[E-minutes] January 27, 2004 City Commission meeting minutes
Lisa Patterson
lpatterson at ci.lawrence.ks.us
Thu Jan 29 16:08:39 CST 2004
January 27, 2004
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. Lawrence High School representative Jacob Gage was present.
Mayor Dunfield recognized the recipients of the Mayor's in Excellence
in Education award winners. Those recipients were: Avian Bear, Free State
High School, band; Gerry Bukaty, Sunflower Elementary School, 3rd Grade; and
Linda Reimond, Lawrence Arts Center, pre-school.
Mayor Dunfield recognized Friends of the Park for 2003. They were:
Ashley & Whitley Jackson and Shaun Trenholm - donation of $200 to Mutt Run,
the off-leash dog park;
Wayne Mercer - donation of free weights to East Lawrence Recreation Center;
Soroptimist Club - donation of $250 for flower beds at South Park;
Play-It-Again Sports - donation of $500 in support of the Youth Sports
Division's "Enjoy the Game" program;
Breakfast Optimist - donation of $500 in support of the Youth Sports
Division and $350 in support of the
Special Events Division's Halloween Paint-In;
30 members of the Junior Class at Free State High School - donation of
time assisting with re-mulching
landscape and cleaning of flower beds at South Park and Holcom Park;
Joyce Lutz - donation of $200 for the Memorial Tree Program at Oakhill
Cemetery;
Jalayne McFarlane - donation of $475 for the Memorial Tree Program to plant
three trees near garden at
the Union Pacific Depot;
Wheatfields Bakery Staff - donation of $225 for the Memorial Tree Program to
plant a Ginko in South
Park;
James and Raina Volkmer - donation of $225 for the Memorial Tree Program to
plant a tree in Buford M.
Watson, Jr. Park;
Grant Milller - donation of time volunteering at the Indoor Aquatic Center,
cleaning 2 hours each weekday
during the past two semesters and over the summer;
Landplan Engineering/Lawrence Homebuilders Association - donation of $1000
for Youth Scholarship
Fund;
Mandana Ershadi-Hurt and Scout Troop - donation of time planting flowers and
bulbs at Holcom Park;
Royal Crest Lanes - co-sponsors of the Special Events Division's New Year's
Cosmic Bowling Overnighter, providing use of video games and putt golf for
the children's program;
Brubaker Amusement - donation of $1000 in tokens, as well as opened business
for the Special Events Division's New Year's Cosmic Bowling Overnighter;
Lunker's Bait, Tackle and Hunting Supplies - donation of $380 in prizes for
the Special Events Division's Fishing Derby;
Kansas Wildscape Foundation - donation of prizes and lunch for the Special
Events Division's Fishing Derby;
Walmart - donation of prizes for Special Events Division's Fishing Derby;
Hy-Vee of Lawrence - donation of chili and cinnamon rolls for department
chili feed in support of the Youth Scholarship Fund and co-sponsorship of
Special Events Division's Egg Hunt;
Coca-Cola - donation of Powerade for Special Events Division's Dam Run;
Kansas State Extension Center - donation of nutrition program for Special
Events Division's Summer Playground program;
Checkers - donation of soda and supplying turkeys at cost for the Special
Events Division's Turkey Trot;
Crown Casting Club - Donation of fishing equipment, bait, prizes, as well as
assistance for both fishing derbys of the Special Events Division;
Safe Kids Coalition - donation of helmets, $500 for prizes and assisting
with the Special Events Division's Skateboard Event;
Let It Ride - donation of prizes, supplies and staff for the Special Events
Division's Skateboard Event;
Jayhawk Trophy - donation of medals for the Special Events Division's Mass.
Street Mile;
Francis Sporting Goods - donation of gift certificates, supplies and
co-sponoring the Special Events Division's Mass. Street Mile
Jock's Nitch Sporting Goods - donation of gift certificates for the Special
Events Division's Turkey Trot;
Douglas County Fair Grounds - donation of Building #21 for the Douglas
County Science Fair;
Kansas Key Press - donation of paper and printing of tickets for the
department's chili feed in support of the Youth Scholarship Fund
Lorna Browning - donation of time assisting with Special Events Division's
Mass. Street Mile, Fall Arts & Crafts Festival and Dam Run;
Quick's BBQ - donation of chili for department's chili feed in support of
the Youth Scholarship Fund;
Set 'Em Up Jacks - donation of chili for department's chili feed in support
of the Youth Scholarship Fund;
Kasper's - donation of chili for department's chili feed in support of the
Youth Scholarship Fund;
Joe's Bakery - donation of donuts for department's chili feed in support of
the Youth Scholarship Fund;
Muncher's - donation of rolls for department's chili feed in support of the
Youth Scholarship Fund;
Paradise Café - donation of rolls for department's chili feed in support of
the Youth Scholarship Fund;
Jefferson's - donation of gift certificate for silent auction at
department's chili feed in support of the Youth Scholarship Fund;
Buffalo Wild Wings - donation of gift certificate for silent auction at
department's chili feed in support of the Youth Scholarship Fund;
Salty Iguana - donation of gift certificate for silent auction at
department's chili feed in support of the Youth Scholarship Fund;
Culver's - donation of chili for department's chili feed in support of the
Youth Scholarship Fund;
Wendy's - donation of chili for department's chili feed in support of the
Youth Scholarship Fund;
Target - donation of rolls for department's chili feed in support of the
Youth Scholarship Fund and toys for Recreation Division's Toddler Open Gym
Perkins - donation of rolls for department's chili feed in support of the
Youth Scholarship Fund;
Great Harvest Bread Company - donation of rolls for department's chili feed
in support of the Youth Scholarship Fund; bread for the Recreation
Division's Daddy/Daughter Date Night and Rolls for Breakfast with the
Experts;
Applebee's - donation of gift certificate for silent auction at department's
chili feed in support of the Youth Scholarship Fund;
IHOP - donation of gift certificate for silent auction at department's chili
feed in support of the Youth Scholarship Fund;
