January 13, 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.
With Commission approval Mayor Dunfield proclaimed January 12 – 19, 2004 as “Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Week.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of January 6, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 17, 2003; the Historic Resources Commission meeting minutes of December 18, 2003; and the Historic Resources Commission meeting minutes of November 20, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 287 vendors in the amount of $2,011,909.86 and payroll from December 28, 2003 to January 10, 2004, in the amount of $1,342,697.89. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Montana Mike’s, 1015 Iowa Street; Louise’s West, 1307 West 7th Street; 8th Street Tap Room, 801 New Hampshire; Paisano’s Italian Restaurante, 2112 West 25th Street; and, the Retail Liquor License for Parkway Wine & Spirits, 3514 Clinton Parkway, Ste: B (Contingent Upon State License). Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the purchase for 130,000 pounds of Nalcolyte polymer chemical to Nalco Chemical Company in the amount of $58,500 for the Utilities Department. Motion carried unanimously.
(1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7731, an amendment to Horizon 2020 revising the City’s Urban Growth Area (CPA-2003-3). Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-10-65-03) for Children’s Learning Center, to allow for parking lot improvements to an existing Child Care Center located at 205 North Michigan, subject to the following condition:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433.
Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-11-69-03) to convert an existing three-story apartment house into a 12 bedroom/12 occupant boarding house, located at 1334 Ohio Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433.
2. The project shall adhere to the conditions of the Historic Resources Commission.
3. Provision of the following note to appear on the face of the site plan: If requested by a tenant, the applicant will approach the Traffic Safety Committee to allow for the potential placement of an ADA parking space on Ohio Street.
Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement for George and Ardith Shove, 1614 East 18th Terrace. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
During the City Manager’s Report Mike Wildgen recognized the Parks and Recreation Department for their achievement in receiving the National Recreation and Park Association’s 2004 Excellence in Aquatics Award.
During the City Manager’s Report Victor Torres, Neighborhood Resources Director, briefed the City Commission on the status of the project that was updating code enforcement data recording efforts, including new hand-held data entry devices. He said the PDA device was part of the customer service initiative and part of the new system that was implemented last September. He said applicants also now have the ability to check on the status of their building permit on line.
Torres also updated the Commission on the status 933 Rhode Island. He said the structure was now secure. A 5 foot chain link fenced was installed around the structure. (6)
REGULAR AGENDA
Receive staff report and letter from Lawrence Home Builders Association concerning contractor licensing issue.
Bobbie Flory, Lawrence Home Builders Association, presented the letter from the Association. She said after reviewing licensing programs in other communities, they found Johnson County’s Contractor Licensing Program to be acceptable. She said they set up meetings within their general membership to approach the builders concerning that issue and gain the builders support. She said the majority of the builders supported contractor licensing. After they explained the elements of the potential licensing regulations to a panel representing the builders, code officials, and the HBA’s perspectives, they supported the issue. One element of that licensing included continuing education which was key to a licensing program. She said there was an opportunity to receive continuing education from the Johnson County program because Johnson County already had an established, high quality curriculum set up. She said they would pay a licensing fee that would cover the administrative costs, plus a per license fee for that licensee to take part in the Johnson County program. She said the seminar was extensive and everyone that she had spoken to felt it increased their knowledge and made them better business people.
She addressed the issue of licensing framers. Under the Johnson County ordinance, they did not license framers and licensing framers was not discussed with their general membership. She said they did not oppose framers being licensed, but at those discussions with the panel, the framers were not part of the discussion. She said they had approximately 250 members of the LBA, and nearly one third of those members were actual builders. She said they did not have a broad based membership of framers and it was difficult for the LBA to speak on behalf of the framers and how they felt about being included in licensing.
She said they would like to find out if the City Commission supported this licensing issue and if so, they were looking for some direction to allow them to work with City staff to formulate licensing regulations.
Commissioner Highberger asked her to clarify her position on framer licensing.
