[E-minutes] August 26, 2003 City Commission meeting minutes
Lisa Patterson
lpatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:21:15 -0500
August 26, 2003
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at
6:35 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Dunfield
presiding and members Hack, Highberger, Rundle and Schauner present.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Hack, to approve the Mechanical Board of Appeals meeting minutes of June 16,
2003; the revised Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of June 5, 2003;
the approved Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of July 3, 2003; the
Draft Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes of August 7, 203; the approved
Historic Resources Commission Action Summary of June 19, 2003; the draft
Historic Resources Commission Action Summaries of July 3, 2003 and July 17,
2003; the draft Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 23, 2003; and,
the Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of
July 9, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve claims to 403 vendors in the amount of $2,906,596.62 and payroll
from August 10, 2003 to August 23, 2003, in the amount of $1,331,508.75.
Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for The Hawk, 1340 Ohio Street.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids one gazebo for Brook Creek Park for
the Neighborhood Resources Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Morgan Concrete Services
$36,500
B.A. Green
$44,733
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
award the bid to Morgan Concrete Services, in the amount of $36,500. Motion
carried unanimously.
(1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for installation of rip rap along the
banks of the ditch for Brook Creek Park for the Parks and Recreation and
Neighborhood Resources Departments. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
R. D. Johnson
$28,600
King's Construction Co. $49,700
LRM Industries $67,620
Foley Construction Co. $74,000
ERS
$82,667
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
award the bid to R.D. Johnson, in the amount of $28,600. Motion carried
unanimously.
(2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
approve the purchase of six 800 MHz portable radios and one 800 MHz mobile
data radio modem from Motorola for $21,780.66 for the Police Department.
Motion carried unanimously.
(3)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the 2003 Sidewalk Gap and Repair
Program for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer's Estimate
$191,392.50
Penny Construction Co., Inc.
$157,661.10
Pavers, Inc.
$179,256.00
Tomkins Paving, Inc.
$193,430.00
Kansas Heavy Construction, LLC $194,377.70
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
award the bid to Penny Construction Co., Inc., in the amount of $157,661.10.
Motion carried unanimously.
(4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
place on first reading Ordinance No. 7686, rezoning (Z-06-16-03) 0.595 acre
from I-2 (Light Industrial District) to C-4 (General Commercial District),
property located at 962 North 3rd Street. Motion carried unanimously.
(5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
place on first reading Ordinance No. 7687, annexing (A-06-09-03) 0.595
acres, property located at 962 North 3rd Street. Motion carried
unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
place of first reading Ordinance No. 7688, rezoning (Z-05-14-03) 0.827 acre
from RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District) to C-5 (Light Commercial
District), property located at 1918 East 23rd Street. Motion carried
unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to
place on first reading Ordinance No. 7689, rezoning (Z-06-17-03) 1.44 acres
from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District),
property located at 962 North 3rd Street. Motion carried unanimously.
(8)
Ordinance No. 7682, establishing "no parking" along the west side of Legend
Trail Drive from 15th Street southerly, westerly, northerly, and easterly to
its end, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was
moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield,
Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried
unanimously. (9)
Ordinance No. 7684, establishing "stop signs" on Perry Street at 5th Street,
was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by
Rundle, seconded by Hack to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack,
Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(10)
Ordinance No. 7685, establishing an "all-way stop" at Naismith Drive and
Allen Field House Drive/Schwegler Drive, was read a second time. As part of
the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack to adopt the
ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay:
None. Motion carried unanimously.
(11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack to
adopt Resolution No. 6473, establishing October 7, 2003 as the public
hearing date for the proposed special assessment benefit district to improve
Monterey Way north of Peterson Road to Grand Vista Drive. Motion carried
unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack to
adopt Resolution No. 6475, establishing October 7, 2003 as the public
hearing date for the proposed special assessment benefit district to improve
Peterson Road west of Kasold Drive to approximately 900 feet west of
Monterey Way. Motion carried unanimously.
(13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack to
adopt Resolution No. 6483, establishing October 7, 2003 as the public
hearing date for the proposed special assessment benefit district to improve
the intersection of Peterson Road and Kasold Drive. Motion carried
unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack to
adopt Resolution No. 6484, establishing October 7, 2003 as the public
hearing date for the proposed special assessment benefit district to improve
Peterson Road north of Kasold Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
(15) As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle,
seconded by Hack to approve the request from the Friends of the Library to
place directional signs of community interest near the sidewalks around the
Library, Watson Park, and south to 9th Street for the annual book sale at
the Lawrence Public Library. Motion carried unanimously.
(16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack to
authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for Mark Shackelford,
1076 Home Circle. Motion carried unanimously.
(17)
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
During the City Manager's Report, Mike Wildgen said Commissioner Rundle had
inquired about the minimum billing for water and sewer service. He said a
report was presented to the Commission concerning that issue and the report
would be part of any type of rate study review coming up and it would be a
policy issue the Commission could review at that time to give rate
consultant instructions.
He also said the City's Alcohol Advisory Board would be conducting a
workshop on the perspective of alcoholism as a chronic medical disease.
