[E-minutes] City Commission Meeting Minutes December 16, 2003
Lisa Patterson
lpatterson at ci.lawrence.ks.us
Fri Jan 2 10:31:13 CST 2004
December 16, 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.
Mayor Dunfield recognized the University of Kansas football team for
receiving an invitation to the Mazda Tangerine Bowl in Orlando, Florida.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of December 9,
2003. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to approve the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of December
1, 2003; the Grant Review Board meeting minutes of November 10, 2003; the
Code Review Committee meeting minutes of November 24, 2003; the Public
Library Board meeting minutes of November 17, 2003; the Sesquicentennial
Commission meeting minutes of September 24, 2003; and the Smoking Task Force
meeting minutes of November 5, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to approve claims to 390 vendors in the amount of $1,972,588.94
and payroll from November 2, 2003 to November 15, 2003 in the amount of
$1,373,493.34. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded
by Rundle, to approve the Retail Liquor License for Texas Jacks Liquor, 3020
South Iowa Street, Suite B (New).
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Certification of
Real Property Acquisition Procedures and Right-of-Way Clearance for
O'Connell Road, 23rd Street to 31st Street. This project will be bid by the
State in February 2004. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for 21st Street, Kentucky to Barker
Court (Phase 2) Storm Sewer Improvements. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer's Estimate $524,564.50
R.D. Johnson $421,800.00
Garney Construction $432,402.20
Larkin Excavating $433,447.55
Rose-Lan Construction $448,999.97
Razorback Contractors $515,439.35
Meadows Construction $530,239.74
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to award the bid to R.D. Johnson Excavating, in the amount of
$421,800.00. Motion carried unanimously.
(2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to approve workers' compensation excess insurance coverage for 2004
with Employers Reinsurance Corporation (ERC), in the amount of $36,612 and
approve continuing the last year of our current three year policy with The
Cincinnati Insurance Company for boiler and machinery coverage in the amount
of $3,620. Motion carried unanimously.
(3)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for comprehensive housing
rehabilitation projects for the Neighborhood Resources Department. The bids
were:
CONTRACTOR 1649 Edgehill 1345 New Jersey 1235 Kentucky
Clovis Construction $42,847 $13,622 $41,333
General Construction $33,888 No Bid
$33,777
L&S Sale & Service No bid $12,994
$40,994
Master Plan Mgmt No bid $20,182 No
bid
Natural Breeze No bid No bid No
bid
Schmidt Construction No bid No bid
No bid
Staff Estimate $35,000 $9,000
$30,000
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to award the bids to General Construction in the amount of $33,888
for 1649 Edgehill Rd; L&S Sales & Service in the amount of $12,994 for 1345
New Jersey; and General Construction in the amount of $33,777 for 1235
Kentucky. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to approve the payment to Alcott, LC in the amount of $19,000 for
the acquisition of various property interests at 1900 Barker Avenue required
for the 19th Street and Barker Avenue roundabout and related road
improvements project. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to set a bid date of December 23, 2003 for the Concrete Repair
Program, Phase 2. Motion carried unanimously.
(6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to set a bid opening date of December 30, 2003 for the installation
of a wood fence and property gates at the south property line of Habitat
Neighborhood Addition No. 4. Motion carried unanimously.
(7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7730, an amendment of
CPA-2003-01, Transportation 2025 Major Thoroughfares Maps into Horizon 2020.
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Ordinance No. 7719, amending Section 17-212 of the City Code concerning
truck routes and truck delivery routes, was read a second time. As part of
the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, to adopt
the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.
Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
Ordinance No. 7720, amending the schedule of truck delivery routes, was read
a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger,
seconded by Rundle, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack,
Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to adopt Resolution No. 6514, establishing January 13, 2004 as the
public hearing date for a special assessment benefit district for stormwater
improvements, drainage easement and conservation easement at Orchards Golf
Course. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to adopt Resolution No. 6516, declaring 2720 Ponderosa Drive
environmentally and structurally blighted and ordering the property owner to
remove said blight within 20 days. Failure of the property owner to comply
will result in the City removal of the violations. Motion carried
unanimously.
(12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation for
the installation of a "T-SYMBOL" warning sign on Ousdahl Road at 26th Street
and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried
unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation for
the installation of a "Stop Sign" on 4th Street at Perry Street and direct
staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
(14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation for
the installation of a "T-SYMBOL" warning sign on Crestline Drive at 24th
Street and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion
carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation to
establish "no parking" along the west side of Belle Haven Drive and
re-establish parking along the east side of Belle Haven Drive between 25th
Street and Belle Meade Place and direct staff to prepare the appropriate
ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
(16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation to
establish a "35 mph speed limit" on Michigan Street between 2nd Street and
Riverridge Road and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously. (17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation to
establish a "35 mph speed limit" on Monterey Way between 6th Street and 15th
Street and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion
carried unanimously. (18)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by
Rundle, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for
Catherine McNish, 1002 Home Circle. Motion carried unanimously.
(19)
The drinking establishment license for Paradise Café was pulled from the
consent agenda for separate discussion.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk, said several issues
were raised by Pat Sinclair, Lawrence, regarding the drinking establishment
license for Paradise Café Inc., D/B/A Paradise Café.