Flory said their Board of Directors had discussed the framers licensing issue and the majority of the board voted not to support licensing framers.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the licensing would provide a more favorable insurance market for the contractor.
Flory said right now, by law, if a contractor had over $20,000 in payroll, the contractor would be required to carry workers compensation. If a contractor was self employed with no employees, the contractor was not required, to carry workers compensation. Part of the regulations would be that they would show proof of workers compensation. She said there were builders who might not be carrying workers compensation and they would be able to bid a job much lower than the person who was paying workers compensation.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that would be true if the builder was a general contractor with no employees and subcontracted all of the work.
Flory said yes because they were required from their subcontractors to get certificates of liability insurance.
Commissioner Schauner asked if those certificates would be the property of the subcontractor and not the property of the general contractor.
Flory said they were in the ownership of the subcontractor if the general contractor subcontracts everything out.
Mayor Dunfield asked if her organization would prefer the continuing education component be done with Johnson County.
Flory said correct. Johnson County had an excellent and established program. She thought the City of Lawrence could not provide the extent of education that Johnson County could. Also, she suggested if the City of Lawrence wanted to setup a program, the City could honor credit hours for whatever program the City wanted to provide to the local people. She said some of the members from the HBA could qualify to set up a program for credit.
Mayor Dunfield asked Torres if his staff would agree to explore that path in terms of continuing education.
Torres said yes. He said the Johnson County Program was comprehensive and fully developed.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the interface with Johnson County building codes and Lawrence’s codes as it related to the ability to use their continuing education program.
Torres said Johnson County used international codes. He said Lawrence was in the process of determining which set of codes to adopt and if it did not adopt the International Codes that could be an issue
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the City licensed framers with a continuing education component, would the Johnson County Program serve their continuing education needs or would there need to be something geared specifically to framers.
Torres said Johnson County has a program for framing contractors.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no pubic comment, Commissioner Schauner asked Flory to explain grandfathering current contractors.
Flory said it was consistent with other jurisdictions who have added licensing. She said they did not want a situation where someone who had been successfully building in Lawrence for 15 years, not passing the test, and going out of business.
Commissioner Schauner asked how it would be determined who would be grandfathered.
Flory said it had not been determined yet, but it could be a number of years in business.
Commissioner Highberger asked if there would be a reasonable license fee set to recover cost to the City’s program.
Torres said yes. Staff identified approximately 150 builders from their mailing list, but they were also including the framing contractors which would bring that number to 200. He said those framing contractors were providing a service to that contractor which was an important component of the whole structure. He said currently there were 1,000 trade contractors who were licensed.
He said regarding the question of how staff would find a contractor to be eligible to be grandfathered, there was an affidavit that would need to be filled out by the contractor as part of the licensing application and it would verify their experience.
Commissioner Schauner asked if person doing the foundation would be licensed under that scenario.
Torres said no. He said they were looking at commercial and residential contractors.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the person that was pouring those footing for a basement be subject to licensing.
Torres said no, but they should be. A number of licensing programs licensed all trade contractors. He said they were looking at Johnson County’s Program as a guide.
Commissioner Highberger said he would recommend staff proceed as outlined in the staff memo.
Commissioner Schauner thought the Johnson County model was a good model, but this City was looking for a reputable building community that licensed and well educated to provide a product that the public could rely upon. He said it seemed to be a three legged stool with the initial licensing, a good and thorough inspection process, and continuing education. He also said we should consider licensing framers and concrete contractors.
Mayor Dunfield said staff might want to research the possibility of concrete contractors being included and what the implications of that might be.
Vice Mayor Rundle said perhaps staff could come back with a proposal to accomplish the whole package over a couple of years.
Torres said staff only dealt with a handful of major concrete contractors. He said staff could identify who they were, but he suspected that they would not be an additional burden for staff to handle.