Commissioner Schauner asked Wildgen about water usage. He asked about the
Water Department's future prediction in their ability to handle the
increased water consumption.
Wildgen said approximately three years ago the City had a similar summer and
staff had brought that to the attention of the Commissioners. The
Commission, at that time, took appropriate action and authorized a project
that added an addition five million in treatment capacity at the Clinton
Plant. As a result, they City had been able to handle water demands.
Commissioner Schauner asked Wildgen as the City continued to grow, adding
roof tops to the west and if we had a repeat of this summer, the City would
see additional consumption requirements. He asked if the City had current
excess capacity to handle the projected growth of the City over the next
five to ten years.
Wildgen said the plan was to add another five million to that same plant.
He said in approximately two weeks the Commission would be involved in a
study session concerning the Master Plan for water and wastewater. In that
Master Plan there would be long-range forecast with capital improvements to
address for the next twenty years.
Commissioner Hack asked Wildgen if there were built in triggers for the
public as to when the City would require minimum water usage
Wildgen said the Conservation Plan would require the larger users to
cut-back first before asking residential users.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that plan was in the City's policy book.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Service Director, said that
requirement was stated in an ordinance in our City Code because there were
penalties associated with that requirement.
REGULAR AGENDA
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to recess into executive session to
discuss matters with attorneys for the City which were deemed privileged in
the attorney client relationship with the justification for the executive
session to keep discussions confidential at this time. The open meeting of
the City Commission would resume in the Commission meeting room in 45
minutes. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
Receive presentation from County Commissioner Charles Jones concerning
vicious dog regulations. Receive City report on dog issues and proposed
City ordinances.
Charles Jones, County Commissioner, said a task force was formed out of the
discussion they had at a City/County/School Board meeting about vicious dogs
and their impacts on neighborhoods.
Midge Grinstead, Lawrence Humane Society, discussed photographs of vicious
dogs in the area, that were presented to the Commission throughout Jones'
discussion.
Jones said there were many people involved in the discussion of vicious
dogs. He said they thought it was important to focus on a relative handful
of very dangerous animals. He said they estimated that there were
approximately 25 vicious dogs in Douglas County. He said those 25 dogs were
used, bred, and trained for fighting and often times for the purposes of
intimidation and interference. He said the goal of the task force was to
focus on those animals and remove the threat of vicious dogs from all of
Douglas County over the next two years.
Jones said the Task Force initially talked about a breed specific ban,
outlawing pit bulls, but they decided it would be unworkable because the
term "breed" was very difficult to work with. He said as soon as you outlaw
one type of dog, they would probably use another type of dog. Instead of
focusing on the breed, they would focus on behavior and physical capacity to
cause damage. He said they defined a vicious dog as having the following
characteristics:
1. Kills a human being; or
2. Inflicts severe injury to a human being through a sustained and
vicious attack; or
3. Has been trained to fight and possess physical attributes such as
size, build or bite strength to inflict serious injury to a human being; for
this purpose, the following shall be presumed to have been trained to fight:
(i) any dog involved in a staged fight, (ii) any dog exhibiting wounds or
bodily disfigurements commonly associated with dog fighting, (iii) any dog
found or kept on premises at which equipment is located that is commonly
associated with training dogs to fight, and (iv) any dog found or kept with
other dogs that (a) have been trained to fight or (b) are presumed to have
been trained to fight; or
4. Because of its disposition and physical attributes, such as size,
build, or bite strength, poses a substantial threat to the life and safety
of public safety and emergency response personnel (such as law enforcement,
fire fighters and paramedics) who are seeking or my seek lawful access to
any property in order to perform their duties; or
5. Has the propensity, tendency or disposition to attack a human being
without provocation and possesses physical attributes such as size, build,
or bite strength to inflict severe injury to human beings.
He said there were exceptions provided that no dog shall be deemed or
declared a vicious dog.
1. Solely because it inflicted severe injury on a human being if the
human being was, at the time the severe injury was sustained, (i)
assaulting the owner or possessor of the dog, provided the owner or
possessor of the dog was not the aggressor (ii) committing a willful
trespass upon the premises of the of the owner or possessor of the dog (iii)
provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog, or can be shown to
have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog at other
times; or
2. Solely because it inflicted severe injury on a human being if the
dog was, at the time the substantial injury was sustained, (i) responding to
pain or injury (ii) protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, or its
owner or possessor's property, or (iii) protecting or defending another
human being within the immediate vicinity of the dog from an unjustified
attack or assault; or
3. Is owned or possessed by a federal, state, or local law enforcement
agency.
Jones said they had identified approximately 80 people who own, train, and
fight dogs in this community. Those 80 people owned approximately 25 dogs.
They were often associated with other pathological activities such as the
sale of drugs, gambling, and guns. He said those people were unstable, in
terms of their residence, and move about Douglas County. He said one
problem was that you have a transient group of people with an undefined
relationship to the dogs. That was why it was important that they get those
dogs and deal with the owners as a secondary matter.
He said the County and City had a dangerous dog regulation which attempted
to define dangerous dogs and then control the management of those dogs.