The first question was why the Paradise Café's license application appeared
on this evening's agenda. He said after reading the newspaper article last
week about Paradise Café, he looked up its drinking establishment license
information and noticed that it had expired on October 31, 2003. He said he
then contacted Schuyler Lister, Manager of Paradise Café, and asked him
about the license. Lister said he thought that Steve McCoy, the previous
manager (and current and previous sole owner of Paradise, Inc.), had taken
care of the license. Lister asked what was needed to be placed on the next
agenda so that their license was current. Based on the phone conversation
with Lister, it appeared that this would be a renewal license (i.e., the
same legal entity Paradise, Inc. would be applying for the new license).
Reeb said he explained that a $250 fee, a copy of the current State license,
and a completed application was needed. Within ten minutes of ending that
call, a Paradise employee delivered a copy of the State license and the $250
fee. He said he gave that employee a copy of the application and indicated
that license application would be placed on the December 16th agenda, but he
would need a completed application before the date of the Commission
meeting. Since the Paradise Café had a valid State license, he said he gave
the employee a temporary City license, which allowed the establishment to
sell alcoholic liquor until the City Commission took action on the annual
license. The temporary license was worth noting, unlike a City cereal malt
beverage application; there were no City inspections as part of the
licensing process.
He said what he did in that situation was consistent with what was done in
other situations. That was due to the fact that it could be up to one week
from when a request for a license was requested to when the City Commission
acted on it, it was not uncommon to place a license on the agenda even
though the City Clerk's Office might not have every required document at the
time the agenda was prepared. However, the actual license to the applicant
would not be issued until all necessary documents and fees were received.
A question was raised in the email about whether any previous lapse in
licensing would impact the Paradise Café's "grandfathering "out of the C-3
55% food sales requirement. It was important to remember that the food
sales requirement was a zoning requirement and not a licensing requirement.
There were at least two other times in the past when the Paradise Café's
City license lapsed: (1) about a two week period in late 1999 and (2) about
a five month period in late 2001-early 2002. Those license lapses were
licensing issues and because Paradise continued to remain open and
operating, none of the City license lapses affected the food sales
"grandfathering". In other words, neither the most recent lapse, nor the
previous license lapses would change the fact that the Paradise Café did not
have to meet the 55% food sales requirement.
He said as recently as last year, the City Clerk's Office would review
license expiration dates and send a renewal notice letter to licensees.
Because of the enlargement of some duties and the addition of others, over
time the City Clerk's Office stopped providing this courtesy reminder to
licensees. This Paradise Café license issue had caused us to review and
examine license practices to ensure that the City Clerk's Office had a
better awareness of when drinking establishment licenses lapse and whether
our office should start resending those reminder letters or start new
procedures.
Earlier this afternoon, Sinclair raised the issue about Paradise Inc., not
being in good standing with the Kansas Secretary of State's Office. Reeb
said he contacted the Secretary of State's office earlier in the day and it
was true that because Paradise Inc., had not filed its annual report, it
could not be issued a "Certificate of Good Standing." However, the
corporation had not forfeited its Articles of Incorporation. He understood
that the corporation had until January 15, 2004 to file its annual report
otherwise it would be in forfeiture status. He said he contacted Laura
Graham, Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Alcohol Beverage Control,
to ask what impact all of this would have on an applicant applying for a
license at the state level. Graham stated that she would check to confirm
and would call back if she was mistaken, but she understood that even though
a corporation might not be in good standing, so long as it was not in
forfeiture status, it could apply for and receive a State drinking
establishment license. As of 4:15 this afternoon, he said he had not heard
back from Graham.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the net affect of a lapsed drinking
establishment license was.
Reeb said technically, as far as the City Code, that establishment would be
operating without a City license. If the City Commission wanted to give
that establishment a notice for violating the City Code, they could. The
net affect was that drinking establishment did not have a City license to
sell alcohol for that period of time.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any net affect on that
establishment license application for renewal if that license was not timely
filed.
Reeb said the key for the City Clerk's Office was when they received notice
they first looked at was whether the State license was current during that
period of time.
Commissioner Schauner said the most important issue was if that
establishment maintained, consistently, a State license.
Reeb said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said with respect to the "grandfathering", the C-3,
55% food sales requirement came into effect after Paradise began operation.
Reeb said yes. He said Paradise had been operating since the mid-80's. The
food sales requirement became effective in April of 1994.
Commissioner Schauner said those businesses in operation prior to the C-3
requirement would not have been required to meet that 55% food sales and
could remain in business.
Reeb said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that establishment would lose that
opportunity, that "grandfathering" advantage, only if they ceased operation.
Reeb said for more than 6 months.
Commissioner Highberger said if a restaurant was in business before the 55%
food sale requirement went into effect and did not have a liquor license,
but applied for a license after that requirement, he asked, would it be
"grandfathered."
Reeb said the key was the use. He said so long as the use continued, he
thought they did not need to meet that food sales requirement.
Corliss said that was his interpretation as well, it was the use that
governed the zoning restriction. The City's licensing scheme was one of the
best ways to monitor that use. If an establishment was selling alcohol they
would need a State and City license.
Commissioner Schauner said a restaurant that would not have had a liquor
license prior to 1994 and that restaurant wanted to change the use to
include the sale of alcohol and that change of use occurred after 1994, he
asked what effect would that have on food sales requirement.