Hack echoed what was said previously. She appreciated the work from the HBA and City staff. She said this licensing would provide quality building in Lawrence. (7)
Receive staff report and consider adopting Ordinance No. 7733 on first reading, regarding evaporator coils being exempt from mechanical permits
Mike Wildgen presented the staff report. He said research showed that a couple of cities did require evaporator coils, but the majority did not.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Brad Hoff, Management Assistant, if he asked those cites specifically about evaporator coils in refrigeration equipment.
Hoff said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if he was replacing a mechanical coil in an air conditioner that sat on top of a furnace, would that change out require a permit.
Torres said no.
Commissioner Schauner asked when a permit would be needed to do that change out.
Torres said simply changing that component would not require a permit. If there was additional work in conjunction then a permit would be required for electrical work.
Commissioner Highberger said he did not see any clear public danger by not requiring a permit.
Torres said there was no clear public danger in replacing that component. He said that was a provision in the code that if it was specifically component work, it would not require a permit.
Commissioner Schauner said the change out would require removing whatever coolant was in the system and recharging the system. He asked if that was part of the change out.
Torres said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that activity added any public health issues to the mix.
Torres said as long as the individual making the change out was licensed and qualified, they would feel comfortable with that.
Moved by Rundle, seconded y Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7733, exempting evaporator coils from mechanical permits. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Conduct a public hearing on a proposed special assessment benefit district for drainage and stormwater improvements, and the acquisition of a conservation easement, on the Orchards Golf Course
David Corliss presented the staff information. He said last year the previous City Commission adopted a resolution establishing a special assessment benefit district to acquire the Orchards Golf Course. The City Commission later indicated that they did not desire to proceed with the acquisition of the golf course. He said staff had been in discussions with the neighbors since that time to achieve their goals in regards to their concerns regarding the possible development or redevelopment of that golf course. He said there was also a pending stormwater improvement that staff would like to proceed with on that drainage creek that traverses the Orchards Golf Course.
He said in late fall, the City Commission adopted a resolution adopting this evening as the public hearing date to consider establishing a special assessment benefit district which would accomplish both of those goals. It would allow the City to proceed with the stormwater project including the acquisition of the necessary drainage easements in order to achieve that desired public improvement. It would also, in relationship to that public improvement, allow the City to acquire a conservation easement. That conservation easement was the acquisition of the development rights on that property so that the golf course, or the natural open space of that area, would remain in perpetuity.
He said staff had reviewed this matter with the City’s Bond Counsel as far as the City’s ability to establish a benefit district for those purposes. As staff wanted to keep the neighbors informed and the potential property owners of the benefit district informed, staff sent out letters advising those property owners of the hearing this evening. Unfortunately, staff used the wrong assessment data. He said staff received assessment data that had a little bit of a transposition from the Appraisers Offices and staff misinterpreted that data. He said staff now had the correct 2003 assessment data, but they found a lot that had a problem and staff would work with the Appraiser’s office to make sure that was accurate.
He said the City Commission’s action did not have a lot to do with that data because the final assessments were not being established, but that would give all of the property owners some indication of their possible assessments. This was the first time that the City was using the appraised value of the property as method of assessment.
One primary issue was the West Meadows Condominium Association, tract 55, in the southeast corner of the proposed benefit district. He said there were 55 tracts and 84 condominium units on tract 55. He said the Appraiser’s office had been helping staff and neighbors understand the unique property tax aspects of condominium associations. He said the Condominium Association was a legal entity but it did not receive a separate property tax, special assessment bill. Each one of the individual condominium units received a bill that represented the fair market value of both their unit value and an undivided property interest in the Condominium Association itself. The County Appraiser’s office did not provide an explicit value for the land at the Condominium Association. He said what staff had done was to research some of the methods to achieve the goals that the neighbors had put forward which was to recognize if they used just purely the appraised value of all of the 55 tracts, the 84 condominium units would have a very high special assessment and that did not reasonably reflect their benefit from the proposed improvement.