Carlos O'Kelly's - donation of gift certificate for silent auction at
department's chili feed in support of the Youth Scholarship Fund;
Packerware - donation of plates, cups and bowls for department's chili feed
in support of the Youth Scholarship Fund and the Recreation Division's
Daddy/Daughter Date Night;
The Sports Section - reducing rates of photos for the Recreation Division's
Daddy/Daughter Date Night;
Englewood Florist - donation of decorations and flowers for Recreation
Division's Daddy/Daughter Date Night
Bambino's - donation of food for Recreation Division's Daddy/Daughter Date
Night;
Paisano's - donation of food for Recreation Division's Daddy/Daughter Date
Night;
Complete Music - reduced rate for music at Recreation Division's
Daddy/Daughter Date Night;
Sunflower Rental - donation of tablecloths for Recreation Division's
Daddy/Daughter Date Night and wine glasses for the Recreation Division's
Wine and Cheese Tasting Class;
Johnson Janitorial Supply - donation of coffee cups, creamer, sugar, salt &
pepper, spoons, knives, stirring sticks for the Recreation Division's
Daddy/Daughter Date Night;
Lawrence Aquahawks - donation of lap-lane lines for the Indoor Aquatic
Center; and,
First Christian Church - donation of facility to hold the department's chili
feed in support of the Youth Scholarship Fund.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of January 20,
2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the Lawrence Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting
minutes of December 10, 2003; the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes
of January 12, 2004; and the Practitioners Panel meeting minutes of October
2, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve claims to 280 vendors in the amount of $1,923,531.68
and payroll from January 11, 2004 to January 24, 2004, in the amount of
$1,387,088.02. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Pachamamas,
2161 Quail Creek Drive; and Stu's Midtown Tavern, 925 Iowa Street. Motion
carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the purchase from Olathe Ford for ten patrol cars off
the MACPP cooperative bid in the amount of $20,307 each totaling $203,070.
Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the purchase of four used Highway Patrol cars from
the State of Kansas in the amount of $13,300 for three and $13,150 for one
totaling $53,050. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the purchase from Olathe Ford for one half ton 4x4
extended cab pickup off the MACPP cooperative bid in the amount of $19,214.
Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the contract for graphic design services for the
Lawrence Transit System to Stillhouse Productions in the amount of $15,480.
Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with
Professional Engineering Consultants for $39,018 for design of the Trail
Road Relief Sewer Project. Funding for this item will come from the Utility
Department Capitol Improvement fund. Motion carried unanimously.
(5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7737, rezoning
(Z-10-34-03A) portions of Lots 7-11 & 20-22, Block 1, Stonegate Subdivision
from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) to RMD (Duplex-Residential
District) and (Z-10-34-03B) portions of Lots 35-44, Block 1, Stonegate
Subdivision from RMD (Duplex Residential District) to RS-2 (Single-Family
Residential District). Motion carried unanimously.
(6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7741 rezoning
(Z-10-35-03) approximately 1.05 acres from PCD-2 (Planned Commercial
Development District) with restrictions to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial
Development District) with revised restrictions to include Contractor or
Construction Office/Shop in Phase "O" property at the intersection of West
6th Street and Comet Lane. Motion carried unanimously.
(7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7596, adopting the
codification of ordinances of the City of Lawrence, Kansas. Motion carried
unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7743, establishing
certain requirements for the placement of public sanitary sewer mains and
private sanitary sewer lines. Motion carried unanimously.
(9)
Ordinance No. 7739, annexing approximately 1.033 acres of City owned
property for the Riverside Pump Station generally located North of North
Minnesota Street (Miller/Wells Acres), was read a second time. As part of
the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, 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 Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the site plan (SP-01-05-04) for a re-approval of
(SP-03-20-02), the Morgan Property, located at 1100 East 24th Street,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement; and
2. Submission and approval of a photometric plan.
Motion carried unanimously.
(11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation to
deny the request to prohibit parking along the south side of 25th Street
between Cedarwood Avenue and Ridge Court and direct staff to prepare the
appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation to
establish "35 mph speed limit" on Riverridge Road between Iowa and Michigan
Streets. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to approve the consultant selection and negotiation of an
engineering services contract with Peridian Group for Folks Road from 6th
Street and Mulberry. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Rundle, seconded by
Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for David
and Joyce Higgins, 517 North Street. Motion carried unanimously.
(15)
Mayor Dunfield pulled from the consent agenda Ordinance 7742
concerning a text amendment to Section 20-1808, Limitation on Successive
Petitions, for separate discussion.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said that ordinance was drafted as a
result of a flawed part of that section of the code. The language was such
as it was a distinction between what was substantial and what was not to
bring a petition back. She said a public hearing was held and the City
Commission approved that amendment.