Those dogs were to be caged and retained in a certain way, but it was not
illegal to own a fighting dog. It was illegal to fight the dog, but unless
you're caught in the act it was not illegal. He said Eudora has a pit-bull
ban, but enforcement had been inconsistent given some of their other
responsibilities and when enforcement had been taken, often times, people
pack up and move.
He said the County put a resolution into effect with a 3-0 vote which
prohibited the ownership a possession of vicious dogs in Douglas County.
The resolution provided for the impoundment and euthanization of those
vicious dogs and it imposed fines, jail time and restrictions on people who
owned vicious dogs.
Jones talked about impoundment and testing. He said the resolution
authorized the law enforcement officials to impound any dog believed to be
vicious. However, legal safeguards must be in place. He said if a dog had
all the earmarks of having been fought, it might be that they would need to
get a warrant, but they would take possession of that dog. The impounded
dog would need to be tested by someone who was certified in determining the
temperament of animals, but for the most part it would be the Humane Society
which was a pro-animal organization. The results of that testing would go
to the District Court and if the dog was determined to be vicious, it would
be recommended that the dog be euthanized. However, only the court could
order the euthanization of the dog. If the dog was determined not to be
vicious, it would be returned to its owners. Again, the euthanization
recommendation would go to the court. The owner would be notified of the
courts evidentiary hearing and could present contrary evidence. After all
the evidence was heard, the court would determine the fate of the vicious
dog.
People who were found to own vicious dogs would be guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable as follows:
1. First offense, a fine, which shall be set at $500. The fine shall
be mandatory and the Court shall have no authority to suspend the fine or
any portion thereof. In addition, the Court shall have the authority to
sentence the defendant to confinement in the county jail for a maximum of 90
days.
2. Second offense committed within 5 years of a prior offense, a fine,
which shall be set at $1,000. The fine shall be mandatory and the Court
shall have no authority to suspend the fine or any portion thereof. In
addition, the Court shall have the authority to sentence the defendant to
confinement in the county jail for a maximum of 6 months.
3. Third offense committed within 5 years of 2 prior offenses, a fine,
which shall be set at $1,000. The fine shall be mandatory and the Court
shall have no authority to suspend the fine or any portion thereof. In
addition, the Court shall sentence the defendant to confinement in the
county jail for a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of 6 months. The
defendant shall be required to serve the minimum 30 day jail sentence and
the Court shall have no authority to suspend the first 30 days of such
sentence.
Jones said if someone was found to have a vicious dog it would trigger a
prohibition for 3 years of ownership of any dog. Often times those people
were willing to give up the dogs, but they acquire another dog. He said
they wanted to stop them from that cycle of ownership and fighting.
Surprisingly, they had a number of instances in which people who had their
dogs taken to the Humane Society, those people come to the Humane Society to
get them out. He said they upped the penalties for unauthorized removal of
impounded dogs.
Jones said the county would pay for the enforcement of this resolution. He
said Sheriff Trapp would establish a task force and approach this as they do
with the Drug Task Force. He said they needed multi-jurisdictional or
cross-jurisdictional gathering of information. He thought one officer
should be able to enforce that resolution because they were talking about a
small population of dogs. He said they anticipated that in approximately
two years the activity would fade out and this officer would spend more time
on the basic animal control in the county. He said they had talked with the
courts and one of the problems was facilitating the process for obtaining
warrants which took about five hours. He said they were trying to figure
out a way to get the warrant process moved as fast as they could so they did
not waste a lot of police time watching the house to make sure the dog did
not disappear. He also said they wanted one judge that consistently dealt
with those problems and the district court had made that commitment. The
District Attorney's office had agreed to be supportive. He asked that the
City give their cooperation and support.
He said most cities have some type of dangerous dog ordinance and the
vicious dog resolution was not an attempt to supplant the dangerous dog
ordinances, the resolution would be a cap that fit on top of the dangerous
dog ordinance. He said they were not trying to replace any local laws or
efforts, but according to the law, they needed the City's permission to
enforce a county resolution within the City limits. If there were islands
of jurisdictional removed, it would not work and the intelligent system
would not play out.
He said they were asking from the City for a resolution that allowed them to
enforce the county vicious dog resolution within the city limits of
Lawrence. He said it was important to frame a cooperative relationship
between the City and the County law enforcement units especially regarding
intelligence. He said they wanted to make sure if a dog was involved in an
incident, that the County would be called.
He said the recommended action was that the City adopts the Cooperative
Resolution and then the task force would monitor the activities to see how
many dogs had been removed.
Grinstead said most recently they had a call from Animal Control and the
Police Department to North Lawrence to a property which was vacant. Animal
Control had been to that residence numerous times. She said four pit bulls
were being housed at this vacant lot. Three of those pit bulls had their
ears cut to their head which was indicative of fighting. He said one of
those pit bulls was loose and the Police, in protecting themselves and the
neighborhood, shot one dog and brought on of the others to the shelter.
She said this law needed to be in effect so that they could make those
people turn over their dogs or someone would get hurt.
Ted Boyle, President, North Lawrence Improvement Association, said they,
along with the residents of North Lawrence, strongly recommended that the
Commission approve the vicious dog regulations. Over a period of eight
years, they had seen vicious dogs escalate in North Lawrence because it was
a rural atmosphere and a low to moderate income neighborhood.