He said he had a discussion with the City’s Bond Counsel on how they could reflect the concern about the high assessment that would be placed on the condominium unit owners and still remain within the special assessment statutes. One of the special assessment statutes concerns was that the property that adjoins an improvement be included in a benefit district and that was particularly important with street improvements. He said staff was not certain about the level of importance when getting to other improvements, but that was a value that helped staff in defending the benefit district. There was also a general value that they wanted to keep the same assessment method on all property within a benefit district, but they could vary from that if staff could make an appropriate distinction. He said they struggled with an articulation as to why they thought it was a worth while cause and why they thought it was defendable. He said it was possible that there would be a challenge to the benefit district or to the assessment, but one of the things that were done to protect the City’s interest was the maximum assessment ordinances before they did the actual improvement.
He suggested that they change the assessment method on the benefit district, if the City Commission believed that there could be a distinction between tact 55, Condominium Association properties and the rest of the properties based on their location, size, and configuration that their appraised value should be significantly lower percentage than what there appraised value was. He said staff would use this method to achieve the goals that were laid out by the Neighborhood Association. He said the percent amount would be approximately 15 percent of their appraised value.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there would need to be a specific finding made this evening.
Corliss said staff would include in the resolution the language: “because of the location, size, and configuration of tract 55, only a certain percentage would be included.” He said that finding was based on those three factors.
Commission Highberger said he wanted to make sure the Commission supported the neighborhood association, but he was concerned about setting precedent.
Corliss said he did not think it would be setting a precedent that probably could not be distinguished based upon how the Commission would view another new and different project. He said this was unusual because it was appraised value and when looking at the appraised values of the homes in that neighborhood, they differed based upon where they were located.
Commissioner Schauner said tract 55 included open ground as well as built structure. He asked if there was no explicit land value for tract 55 by itself that was maintained by the County.
Marion Johnson, County Appraiser, said Commissioner Schauner was accurate.
Commissioner Schauner said each of the 84 members of those condominiums own an undivided 1/84th of tract 55.
Johnson said they owned an interest in that association and all the other things that went with a condominium association which was land usage and all the other amenities.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was common for the owner of the remainder (undeveloped ground) to not have an explicit tax value.
Johnson said correct.
Mayor Dunfield called public comment.
Jean Milstead said she lived in the neighborhood and was one of the property owners affected. She said the single-family and duplex property owners whose land abut the Orchards Golf Course had been working almost 4 years to achieve a win/win situation where in that parcel of land would remain green space for a golf course. She said they felt that benefit district was the best of all worlds. It provided the City of Lawrence the opportunity to make needed drainage and stormwater improvements that would benefit the taxpayers of Lawrence. It provided the property owner with needed funding to achieve the goal of maintaining the golf course. By purchasing that conservation easement, the property owners whose land abuts the golf course were assuring that the parcel would remain either greenspace or a golf course forever, thus providing a valuable asset of greenspace to the whole community.
She said they met with City staff, representatives from the County Appraiser’s Office, City Commissioners, and representatives from the Kansas Land Trust, to determine how to accomplish that project. She said there were still some unanswered questions on the implementation of the conservation easement assessment, but they would continue to work with City staff and the neighbors in the West Meadow Condominiums to resolve those issues. She said they were confident that those issues could be resolved equitably and they thanked the City Commission for their support and encouragement for the neighborhood. She asked the City Commission to approve this item.
Jack Skeels, a property owner in the proposed benefit district, spoke in support of the benefit district. He said it was the location, size, and configuration of the West Meadow Condominiums that made for this special exception to full market pricing.
Commissioner Highberger said this was a very creative solution and he would like to see this issue go forward. He said he was satisfied that the solution had been worked out.
Commissioner Schauner said the purchase of those development rights, he asked if that would include the development of the entire tract of the Orchards Golf Course or would there be any portion of it that would be left available for development
Corliss said he understood it would be the entire golf course.
Mayor Dunfield said the intent would be not to make the conservation easement so strict that continued operation and development of a golf course would not be possible.