Mayor Dunfield said because the City Commission received
correspondence concerning that language, he suggested that it would be
appropriate for the Commission to give the public time to take another look
at that language for public comment.
It was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to defer consideration of
Ordinance No. 7742 for three weeks. Motion carried unanimously.
(16)
Mayor Dunfield pulled from the consent agenda for separate
discussion, the draft letter that was written specifying the conditions to a
waiver of the distance restriction at 1001 Massachusetts (Masonic Temple
Building).
Frank Reeb, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk, said he had
written that draft letter. He said three weeks ago the City Commission
applied two conditions as a result of waving the 400 foot restriction for
the Masonic Temple Building. One restriction was with respect to ownership
and the other restriction was to clarify the business plan. He said he
drafted a letter to what he understood set out those conditions. As a
result, there had been some comment from the public as to the ownership
condition and whether or not the draft letter set out the City Commission's
intentions as was stated in the January 6, 2004, City Commission meeting.
He said he understood that the Commission's focus, at that time, was more on
the legal entity and not so much on the three individuals that would be
principles of that legal entity whether a partnership or corporation and
that was the way the letter was set out.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Patricia Sinclair, Lawrence, said she had a number of concerns about
that issue. She said she had been reviewing the State's drinking
establishment licensing rules and regulations. She said there was a
difference in a corporations license than, for example, a limited liability
corporation.
She said she was at the meeting when the Commission discussed the
waivers, but she was not sure of what had been officially voted on. She
said looking back at the minutes it seemed there was concern from some of
the Commission as to how long that waiver would continue. In those same
minutes, the remarks from David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal
Services Director, indicated that it would be with those three separate
individuals. She said if a corporation was granted a State liquor license
and a City drinking establishment license along with a waiver, that
corporation could then have other investors in the corporation, sell the
entire corporation, or rename their corporation. Basically, this was a
bigger deal granting that waiver for the Masonic Temple than it might have
seemed when it was discussed at that City Commission meeting. She said the
wavier could continue indefinitely.
She said another concern was when an individual came and asked
something from the Commission and then that person incorporated. She did
not actually believe that waiver was granted to a corporation who was not
the body that made the request, a corporation which did not even exist at
that time.
She said she looked at the so called business plan that was submitted
and it was extremely short and was not signed. She said she had a concern
about the way of doing business in the City where they switch off the
entities that were making application. She said there was reference in that
draft letter written by Reeb, that one of those individuals had actually
applied for a City drinking establishment license on January 12, 2004, but
according to the Kansas Secretary of State, those individuals filed their
articles of incorporation January 13, 2004. She said it was inappropriate
to apply for a City drinking establishment license as an entity other than
that individual who wanted to receive the license.
She said the State required that when applying for a drinking
establishment license the person must be the owner of the property or had a
lease that covered at least 3/4 of the year. She went on to list other State
licensing requirements which was part of City Code.
She said as a corporation, they would not be liable to honor that
business plan that was submitted prior to their incorporation nor did she
think that the City was responsible for following through on any waiver that
was granted before they incorporated.
An issue that was not noted at the public hearing was that there was
no signal at the intersection of 10th and Vermont which made it a more
dangerous intersection. The public parking lots in that area served the
Farmers Market and its customers and that would be another problem.
She said she researched existing bar owners and the people who were
involved in those bars. She said she did not know Brad Ziegler, one of the
applicants requesting the waiver, but she saw his name in connection with a
lot of existing bars in that location. She said Ziegler was one of the
three Directors of Temple Partners Inc., who formed a limited liability
corporation to purchase the building and would lease it to the corporation.
She said Ziegler also owned the building at 1016 Massachusetts (Fatso's) and
once operated a bar at that location. The owner of Fatso's was Brothers of
Lawrence Inc., and they also owned Its Brothers at 1105 Massachusetts. All
the Directors of that corporation were listed being from La Crosse,
Wisconsin. Sinclair said Ziegler was also the President of Louise's Inc.,
who owned two downtown bars, one at 1009 Massachusetts (Louise's) and
another 801 New Hampshire (8th Street Tap Room). Sinclair said two of those
bars, Fatso's and Its Brothers, were on the Police Chief's, top five list of
receiving the most calls.
She said she wanted to add that information so that the Commission
might consider the advisability of such a long term commitment and waiver.
She said if the City granted waivers for three establishments near churches
then it shouldn't exist for any church in Lawrence. She said she did not
know how one could make the argument that this was not against the public
health and welfare.
Schauner asked Corliss about transfers of ownership once the waiver
was granted if the shareholders of Temple Partners Inc., changed as what was
in that conditional waiver letter.
Corliss said staff recommended that the waiver would go with the
entity that was understood to be the likely applicant for a drinking
establishment license. He said it did not make sense to give the waiver to
one individual or entity and then they were not going to be the actual
license holder. He said that was more for staff's ease of tracking.
He said Sinclair's comments were factually valid about the changing
nature of the individuals becoming a corporate entity. He said staff
understood that corporate entity would request a drinking establishment
license and if that entity met the statutory requirements and City code
requirements, it would be placed on the City Commission agenda for
consideration. He said that was why staff was recommending that it go with
Temple Partners Inc. He said Sinclair was also correct as far as the
ability to transfer ownership of a corporation or have different
shareholders in the entity. He said staff did not understand the
Commission's direction to limit it to those three individuals. If the
Commission desired to limit it to those three individuals, the Commission
could make the waiver conditioned upon those individuals owning the business
that would have a right to the license. He said that process was done with
Rick's Place. The City Commission made that waiver conditioned upon the
owner of Rick's Place ownership and operation of that establishment.