Corliss said in 1994 City staff defined the land use of a licensed premise
in the zoning code and that was not necessarily a set out use of the table
of uses. He said staff indicated that if an establishment was going to be a
licensed premises within the C-3 zoning district, the food sales requirement
needed to be met. He said existing license premises uses would have been
non-conforming uses and would not be required to meet the food sales
requirement.
Schuyler Lister, Manager, Paradise Café, said he was sorry that Paradise was
no longer serving food. The economic situation of this City and the economy
in general over the last year and a half had been a tremendous strain on
Paradise Café. He said he would not count the food out completely because
the kitchen was intact. He said they were presently in negotiations with
other people who wanted to save Paradise Café, not just the employees, but
also other people who were also interested.
He said they were currently running Paradise as a bar because it was its
greatest profit area. He said he thought under law this establishment
should be okay as a bar. He also thought that they did not fit under the
normal category as some of the other bars because they had a lot of
different types of music.
Pat Sinclair read a prepared statement and asked the Commission to
not approve the drinking establishment license for Paradise, Inc. or the
Paradise Café. She read the following:
"Their city license expired at the end of October, yet they continued in
business. They had reportedly declared their intention of operating solely
as a bar with entertainment, discontinuing the sale of food.
It was also reported that they claimed to be "grandfathered" and thus do not
need to comply with a 1994 ordinance. This ordinance stated that those with
drinking establishment licenses in the downtown area must earn at least 55
percent of their revenue from on-premises consumption of food.
It is my contention that the Paradise is NOT grandfathered and that, even if
it were, certain facts should prevent the granting of a license at this
time.
Grandfathering is another word for non-conforming use. This means that if
someone was already doing something at a location and the city passed an
ordinance prohibiting doing that activity there, they would be allowed to
continue their existing activity despite the ordinance. This would be a
non-conforming use, or a use that did not conform to the current ordinance
or zoning.
In fact, even businesses that are grandfathered can lose that protection in
many different ways.
Apparently, the Paradise feels that anyone who had a drinking establishment
license downtown at the time the ordinance was passed is grandfathered. I
believe that only those who were selling less food than was required by the
new ordinance are grandfathered. Their activity at the time did not conform
to the ordinance. But I believe that the Paradise, more a restaurant than a
bar at that time, DID conform to the ordinance's requirements in terms of
food sales. Therefore, it was NOT a non-conforming use. Therefore, it is
not grandfathered. And, therefore, it cannot change into a bar.
The Paradise's city drinking establishment license expired at the end of
October and yet they continued to operate, even eliminating food service.
This is not the first time their license has lapsed. For this alone, the
City Commission may revoke or suspend their license and charge them with a
misdemeanor.
Paradise, Inc., the corporation, is in delinquent status with the Kansas
Secretary of State. They failed to file a report (and presumably tax
returns) even with an extension. Their Kansas license was renewed just
before they reached this status and I was told that a license would not have
been granted to a corporation with a delinquent status.
The ownership structure and management of the Paradise seem to have changed
and are somewhat unclear. Any change needs to be reported to the state so
that they can investigate all persons involved for licensing.
There have also been a number of structural changes at the location which
may trigger a loss of grandfathered status per code, if such a status
existed. It's true that grandfathering can be lost by closing or letting
your license lapse for six months, but that is not the only method by which
it can be lost.
Clearly it was the intent of the ordinance passed almost ten years ago to
prevent the proliferation of bars in downtown Lawrence. How to protect
downtown was also the subject of much debate during the City Commission
election. This is your opportunity to honor the intent of the ordinance by
denying a drinking establishment license to a bar and by making it clear
that they must follow the practices outlined in Ordinance No. 6257, City
Code 20-1453."
She said she had no personal problem with the Paradise, but the fact
remained that if the Commission acknowledged this establishment as a
"grandfathered" entity and if failed and it sold to anybody, then there
would be a bar at this location forever. She encouraged the City Commission
to think of this in the long term.
Mayor Dunfield said when he first heard about this issue it seemed
inappropriate that an establishment could start a new business plan that did
not involve serving food in the C-3 district because that zoning ordinance
said that new establishments that were not serving food were not going to be
permitted. He said he had some initial sympathy for those arguments and he
was interested in an explanation on the legal side.
Commissioner Schauner asked Corliss if the Paradise was a conforming use in
1994 what impact would that have on their argument that they were
non-conforming and hence "grandfathered" and now when they wanted to abandon
food sales and be a bar.
Corliss said the City took a different interpretation of the Code
requirement. He said when that section of the code was enacted in April
1994, it was part of a lengthy, sometimes contentious discussion. The City
Commission, at that time, adopted that zoning code change. Staff did not do
what was necessary in order to act along those lines. He said staff told
everyone that they were grandfathered in and that they had a legal
non-conforming use status. He said staff did not audit any of the drinking
establishment's downtown to determine whether or not they met that new food
sales requirement. That would have been the requirement in order to
following that line of interpretation. He said the code would need to be
defined as to what period was being looked at retroactively a year and look
back over a year to see if the food sales requirement was met. He said that
was not done so therefore there was no real way to know in April 1994
whether or not the existing establishments met the food sales requirement.
He said this was not changing the existing establishment downtown, but
attempting to prohibit additional bars in the downtown area. He said the
only way to define bars was to look at the ratio of alcohol sales to food
sales. He said that was placed in the zoning code because it made sense and
because there was a tenuous nature for the ability of cities to license
drinking establishments. He said there was no statutory authority for a
city to license drinking establishments. It was the position of the Alcohol
Beverage Control and the Attorney General's Office that advises that cities
did not have the legal authority to license drinking establishments. The
City had exercised their home rule powers to license drinking establishments
primarily for two purposes. One purpose was the neighborhood nuisance issue
and the attempt to deal with problem drinking establishments when they were
being a problem to their neighbors and the second purpose was from a revenue
standpoint.