Corliss said correct.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Rundle, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Corliss mentioned there were some title issues as explained in his memo. He said last week the City Commission discussed referring property acquisitions of 5 acres or greater to the Planning Commission. He said the City was not acquiring the fee title for that property, but they were acquiring the development rights of that property.
Commissioner Schauner thanked Skeels for his work on this issue. He said this was a creative solution to a vexing problem.
He said now that they were doing that conservation easement purchase of development rights, it might be a tool the City Commission might consider using in the future to help preserve greenspace in the established boundaries of the City. He supported the proposal, but he wanted the rationale articulated for distinguishing the treatment of this condominium association differently than they had treated benefit district abutters in the past. He pointed out that location, configuration and size should be noted and articulated.
Corliss said it was not the use of the property that they could use as a distinguishing characteristic. He said the Kansas Courts had been clear that they should not look at the use of the property or the prospective use of the property.
Mayor Dunfield said in the last couple of years there had been two other conservation easements.
Corliss said in most cases the City was still the land owner and a third party would have been given a conservation easement to alleviate any concerns about any potential development.
Hack said when they were discussing this issue in the beginning it was the then Vice Mayor Dunfield suggestion that staff look into that issue.
Corliss said staff would draft the appropriate resolution and work on the actual assessment methods. He said staff would then come back with the resolution that would set that percentage for the Condominium Association. The City Commission would then adopt that resolution if it met with the Commission satisfaction. He said staff would then do the maximum assessment ordinance and begin negotiations with the property owner and those that have other financial interest with the property on the terms and conditions of the conservation easements. He recommended that the Commission did not close on the conservation easement and proceed with bidding on the stormwater project until after the statute of limitations period had ran on the maximum assessments.
Commissioner Highberger said this was an important matter and that future acquisitions like this should go to the Planning Commission. (9)
Receive presentation on Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies and direct staff to draft and ordinance, as appropriate..
Tom Swenson, Transystems, presented the report. He began with some background information. He said land use and transportation were strongly interdependent. He said effective transportation systems were needed to attract and serve economic development as well as maintain a quality of life in this community.
Swenson presented other information to the City Commission concerning local experience, goals, objectives, requirement framework, extent of study required, study common to all applications, what generated trips, qualifications to conduct a study, the review and use of a study, staff responsibilities, and TIA procedures.
In conclusion, he said Transportation Impact Study Requirements were trying to: 1) assure that the development impacts were accurately and thoroughly assessed; 2) Set clear expectations and provide a consistent process; 3) Review development in context with other development and future conditions; and 4) Consider all modes of travel; and 5) Safeguard the public streets system.
Commissioner Schauner asked Swenson if he was to do a traffic impact study on a particular proposed development was it Swenson’s experience that there was no need to go beyond the first major intersection to evaluate the impact of that proposal. He said his own experience suggested that the immediate area was not the only area impacted by major commercial or residential development, but those collector and arterial streets that led to the development, beyond the first major arterial intersection, were also affected.
Swenson said it was conceivable and probably related to the development of the street system and the level of development activity in a particular area. He said perhaps development was ahead of the investment in a street system. To some extent, the assessment had been made through long-range planning on the major streets. He said it was already identified what needed to be there. The long-range transportation plan was tied to a certain level of land development. In part, it would depend on what would be done with that information. He said he could see cases where it might show that there was a deficiency, but what was causing that was a lag in the street system development.
Mayor Dunfield said that a basic study was going to be required for a development of any size, he asked how much of an investment was that applicant going to need to make in such a study and how much value did the City gain from a study of a less than 100 peak hour development.
Swenson said it was not a formal study. He said it was basic things that went along with putting together a site plan. He said measuring site distances was a fundamental thing that should go on anyway.
Dunfield said so there was value for the City Planners.
Swenson said absolutely.
Commissioner Hack said when looking at the break points and at the houses, she asked if the burden on the cost of the study would go to the last person in.
Swenson said those thresholds were for any single application.
Commissioner Highberger asked about the medium level of scrutiny and if it would include an impact on the adjacent neighborhoods.
