February 10, 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.
The City Commission received a presentation from John Reese, Nurse for Lawrence Memorial Hospital for child passenger safety awareness week; and also received a presentation from David Carter, member of the Lawrence Sesquicentennial Commission & cartographer of the Sesquicentennial Map.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of February 3, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of November 19, 2003; the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of December 9, 2003; and the Recycling and Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of December 10, 2003 and January 14, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, approve claims to 312 vendors in the amount of $1,088,670.50 and payroll from January 25, 2004 to February 7, 2004 in the amount of $1,358.887.11. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Shannon Criss to the Conservation Advisory Board to a term that will expire December 31, 2004; and reappoint Mike Porter to the Uniform Building Code Board of Appeals to an additional term that will expire November 30, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to execute the Engineering Services Agreement with Professional Engineering Consultants for the design of the Kasold Bridge in the amount of $124,000. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to authorize the City Manager to execute and Engineering Services Agreement with All Points Surveying, LLP in the amount of $19,557.46 for surveying 13th and Oregon Stormwater Improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to authorize the City Manager to execute an Engineering Services Agreement with Bartlett & West Engineers, Inc., in the amount of $32,786.25 for the street design on Harvard Road, east of George Williams Way. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to authorize the City Manager to execute an Engineering Services Agreement with Bartlett & West Engineers, Inc., in the amount of $10,576.50 for the reinforced concrete box culvert design on Harvard Road, east of George Williams Way. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to execute an Engineering Services Agreement with Bartlett & West Engineers, Inc., in the amount of $4,071 for the waterline design on Harvard Road, east of George Williams Way. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Ordinance No. 7746, establishing a “35 mph speed limit” on Riverridge Road between Iowa and Michigan Streets, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-10-19-03) for “The Ridge at Alvamar”, a proposed 85-lot single family subdivision containing approximately 24.6487 acres; the property is located north of Clinton Parkway and approximately one-half mile west of Sport to Sport and west of Lake Alvamar, and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for Yankee Tank Court;
2. Execution of an agreement not to protest the formation of a benefit district for Clinton Parkway geometric improvements;
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
4. Provision of a revised Final Plat to include the following changes:
a. Label utility easement along south side of Lot 48, Block 1;
b. Provision of the book and page reference regarding the Homeowners’ Association; and,
c. Revise Planning Commission Chair name.
5. Filing of the Homeowners’ Association for Tracts “A, B, C and D” (Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation) to immediately follow the filing of the Final Plat for The Ridge at Alvamar Addition;
6. Pinning of the lots in accordance with section 21-302.2;
7. Submission of the following public improvement plans prior to recording of the Final Plat:
a. Clinton Parkway Improvements, per the City Engineer’s approval;
b. Stormwater improvement plans, per the City Stormwater Engineer’s approval; and
c. Street plans or sufficient documentation to demonstrate the private streets shall be constructed to minimum City Standards per the City Engineer’s approval.
8. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Copy of paid property tax receipt;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a master street tree plan.
Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-12-24-03) for ALDI Subdivision, a replat of Lot 9, Lawrence Auto Plaza, a two-lot commercial subdivision containing approximately 3.061 acres and is located north of 31st Street and west of Iowa Street, and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds;
c. Submittal and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan.
2. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
3. Submittal of public improvement plans (for sanitary sewer plans) to the City Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat;
4. Filing of a cross access easement providing access to Lot 2;
5. Provision of a note on the face of the plat that provides a Book and Page reference to filed cross access easement between Lots 1 and 2;
6. Revise name of Planning Commission Chair on face of plat.
Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the site plan (SP-12-71-03) for Peoples Bank, located north of 31st Street and west of Iowa, subject to the following conditions:
1. Record cross access easement agreement between Lots 1 and 2, ALDI Subdivision and reference book and page on site plan;
2. Site plan will not be released for issuance of permits by the Neighborhood Resources Department until the final plat has been recorded at the Register of Deeds office;
3. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement; and,
4. Written permission from the owner of Lot 1, ALDI Subdivision for the parking lot improvements proposed north of Lot 2.
Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the site plan (SP-01-09-04) to re-approve Warehouse/Office building at 911 East 11th Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submission of a revised plan to reflect the status relative to the Nov. 7, 2001 floodplain maps; and
2. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement.
Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to execute a quit claim deed transferring 0.0790 acre of property generally located at the northeast corner of Michigan and 3rd Street, remainder tract from earlier stormwater projects. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the request from the Heritage Committee of the Sesquicentennial Committee to modify the City shield graphic for use on a coin and promotion of the Sesquicentennial Celebration. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Ruth Beebe, 2708 Rawhide Lane. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Shirley Connett, 2001 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Cheryl Fugett, 2009 Maple Lane. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Pat Sinclair, Lawrence, pulled the approvals of the Drinking Establishment License from the consent agenda for discussion. She had a concern about the Drinking Establishment License for Abe and Jakes Landing. The City license had been expired for approximately one month. She said there had been recent talk about some establishments being “grandfathered” or not and whether some of those establishments in the C-3 zoning area were exempt from the food sales requirement that required 55% food sales.
She said Abe and Jakes has landed on a list of those establishments that were grandfathered. She said Abe and Jakes did not begin operation until 2000 which was 6 years after that food sales ordinance took place and she asked the Commission not to consider that establishment to be grandfathered.
She gave a brief history of the renovations of their building. She said because the building had new ownership, a new lease, new players, and a new game plan therefore nothing from 1994 would apply to that establishment right now. She said they were currently not in compliance with their lease.
Sinclair said according to a police report Abe and Jakes was the 4th most frequent for calls for service. She said the Commission had power within the code to place further conditions on that establishment.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, said in 1994, the City Commission met to consider the issue of the new zoning laws. He said Mr. Elwell, leaseholder of the Barb Wire Building (Abe & Jakes Landing), explained the impact of the proposed ordinance on the project. He said Elwell already began construction on that project.
He said Elwell pointed out that the City was changing its zoning laws and under State statutes and under the City’s zonings laws when a business had begun substantial construction, the business had vested rights to continue under the laws in which construction was started.
He said the minutes stated: “Elwell wanted to make sure that his project could proceed. He felt comfortable if the City Commission identified that the project was started with their approval prior to the adoption of the Ordinance.”
The minutes went on to read: “The Commission concurred that the Elwell project was under construction with their official approval prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6527.”
He said when Elwell was able to finish construction and obtain an occupancy permit and the City issued a drinking establishment license to Elwell without the food sales requirement.
Mayor Dunfield said those minutes indicated that there was a least one Commissioner who wanted to explicitly say on the record that that project could go forward.
Corliss said the minutes were explicit in that the Commission concurred that the Elwell project was under construction prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 6527. He said the Commissioner wanted to make sure that there was a record of contemporaneous use before the actual adoption of that zoning ordinance and that his use was vested and was allowed to continue under the existing zoning laws at that time.
Commissioner Schauner asked in notifying licensees of their expiration date for their license what was staff’s practice.
Wildgen said until last year staff had been sending notices. He said staff was sending out notices again as a courtesy.
Commissioner Schauner asked with respect to the Abe and Jakes Landing license, he asked if staff sent notice that their license was about to expire.
Diane Trybom, Deputy City Clerk, said she had called Abe and Jakes on January 5, 2004.
Commissioner Schauner asked when staff received an application from Abe and Jakes for renewal of that license.
Trybom said two days later.
Commissioner Highberger said he did not see any valid reason to change the rules of the game.
Vice Mayor Rundle said at that time when he was a City Commissioner, he was very interested in seeing the building renovated.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not find an argument persuasive to deny any of the licenses for those three applicants. He suggested approving those licenses and also to address the related issues in another fashion.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, to approve the Drinking Establishment License for Abe & Jakes Landing, 8 East 6th Street; Free State Brewing Co., 636 Massachusetts; and La Tropicana Restaurant, 434 Locust Street. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Pat Sinclair, Lawrence, pulled the approval of the Final Plat for Tenants to Homeowners Addition. She pointed out that was an area across Haskell Avenue from where the Salvation Army was planning on building their new center and southeast where there were Habitat for Humanity homes. She said when the Woods project was being developed there was a large home in that area that was salvageable. She said she expressed her written and verbal concerns that if that home was salvageable it could possibly be moved to a nearby location. Apparently after the Woods project was approved they decided to get a demolition permit for that structure. She said she made an attempt to make her concerns known and suggested that structure, if a park was built at that location, could be used for a City function or that home could be moved to a vacant lot nearby.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-12-22-03) for Tenants to Homeowners Addition, a replat of a portion of Lot 1, Brewster Subdivision and an adjacent unplatted; a single-family subdivision containing approximately .339 acres and is located on the east side of Haskell Avenue, north of 19th Street, and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Submittal and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan.
2. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement.
3. Revise name of Planning Commission Chair on face of plat.
Motion carried unanimously. (17)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said the North Lawrence Drainage Study’s contract was approved in December. The first public meeting would be held later this month and the survey work would start in April.
Also, during the City Manager’s Report, David Woosley, Traffic Engineer briefed the City Commission on traffic circles, roundabouts, and signage for motorists. He said because of those traffic calming devices intersection collisions had been reduced on average by 70% and overall collisions by 28%.
He said concerning traffic circles, the Federal Highway Administration designed a sign which was depicted in their new manual with showed the direction that should be taken around the circular islands. He said when traffic calming circles were first installed; staff produced a brochure which was available on the Public Works Internet site. There were copies also available at City Hall.
He informed the Commission about the law concerning roundabouts and traffic calming circles. The Standard Traffic Ordinance for Kansas Cities (STO) in Section 45(b) stated: “A vehicle passing around a rotary traffic island shall be driven only to the right of such island.” He said that ordinance went back to approximately 1974 when rotaries were common throughout the country.
In Section 57(a) of the STO it stated: “When two vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.” He said that approach was different for a roundabout. Kansas law had not recognized that type of approach. He said when they first started installing those roundabouts, that section of the STO was amended to add “except the driver of the vehicle entering a roundabout, rotary traffic island intersection, shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle circulating within the roundabout. He said since then, traffic calming circles had been installed and staff needed to update the code concerning traffic calming circles in that section of our City code.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the City deviated from the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Calming Devices).
Woosley said staff tried to follow closely with the MUCTD because anytime you deviate that would give ammunition to the opposition in that those standards were not followed if there was a claim or a court case. He said if staff did deviate, they documented those reasons.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City would retrofit the existing traffic calming circles or roundabouts with the newest version of the sign showing proper circulation.
Woolsey said yes. He said half of those signs were changed now.
Woosley informed the Commission on center island narrowing which was a raised island located along the centerline of the street that narrowed the travel lanes at that location. He said those islands provided a midpoint refuge for pedestrian crossings and worked well when combined with crosswalks. Some potential impacts of those center islands would be reduced parking along the street and those islands could cause a problem with driveways if in the same area. He said those center islands might visually enhance the street through landscaping if desired, but that might limit the visibility of a pedestrian crossing the street. He said bicycles traveling near those center islands would be narrowed which was a problem.
He informed the Commission about collisions, speed, and volume data in Lawrence, based upon Police Department filed reports.
He said staff was looking at ways to improve signage of the islands along Louisiana. He said staff was looking at moving those signs off the island and to the right to get closer to that left edge of the driving lane. Moving those signs would also eliminate some of the glare of headlights coming from the opposite direction. He said in addition to moving the signs, staff thought about an advanced sign up the road approximately 150 feet, but one concern was that sign was not standard.
Commissioner Highberger asked about accident reported concerning bicycles.
Woosley said there were not accidents reported. He said they were all single vehicle accidents.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there were any other option to make those islands safer such as those plastic posts on the temporary islands if they were placed ahead of the dividers.
Woosley said those could be installed with the pavement markings. He said that was a legitimate traffic control device. He said those posts had a three inch band of reflective material on the top.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked how long those posts last when under areas of high traffic volume like the posts at Crestline.
Woolsey those posts at Crestline did not last long because people drove over those posts. He said the posts along Harvard Road were mounted on the rubber curb, but the posts on Crestline did not include any rubber curbing.
Mayor Dunfield said along that same line, he wondered about a rumble strip, something that was low to the ground which would act as a warning rather than something that could be knocked over.
Woosley said different jurisdictions used rumble strips as warnings. Most of those were isolated cases in the country to make drivers aware. He said one problem was that those strips were noisy.
Mayor Dunfield suggested that those strips should only be located where cars should not be driving.