Commissioner Highberger said he was not clear that the license was
going to be granted to a corporation. He said making the waiver contingent
on ownership by the corporation was fairly meaningless because the entity
could be changed or sold. He said he would like to condition the waiver on
the three current shareholders involvement in that business. If any of
those shareholders departed then the waiver would be subject to review by
the City Commission.
Commissioner Hack asked Commissioner Highberger if he would be
interested in looking at only one of the three shareholders retaining
ownership because it would be placing an unusual restriction on that entity.
Commissioner Highberger said yes.
Mayor Dunfield asked if a formula such as, "a majority ownership by
one or all three of the current shareholders" would be appropriate.
Brad Ziegler said he was not sure that limitation would be adequate
because they might not be able to obtain financing under that rule. He said
if one of the shareholders died, he asked would they not have that business
anymore. He said they liked the letter the way it was written and now that
letter seemed to be changing in midstream. He said whatever the City
Commission decided they would make their decision whether to proceed.
Vice Mayor Rundle suggested looking at the example of Rick's Place.
He said the City Commission conditioned that waiver upon his continued use
at that location.
Corliss said that type of condition could be placed on the Masonic
Temple, but he said it could be made clear in the letter, if there was a
change in ownership where the majority by one or all three of those members
were not longer in control of Temple Partners Inc., that had the license,
then that issue could be place back on the City Commission agenda, after
giving notice to the relevant churches and/or schools, for their comments.
He said the City Commission would have the ability to say they would not
allow the waiver to continue.
Commissioner Hack said the letter stated "This waiver cannot be
transferred to another entity therefore, the waiver would expire as of the
date Temple Partners Inc., no longer operates the proposed establishment."
She said she thought that statement addressed that problem.
Sinclair said one of her concerns was if home rule authority and this
City's ability to further condition and license those establishments, were
eliminated. If that happened, only State licensing could be looked at. She
said there was a reason why that entity chose to purchase as an LLC and
lease themselves as a corporation and that might be one of the reasons along
with a lot of other reasons.
Corliss said the Commission's ability to condition that waiver was
part of the alcoholic beverage laws. It might or might not be suspect
depending upon what the Kansas Supreme Court did in interpreting municipal
home rule powers in regards to the Sunday liquor sales. He reminded the
Commission that the food sales requirement was part of the City's zoning
ordinance. He said staff felt comfortable that had solid legal background
in that it would not likely be changed by the interpretations of the City's
home rule powers.
Mayor Dunfield said it was conceivable that the whole notion of the
waiver, based on the distance to the church, would also be challenged and
make their entire discussion moot.
Commissioner Schauner said that draft letter tried to address two
issues, but the Commission was there to address one issue which was the
conditional waiver on the 400 foot distance requirement. He said he
appreciated the accuracy and ultimate need to discuss the C-3 zoning
requirement (55% food sales requirement), but that piece of the discussion
was probably not best found in the draft letter. He said his strong
preference would be that the letter should be addressed to Jerry Johnson, on
behalf of Temple Partners Inc., a conditional waiver of drinking
establishment distant requirement and address just that topic in that draft
letter rather than mixing food sales and distance waiver. He said people
looking at that this issue a year or two from now, they would have trouble
unraveling what the Commission did or didn't do.
He said he did not vote in favor of the waiver, but the conversation
heard was that the waiver was granted in significant part because of
confidence in Ziegler and Johnson and their ability to run a venue which
would be an asset to downtown. To the extent that they were no longer
significantly involved, either as operators or owners of Temple Partners
Inc., he said the Commission would need to question whether continuing that
waiver would be a good idea. He supported some restriction on the sale of
the waiver as a property owned by Temple Partners Inc.
Rundle said he supported some restriction on the business. He said
it was a burden on the business, but it was a fact that protected the public
interest.
He said it was the churches burden to come down and protest if they
did not agree with the distance waiver requirement. He said as a
Commission, they would make sure they made contact with any churches or
schools in the future for direct confirmation that they were not opposed to
those waivers.
Commissioner Hack said with the constraints the Commission was
planning on placing on this business that there would even be a business.
She said it was not the Commission's responsibility to ensure that they had
the ability to be in business, but she did not think it was the Commission's
responsibility to put up a road block.
Jerry Johnson said this business was a substantial undertaking and to
invest that time and money into a project that would, depending on the
strength of the waiver, the stilts could be pulled out from underneath them
and they would be in a situation where they wouldn't be able to raise
adequate capital or find another business use for that facility under the
condition of not having a liquor license. He said the two bankers that they
were working with would be less likely to be involved in the project if the
waiver was not strong.
The issue of conditioning the ownership to all three shareholders
being the principles, the wording of that part of the document would need to
be very detailed.