Swenson said typically not. He said there was no universal definition of what should or should not be in a Transportation Impact Study. He said typically it was a strict technical assessment of adjacent streets for the purpose of figuring out if they would provide acceptable levels of service as opposed to making more qualitative assessments.
Commissioner Schauner said if beginning to have a sufficient aggregate of development in a given location and that intersection had an unacceptable level of service for the typical travel, his experience was that people would try to find another way around that intersection. He said at some point when new development came to that location, it struck him as reasonable to look at how people had begun to build their own collector streets around a below service level area.
Swenson agreed. He asked the Commission what they wanted included in those studies. He suggested viewing this presentation as a technical assessment for providing the Commission information to make good decisions.
Commissioner Schauner said Lawrence was a surface street City. It would be difficult in managing the projected growth of the City with the existing infrastructure. It seemed that it was reasonable to expect that the City’s level of service in most of the City’s major intersections would deteriorate, perhaps, quickly below Level Service D. He asked how they could use Traffic Impact Studies to help manage that growth and use of the City’s infrastructure.
Swenson said those were not the types of studies that would give the answers that Commissioner Schauner was looking for. He said that was a broader issue and the City Commission would need to establish goals and objectives to reach a conclusion.
Commissioner Highberger asked Swenson if what he was saying was that there were no objective tools to quantify spill over traffic.
Swenson said that would be subjective. He said patterns could be measured, but there was going to be a lot of judgment.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment
After receiving no public comment, Corliss said the Commission needed to have conversation with staff about what the appropriate form of adoption would be for those guidelines. He said to some extent they were regulatory in a sense. When receiving an application, they would want the applicant to perform certain studies so that staff could analyze it more thoroughly. He said in addition to being adopted it should also be in ordinance form. He said he did not see this as part of the zoning code or subdivision regulations. He said staff would include it in an ordinance in the City Code that would spell out the key regulatory language and reference some of the other documents as appropriate. As the land use documents continued they would then reference those requirements.
Finger said that was an accurate statement. She said staff wanted the City Commission’s reflection from what was presented and then staff wanted to bring back to the City Commission something specific with a couple of options on how to implement them.
Commissioner Schauner said he wanted to do this in a way that made sense and was consistent with zoning and subdivision regulations.
Mayor Dunfield said more information about cut-through traffic would be helpful. He said those qualitative types of issues were important and those issues needed to be addressed.
Commissioner Hack asked if Swenson did more of those types of studies for communities as traffic was less prone to observe general courtesy.
Swenson said not more, it usually reached a certain level of frustration of a resident. Typically it was related to something on the major street system that they were trying to avoid.
John Selk, LandPlan Engineering, said they had been doing traffic impact studies for approximately 20 years and he appreciated the City establishing some type of protocol. He said at this time they were focused on being more proactive in transportation planning. He said they try to establish impacts before they finish a design. He said he would like the opportunity to be part of the process in drafting the ordinance.
Commissioner Hack said given his expertise that would make sense.
Commissioner Schauner said he was told by another party that a particular store with a couple hundred thousand square feet would generate 80 or 90 peak hour trips and today he was hearing that a 130 thousand square foot store would generate 500 peak hour trips. He found it interesting that the numbers vary so dramatically and it went to the qualitative nature of the work and the quality of the people that was doing the work. He said he wanted to see the City have a process that put people without vested interest in the economic gain or loss of a project in the driver’s seat when determining what the engineering qualifications would be.
Commissioner Hack said per hour versus per peak hour was two completely different things. She said it would be helpful to have that information.
Wildgen asked if the Commission wanted to send this issue to the Traffic Safety Commission.
Linda Finger suggested that staff handle that issue first. She said David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, was involved in that issue. She said Woosley thought the TSC dealt more specifically with areas that were current rather than setting standards.