Woosley concurred.
Mayor Dunfield said Woosley’s alternatives had to do with signage. He asked if there were other ways that the islands themselves could be built so that they were less likely to damage cars, but still served the function that they needed to serve.
Woosley said those islands could be sloped down, but one concern was if the island was sloped and a car would ride up on that island where a pedestrian was standing in the center of the island, it would not provide the pedestrian with protection. He said the islands on Louisiana could not be sloped because of the type of construction which was concrete on top of pavement.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if there was any reason not to put the pedestrian islands along Barker Avenue.
Woosley said if they installed those pedestrian islands, those islands would need to be ADA accessible. A ramp would need to be placed on the other side of the street where there was no sidewalk.
Commissioner Schanuer said there were two issues which were helping cars avoid being damaged and the other was making the area safer for pedestrians and was the primary focus. He asked if staff looked at type of lighting that was available at those crossing areas so they offered more illumination than the rest of the street.
Woosley said no, but staff could look at that idea.
Mayor Dunfield asked if there was data on reduction of speed for islands.
Woosley said no, there had not been a lot of data collected. He said anecdotally, when they had those temporary islands on Harvard Road, the area residents indicated that when those islands were first installed they slowed traffic down, but when they realized that they did not need to slow down the traffic speed increased again. He said people in the area started parking their vehicle near those islands so that traffic would slow down because the traffic had to maneuver around those vehicles.
Vice Mayor Rundle suggested that staff apply the 4-H Model. (18)
REGULAR AGENDA
Conduct a public hearing on proposed maximum special assessments for the improvement of Folks Road (6th Street to Mulberry).
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the report. He said a notice was sent to the affected property owners on the proposed maximum assessments and the map. He said when the Commission adopted Resolution No. 6512, they ordered the improvement and established the special assessment benefit district. He said the Commission also directed staff to discuss and present agreements for the deferral of special assessments for tracts 13, 14, 17, and 18 owned by the McVeys, the Mayhughs, and the Hodges. The previous Commission’s action had approved deferral agreements for the McVeys, tract 18, and the Hodges, tracts 13 and 14. He said yesterday, the Mayhugh’s had presented an executed deferral agreement for tract 17 and would be on the City Commission agenda next Tuesday. Those agreements provided that the City would pay the special assessment costs for the road improvement accepted on the condition that if that property was redeveloped, then the property owner, at that time, would be responsible to pay the City $7,500.
He said the packet that was presented to the Commission also contained the listing of the assessments. Resolution 6512 established the estimated project costs at $1,820,000. He said staff wanted that estimate at that level so that staff could establish the maximum assessment in an amount that would be certain to be under.
He said the City Commission had a list of the property owners that were notified earlier and some of the property had changed hands, but that property owner was aware of this hearing.
He said staff believed it was appropriate to establish the maximum assessments. The dollar amount of the Resolution would not change unless the Commission started the process over again.
He said the City Commission’s action was to conduct a public hearing and close the public hearing based on that information and direct staff, if appropriate, to proceed with the presentation and be placed on a future consent agenda, the ordinance that would establish the maximum assessments. The adoption of that ordinance and publication gave the property owners 30 days to initiate a district court action to challenge the maximum assessments. After those 30 days, by statute, they would be barred from seeking judicial relief for the assessments.
He said staff would be presenting to the Commission a contract from Peridian Group for design of that project. The design of that project was very important. He said once the design was at hand, staff would present that design to the City Commission for approval. He said at that point, once the design was confirmed, staff would begin discussions with property owners for the acquisition of the necessary right-of-way. Once that property was in hand, staff would come back to the Commission to set a bid date to select a consultant.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to close the public hearing.
Moved by Hack, seconded Schauner, to direct staff to draft the appropriate ordinance to be placed on a future agenda for first reading. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Conduct a public hearing on proposed maximum special assessments for the improvement of Monterey Way (Peterson Road to Stetson Drive).
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. He said this was a previously approved road improvement project where Monterey Way was being improved from Peterson Road to Stetson Drive. He said staff felt that the earlier resolution that established the benefit district did not provide for adequate funds and did not recognize that the alignment of the road needed to be moved to the east of Monterey Way was established because of a location of a gas pipeline. He said staff was confident that they currently had the right dollar amount for that project.