He gave some instances of vicious dogs running loose in North Lawrence. He
said there had been a number of instances where the dogs had gone through
the process, but those people still had their dogs. He said some of those
dogs were located on Lyons Street, just one lot away from Lyons Park where
children play. Some other dangerous dogs were located in the 700 block, a
half block away from the Ballard Center which was day care and a block and a
half away from Woodlawn School. Boyle said those dog owners were
responsible for that animal and the well being of the people in the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Highberger asked if they had implemented the vicious dog law.
Jones said no. He said there were to issues they needed to address before
implementation of that law. One issue was working with the cities to get
them on board. He said there were also personnel matters that needed to be
addressed. Once all the cities were on board they would begin to implement
that law. He said the presence of this discussion and task force was
beginning to have a chilling effect on the presence of those dogs in this
community.
Commissioner Schauner was supportive of the idea and thought the Commission
should do everything they could to cooperate with the County and move
forward.
Commissioner Highberger asked if all those instances that Boyle discussed
concerning dogs be classified as vicious dogs according to the ordinance.
Jones said they would be classified as dogs that were appropriate to impound
and test.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked who provided the training for testing those dogs.
Grinstead said the Humane Society took testing at the University of Missouri
in Columbia they also took testing in Dallas, Texas. She said there was an
animal expo every year that was geared to train shelters and animal control
officers. She said they had four of their staff trained in animal handling
and certification. She said two of the staff had animal science degrees and
six of their staff was trained in animal cruelty investigation.
Commissioner Hack said as a member of the committee it was an extremely
difficult committee to serve on in terms of the type of information they
received. She thanked the neighborhood for participating in the discussions
of that issue. She thanked Jones for all of his hard work because of his
efforts in making a difference in those peoples' lives. She also thanked
Grinstead for her efforts.
She said the whole issue of clustering of activities was something that the
task force concentrated on and learned a lot about in terms of the dogs and
how far more extensive it was than just those dogs.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/ Legal Service Director said in
addition to the ordinance that would allow the enforcement of the County
Resolution within the City limits, they also had an amendment to the City's
animal control laws that staff wanted to forward for the Commission's
consideration.
He went back to the application of the County Resolution within the City.
The County Resolution was adopted pursuant to their home rule powers.
Counties in Kansas have statutory home rule powers. That statute allowed
the County to adopt a resolution, such as this, indicated that county
resolutions would not apply within the incorporated cities unless the cities
allowed that to occur and that was what that ordinance did which allowed the
county resolution to be enforced within the City of Lawrence. It also
declared that the City's policy would help the County in law enforcement
activities as far as intelligence activities and all those other activities.
He said Evan Ice had prepared that template that the County would be sharing
with other cities within Douglas County. If the Commission desired to
proceed with this issue, staff would place this ordinance on the agenda for
first reading at the next City Commission meeting.
He said staff had been working on the City's amendments to their animal
control laws, both the animal at large law and dangerous dog laws. He said
they held those amendments in abeyance because staff wanted to have a
complete animal control picture all at once.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if those amendments were just cleaning for cleaning
up our ordinances.
Corliss said yes. He said those amendments would reflect some of the loop
holes or issues that the City has had with their laws. He said it would be
a challenge because citizens would still look to the City's Animal Control
Officers to enforce those laws. He said the City would be enforcing the
Animal Control Laws and Dangerous Dog Laws, but in situation that related to
vicious dogs or fighting dogs, the City would be relying on the Law
Enforcement aspect as opposed to the Animal Control Officers to proceed with
that comprehensive enforcement.
Commissioner Schauner asked what would be envisioned of the discussion or
work that would be necessary to integrate City law enforcement officers work
with the County in enforcing the vicious dog ordinance. He asked if they
would anticipate a meeting to figure out how they were going to work
together in that arena.
Corliss said yes. He said as the Commission proceeded with this issue,
Sheriff Trapp would be talking with Chief Olin and Steve Hornberger, to
indicate how they would share information and how they would enforce the
law. He said the County would be getting complaints and concerns that would
be appropriately referred to Animal Control.
Commissioner Schauner said it struck him that there would be some difficulty
in finding a bright line between a dangerous dog and a vicious dog.
Corliss said he did not disagree with that statement. He said staff
supported the County law. He said it would be a helpful tool and would
require some additional cooperation, but that cooperation could be good. He
said there would be some confusion on the public on where to go, but that
was part of the City job to make sure it was handled appropriately. He said
the additional resource focus on this public safety problem would be
beneficial to this community.
Mayor Dunfield said from City law enforcement point of view, there was some
real benefit. He said they would still be doing the job that they had
always done, but now there was an additional recourse to go to.
Jones said Sheriff Trapp and Grinstead would assign a person which had
strong expertise about which dogs should be impounded.
Commissioner Hack said the task force spent some time differentiating
between the vicious dog and the dog that nips at a person on a bike. It was
not their intent to take care of that dog, unless the dog was attacking
someone and that dog becomes a vicious dog. She said let's impound, test,
and release if they needed to.
