects changed then the zoning was revisited.
Finger said yes.  That was what staff understood, but it was based upon a
Preliminary Development Plan being approved.  In 18 months if this was not
constructed, then the development plan expired.  She said the zoning would
still be in place because it was not retroactively removed.          
	Commissioner Highberger asked if the Commission could condition the
zoning on the construction being done on the Preliminary Development Plan.
	Finger said construction happened after a Final Development Plan and
Final Plat.  She said it would need to be based on a different plan, the
Final Development Plan being filed or construction and building permits.
She said they could not pull building permits if they did not have the
zoning.   
	Commissioner Highberger asked if the Commission could pass the
zoning so that it reverted back to its current zoning state.
	Finger said no, state statutes do not allow automatic reversion.
The Commission would need to go through the same public hearing process of
rezoning.  
	Mayor Dunfield said essentially if the development plan were to
lapse and the zoning remained the same then a future development would need
to provide a development plan.  He said, at that point, it would be noted
that the zoning had been previously conditioned.  
	Finger said that was correct.  She said there was also a density
restriction in the zoning, which was in the zoning ordinance.  
	Commissioner Hack asked if there had been indication that the
Preliminary Development Plan would lapse.  
	Finger said the only reason the plan would lapse would be if a Final
Development Plan was not filed.  She said within 18 months after the
approval of the Preliminary Development Plan a Final Development Plan would
need to be filed, but there was no indication that would happen.
	Commissioner Schauner said when the Mayor mentioned Villo Woods it
brought up the idea of traffic impact.  He said unless and until they had a
better solution or some agreement on what was going to be done to Folks
Road, with respect to traffic, traffic calming, two-way collector, one-way
or whatever, he would rather that the Commission would not deal with the
zoning and the Preliminary Plat until the 3rd issue.  He said they had not
resolved the first issue (i.e. collector street).  He would like to have the
traffic issue resolved before they resolved the other issue.  
	Commissioner Hack said she appreciated Commissioner Schauner's
concern, but the Commission had been battling this issue back and forth for
a long time.  She said the Commission needed to decide on the benefit
district.   She said Vice Mayor Rundle had mentioned some interesting
proposals, but this issue needed to be decided.
	Commissioner Schauner said there needed to be more benefit district
discussion.  He thought Vice Mayor Rundle's proposal did not go far enough.
He said City staff preferred that Folks Road went through to Harvard Road.
He said if that was staff's preference it made sense to develop in that
initial benefit district, all the whistle and bells needed to handle, in a
safe calm manner, the capacity that they expected that street to carry.  He
said the City-at-large did not need to retro-fit that street later at the
expense of the public at large.  If that benefit district extended to the
south, up to the finished Mulberry Drive, they would be creating a
continuous piece of benefit district that would essentially pay for all of
the street from Mulberry Drive to 6th Street and also, they needed to figure
out soon, what that route would look like and what traffic calming devices
would be included.      
	Mayor Dunfield agreed with Commissioner Schauner, but the reason why
the City Commission needed to discuss this other aspect, before they went
any further with the benefit district, was because the benefit district did
not mean anything if the development was not worthy of approval.    
	Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the Commission approved the development
plan, did the Commission have flexibility when it came to positioning that
road.  
	Finger said the Commission had ultimate authority regarding how the
street would be constructed and designed. 
Corliss said all of Folks Road would be a public street.  The question was
whether or not it was going to be publicly or privately financed.  He asked
if City Commission direction, concerning traffic calming, could include
requirements that would be paid for, entirely, by private development on the
south end.   
	Commissioner Highberger asked about the acreage difference for the
rezoning tract and the PDP.
Pedrotti said that was the removal of the streets for dedication.
Commissioner Highberger said the density for the PDP was 9.38 units per
acre.  He asked if that was with the two 16-plexes.
Pedrotti said yes.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the other two conceptual 16-plexes were
added, what would be the density.       	
Pedrotti did not know.  It would need to be recalculated including the
additional property.
Mayor Dunfield said that they knew that could not exceed the overall 9.38.
Vice Mayor Rundle said since that did not go all the way out to Folks Road,
there was flexibility in how that part of that would be designed.
Keeney said there would need to be some thought put into how all this would
work.  He said there would need to be a master horizontal and vertical
layout of the street because they would be designed by different groups.
Commissioner Highberger asked if there was a 10 foot greenspace, temporary
easement on the south and west part of the property.   
Keeney said the easements would not be temporary.  He said when there was a
hedge row against a piece of property, they would try to execute a Landscape
Preservation Easement, but utility companies ask them not to do that and
they end up needing to rip out those hedge rows.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the detention pond would be maintained with
water in it at all times.
Keeney said yes.  He said in working with the neighborhood group, they
requested that they change from a dry bottom pond into a living pond with a
permanent wet bottom.  
Commissioner Highberger asked if there was a note on the final plan stating
that the pool could be used by the residents of single-family units as well
as multi-family units.    
Keeney said yes.
Commissioner Highberger said the PRD did not seem that it had the required
percentage of open space.
Keeney said it was discussed in detail at a Planning Commission meeting.  He
said they hoped to acquire one or more of those properties.  Once that
happened, they could add in a substantial piece of greenspace which made
them meet that requirement, if the Commission would let them work with that
dimension of time.  
What they agreed to at the Planning Commission meeting was that they would
not develop two of those lots and they would take a moratorium until such
time that 20% greenspace was provided on that location.