He said the property owners had been notified of the benefit district process and the hearing in which the City Commission was considering the maximum assessments. He said the Commission action was to consider public comment and direct staff, if appropriate, to come back with the ordinance establishing the maximum assessments. He said staff would be presenting to the Commission the final design. Design work had been done by Landplan Engineering as far as the road alignment was concerned. He said the project would be bid, constructed, and opened for traffic. At that time, the actual assessments would be certified on that property.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
J.P. McCoy addressed the traffic calming circles. He asked if another calming circle would be constructed in that area and the criteria for constructing a traffic calming circle.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said the intersection at Peterson and Monterey Way would have a roundabout. It was an intersection of two collector streets and staff had anticipated construction that roundabout since they had looked at those improvements on those roads.
Mayor Dunfield asked staff to address the issue of criteria.
David Woosley, Traffic Engineer, said at the time when this process started, it was an intersection of two collector streets, but now Peterson had been upgraded to a minor arterial. He said the volume of traffic, in future years, was anticipated to warrant something other than just a two way stop or a four way stop. He said staff felt that a roundabout provided a better operation for more traffic that could utilize the intersection much safer than a possible traffic signal which could be needed in the future.
Joan Brunfeldt, property owner on Monterey Way, said they had lived at that location for 19 years. She said when they built their house, the five acres were in the County. Two years ago they reluctantly agreed to be annexed into the City knowing that they would be assessed for the paving of the road in front of their house. At that time, they were given an estimate of $64,000 for their portion of the road which was 330 feet long. A few weeks ago when she was notified about that hearing they found out that this assessment could be as high as $183,000 that was $1,100 per foot. The cost of paving Monterey Way, according to City staff’s graph was 2.7 million dollars for less than half mile of road. She said they were the only people that actually lived on that road, everyone else in that area was a developer and could possibly afford $1,100 a square foot, but they could not. In addition, the assessment was being based on square footage of property, not on the actual costs of paving the frontage which she thought was not fair. She was wondering if that was not a special assessment benefit district and the City had to pay for that, whether that project would be approved. She said 1.6 million dollars of the cost for paving Monterey Way was for stormwater and sewage and she did not know if that was an unusually high amount. She said the area was a stream that ran through that area and was hilly. She said Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, had studied that area and had apparently approved whatever stormwater drainage the developers had recommended, but she thought it should be looked at a lot more carefully before proceeding with that expensive project.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Dunfield asked staff to address the overall cost of the project and the specific cost to the homeowner.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said when looking at the breakdown of the estimated costs there were a number of issues within those costs which were the street, stormsewer, bike lanes, and sidewalks and was estimated at 1.6 million dollars. He said there were additional costs for waterline, a roundabout which was being shared with other benefit districts, property acquisition costs, and gas line relocation costs that were significant in that area. He said the plan that staff was looking at right now would locate the intersection at Peterson and Monterey Way and there would be a 10 foot cut and also a large depression and drainage area. Therefore, they would have a significant drainage structure and a significant amount of fill to level that road to provide a grade that was acceptable.
Again, he said this was an estimate and staff wanted to be on the high side. The previous resolution was low so staff came back with estimated costs based on the additional improvements.
Corliss said in discussions with the Brunfeldt’s, it was staff’s understanding that was represented to staff by both the Brunfeldt’s attorney and by the property owners that owned Springhill Addition No. 2, the property to the north, that Springhill had entered into an agreement with the Brunfeldt’s whereby Springhill Addition would pay all of those special assessment costs on the Brunfeldt’s tract. He said if that was not accurate information, then staff was proceeding under inaccurate information.
Brunfeldt said they had tried to contact the lawyers for Jeffery Smith Construction to find out if they still planned to honor their agreement, but those lawyers were not working for Jeffery Smith Construction anymore. She said she knew that was not the City’s problem, if they ended up needing to sue Jeffery Smith to get their money, but she was concerned that even if someone was paying for their portion of the benefit district, she was still concerned about the costs being tripled for no apparent reason. She said she felt they were manipulated into agreeing to be annexed into the City in thinking that all of that would be taken care of. Now, they were finding out that they might be assessed $183,000.