Mayor Dunfield agreed. He said on the other hand it might make sense for the TSC to get copies of those reports and ask the TSC to comment on those reports if they had any comments on both the access management and the traffic impact study.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he thought that the TSC was under utilized. He said he thought it was a good idea that the TSC stayed in the loop. (10)
Receive presentation on Access Management Guidelines and direct staff to draft an ordinance, as appropriate.
Bill Ahrens presented the report. Ahrens explained key definitions of “Access” and “Access Management.” He said there were several major goals in Access Management which were: 1) Limit the number of conflict points; 2) Separate the conflicts points; and 3) Remove turning vehicles and queues from through movements.
He said through Access Management they could reduce collisions, delay, and emissions. He said also, through Access Management, they could improve traffic flow, fuel economy, and preserve capacity and public investment.
He said some of the local tools available to manage land development and transportation were: Horizon 2020, Transportation 2025, Roadway Design Guidelines, Access Management Ordinance, Development Code, and the Traffic Impact Study Guidelines. He said all of those tools together were good methods to help the development process.
Ahren said Access Management will provide guidelines and criteria for the spacing of traffic signals, intersecting streets and driveways. It would also influence the area of intersections, median break spacing, left and right turn lanes, and intersection sight distance.
He said concerning driveway location principles they wanted to keep driveways away from intersections, direct access to side streets, no backing out onto the roadways, and avoid driveways along right turn lanes.
Finally, he said Access Management Guidelines would do the following: 1) Define standards to work from applicable to both new development and redevelopment; 2) Set a clear expectation and provide a consistent process; 3) Balance traffic service with land access, with safety as the overarching goal; and 4) Maximize the investment in the public street system.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there was any relevance in touching on pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit when talking about Access Management.
Ahrens said to a large extent it was addressing vehicular traffic.
Commissioner Highberger said he had a concern about the concept of Access Management. He said the better Access Management was controlled, the more multi-lane and high speed areas were being created and that was dangerous to pedestrians. He said he thought there was a relationship between Access Management and pedestrian accessibility.
Ahrens said if there was a four lane arterial street that was posted at 40 or 45 m.p.h., but because of the volume of traffic on that street and the frequency of the access points along the way operating at 20 m.p.h., then there would be a congested situation for a large part of the day and a number of motorists that were seeking ultimate routes through residential neighborhoods. He said if they could manage that access and get traffic to operate at its posted speed, they would hopefully not need to widen that to six lanes.
Mayor Dunfield said he saw Access Management as being very useful in arterials, collectors, and commercial areas in terms of allowing the traffic to flow well which helped keep that spill over traffic off of neighborhood streets. He said when getting down to the residential collector and local street scales there seemed to be an issue of whether some of the Access Management ideas actually work at cross purposes to some of the traffic calming idea. He said at some point if making the roadways too open, clear, and inviting to high speed traffic then you were taking away from the possibility for traffic calming.
Ahrens said it seemed the Mayor was going in two different directions. He said access management was primarily aimed at arterial and some extent collector streets. Traffic calming was primarily residential streets and to some extent collector streets, not on arterial streets because of the function of those roadways.
Mayor Dunfield said the guidelines that were given went down to the local street level.
Ahrens said they did in defining the intersection influenced areas and the driveway locations.
Finger said it was like two different tools to do two different things. She said Access Management was where there was already high speed traffic. She said having different approaches that would help calm traffic was good. She said what had been done inadvertently in this community was talk about traffic calming in relationship to collector and/or arterials, such as Louisiana Street, which confused a lot of people. Those were more management tools because of how the street was used, but pure traffic calming was something more appropriate for the interior to a neighborhood.
Commissioner Schauner said if an Access Management Plan was working well then you could remove the incentive for persons to spill over into neighborhood collector streets. He said what has happened was that Access Management had not been good enough and some collector streets located in neighborhoods were turning into minor arterials. He said Harvard Road was an example because it had become a way to avoid driving on West 6th Street, as a result, neighbors had increasing amount of complaints about the speeds through their neighborhoods. He asked how an Access Management Plan could be developed to minimize that type of issue.