He said the City had not prosecuted establishments that had lapsed licenses.
He said his concern was that the City might lose a lot more than the City
could gain because of that tenuous nature. He said the City had home rule
authority and the City would find out in January of February the latest view
of cities and alcohol authority.
The interpretation of going back to 1994 to determine that non-conforming
use, the City was not allowed to do that at that time because of the way the
law was enacted. The way the City interpreted that was that all of the
drinking establishment license premises uses that was the foot print that
would be allow to continue and the City was not going to look at the food
sales issues in those footprints. Anything beyond that footprint within the
C-3 zoning district would need to meet the food sales requirement.
Mayor Dunfield summarized Corliss comments. He said because the City chose
not to ask existing establishments what their percentage of food sales were,
the City was not in any position now or in the future to say that a change
in the amount of food sales in those establishments represented a change in
their business plan.
Corliss said that was his opinion because they could argue that in March
1994 that they met the food sales requirement.
Commission Schauner said the logical extension was that any business
operating a legally non-conforming use on the physical footprint that
existed on or a day before the ordinance took affect, would be permitted in
perpetuity to operate a non-conforming use even if in the mean time they had
been conforming had there been a 55 percent food audit done on their
operational revenue.
Corliss said that was correct. He said one example was an establishment
called Dos Hombres in the 800 Block of New Hampshire. That establishment
closed late 1990's and one of the issues when there was a successful attempt
to get another drinking establishment license was whether or not they lost
their non-conforming use status. He said staff did not go back and audit
back to 1994. He said they told the property owner that they had 6 months
from when they discontinued that use in order to continue that use again or
they would lose their non-conforming use status and they met that deadline
in time.
Sinclair referenced the zoning code 20-1304(a), Cessation of a
non-conforming use which stated: "Whenever a non-conforming use has been
changed to a conforming use, such use shall not thereafter be changed to a
non-conforming use." The receipts on percentage of food sales that were
received with the application indicated in excess of 80 percent food sales
and now they wanted to switch to zero percent. She said that would seem
that an establishment could not go from a non-conforming to conforming and
then back to a non-conforming. She said she was frustrated because her
first question had been, "what was the grandfathering and where was that in
the code."
Mayor Dunfield said the argument that was heard was whether they had been
selling more food than was required under the 1994 zoning ordinance or not,
they were considered a non-conforming use.
Corliss said that was how staff had interpreted the ordinance.
Mayor Dunfield said he did not like this situation very much. He said there
might be some room for future discussion about whether they would want to
modify that food sales requirement. Based on the information he heard based
on the lapses in the licensing application were not sufficient cause to deny
that license. He said the zoning did not seem to give the Commission the
opportunity to do that either. He supported the granting of the license.
Commissioner Highberger said it was a disappointing situation and he wished
Lister good luck in finding a buyer. He said the last thing downtown needed
was another bar. He said if he had a legal way to stop Lister from doing
this, he would. He did not see a legal basis to deny the license.
Commission Schauner seconded Commissioner Highberger's comments. He said he
would like to see the City Commission have some additional conversation
about food sales requirements as related to the percentages. He also would
like conversation about whether or not the City Commission should review the
legal non-conforming translating into conforming and back to non-conforming
and whether that was a policy that the Commission would want to review. He
said what that did was it created a footprint use into perpetuity without
regard to whether the activity at that location changed its character from
time to time. He said under the current set of facts, the City Commission
did not have a good argument to cause Lister not to be granted his drinking
establishment license.
Hack concurred with what had been said. It was a difficult situation. She
said the City hated to see the demise of a place that many people frequented
and she hoped there could be a transition back to a restaurant/bar use.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve the drinking establishment
license for Paradise Café, 728 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
(20)
Vice Mayor Rundle pulled from the consent agenda, the 2002 Tax Abatement
Report for separate discussion. He said the tax abatement policy indicated
that this report would be reviewed by the Public Incentive Review Committee
(PIRC). He asked if the Mayor had scheduled a meeting.
Reeb said at the Public Incentive Review Committee's meeting in April they
reviewed the previous draft of the 2002 Tax Abatement Report. The primary
difference between the current draft and the draft that was approved by PIRC
in April was Table 3 that had all of the wage information. At the April PIRC
meeting the Mayor formed a subcommittee of Kirk McClure, Lynn Parman and
himself to come up with a more meaningful way to benchmark and that was the
report that was before the City Commission.
Commissioner Hack asked if the report was forwarded to everyone or just
PIRC.
Reeb said approximately two weeks ago, he forwarded a copy of a previous
draft to all members of the PIRC and his contacts with the tax abated
companies as well as the City Commission to ask for comments. He received
comments from Kirk McClure and Bob Scherer as well as a comment he made
about the Allen Press Tax Abatement.