Commissioner Highberger asked if Brunfeldt’s had a written agreement with Jeffery Smith Construction.
Brunfeldt said yes.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked Brunfeldt about the tripling of the cost for their portion of that benefit district.
Brunfeldt said when they agreed to be annexed into the City, they were told it would be approximately $64,000.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the possibility of the Brunfeldt’s assigning their interest with Springhill to the City so that the City could use its influence to cause that agreement to be honored.
Corliss said that was a possibility. He said the City had never been provided with any copy of the agreement between Springhill and the Brunfeldt’s so he was not aware of the legal technicalities.
Commissioner Hack asked if there were legal implications in deferring this matter until that issue was cleared up because of the amount of money.
Wildgen said Springhill was one of the main proponents of that benefit district. He said the City just needed confirmation to that agreement. He said Springhill wanted to see that benefit district happen.
Corliss said staff would draft an ordinance establishing the maximum assessments back on the agenda when staff received answers to those questions. He said staff would need a copy of that agreement.
Mayor Dunfield asked if there were other alternatives available or should the Commission direct staff to draft an ordinance. He said in the Folks Road situation, the City bought part of the assessment. He asked if those types of options were still open to the Commission. He did not want to take a step that would send them backwards.
Corliss said even in the situation of Folks Road where the City was paying for some of those assessments, an ordinance would still be adopted assessing those properties, but there would be those contracts and more importantly the City would have a contractual obligation to pay those assessments.
Commissioner Schauner said it seemed important to let the folks north of the Brunfeldt’s know that this matter would not be moved much further until the Brunfeldt’s issue was resolved.
Corliss said Springhill might not think that anything needed to be resolved if they intended to honor their contract.
Mayor Dunfield said a statement to that effect would be helpful.
Brunfeldt said they had not answered her letters.
Mayor Dunfield said the Commission would make sure the question was answered.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to prepare a maximum assessment ordinance to be place on a future agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Conduct a public hearing on a request for a waiver of the restriction of the sale and serving of alcoholic liquor within 400 feet of a school or church, pursuant to section 4-113(a) of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas regarding the Replay Lounge.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. He said this wavier request was a different situation in that the City at one time had a practice of notifying those licensees about their renewal dates, but that practice lapsed and that was staff’s fault. He said staff had since corrected that practice and was proceeding with notifying the licensees of when their licenses would end with the City and they would need to reapply for their drinking establishment license. He said in this situation, the City Code provided that if there was greater than a 60 day lapse, the waiver became ineffective. He said the situation here was that there was an establishment that at all times has had a State Drinking Establishment License and has not lost its legal non-conforming use status under the City’s zoning code because the use had continued at all times. Because of the lapse in the City license, the City code provided that the waiver would need to be reinstituted.
Mayor Dunfield said that Pastor Forney requested that the Mayor read his letter. The letter stated:
“Please excuse my not being at the meeting in person, but I have a program conflict and will be at a youth meeting.
I want to stay true to what I personally believe as a pastor and what The Salvation Army believes in putting forth a protest about issuing a liquor license. We are a church that is located less than 400 feet from the Replay Lounge, and we house people who are getting off of alcohol. That close proximity may be just enough of a temptation to set some people back from what they have accomplished in their rehabilitation.
To the best of my knowledge, we have had not problems with the Replay Lounge up to this time.
I would like to pose a question to the Commissioners: What is/was the purpose of the ordinance as it is written?
I know you have a difficult decision to make. And, I thank you for your hard work on behalf of the citizens of Lawrence.”
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Price Banks, Attorney for Replay Lounge, said the Replay had been in business for approximately 10 years and they had kept their license up to date. He said they were caught in a glitch and they respectfully request that the City Commission grant the wavier.
He mentioned that the Replay had attempted to be pro-active about heading off problems before they occurred and they were not a trouble spot downtown. He said approximately 2 ½ years ago the Replay was working with the neighbor to attempt to foreclose any future problems relating to noise both coming from Replay and other bar patrons in the area. Again, he respectfully requested that the Commission grant the waiver.