Ahrens said managing the arterials would keep the traffic that was heading toward the commercial areas on the arterial streets that were designed to carry that traffic.
Finger said that happened when the coordination of traffic signals were done on Iowa Street. She said they would not be able to retrofit all of those arterials immediately.
Commissioner Schauner said when talking about Traffic Impact Studies and Access Management polices, they would want to create a conflict matrix to make sure that those two policies served one another.
Ahrens said that was an excellent point. He said they had been developed concurrently.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if other communities addressed the pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit, in their Access Management Plan.
Ahrens said no. He said again, the main intent was to manage arterial systems.
Vice Mayor Rundle said it seemed hard for him to reconcile that this was strictly an arterial systems. He said people on bicycles were not going to stay isolated on one side of an arterial street or another.
Ahrens said the two issues would work closely together. He said if someone wished to develop a piece of property, they would look at the Access Management Guidelines along with other applicable materials and come to staff with a development plan. He said if in that development proposal there was development that generated a number of trips then there would be a traffic impact study.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the benchmarks of the Access Management Plan changed as the project generated more traffic.
Ahrens said the Access Management Guidelines define how far back from an intersection, for example, where a driveway should be or what the intersection influence was between two intersecting arterial streets or an arterial versus collector.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that meant without regard to the volume of traffic at that location.
Ahrens said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked at some point would it be anticipated that part of the Access Management would provide an elevated access for pedestrians or bicycles across what would soon become a big intersection. He asked if that was tool that would make sense at some point.
Ahrens said that was something that could be included in the draft as a minimum threshold for providing pedestrian overpasses.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to see it thought about in advance rather than having it triggered by a fatality.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
John Selk, Landplan Engineering, said this was a good program, but the Commission needed to be realistic. He said there were certain situations that would always be and there was an appeals process that was involved. He said it was not well defined in the process. He said there was always going to be a situation that would come up that did not quite fit. It was important to do as much as you could to the greatest extent. He said specific distances might not always work and that was the reason for an engineering judgment. He said as a demonstration, he would like to go back on several large projects and see what implications there were to give the City Commission a better understanding.
Vice Mayor Rundle suggested that if Selk had any suggestions for flushing out that appeals process to pass that information on.
Commissioner Hack said this item was in tandem with the previous item and she suggested asking staff to proceed with this item as well as the previous item and provide the City Commission with information. She liked Commissioner Schauner’s idea of a study session.
Commissioner Highberger suggested that there be neighborhood input.
Mayor Dunfield said in thinking about testing the guidelines on actual situation, he thought about Barker Street. He said if those guidelines for collectors were applied to that street it would look substantially different. He said a study session would be a good forum to think through some of those issues.
Commissioner Schauner said concerning retrofitting developments, he suggested using new developments compared to some older developments. As those development concepts had changed over the past 15 to 20 years there were more cul-de-sacs and large curvilinear street development, he suggested seeing how those policies would impact those projects. (11)
During Commission items Commissioner Highberger asked for a staff report on enforcement of the snow removal ordinance. (12)
Moved by Schauner , seconded by Hack , to adjourn at 9:10p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Purchase Nalcolyte polymer chemical from Nalco Chemical Co., for $58,500.
2. Ordinance No. 7731 – 1st Reading, Amend Horizon 2020, Urban Growth Area (CPA-2003-3)
3. Site Plan – (SP-10-65-03) Children’s Learning Ctr., 205 N Mich.
4. Site Plan – (SP-11-69-03) 3 story apt to 12 bedrooms at 1334 Ohio.
5. Subordination Agreement – 1614 E 18th, George & Ardith Shove.
6. City Manager’s report.
7. Contractor Licensing – Lawrence Home Builders Assoc.
8. Ordinance No. 7733 – 1st Reading, Evaporator coils exempt from mechanical permits.
9. Benefit District – Public Hearing for Orchards Golf Course.
10. Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.
11. Access Mgmt Guidelines.
12. Snow Removal report request. (Commissioner Highberger)