Mayor Dunfield said he understood that this concluded the 2002 Tax
Abatement, PIRC process. He said they were working with a substantially
different format and reporting method this year and it had been quite a
struggle. He said Reeb has done a tremendous job trying to deal with the
new reporting requirements and the questions that PIRC has put to him. This
report was coming to the City Commission seven months late as a result of
the new reporting requirements. The positive side was now that they had
worked all through those issues, future reports should be done with a lot
less staff investment and also in a timely manner.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he understood that in the policy it stated that the
PIRC would perform an analysis of the report and make comments on compliance
and recommendations.
Mayor Dunfield said they did have those discussions in addition to talking
about the format of the report and the nature of the information provided.
He said at earlier meetings, they did review the compliance issue and noted
some problems. It might be that they were still lacking a component in
terms of conclusions that PIRC reached as a result of those discussions.
Commissioner Highberger said the report raised concerns for him. He said
the process needed to be clarified. He said he would like to see
identification of each business that was in non-compliance and their
explanation along with PIRC's recommendations.
Commissioner Hack asked Commissioner Highberger if he had the PIRC's minutes
because some of that information was within those minutes. She said for
future reference she suggested putting a copy those minutes with the report.
Vice Mayor Rundle said there were those PIRC minutes, but there seemed to be
gaps in information. He would like the PIRC to give an assessment of if
they were satisfied with those missing links in information. He said there
were number of firms that failed to report certain information.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to receive the 2002 Tax Abatement Report.
Motion carried unanimously.
(21)
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
During the City Manager's report, Mike Wildgen said this was the third
anniversary of the pubic transit system. He said Karin Rexroad, Public
Transit Administrator, would update the Commission concerning the "T".
Rexroad said the "T" currently carried 900 to 1,000 passengers per day. She
said in the same period, January through November of last year, compared to
this year, the "T" has seen a 14 percent growth in the fixed route system.
She said 86 percent of their "T" ridership occurred during the week.
Rexroad said the "T" sticker program that was implemented this year with the
K.U. on Wheels Bus Pass has also helped ridership. In October and November
there were over 2,000 individuals who had those stickers and were riding the
"T" System.
She said in the budget, they projected that they would reach 7 passengers
per hour, but their goals was 12 riders per hour. There were two routes
that were outstanding because of the density which was the K.U. route and
the route that went by Lawrence High School and South Junior High School.
She also mentioned that there was a 2 percent decrease in their "T" lift
ridership because they were able to switch individuals over from the
paratransit system (door to door service) to the fixed route system.
She said they have spent a lot of time trying to make the system more user
friendly by placing bus route signs every two blocks and building more bus
shelters.
She said they had an e-route system whereby individuals who use the bus
could be on an e-mail notification when there were route changes.
She said she provided the City Commission with information about what they
did as far as oversight of the contract when checking into the daily
operations of MV Transportation. There was also information about what they
needed to do to be in compliance with FTA and the State of Kansas.
She said one of the issues that the City Commission was interested in was
preventive maintenance. She said they were still exceeding the national
average. In 2002 they had 13,733 miles between major road calls and in 2003
they had 18,050 miles between road calls.
In 2004 they would be performing a major route review and they would
probably bring major changes on routes to better meet the needs of the
citizens. She said the committee would be looking at different ways to
enhance better ridership. Also, in 2004 they would be receiving 5 new
paratransit vehicles which would be purchased with 100 percent of State
funds. A Marketing Coordinator was hired to implement the Communications
Plan and travel training to get riders to ride the system.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he had citizens ask how they would initiate any
changes in service. He said those citizens wanted to request longer hours
of service during the week because they worked past 10:00 p.m.
Rexroad said citizens could email her concerning any changes. They could
also phone the office or send a letter to the City Public Transit
Department.
Commissioner Highberger asked about the 2004 Plan concerning increasing
annual ridership by 3 percent. He said given that Rexroad's department was
hiring a full-time marketing person it seemed like a fairly modest goal.
Rexroad said that didn't get changed after she received permission to hire
that position. She said hoped they could do better on that and it was an
oversight on her part.
Commissioner Schauner said the ridership numbers were impressive, especially
October and November of 2003. He asked to what extent the Commission could
attribute that growth in ridership to the sticker sales to K.U. students.
Rexroad said she did not know percentage wise.
Commissioner Schauner asked if they had seen a comparable revenue increase
which would match the ridership increased numbers.
Rexroad said their revenue was somewhat misleading in that they had people
who had purchased bulk passes. Their revenue was approximately $3,000 to
$4,000 more than it was last year because it depended on when some of their
big agencies purchase their passes. She said they sold the K.U. stickers
for a tremendous discount.
Commissioner Schauner said the ridership from September to October was up
about 500 people which would represent about a 24 percent increase in
ridership. He said he took it that there was not a related 24 percent
increase in revenue for that same period of time.
Rexroad said ridership could be somebody who had a monthly pass. She said
she had not compared it that closely.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was some thought to offering "T"
sticker to public school students.
Rexroad said that item was on the agenda for discussion on Thursday to see
what direction the board would like to take that issue.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if Rexroad had any way of assessing the ridership
that could be gained for ridership of those late night employees.
Rexroad said they were in the process of developing an employer's survey to
gain information about employee shifts.
(22)
REGULAR AGENDA
Conduct a public hearing on the advisability of the construction of the
following improvements:
a. Monterey Way from Peterson north to Grand Vista Drive.
b. Peterson Road from Kasold Drive to approximately 900 feet west of
Monterey Way.
c. Intersection of Peterson Road and Kasold Drive.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said
the first public hearing was for Monterey Way from Peterson north of Grand
Vista Drive. He said Monterey Way was a collector street and would be
constructed with two lanes, bike lanes on both sides, 5 foot sidewalks on
both sides, and a water main. The benefit district would be apportioned
based on front footage basis and then spread across the remainder of the
benefit district on a square footage basis. The benefit district was paying
for 100 percent of the improvement.