Johnson also addressed the issue of the partnership. He said it was
his understanding, from the last City Commission meeting, that there was a
concern that an entity had not been formed. He stated, at that time, that
it had not been formed because they did not want to incur a lot of legal
expense without knowing whether they could get the waiver. He said he also
indicated that all of the three shareholders were there to show that they
were a group. He said he understood that one of the requirements that the
Commission made was that they form a business entity and that was done. He
said they had submitted the information that was requested describing their
concept of the use of that facility.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if Commissioners Highberger and Schauner were
uncomfortable with the current language of the letter.
Commissioner Highberger said no. He said he was trying to think of a
way to not place a burden on the partners and still provide the protection
with the condition on the waiver.
Vice Mayor Rundle suggested that since the representatives of Temple
Partners Inc., was comfortable with that letter, he asked if they could add
some type of notice requirement if there was major changes in the business
plan or changes of ownership that they would give notice to staff and that
would trigger a review by the City Commission. He said if that language in
the letter gave Temple Partners Inc., the freedom to proceed and there was
some way to trigger a review if necessary, then that letter would be
appropriate.
Corliss said the City Commission could condition the waiver on
notice, but staff thought what was important in that waiver document was
that the Commission should clearly establish the conditions by which the
waiver would be removed. He said the notice was helpful, but the Commission
would want something that was explicit as far as granting the waiver based
on certain conditions. If those conditions no longer existed, the waiver
would no longer exist and they would need to go back through the procedure
process to request a waiver again.
Commissioner Hack said if there was a substantial change in the
business plan, then that would trigger a review of the waiver.
Corliss said in the fourth paragraph of the letter, there was
language that attempted to get at that issue. He said in the letter it
described the business plan and it also included information about the food
sales requirement which was an important element of the business plan. The
letter stated that any significant alteration in the venue type or food
sales business plan, as determined by the City Commission, would result in
the termination of the waiver. He said if someone was looking at that
waiver and they were making financial decisions based on the ability of that
establishment to meet requirements and sell alcoholic beverages they would
need to know that if the venue type of the food sales business plan
significantly changed, in the minds of a governing body, that they would
have the ability to terminate that waiver.
Commissioner Highberger said after this discussion, he did not see
any good way to change the conditions so that it was not unduly burdensome.
He withdrew any objection he had to that draft letter. He said the business
plan requirement gave the City Commission some leverage for the future.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, to approve the wording of
the specific conditions and authorize the Director of Administrative
Services/City Clerk to execute and deliver a letter to Temple Partners,
Inc., regarding a conditional waiver of the drinking establishment distance
restriction for the proposed establishment at 1001 Massachusetts (Masonic
Temple Building). Motion carried unanimously.
(17)
Mayor Dunfield pulled from the consent agenda a conditional wavier of
the drinking establishment distance restriction for the proposed
establishment at 947 Massachusetts, a Qdoba Mexican Grill, for separate
discussion.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk, said the
concern with this letter was the issue of one of the Commission's conditions
that was imposed on the wavier that was granted on January 6, 2004 which was
the condition of the wavier on the "primary entrance" of the establishment
to be on Massachusetts. He said there was some concern about the term
"primary entrance" and how it was defined or if that could change. He said
the term "primary entrance" was referenced in the City Code with respect to
how to measure that 400 foot restriction requirement.
Patricia Sinclair said if they found out that most people were using
the multiple doors on 10th Street rather than the door on Massachusetts, the
business would not be in compliance with the wavier requirements because
they stated that their primary entrance was on Massachusetts. She said a
"primary entrance" could be an assumption. She asked the City Commission
what constituted the "primary entrance."
She said when she had a chance to look at the floor plan clearly,
there were two doors on 10th Street in addition to an emergency exit.
Vice Mayor Rundle said there was one entrance that opened into the
sidewalk dining area.
Sinclair said that entrance to the sidewalk dining area did not exist
at this time and that was another concern because once you start swinging
that sidewalk dining around onto 10th Street and having the doors open onto
10th Street, then you were right next door to the church and it legally
changed the distance measurement for notification of 400 feet which was
suppose to be from the "primary entrance." She said a lot of people would
probably park in the two parking lots on Vermont Street and come in the
first door that they encountered.
She asked if there were no exit doors on 10th Street and was there
one door that exited to the sidewalk for an emergency exit.
Mayor Dunfield said the Commission understood her concerns and they
would ask the applicant for a response.
Ray Cates, Walker Development Services, representing Kansas Mexican
Grill LC, said when looking at the floor plan there were actually three
doors on the south side of the building that faced 10th Street. The door on
the left was a vestibule type of common entry for the upper floors that the
landlord intended to use for future tenants upstairs. The other two doors
included one to the proposed sidewalk dining area and it did not have access
from the sidewalk and only from the interior of the building. The third
entrance was intended to be a dual purpose emergency exit and also side
entry for those folks who wished to use that entrance. He said they
classified the front entry off of Massachusetts along with the address. He
said there was a lot of parking and foot traffic off of Massachusetts. He
said it was not clear on that document, but on their actual construction
documents what they classified as a front entry, a tiled pathway along the
booth sections that lead you to the Que-line to place your order.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Que-line was the diagonal area
towards the back on the floor plan. He asked if the western most entrance
on 10th Street provided access to the restaurant.
Cates said no.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the only entrances or exits were the
middle door on the south and the door on Massachusetts Street.
Cates said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be a problem with causing
the middle door on the south to be an exit only.
Cates said that idea could be discussed.
Commissioner Schauner said the south door was in such close proximity
to the service line that it would seem to be a likely candidate for a lot of
folks to come in. He asked if that was a hostess station by the middle
door.