Commissioner Highberger saw the proposed house designs for the single-family
units and he appreciated the fact that they were street centered and some of
those units had back garage access.  He said the design created a
neighborhood feel.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the impact on this plan was with Folks Road
being built, 6th to Mulberry, with some curvature.
Keeney said it was an option that he designed a year ago to try to get past
that Folks Road issue, but that idea did not go too far.
Commissioner Schauner said another possible consequence of a straight road
was that it would harm the safe environment of those who lived down stream
on Harvard Road.
Keeney disagreed with a lot of what was said about what was going to happen
with this road being put in.  There have been traffic studies completed
which showed no adverse impact to Harvard Road.  In fact, the traffic
studies have shown that the congestion on Monterey Way would be greatly
relieved by this road.  The perception of what was going to happen and the
reality of what was going to happen were two totally different things.  He
said traffic calming devices in the form of speed humps would be a viable
option and it was far better than putting minor curvature adjustment in the
road which would add enormously to the cost of this project.
Commissioner Schauner asked how the cost of a minor curvature adjustment
compare to traffic circle.
Keeney said the cost of the minor curvature adjustment would require them to
acquire an entire strip of land.  
Commissioner Schauner said they would need to acquire some additional
right-of-way if they put in a full blown traffic circle.
Finger said there was not enough depth to be able to do an adjustment to
that road to one angle or another that would slow traffic as much as
effectively developing traffic calming devices, roundabouts, and/or tables
or benches for the road.  She said both Public Works and Planning believed
that whether you have that minor curvature adjustment you would still need
the traffic calming.  It was easier to develop the straight road and allow
development on both sides to occur or redevelopment at some future point and
put traffic calming in as you develop the construction plans for the road.
The benefit district shown was just a conceptual of a street occurring in
that area, not how it was physically detailed to address the issues of
traffic calming.
Mayor Dunfield said it was important that City Commissioners not try to
design roadways.  He said that was not the Commission's expertise and they
needed to tell staff what they were after and what they were trying to
accomplish and allow staff to do their jobs and tell the Commission how to
best do that.         
Commissioner Schauner was not trying to design the road.  He was concerned
about the decision that the Commission made, right now, would have an impact
on what that road could look like, what traffic it would carry and whether
it would be another example of building a two-way collector that might have
single-family residences facing it.  That would have a negative impact on
the people who already live there or who might want to live there in the
future.   
Keeney said a need for a traffic circle did exist at that intersection and
it would solve existing problems.  He said that traffic circle in
conjunction with some narrowing down or a speed hump was the best solution.
Commissioner Hack said in addition, it would make Harvard Road a less
desirable way to get in and out.
Roger Bain said the plan was a good compromise.  He understood the Catch-22
aspects of approving the area plan and the zoning at the same time, but he
asked if there was anything they could do to have some type of reassurance,
that due to the opened ended nature of the PRD-2 zoning, that this plan
would actually occur.  
He said there were great comments made about traffic calming devices.  He
asked the Commission if they could stipulate in their approval of the plan
that this road go through by a certain date.  
Marilyn Bittenbinder, representing Dennis Oakley, said she appreciated the
City Commission's vote to approve the area plan which this development plan
followed.  She said they were pleased with the Planning Commission meeting
last month which had a unanimous approval of the Preliminary Development
Plan.  She was hopeful that the City Commission would approve the
development plan and zoning.  She asked the Commission to give good
direction to staff on how Folks Road should proceed so that this 18 month
period could actually be accomplished so that there would be access
available for the developer to proceed with the construction and meet that
timetable.
Vice Mayor Rundle said throughout all this process, the road connection to
Mulberry Street, whether it went through or one-way in, the traffic
generation was one of the primary stumbling blocks to getting this to an
initial agreement.  
This single-family approval with the alignment and connection to Mulberry
Street was new.  This idea received unanimous approval and there was not a
huge amount of neighborhood protest so it seemed they had crossed that
bridge of whether this was going to connect to go through.  
He said it did not make any sense to do this project by piecemeal.  Even if
this was borne by the property owners in the area, it would still be more
costly to come back later to put in traffic calming devices.  He said they
had talked about the great advantage of having the entire tract to spread
the assessment.  If they had that one unfinished piece, it seemed to him
that would be too expensive to place on those two property owners.  
He suggested directing that the entire road be constructed.  Otherwise, they
were being steered to narrower options.  He said a decision needed to be
made and staff needed direction.  He thought the neighbors were delighted
that the single-family character was going to continue across the same area
as the adjacent property owners.  
Commissioner Hack supported the rezoning as well as the approval of the
Preliminary Development Plan.  She agreed with Vice Mayor Rundle to direct
staff to complete Folks/Mulberry and give clear direction on the benefit
district.  She said a traffic calming device was needed as part of the
design of the road.                
Mayor Dunfield concurred with both Commissioners.  He said when thinking
about the investment of time that had been made by the neighbors, the
applicant, City Commissioners, and City staff and where they started and
where they were at this time, the process had been good.  He reiterated that
he would like to see Folks Road looked at as a whole with traffic calming in
mind.      
Commissioner Schauner believed that Folks Road should be developed as a
continuous piece from 6th Street to Mulberry and a single benefit districted
created to finance that stretch of road.  He thought they should be thinking
about engineering and planning this as a continuous road project.