Commissioner Highberger asked about the Animal Control Ordinance. He said
the current ordinance prohibited any dog, cat or other animal to run at
large and in the new version it only applied to dogs and cats. He asked if
that was intentional.
Toni Wheeler, Staff Attorney, said that would not be intentional and it
would be changed before it was placed on a future agenda.
Commissioner Highberger asked if there was a problem with cats running at
large. He when looking at the statistics, there were a large number of
people requesting cat traps.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the people who were requesting those cat traps
probably didn't appreciate cats killing their song birds.
Steve Hornberger, Animal Control Officer, said as the statistics show, they
received a lot of requests for cat traps because of the ordinance that
allowed cats to be in the owner's yard not on a leash. It was difficult for
them to determine, if they see a cat in a yard, if it was at large or did it
belong there. They receive a request for a number of cat traps because they
had trouble with cats on their property.
Vice Mayor Rundle thanked Sheriff Trapp and Grinstead, in advance, for their
work in implementation of that law.
Corliss said the ordinance would be placed on the next City Commission
agenda for first reading.
(19)
Receive recommendation from the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals to adopt an
ordinance establishing a quorum of four members to the Board.
Bryan Wyatt, Vice Chairman, Mechanical Board of Appeals, said they were a
five board member such as the Commission. He said at this time, they had a
quorum requirement of three board members. He said they recently had
elected a President to their board who had no knowledge of pulling permits,
what it entailed, and the process of calling an inspection. He said the
other four members were trade members. He said they were unique because
they were the only board that had a President that was a non-tradesman. He
said this board was there for public health and safety.
Corliss said the quorum for any board was by common law a majority of that
board so with the five member board, three would be a quorum. In this case
the change would be to go to four. It was staff's recommendation if the
Commission wanted to proceed that it be done by ordinance. The ordinance
would be amended creating the board and put in a sentence that the quorum
for the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals shall be four.
Vice Mayor Rundle said having a quorum of four had been useful for the City
Commission.
Commissioner Highberger agreed. He said a higher quorum could also protect
the pubic interest.
Commissioners Hack and Schauner concurred.
Corliss said this would be an amendment to the ordinance and it would be
placed on the City Commission's agenda.
Mayor Dunfield suggested that staff proceed. (20)
Receive a letter on behalf of a property owner concerning the median in the
4100 block of West 6th Street.
Price Banks, Attorney for Doug Garber, said the issue was that the median
that was placed in the 4100 block of West 6th Street , as a result of the
expansion of Hy-Vee to add a filling station on the north side of 6th Street
had the affect of shutting off access to Garber's property for westbound
cars. Garber's property received most of its traffic westbound and today
westbound cars needed to make a u-turn on 6th Street which was not safe in
order to access the Garber property.
He said it might have been a mistake because the site plan did not show the
Garber driveway at its correct location. He presented a aerial photograph
which showed the exact location of the driveway. He asked the Commission
to allow for a break in the median.
He said there were three alternatives that could correct that problem: 1)
The median could be broken to permit access to 4101 West 6th Street; 2) That
portion of the median west of the driveway to the subject property could be
removed; or 3) The median could be reconfigured as a mountable median at the
point of the driveway to the subject property.
Banks said recognizing that anything that was done at that location would
cost money, Garber was willing to participate in that cost to the extent of
paying for the actual construction work that was done. If the engineering
work did not break him, he was willing to do the construction if the City
could contribute to some of the engineering work.
He said this business was a relatively low traffic generating business, but
the traffic was important to that business. He said the median was put
there inadvertently and they wished they would have caught that before it
was installed.
Commissioner Highberger asked how much further west was the driveway, than
was shown on the drawing.
Banks said approximately 125 feet west of where it was shown on the site
plan.
Commissioner Hack asked if there were plans in place for the vacant area
marked to the south of the existing building.
Garber said no.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if Garber would need to go to Planning Staff to
redevelop that area.
Finger said if it was not platted then Garber would need to plat.
Doug Garber, property owner in question, said he did not have any imminent
plans for the land behind that house. He felt that he should take recourse
to protect that property. A lot of the business came from the east and it
was essential to have access. There were a half a dozen entrances on 6th
Street that were in the same predicament where there were not turning lanes
to get access to turn, but they still had access to turn both ways.
Banks said there were a number of places where medians affect people. If
you look up and down 6th Street there were existing and future medians would
affect people. However, a great number of those medians had some kind of
alternative access.
Mayor Dunfield said the Commission did not hear what the process was that
got them to this point in terms of how the decisions were made, what kind of
notifications were made, if they were required, how this would fit into
KDOT's larger project for 6th Street and access control. He requested more
information and an analysis of the possible alteration.
Vice Mayor Rundle said from a traffic generation point of view, this would
be a lower impact than Hy-Vee. He was curious about the distance from the
intersection and traffic generation.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said staff would present more information
to the Commission.
Mayor Dunfield wanted to see a report that summarized all of those issues.
Commissioner Highberger asked if that staff report could include and
estimate of the potential traffic generation if all the property that might
have access in that driveway if it was developed.