Cates said that was a trash container, but it could go any place in
the restaurant.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the signage had been determined yet.
Cates said they had started that process and had meant with Lynne
Zollner, Planner, regarding that signage. He said because their business
was on a corner they were allowed to have signage on both sides. The
intention would be to have a sign above that front window on Massachusetts
Street and also the first bay of windows on 10th Street, but that was a
separate process with the Historical Resources Commission.
Mayor Dunfield he did not intend any offense, but that restaurant
looked to him, based on the menu and the layout to be very similar to
Chipotle Mexican Grill which was down the block. He said Chipotle had an
entrance that opened directly onto the alley and that was closer to the
serving line and that as clearly not their primary entrance.
He said he did not see the protection of the primary entrance being
on Massachusetts Street in this particular case. He said this was a burrito
place that might sell a beer or two. He said the ownership issue and the
business plan gave the City Commission plenty of protection and he did not
see any reason to further quibble with this issue.
Commissioner Schauner thought the applicant did not need a waiver
because the primary entrance was not within 400 feet of a church or school.
Mayor Dunfield said there was only one church contacted because of
the distance issue.
Commissioner Schauner thought the primary entrance would be on
Massachusetts Street, but he said this was the type of slippery slope the
Commission got into when they approved waives like this.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to approve the wording of the
specific conditions and authorize the Director of Administrative
Services/City Clerk to execute and deliver a letter to Kansas Mexican Grill,
LLC, regarding a conditional wavier of the drinking establishment distance
restriction for the proposed establishment at 947 Massachusetts, a Qdoba
Mexican Grill. Motion carried unanimously.
(18)
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
During the City Manager's Report, Bryce Hirschman, GIS Coordinator,
presented information on the GIS data and maps recently added to the City's
website. He said the City provided the GIS data, but the computer hosting
and programming was prepared by Kansas Geological Survey/Data Access and
Support Center (DASC). Information regarding streets, parks, neighborhoods,
schools, parcels, contours, and aerial photograph could be viewed and
printed from the interactive map site. He presented the City Commission
with a brief demonstration on the on the system's capabilities developed by
DASC. (19)
REGULAR AGENDA
Receive staff report on 933 Rhode Island.
Julie Wyatt, Environmental Inspector, presented a staff report and
summarized the other documents presented in the agenda packet. She said a
construction proposal on how to rebuild the existing structure was presented
to staff from Paul Horvath's (owner of 933 Rhode Island's structure)
contractor. She said a letter from Horvath indicated that he desired to
disassemble the existing structure and rebuild it.
Paul Horvath said after the last discussion regarding this matter, he
met with an experienced carpenter. He said that carpenter, after reviewing
that existing structure thought it was not reasonable to rebuild that
structure because that structure was not stable enough. He said a member
from the Historic Resources Commission came up with a construction plan and
diagram for that structure. He said after his experienced carpenter
reviewed that construction plan that carpenter maintained that the structure
was not stable enough.
He said he was proposing to dismantle the structure, salvage what
they could, establish a party wall agreement with the neighbor, and go from
ground up so that the structure was built properly.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Horvath when the internal skeleton of the
structure was taken out, what was his plan.
Horvath said that was completed in 1999 or 2000. He said they took
out the old plaster and brought it down to the studs. The intention, at
that point, was to rebuild the structure. He said the Planning Department
had an issue in regards to the structure and he would not get a building
permit until that was resolved. He said he eventually received a permit,
but the more they got into that project, the more they realized that
rebuilding that structure was not feasible.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the building permit was for preserving that
existing structure.
He said the proposal that Horvath had trouble getting an agreement on
was to build an apartment.
Horvath said there was an apartment in the structure upstairs. In
fact, it had not been rented out in sometime, but the bathroom and kitchen
was still there.
Vice Mayor Rundle said that apartment dated back to the 1940's and
was well past any type of period that would need to be maintained in a
non-conforming status.
Horvath said there was a tenant in the main house who had lived in
that apartment earlier.
Vice Mayor Rundle said, but there was no ability to verify any of
that information.
Finger said Horvath did not find any information that could be
submitted to staff to show that it was ever legal tenancy.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the precarious nature of the building seemed
largely Horvath's making. He said he was trying to understand what Horvath
intended when the structure was propped up on pole jacks.
Horvath said when he bought the building that structure was
precarious and in the ensuing eight years that he owned that structure, it
had only gotten worse. He said not being a structural engineer or a
carpenter, he thought that the structure could be fixed.
Mayor Dunfield said if they were to take Horvath's proposal and
rebuild that structure from the ground up, he ask if that would require a
demolition or building permit or would it need to go back to the Historic
Resources Commission.
Barry Walthall said a building permit could be issued for the
dismantling and replacement and could be done without a demolition permit.
Lynne Zollner said if it could be done without a demolition permit,
then that issue would not need to be reviewed by the HRC, but if there were
different plans, then Horvath would need to go through that process again.
Commissioner Hack asked about a timeline restriction.
Commissioner Schauner suggested that a bond could be required to
ensure that the work would begin and be completed within a set time, the
City could make a demand on the bond and cause that work to be done. He
said that would be a way to ensure that if there were a demolition and
reconstruction, they could be assured that there would be a structure in
place that would meet that plan.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Horvath said this was a slow time
for contractors which meant there would be a contractor available. He said
the bond might be a good idea if nothing was happening, but he would like to
request a period of time with clear direction to move forward.