The second public hearing concerned Peterson Road from Kasold Drive to
approximately 900 feet west of Monterey Way. He said Peterson road was a
principle arterial that was 40 foot wide and would have three lanes. He
said a recreational path would be placed on the north side, a 6 foot
sidewalk on the south side, and the installation of a water main. The City
would participle in this project with the extra width for the turning lane
which was 22.5 percent of the pavement width and cross road pipes. The
estimated City share was approximately $324,000 and the benefit district
would pay all remaining costs.
The final benefit district was the intersection of Peterson and Kasold. He
said there were three parcels in that benefit district. The apportioned
cost were split between the City and the benefit district based on traffic
volumes in which the City-at-large would pay 59.53 percent and the benefit
district would pay 40.47 percent and it would be spread on a square footage
basis. The City's share was estimated at $178,500.
He said they were looking at a traffic signal at this time. He said
originally staff had suggested a roundabout and/or traffic signal. In
discussing this issue with the benefit district property owners and taking a
look at both Kasold and Peterson as arterial streets, staff thought it was
best to install traffic signals which reduced the cost substantially.
Mark Andersen spoke on behalf of several property owners and spoke in
support of the resolutions. He said on Monterey Way north connecting up to
Grand Vista there were to affected property owners which he was
representing. He said one of the benefits was that only two property owners
were affected by the assessments. Clearly, extending Monterey Way north of
Peterson up to Grand Vista was going to provide a very favorable alternative
route to the present homeowners in Stonegate who currently had to go east to
Kasold to get out of their subdivision. He said this was going to allow
them an alternative route to go south and west.
Peterson Road benefit improvement district affected eight private parcels of
land in terms of assessments. He said he was there on behalf of seven of
the eight property owners. The only one he was not speaking on behalf of
was Parcel 4, Springhill Property. For those seven property owners that
were affected by those assessments, those property owners approve and
support the resolution and would like the City Commission vote in favor of
that benefit district.
He said on the third and final benefit improvement district that was being
proposed which was the improvements of Kasold and Peterson, there were three
private property owners affected. All three property owners were in favor
of seeing that resolution approved in its current form.
Jay Burchfield, representing Parcel No. 4 for Peterson Road special
assessment benefit district, supported the current resolution that was
proposed.
Vice Mayor Rundle said concerning that major primary arterial, he asked if
three lanes were normal. He asked if that would serve the developed area.
Soules said that was the ultimate configuration for Peterson Road.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to close the public hearing. Motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schauner said there was significant uphill road west of the
proposed development on Peterson. He said Peterson went up, down and around
the hill and hooked up with Folks Road. He asked if that road would be
improved or if a benefit district would be created. He said if that became
a new and shorter way to get to the high school or West Lawrence, that road
from the western end of that proposed improvement was not a very good road.
He said it would not be long before there would be a request to do something
with the area west.
Corliss said those improvements on Folks Road had shown up on the Capital
Improvement Plan, but those improvements had not been funded. He said when
talking about spending some of the State money that the City received for
collector street improvements, staff considered improvement on Folks Road,
but again, it was beat out by other priorities.
He said what staff was waiting for was additional funding opportunities or
for that property to have additional development requests and then they
would be able to talk about annexing that property into the City and how it
would conform to the Commission's plans in that area.
He said the City Commission had approved the major thoroughfares map which
discussed how Peterson Road would continue to the north and where the
project was ending, than it would go northwest. It would also proceed west,
but it was not designed to be the primary arterial.
He said staff was aware of those issues, but because of funding constraints
and the property not located in the City along with a lack of active
development request in that area, staff's practice had been to wait for
those opportunities in order to build those roads.
Commissioner Schauner said he was concerned about what the Commission was
about to do, would be appropriate with respect to the next piece of capital
improvement in that area. He said he assumed the City was building a road
that would fit nicely into the Major Thoroughfares Plan.
Soules said correct.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to draft the appropriate
resolutions, directing and ordering the improvements. Motion carried
unanimously. (23)
Consider request from Marisa Clogston, 709 1/2 West 12th Street, to install
a "stop sign" at the intersection of 12th Street and Indiana Street.
Chuck Soules presented the staff report. He said the request came from
Marissa Clogston and was presented to the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC).
The TSC recommended to the City Commission that a stop sign be placed
traveling eastbound on 12th Street at Indiana. He said there was a basic
problem of poor sight distance.
He said because there was a 6-2 vote from the TSC, for a "stop sign" at the
intersection of 12th that was why it was placed on the agenda for City
Commission discussion.
Commissioner Highberger asked if there were traffic counts for that area.
Soules said staff did not have any current traffic counts.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Clogston stated that when she emailed the TSC she recommended a stop sign,
but also mentioned a crosswalk because it was a busy intersection. She said
the proposed stop sign would not be that effective because the people
pulling out of the cul-de-sac tend to wait. She said there were a lot of
blind spots when crossing the corner from Yello Sub coming down 12th to the
cul-de-sac because of the parking lots. She said she was not sure a stop
sign would be the best solution at that location.