Finger said there was a traffic impact study required for Hy-Vee and a study
for the ultimate impact. She said staff searched for the study that was
approved at the time the service station was revised. She said it was at
one time a pad site with a restaurant. She said it would generate three
times as much traffic as the restaurant would have.
Commissioner Highberger said if that vacant property was developed and with
some medium or high density use, it would generate a substantial amount of
traffic that might want to use that access point.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the redevelopment would generate a review, and at
which time they could require the closing of that again.
Finger said yes. There was a piece in the middle of property that Garber
owned and where Eldridge Street lined up on the south. The property in the
middle between those two was County property zoned agricultural and its
potential redevelopment was also of interest to City staff. When the Garber
property was platted prior to their ownership and when the property where
Eldridge was platted, the City acquired a 30 foot access easement to allow
us to get over to an intersection that could be controlled so there wasn't
individual access points onto a state highway. The missing link was the
piece that was in the city.
Commissioner Schauner requested the staff report give the Commission any
input that KDOT had in either requiring or recommending this median.
Finger said since when Hy-Vee was approved, KDOT had reserved the right to
review traffic counts and to re-access the impacts on their road. That
comment was on the Final Development Plan as well as the Preliminary Plan
for Hy-Vee. Staff would discuss that issue with KDOT.
(21)
Receive a letter for the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association concerning
Brook Creek drainage way construction.
Michael Almon, Committee Chair, Brook Creek Neighborhood said that the
Association chose it's name for a key reason - we consciously value our
watershed, our streams, our open drainageways, and how these natural systems
interact with the human community. Earth is the water planet, unique in the
Universe, water is the essence of life, streams are the arteries of the
Earth, and as such, we view Brook Creek as the central feature of Brook
Creek Neighborhood.
With this in mind, our residents and neighbors are committed to preserving
the beauty, environmental integrity, and functional viability of our
streams. We have advocated this for years. We have an annual creek
clean-up on Earth Day. We supported the local Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Ordinance to keep toxins from flowing to the rivers. We have a
policy of keeping our drainage ditches open to handle floodwaters better
than enclosed pipes. We argue against attempts to build and pave in
floodplains. We conduct public education meetings on watershed management
such as the 17 May 2000 meeting, attended by City administrators and
Commissioners both. In one-on-one meetings, we have distributed numerous
copies to City administrators and Commissioners of the book Restoring
Streams In Cities an excellent guide to the principles and practices of
stream naturalization. We supported the Stormwater Engineer's plans to
remove a 67 year-old box culvert so as to daylight and naturalize four
blocks of Burroughs Creek, which is our west neighborhood boundary. And we
have frequently articulated our vision of restoring Brook Creek to a natural
stream where it had been channelized some 50 years ago in what is now Brook
Creek Park.
Therefore, from this track record, our neighborhood positions on watershed
management should be abundantly clear to City officials. In addition, there
is other documentation of our viewpoints. Section 4-4 of the 1981 Brook
Creek Neighborhood Plan states: a linear "Brook Creek-Edgewood Park . . . is
predicated on the concept of maintaining the Brook Creek and AT&SF (now
Burroughs Creek) Tributaries for open space and drainage purposes . . .
which correspond with the 100-year flood hazard areas." Likewise, in more
recent surveys solicited by the Neighborhood Resources Department, questions
about drainage brought responses emphasizing our policy of retaining open
drainageways and naturalizing streams.
So it came as a shock, and quite honestly an affront, when word leaked to
the neighborhood that the Neighborhood Resources and Parks & Recreation
Departments were planning to use $40,000 of our own CDBG funds to go 180
degrees counter to our stated watershed ideals by armoring two blocks of
Brook Creek with rip-rap rock. In all fairness, they did meet once with
just our neighborhood officers in June, but at a time when they knew we held
no membership meetings during Summer. And because the City had slipped the
rip-rap funding into the CDBG request rather than the expected Stormwater
budget, the general membership was blind-sided. Granted, such a funding
route is legal but, we feel, disingenuous. As for our officers, Kirsten
Roussel, our President, said she negotiated the rip-rap down from even worse
City plans, and later e-mailed her reservations to Parks & Recreation
Department.
Having belatedly heard of these plans, several of the membership sought out
a meeting with the Stormwater Engineer to learn the details and to challenge
what we thought were questionable procedures. We next asked Fred DeVictor,
the Parks & Recreation Director for a meeting which after a week, was
finally set for Friday afternoon, 22 August. Meanwhile, again without
informing us, Parks & Recreation had placed the rip-rap funding on the City
Commission consent agenda for 26 August, this evening's meeting. But even
more outrageous was that on Thursday, 21 August, one day before our meeting,
Parks & Recreation instructed a subcontractor to begin that day to install
170 feet of 2 foot diameter pipe into the Oak Hill Tributary of Brook Creek
just south of 13th Street, and to cover it and fill in that part of the
creek.
He talked about the legitimacy of neighborhood priorities. He said where is
the fairness in all this? The considerateness? The co-operativeness? We
knew that the appropriateness of these stream modifications could surely be
argued both ways, and so we were doing all we could to open channels of
discussion. But City staff seemed dead set on proceeding regardless of what
options the neighborhood might prefer, or even whether we met. Neither Fred
DeVictor nor Margene Swarts can claim ignorance of Brook Creek
Neighborhood's priorities for watershed management, because both of them
attended the 17 May 2000 meeting where we laid out in depth our oft-repeated
neighborhood policies and priorities.