Mayor Dunfield said Commission Schauner brought up the possibility of
a bond, he asked Corliss to comment on that suggestion.
Corliss said the Commission was still proceeding under the unsafe and
dangerous structure act where the Commission would be indicating that the
structure was unsafe, and they were not ordering its demolition, but its
repair. He said staff would recommend that the City Commission adopt a
resolution to that effect that would follow the State law that indicated
that the Commission made that declaration, but they were ordering the
property owner to do the repair or the City would then have the legal
authority to affect the repair if the repair did not occur within a
reasonable time period. He said State law did not contemplate any type of
performance bond or financial security to perform the work because the City
would then have the authority to do that work if it was not completed and
access that cost onto the property. He said the statute did not contemplate
that the Commission could require a performance bond for work on private
property.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he was uncomfortable to rush ahead given the
long period of time that this issue had been on the radar screen for both
Horvath and the people in the community. He thought there were additional
consultants out there who might have more experience with old structures.
He said he would like to receive more input with the prospect of preserving
that structure.
He said people spend time trying to preserve, conserve, and reuse
other historic structures. He said given the expense, at this point,
perhaps those who value those resources would help contribute to the
renovation. He said there needed to be some type of bond and timeline for
that project.
Commissioner Schauner said the common goal was to save that resource,
but where they were stumbling was how they would accomplish that goal. He
had some concern about having interested, well meaning, neighborhood
constituents be personally involved in a reconstruction effort because of
the liability that might arise from their working on or around the structure
which had been designated as an unsafe building.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the people who would actually perform the work
would need to be experienced in that line of work. Any contribution from
neighbors outside of that would need to be financing, assisting,
coordinating, or organizing efforts.
Commissioner Schauner thought that the financial obligation should
rest with the property owner, not with the community at large or well
meaning volunteers. He said that would get the landowner off the hook for
not properly maintaining his property.
He said if the City Commission thought there needed to be additional
expert input that was fine, but he said time might be of the essence and it
made sense to try and move forward with this project. He said he would be
willing to give Horvath another month or so to bring to the Commission a
concrete proposal for beginning the work to rehabilitate that structure. He
said even though a performance bond was not something contemplated by the
statute, he was hopeful that they could condition the tear down/rebuilt
process with some type of performance bond so that the City did not end up
shouldering the expense of the rebuild and then need to collect that off the
property taxes. He would rather that cost be guaranteed to the City upfront
through a bonding process.
Commissioner Hack said she agreed with Commissioner Schauner. She
said when looking at eight years of decay, it was time to address this
project because of all those concerns. She said there was a desire to
preserve that structure by those people who were directly affected by that
structure, but there was also a desire to get rid of that structure by those
people who were concerned about the safety and aesthetics of the structure.
She agreed that the tear down and rebuild was the way to tackle this
situation, but whatever the Commission could do to make sure that occurred
in a timely fashion was appropriate.
Commissioner Schauner said a combination of a resolution with an
additional condition for a performance bond in an amount sufficient to
guarantee the rebuild of that structure would be appropriate.
Mayor Dunfield asked if this issue could be brought back to the
Commission in approximately three weeks with a resolution and with a
provision for a performance bond discussed in some form. He suggested in
those intervening three weeks, on a parallel track, to ask Vice Mayor Rundle
for further effort to try and get some dialogue between Horvath and some of
those neighbors.
Vice Mayor Rundle said his main motivation was that Horvath had not
taken care of his property and there needed to be some type of plan or
action that needed to be checked, approved, and supervised because the
structure was in a precarious enough shape that whatever was done, needed to
be done with great care.
Commissioner Schauner added that within that same period of time that
the property owner could begin the process of securing some specific bids
and perhaps locating a contractor who would be willing and able to start the
process. He said they were looking for a quick/good repair of this
structure to maintain it as a neighborhood asset.
Corliss said he understood that this would come back on the February
17th agenda with a draft resolution that would order its repair and
condition that at the time that the building permit would be issued and it
would be accompanied with a performance bond guaranteeing that the surety
would provide funds to do the work if the property owner did not do the work
in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of repair with the City as the
beneficiary on the bond. (20)
Consider possible amendments to the draft of Chapter 6, Horizon 2020:
"Commercial Development."
Mayor Dunfield provided some background on the history of revisions
of Chapter 6 of Horizon 2020. He said the process of amending Chapter 6 has
been on-going for some time. This City Commission received the Planning
Commission's proposal back in June of last year and acted upon that proposal
at that time. The City Commission made some amendments to the Planning
Commission's work which required the Planning Commission to review those
amendments. He said they had also been awaiting the County Commission's
action on this item because as an amendment to Horizon 2020 the document
needed to be approved by the Planning, County, and City Commissions, all
with preferably the same language. He said there had been a significant
amount of agreement in the language and a few sticking points in terms of
the language.