Commissioner Highberger asked Clogston if her major concern was pedestrian
traffic crossing the street. He asked if the concern was cars coming from
the cul-de-sac
Clogston said it was normally not cars coming from the cul-de-sac. She said
it was those cars coming from 12th Street to turn down Indiana and there
were blind spots at the parking lot of the Yello Sub. She said because of
the corner and the angle when traffic was turning from Indiana to go down
12th or to go to campus, a lot of times the traffic would veer over into the
on-coming traffic lane. She said she was looking at this issue at a
pedestrian standpoint because she walked to work.
Commissioner Schauner asked if "no parking" some distance back from the
corner provide a better remedy for those concerns about pedestrian safety.
Clogston said yes, but she wondered if a pedestrian sign or a crosswalk
might be appropriate. People should be conscientious enough to slow down
and look for pedestrians. She suggested a pedestrian sign.
Commissioner Hack said the type of pork chop thing that was done at
Crestline because it was an odd intersection and she asked if they could do
that type of "thing" at that the intersection of 12th and Indiana.
Soules said the request came to them for a "stop sign" and staff did not
look at other alternatives. He said they looked at the mirror issue, but
that was a vandalism and maintenance issue. He suggested that Clogston and
David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, get together and discuss those specific
issues so they could be addressed.
Carol Von Tersch, resident in that area for 25 years, said she had watched
the traffic move through that intersection for a long time. About 10 to 15
years ago, the City Commission approved a request for the crossing to allow
drinking beer on the porch. She said they built their deck out over the
sidewalk and now there was not pedestrian access across that sidewalk in
front of the bar. The cars that parked in front of the bar force the
pedestrian traffic into the street. She said that was an intersection that
had a great deal of pedestrian traffic and she had a concern that someone
was going to be injured at that location.
She said coming up on 12th Street where the proposed stop sign would be
located, no one that came up that hill would dare pull into that
intersection without stopping because it was a blind spot. She said putting
a stop sign at that location, the only thing that would be accomplish might
be to mitigate the City's liability if was an injury at that location.
She asked the City Commission to send this back to the Traffic Safety
Commission to take another look at other options. She said stopping the
southbound traffic on Indiana, to slow them down before they came into the
intersection, would be a good solution.
Commissioner Highberger said that would be a good solution, except for
traffic coming west on 12th Street.
Tersch said the problem was the speed of the traffic coming through the
intersection.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to send this issue concerning
traffic at 12th and Indiana back to the Traffic Safety Commission to look at
a more comprehensive view of that intersection. Motion carried unanimously.
(24)
Mayor Dunfield commented that a stop sign and crosswalk was mentioned as
solutions. He said one solution could be the change the physical nature of
the pavement through that intersection as a way of alerting people.
Conduct a public hearing on final special assessments for the Overland Drive
(Wakarusa Drive to Queens Road) benefit district.
Dave Corliss presented the staff report. He said the notice of hearing was
published and provided to the property owners of record for the improvement
of Overland Drive, between Wakarusa and Queens Road. Also, the Commission
had a copy of the benefit district map and the proposed final assessments
that spread those costs of those improvements pursuant to the resolution
establishing the benefit district. Pursuant to State law was the public
hearing on those proposed final special assessment and staff had provided
notices. The City Commission's direction was to conduct a public hearing
and if appropriate, adopt on first reading the ordinance, setting out final
special assessments.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Bill Newsome, speaking on behalf of 6wak and one of the property owners at
the northwest corner of 6th and Wakarusa, said in October of 2001, they
received City Commission approval for the preliminary development plan for
their land. As a condition of that approval of that development plan, they
signed an agreement not-to-protest a benefit district for Congressional and
Overland Drive. Those benefit district resolutions were passed in 2002, the
roads were built in 2003, and in December or 2003, the assessments for
Overland Drive were before the City Commission.
He said everything about that benefit district process had gone according to
plan except for one exception which was that the Commission failed to honor
their development plan. He said that was done by refusing to issue the
building permit that they were legally entitled to as well as refusing to
issue the building permit that Wal-mart was legally entitled to.
As contingency plans, the Commission had passed a building permit moratorium
and instructed that their property be rezoned. He said he could not stress
enough that they were more than willing to pay those assessments, but they
were only willing to do so if their development plan was honored.
He talked about Overland Drive and why it was built. He said Overland
Drive, like Congressional Drive, was a collector street. By definition,
collector streets take traffic from the areas and the land tracks that front
them. He said Overland Drive like Congressional would not just serve their
development, it would serve other land tracks and other residences of
Lawrence.
He said 6wak Land Investments was paying for 100 percent of the assessed
cost of Congressional Drive and they were the largest assessed participant
in the Overland Drive benefit district. No one could legitimately say that
those streets would be in place today if it were not for their development
plan. Their development plan was the sole reason that there was asphalt and
curb and gutter on Congressional, north of 6th Street and on Overland Drive
west of Wakarusa.
Newsome said they relied entirely on the development plan that the City
Commission had passed and with it the obligation to pay for those roads. He
said they relied on it when they purchased the property and since then to
spend the money they spent to develop that property.
He said the City was trying to rezone their property. Their agreement
not-to-protest Overland and Congressional was predicated on that approved
development plan. It was not a one-way street where their side of the
agreement remained in place and the City Commission decided that for the
City's side of the agreement that it could change the development plan to
whatever suits its needs. Any change in their development plan, whether it
was via refusal to be issued a building permit or rezoning was a change in
that agreement that was in place.