On the rip-rap question, staff had done the legal minimum, but certainly
made no effort to elicit neighborhood involvement in the design process.
And on the creek becoming sewer pipe issue, staff informed no one, not Brook
Creek officers, not membership, and not even the five immediate landowners
who will be most affected by potential floodwater back-ups from the
bottleneck being created.
He said at that point, they requested to be on the City Commission agenda,
to object to both these Brook Creek modifications. But upon meeting with
staff, they decided not to challenge the rip-rap funding, as much as we
dislike it. While they strongly preferred other stream management solutions
to rip-rap and buried pipe, the 22 August meeting brought several verbal
commitments from Assistant City Manager Debbie Van Saun, Fred DeVictor,
Margene Swarts, and Chad Voigt. That seemed to be the beginning of staff
recognition of legitimate neighborhood priorities.
1) These stream projects do not mean the City has abandoned the Brook
Creek Neighborhood desire to restore Brook Creek to a natural stream.
2) These projects will not be a difficult obstacle to naturalizing
Brook Creek when time comes.
3) That time would logically correspond with the Stormwater Utility
Plan to upgrade the Brook Creek culvert under 13th Street (Group II,
Reference #24, possibly 20 years from now).
4) These projects are therefore only interim solutions that are better
than nothing, because the channelized stream is already compromised.
5) Parks & Rec. and Community Resources agreed to scale back the
rip-rap if they could still achieve the erosion control they hoped for.
6) They admitted that rip-rap will not suppress weeds on the creek
banks any more than now exists, and it will not improve flood control. They
also admitted that buried pipe in the Oak Hill Tributary does nothing for
flood control, but only makes mowing easier.
He said given the questionable nature of recent staff initiatives, and to
avoid future recurrence, the Brook Creek Neighborhood Association would like
the City Commission to look beyond these immediate project particulars and
develop, and then formalize, policies, guidelines and operating principles
for watershed management in the Brook Creek watershed.
He said let it be known that one of the most commendable actions taken by
the City Commission in recent years has been the creation of the Stormwater
Utility, the adopting a comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan, and the
hiring of a Stormwater Engineer of the caliber of Chad Voigt. He displays
an approach to watershed management that can potentially undo much of the
damage done to date to urban watersheds. So our first request is that:
1) The lead agency when resolving flooding problems in Brook Creek
Neighborhood shall be the Stormwater Engineer's office. And departments
with no expertise in these matters such as Parks & Rec. or Neighborhood
Resources shall not be authorized to initiate such projects.
For too many years we have seen our legitimate flood concerns take the back
seat to Park Dept. preferences or City crew conveniences. All too often our
CIP or CDBG funding requests have been shelved or slashed. More than once
City projects have been imposed on us that fail to reflect our priorities,
that entail insignificant or no neighborhood involvement, and are in
conflict with best management practices. And when City staff does seem to
grasp the importance of our neighborhood flood policies with knowing nods
and promises, what they usually implement belies the verbal understandings.
One of our neighborhood's strongest efforts was to conduct the Brook
Creek/Burroughs Creek Stormwater Meeting on 17 May 2000, for City
Commissioners, City staff, and the public. Among the many agenda items was
a comprehensive watershed plan, but nothing was formalized as a result. And
judging by the rip-rap and buried pipe conflict last week, there remains
either departmental indifference or institutional memory failure. Our
second request is:
2) A comprehensive watershed plan for the Brook Creek watershed shall be
developed by the Stormwater Engineer's office working with the Brook Creek
Neighborhood Assn. It shall have elements such as stream preservation and
restoration, natural vegetation and wetlands, flood plain use restrictions,
alternatives to impervious surfaces, NPDES and TMDL requirements, etc. This
plan shall be the guiding document in prioritizing the impact of all parties
on the watershed.
Brook Creek Park, in the 100 year floodplain, is a dual use space. City
staff thinks park and playground use is more important, whereas our
neighborhood which suffers regular flooding thinks flood control to be of
primacy here. We are at cross purposes. To truly naturalize Brook Creek,
most of the 80 foot wide park would be graded into floodplain and floodway,
and park equipment would be removed. Request #3 is:
3) Naturalizing Brook Creek through the Park area shall be a central feature
of the watershed plan and of highest priority. Because water seeks it's own
level, flood control must be located along the creek. Play equipment can be
moved north to the grassy circle, for example, or south and west of Brook
Street. About 20-30 acres of flood storage was lost in 1975 when the area
directly downstream received from3-7 feet of fill for the Public Works yard
east of 11th and Haskell Ave. So by removing some 4 feet of fill in Brook
Creek Park and restoring the floodplain to it's original contour circa 1950,
the flood storage capacity can be reestablished.