Commissioner Highberger said given that there was not substantial opposition
from that neighborhood they needed to put it through.  He said his main
concern about the benefit district and the design of the road was that it
should not negatively impact the existing homeowners.  He said the only
reason this road needed to be improved at this time was because of the
development in that area.  He thought it would be unfair that those
neighbors take on that burden.  He also was concerned about the greenspace
and the preservation of the large elm tree, but he assumed that would be in
place until approving the switch of greenspace in the future.  He was
willing to approve the PRD and rezoning although, the rezoning without the
specific planning concerned him and he presumed that they would know before
April 2005 the plans and proceedings so they could revisit that issue. 
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Commissioner Highberger when he stated "specific
planning" did he mean the Final Development Plan.  Vice Mayor Rundle said
the Final Development Plan could not be approved unless it was substantially
similar so he thought that was a reassurance.
Commissioner Highberger fear was that no action would be taken and if it
expired then the ground would be rezoned without a specific plan in place.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there could be specific direction on that plan.
He also asked if staff would bring this issue back to the City Commission if
nothing happened in 18 months.
Finger said yes.
Mayor Dunfield said a new Preliminary Development Plan for the property
would need to come back to the City Commission.
Finger said yes, before it could be developed or the zoning would stay idle.
Commissioner Schauner said what he did not want to happen was if the road
improvement that they approved was not built and someone came back with a
plan 19 months from now, before the ground had been zoned back to A or to
some other lower usage, the Commission would be hard pressed to say no if it
was in compliance with the zoning.      
Finger said staff would inform the Commission on the 18 month, if they had
not already had a Final Development Plan or Building Permits pulled.
Commissioner Hack said the only issue would slow this down was the benefit
district and Folks Road going through.  She thought that the Commission
should move quickly so they did not need to worry about the 18 months.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to extend the meeting until 10:15.
Motion carried unanimously.    
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there was anything in the conditions that spoke
of having traffic calming in place.
Finger said no, but from this discussion there would be on the Final
Development Plan if they were still as the point where the road construction
plans had not been done.  She assumed by the time they got to the Final
Development Plan there should be a road being approved and bid. 
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the findings of fact, approve
rezoning (Z-01-06-03) request, and authorized the drafting of an ordinance
for placement on future agenda regarding, a request to rezone a tract of
land approximately 11.0855 acres from A (Agricultural) District to PRD-2
(Planned Residential Development) District, generally located south of West
6th Street and west of Folks Road.  Motion carried unanimously.
(21)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve a Preliminary Development
Plan (PDP-01-04-03) for Oakley Court, proposing construction of 31
single-family homes and 32 multiple-family units (2 16-plexes) containing a
total of 64 dwelling units, generally described as being located south of
West 6th Street and west of Folks Road.  Motion carried unanimously.
(22)
	Mayor Dunfield addressed the benefit district.  The direction he had
heard from the City Commission was the following: look at establishing a
benefit district which was road construction from 6th Street to Mulberry;
that the design engineering of that roadway would consider traffic calming
devices as needed to protect the residence of the adjacent neighborhood;
look at the options in terms of deferring the assessment or including but
transferring costs from specific properties; to arrive at a preliminary cost
for such a benefit district that needed to consider some of the engineering
issues and show a preliminary roadway design.
Commissioner Highberger suggested that the roadway design take any means
feasible to avoid encroaching on the McVey property. 
Mayor Dunfield agreed and stated Commissioner Highberger's suggestion should
apply to the remaining single-family properties. 
Vice Mayor Rundle asked to explain the concept of still having the same
footprint but shifting easements.     
Keeney said you could accomplish that with 30 feet on the east and 40 feet
on the west and still maintain that road down the section line.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if traffic calming was paid by the City or did the
Development Policy speak to that.
Corliss said the Development Policy did not speak to it, but they had
required developers to pay 100% in almost all other circumstances.
Vice Mayor Rundle said in addition to the deferred assessment, there might
be some consideration given to the taking of access off of 6th Street.
Corliss said one of the arguments in favor of City participating was that
the Oakley property was removing its access onto 6th Street and that in some
circumstances communities and this community had paid for access
restrictions.  There was public value to not having that access to 6th
Street and having the access at Folks Road with a traffic signal.
Mayor Dunfield said they were accomplishing an access management priority.
He asked if staff had adequate direction to start.
Corliss said staff would need direction on City participation and staff
could look at the deferred special assessment issue.  He said staff needed
to contact the Stephens group to understand what their time horizon was for
connecting the southern portion of Folks Road.       
Consider request to reconsider the denial of authorization of KDOT requested
study of City's September 2002 Concept Drawing for the proposed 6th Street
and People's Bank median cut.