He said two years ago in October 2001, if that City Commission had said that
it would not issue a building permit on the approved plan or if they said
they wanted a different plan, they would not have bought the land or agreed
to the benefit districts and those streets would not be in place today. He
said that City Commission did not say that they would not issue the building
permits and they did not try to impose another plan, instead they approved
their plan. With that approval they agreed to pay for those roads.
He said on October 28, 2003, he stood before the current City Commission and
told them if they imposed the Congressional assessment on them, without
honoring their development plan, they would go to courts to seek stoppage of
those assessments which was done. He said they filed suit in district court
on Friday.
The facts for that Overland Drive assessment were identical. If the City
Commission imposed that assessment on them they would again go to the courts
to seek stoppage of the assessment until such time as their development plan
was honored. He said the City Commission continued to take actions to
deprive them of their property rights and in doing so the taxpayers were
paying legal bills and were exposed to other substantial costs. Again, he
said they were more than willing to pay those assessments. All they were
asking of the City was to uphold its end of the agreement and honor what was
legally obligated to them.
In summary, they did not want to be in that messy and costly litigation with
the City. He said all the City had to do was to honor their development
plan and all of that would end immediately.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading,
Ordinance No. 7729, for the improvements of Overland Drive from Wakarusa to
Queens Road. Motion carried unanimously.
(25)
Mayor Dunfield noted that silence on the part of the Commissioners was not
to be taken as indicating concurrence with statements that had been made by
others.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Commissioner Hack said she had received a comment about signage at the
airport. She said with all of the renovations, she thought it might be nice
for better signage.
She also said she would also like to see the Commission take a look at the
downtown drinking establishments. She said Lawrence had a great reputation
as a music venue and the owners were working very hard with their staff to
improve any concerns that had been raised before.
Commissioner Schauner said to the extent that the Commission had some tools
with which to restrict expansion of drinking establishment's downtown, he
would like to know what tools were available.
Reeb reminded the Commission that earlier this year, they had conditioned
BrewHawk's Drinking Establishment License on a review of its three month
liquor excise tax returns. He said at that time, Commissioner Rundle had
asked for an update on what the City of Pittsburg was doing in terms of
their food sales requirement. He said at the 2nd or 3rd City Commission
meeting in January 2004, staff would have some information for the
Commission and add some additional information on the request from
Commissioner Hack.
Corliss asked if the concern was the number of drinking establishments in
general, including restaurants, or was it the expansion of bars. He said he
understood the concern was establishments that have a predominate sale of
alcohol.
Commissioner Schauner said yes it was both of those issues. He said bars
were certainly an issue. He said the proliferation of restaurants in and of
themselves tended to change the character of downtown away from its more
retail oriented roots. He said restaurants were great, but there needed to
be a mix of activities downtown.
(24)
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. Motion
carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2003
1. Certification of Real Property Acquisition Procedures & R-O-W
Clearance, O'Connell, 23rd to 31st.
2. Bids - 21st, Kentucky to Barker Stormwater improvements.
3. Insurance - 2004 coverage with Employers Reinsurance Corp for
$36,612.
4. Bids - Comprehensive housing rehab project to low bidders.
5. Acquisition of various property interest - Alcott, LC for $19,000
for 19th & Barker.
6. Bid date - Dec 23, 2003 for Concrete Repair Program (Phase 2).
7. Bid date - Dec 23, 2003 for installation of wood fence & property
gates, Habitat Neighborhood Add No. 4
8. Ordinance No. 7730 - 1st Reading, CPA-2003-01, Transportation 2025
Major Thoroughfares Maps into Horizon 2020.
9. Ordinance No. 7719 - 1st Reading, Amend 17-212, truck routes &
delivery routes.
10. Ordinance No. 7720 - 1st Reading, Amend schedule of truck delivery
routes.
11. Resolution No. 6514 - Public Hearing on Jan 13, 2004 for Orchards
Golf Course Benefit District.
12. Resolution No. 6516 - Blight at 2720 Ponderosa.
13. TSC - "T-SYMBOL" on Ousdahl at 26th.
14. TSC - "Stop Sign" on 4th at Perry St.
15. TSC - "T-SYMBOL on Crestline at 24th.
16. TSC - "No Parking" W side of Belle Haven & re-establish parking
along E side of Belle Haven between 25th & Belle Meade Pl.
17. TSC - "35 mph speed limit" Mich between 2nd & Riverridge.
18. TSC - "35 mph speed limit" Monterey Way between 6th & 15th.
19. 2002 Tax Abatement Report.
20. Subordination Agreement - Catherine McNish, 1002 Home Circle.
21. City Manager's Report.
22. Public Hearing - Monterey Way from Peterson to Grand Vista
Dr./Peterson from Kasold to 900' W of Monterey Way/Intersection of Peterson
& Kasold.
23. Stop Sign - Installation at 12th & Indiana discussion.
24. Public Hearing Benefit District - Overland Dr. (Wakarusa to Queens
Rd.).
_____________________________
Lisa K. Patterson
Communications Coordinator
City of Lawrence
PO Box 708
Lawrence, KS 66044
(785) 832-3406
fax (785) 832-3405
lpatterson at ci.lawrence.ks.us
http://www.lawrenceks.org
More information about the E-minutes
mailing list