Presently, the Brook Creek culvert at 13th Street is under-capacity and
exacerbates flooding, the flood waters covering Oak Hill Ave. upstream to
Prairie Ave., and covering Brook St. south to the 1400 block. The upgrade
of this culvert is anticipated in about 20 years, being in Group II,
Reference #24 of the Stormwater Utility Plan priorities. At the same time,
Oak Hill Ave. and 13th Street are daily plagued by stream of speeding
commuter cut-through traffic. This is a problem that for years our
neighborhood has been seeking co-operation from the City to resolve. Both
issues need more immediate attention than in 20 years from now. So our
fourth request is:
4) The 13th St. culvert on Brook Creek project shall be advanced from Group
II into Group I of the Stormwater Utility Upgrade Plan, and be assigned
higher priority number and time frame. This shall be coupled and
coordinated with the project to naturalize Brook Creek. Rather than a
conventional 4-cell box culvert being used, a traffic circle or a low-water
crossing shall be utilized where 13th Street intersects with Brook St., Oak
Hill Ave. and the Brook Creek Park service road.
Commissioner Highberger asked if Parks & Recreations discussed their plans
with the stormwater engineer.
Fred DeVictor, Director of Parks & Recreations, said the stormwater engineer
was involved with their plans and they had several discussions with him.
Mayor Dunfield said there were some good ideas and recommendations in
Michael Almon's information and that it was important that the stormwater
engineer be involved in any discussions having to do with changes to
stormwater management. He said he had a concern with moving projects up in
priority or arbitrarily shuffling projects in the City's master plan.
Vice-Mayor Rundle said he was curious to know how the use of riprap fit into
the long range stormwater plans. He said it didn't make sense to spend
these funds now only to have the rip rap removed sometime in the future.
Wildgen said staff could prepare a report on the matter.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to see a more formal or precise
relationship between stormwater staff and the neighborhood associations in
order to reduce the possibility of the he said/she said comments. He was
interested in staff comments on a more formal or precise relationship.
Commissioner Schauner also asked if there were other strategies that could
be used to address the erosion problems that the rip rap was intended to
help reduce. He was also interested in the stormwater engineer's comments.
(22)
During Commission Items, Linda Finger, Planning Director, presented a report
on the proposed historic district nominations for Downtown, East Lawrence,
and Pinckney. The report presented background information and updated the
Commission on the process that had been completed and what the next steps
were.
Finger said it was important to remember that the districts would be
approved by the State and not the City. She said the State's Architectural
Historian would be reviewing the draft documents in September. The Kansas
Historic Sites Board would review these nominations but it would not be done
until their meeting in February 2004. She said there is no existing city or
state process for a public hearing on the historic district nomination
application. She said certainly, the Commission could open any item up to
public discussion and comment.
Vice-Mayor Rundle asked if the nominations could be held up beyond February
2004.
Finger said once they are delivered to the state they are no longer in the
City's purview any longer.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 9:30.
CITY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 26, 2003
1. Bid - Gazebo for Brook Creek Park to Morgan Concrete Services for
$36,500.
2. Bid - Rip rap along banks of ditch for Brook Creek Park to R.D.
Johnson for $28,600.
3. Purchase - Portable radios for Police Dept. from Motorola for
$21,780.66.
4. Bid - 2003 Sidewalk Gap & Repair Program to Penny Construction for
$157,661.10.
5. Ordinance No. 7686 - 1st Reading, rezone (Z-06-16-03) 0.595 acre
fromI-2 to C-4, 962 N 3rd.
6. Ordinance No. 7687 - 1st Reading, annex (A-06-09-03) 0.595 acre, 962
N 3rd
7. Ordinance No. 7688 - 1st Reading, rezone (Z-05-14-03) 0.827 acre,
RS-1 to C-5, 1918 E 23rd .
8. Ordinance No. 7689 - 1st Reading, rezone (Z-06-17-03) 1.44 acres,
from A to RS-2, 962 N 3rd.
9. Ordinance No. 7682 - 2nd Reading, "no parking" W side of Legend
Trail Dr., from 15th, S, W N, & E to its end.
10. Ordinance No. 7684 - 2nd Reading, "stop signs", Perry at 5th.
11. Ordinance No. 7685 - 2nd Reading, "all-way-stop" at Naismith &
Allen field House Dr/Schwegler Dr.
12. Resolution No. 6473 - Public Hearing, Oct 7, for benefit district
Monterey Way N of Peterson to Grand Vista Dr.
13. Resolution No. 6475 - Public Hearing, Oct 7, for benefit district to
Peterson Rd, W of Kasold to 900' W of Monterey Way.
14. Resolution No. 6483 - Public Hearing, Oct 7, for benefit district to
Peterson & Kasold
15. Resolution No. 6484, Public Hearing, Oct 7, for benefit district for
Peterson, N of Kasold.
16. Directional Signs - Library, Watson Park, & S to 9th, annual book
sale for Lawrence Public Library.
17. Subordination Agreement - 1076 Home Circle, Mark Shackelford.
18. City Manager's Report - Water Billing/Alcohol Advisory Board.
19. Vicious Dog Regulation discussion.
20. Mechanical Code Board quorum
21. 4100 Block of W 6th Street, median cut discussion.
22. Brook Creek Neighborhood.
_____________________________
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