He said after considerable discussion and a great deal of work on the
part of Planning Commissioner Myles Schachter, Linda Finger/Planning
Director, Bob Johnson/County Commissioner, and himself, they came down to a
single issue of disagreement which was the maximum size permitted for a
community commercial development. The City Commission had passed 350,000
square foot limit, but the Planning Commission had originally called for
500,000 square feet. The proposal before the City Commission had an upper
limit of 400,000 square feet and the additional provision that tied approval
of developments over 150,000 square feet to a market study which was
contained in the draft, but not specifically tied to the approval of those
permits. He said those were the tweaks, hopefully, that allowed them to
resolve the commercial chapter.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Caleb Morse, speaking on behalf of Lawrence Association of
Neighborhoods, said LAN voted to voice their concerns about the size of the
CC500 developments and the requirement for an impact study which was
insufficient. He said he was still concerned about the CC400, but with the
requirement for the impact analysis in place, it would be a sufficient
compromise and would afford the protection to downtown Lawrence and existing
commercial developments.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, pointed out that staff left the word
"market" out of Policy .311. She said it should say that it required a
"market" impact analysis which would make that clearer.
Commissioner Schauner asked Planning Commissioner Schachter
hypothetically, if there were a node of four corners and there was 400,000
square feet available for the entire node and three corners were developed
and they were all under 150,000 square feet and the last person to the
corner to develop had 150,000 square feet, would that person be responsible
for the cost of that impact study or would it be shared by others on that
corner.
Planning Commissioner Schachter said on the corners in a CC400, 95%
must be on two corners and 5% could be on the remaining corner. The maximum
that could occur without requiring the market analysis would be 15% on two
corners and 20% on the other corner. The maximum could be 120,000 square
feet without a marketing impact analysis which was relatively an acceptable
increment of risk. The next person that came in, no matter what size, had
to do the market analysis and pick up that fee.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be a possibility of
multiple market studies for the same node.
Planning Commissioner Schachter said yes. He said it might be that
they use the same consultant and share data to minimize the cost.
Commissioner Hack said the 150,000 square foot exemption was speaking
to the proposed amendment to the proposed compromise.
Planning Commissioner Schachter said yes.
Commissioner Hack said in the original compromise in Policy 3.11a,
she asked if he was eliminating those two conditions.
Planning Commissioner Schachter said no. He said the only change
from the original compromised proposal concerned the market analysis
requirement being limited to one exemption per corner.
Commissioner Hack appreciated all the work that was put into this
issue because the last thing that they wanted was two separate commercial
chapters.
Vice Mayor Rundle concurred. He wanted to acknowledge that not only
had they agreed on this number for future growth, where and when it would
occur, but the support from the County Commission for the market study came
out of their shared concern to ensure planned growth in this community, that
the impact of new commercial was positive on the community, and that
existing businesses remain strong.
Commissioner Highberger asked about the exception for initial
proposals of 150,000 square feet or less. He asked if the first proposal
for development on a corner that was between 50,000 and 150,000 square feet
would not require a market study.
Planning Commissioner Schachter said correct.
Commissioner Hack asked if staff was envisioning some registration
requirement.
Wildgen said staff could bring back a report on what other cities do
and how they do it with respect to registration.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to accept the proposed amendments
to Chapter 6, Horizon 2020: "Commercial Development." Motion carried
unanimously. (21)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Rundle, seconded
by Schauner, to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 2004
1. Purchase 10 patrol cars -Olathe Ford for $20,307 each totaling $203,070.
2. Purchase 4 used highway patrol cars - 3 at $13,300 & 1 at $13,150.
3. Purchase 1/2 ton 4x4 extended cap pickup -Olathe Ford for $19,214.
4. Contract - Graphic design services for Lawrence Transit Systems to
Stillhouse Productions for $15,480.
5. Contract - Design of Trail Rd. Relief Sewer Project with Professional
Engineering Consultants for $39,018.
6. Rezone - (Z-10-34-03A), Lots 7-11 & 10-22, Blk 1, Stonegate Sub, RS-2 to
RMD & (Z-10-34-03B), Lots 35-44, Blk 1, RMD to RS-2.
7. Ordinance No. 7741 - 1st Reading, rezone (Z-10-35-03), 1.05 acres, PCD-2
with restrictions to PCD-2, office/shop in Phase "O" property, intersection
of W 6th & Comet Ln.
8. Ordinance No. 7596 - 1st Reading, Codification of City Code.
9. Ordinance No. 7743 - 1st Reading, Requirements for placement of public
sanitary sewer mains & private sanitary sewer lines.
10. Ordinance No. 7739 - 2nd Reading, Annex 1.033 acres, Riverside Pump
Station, N of N Minn.
11. Site Plan - (SP-03-20-02) Morgan Property, 1100 E 24th.
12. TSC - deny request to prohibit parking along S side of 25th between
Cedarwood Ave & Ridge Ct.
13. TSC - establish "35 mph" on Riverridge between Iowa & Michigan.
14. Engineering Service Contract - Folks from 6th & Mulberry to Peridian
Group.
15. Mortgage Release - 517 North St., David & Joyce Higgins.
16. Ordinance No. 7742 - (defer for 3 weeks), Section 20-1808, Limitation on
Successive Petitions.
17. Drinking Establishment - Conditions for Masonic Temple, 1001 Mass.
18. Drinking Establishment - Conditions for Qdoba Mexican Grill, 947 Mass.
19. City Manager's Report - GIS data & maps
20. 933 Rhode Island discussion
21. Amendments to Chapter 6, Horizon 2020, "Commercial Development."
??
??
??
??
January 27, 2004
City Commission Minutes
Page 3
_____________________________
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