Mayor Dunfield said the procedure for the reconsideration was if there was a
member who voted in the majority who wished the Commission to reconsider
then that Commissioner would need to speak up.  The vote was 3 to 1, with
Commissioner Hack in the minority.  He asked if any of the Commissioners
wished to reconsider that denial.
Seeing no request to reconsider, the matter stood.
(23)  
PUBLIC COMMENT

Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Hilda Enoch, Lawrence Coalition on Homeless Concerns, requested help from
the City to get people out of the heat.  She said there were too many people
with no place to go.  She said the First Christian Church had agreed that
they could use their facilities between 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., in August.
She said they felt the City had some responsibility and a community effort
and asked if there were any contingency funds that were left over.   
Mayor Dunfield asked if Enoch request was for $3,500 or $4,000.
Enoch said they would be happy with less than that.  She said it was $300
for the utilities if they could keep LINK open that long.  If they pay at
$10.00 an hour 6 hours of day through the month of August, that was $1,860
and another $300 if they were able to open in the last week of July.  
Mayor Dunfield suggested that the City Manager look into the City's
contingency to see if there was $2,500 for the coalition.  
 Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, 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 22, 2003

1.	Bid - Fiber optic equipement to Accu-Tech for $7,125.30.

2.	Resolution No. 6471 - Annex, 2.99 acres, 1241 N 1300 Rd, Public
hearing date, Sept 23. 

3.	Resolution No. 6478 - GOB for certain main trafficway improvements.

4.	Rezone - 7.54 acres, NE & SE 1/4 5-13-19.

5.	Mortgage Release - 2810 University Dr., Richard League.

6.	City Manager's Report - Dole Institute/Transit Sytem/Parks & Rec
projects.

7.	Horizon 2020 - Defer amend Commercial Land Use Chapter
(CPA-2003-03).

8.	Compensation Study - Grades 106 - 110 increase pay effective Jan 1,
2004.

9.	2004 Budget - Authorize publication set hearing date for Aug 12. 

10.	Memorandum of Understanding - Lawrence Police Officers Assocation.

11.	Ordinance No. 7673 - 1st & 2nd Reading - Bonds for Lawrence Memorial
Hospital. 

12.	Vacation Order - US 59 Hwy, SW quadrant of intersection at Iowa &
31st.

13.	Economic Development Report.

14.	Hobbs Taylor Loft - Uphold CLG's determination no feasible and
prudent alternatives.

15.	Hobbs Taylor Loft - Downtown Design Guidelines & Urban Design
Concept. 

16.	Hobbs Taylor Loft - Angled parking.

17.	Hobbs Taylor Loft - Building height.

18.	Hobbs Taylor Loft - Site Plan

19.	Hobbs Taylor Loft - Parking Agreeement

20.	Folks Road - discussion.

21.	Folks Road Rezone - (Z-01-06-03) 11.0855 acres, A to PRD-2, S of W
6th & W of Folks.

22.	Folks Road PDP - (PDP-01-04-03), Oakley Ct., 31 single-family units
& 32 multi-family units.

23.	2002 Concept Drawing for 6th & People's Bank median cut.




_____________________________
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