Nick Carroll, Co-owner, Replay Lounge, said he opened the Replay Lounge in 1993 and they had investors from Salina so they kept an office in Salina. He said at that office they paid their payroll, taxes, and licenses. He said the procedures that he had setup were that his staff would get a renewal statement for licenses and his office staff would take the statement and find out the date it was due and the amount. He said they had been successful paying their licenses for the last nine years. This year however, they had paid 7 out of 8 licenses in full. The one license in particular was the City of Lawrence license. He said they did not receive a renewal statement and therefore the office employee was not triggered to pay the amount. He said that license slipped through their fingers and was an honest mistake.
He said he received a call from Frank Reeb, Administrative Services Director, and he was told that the Replay’s license was lapsed and had been several months. He said they thought there had been a mistake, possibly on the City’s part, on not receiving their check. After going through their checkbook, they found that they had not written that check. He said 24 hours after notification, they paid the amount and filled out the necessary paper work. He said Reeb informed him that 5 other businesses that had the same problem and due to the circumstances he would give the Replay Lounge favorable recommendation to the City Commission.
He said Reeb also informed him that since that time had lapsed, the Replay would need to reapply as a new license although they had been at that location for 10 years. He said after hearing that, he immediately contacted the minister from the Methodist Church and the pastor from the Salvation Army. He said they had two very good conversations and he felt that in that conversation the Replay had been a good neighbor.
He said when talking with Pastor Forney, he informed him of their benefits. He said they had done 20 benefits in the last 10 years where they had bluegrass music or acoustical music on the deck and raise money for people who have been in accidents or have a health problems and could not afford the health insurance or medical bills. He said they also talked about other issues, and Forney said he did not have any problems with the Replay. However, he was notified that Pastor Forney was contacted by the Salvation Army and they had a national policy where Forney had to oppose the waiver because of the proximity to the Salvation Army.
He said when he graduated from K.U., he was looking to put a venue in the downtown area because of the culture and because of the quality of life in Lawrence. He said when they opened Replay Lounge they had overwhelming support and there was certainly a market for what they were doing. He said for the last 30 years, downtown Lawrence had developed their music scene and he said they were proud to contribute to that tradition. He said Lawrence was a popular place because of the diversity and several outlets for music, art, and entertainment.
He said in 2003 the Replay Lounge employed 40 people. He said they had several breadwinners for families that worked for them and they paid $60,000 in liquor taxes and $27,000 in rent.
The bottom line was that their procedures had changed. He said they were no longer going to depend or count on a renewal statement. He said they would be making phone calls 60 days in advance, check website, and have other methods to notify staff that licenses needed to be paid. He said it was an honest mistake and they apologized and he assured the Commission that it would never happen again.
John Kollhoff, Lawrence, quoted part of the first amendment which said, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” He said that had been defined as the advancement or any addition of religion. He said this clearly promoted advancement of religion for someone who would not believe in any particular religion. He said if taking that to the other extreme, he asked could the Commission enact an ordinance that would prohibit churches from being located 400 feet from bars. He asked the Commission to take that into consideration.
Marion Lynn, owner of 3 businesses in Lawrence on Massachusetts Street, said this City was a lot nicer than the State because when forgetting your State renewals, they charge double.
He said in talking with Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk, Reeb indicated that City code intention was to mirror the State Law. The State law in 41-710 was the only portion of the alcohol statutes that set any specification on distance and that was limited to retailers (i.e. liquor stores, micro-brewery, and fine winery). He said if it was the intent of the Lawrence liquor ordinance to mirror the State law it should probably be brought into conformity, but he would find it highly objectionable even though it was within the power of the City to exercise home rule in that manner, to preclude the re-issuance of the Replay License.
He said he was notified via email that the citizens of Lawrence contacted the Salvation Army National and advised the National that the local Salvation Army was not going to oppose the Replay’s license. He said at that time he contacted Pastor Forney and he explained that it was policy of the National and he would firmly oppose the license. Although this was not the forum for the determination of the constitutionality of the zoning law, it was his belief that singling out churches, as specified in the ordinance, was receiving special treatment. The placement of any business within a given distance of that church might open serious constitutional questions for which the City might be held liable at a later date.
He said the Replay was one of the greatest places downtown. He urged the City Commission to renew that license without reservation.
Pat Sinclair, Lawrence, said from her information when the money was received from Abe and Jakes landing according from the files the money wasn’t received until February 4, 2004. There was also letter dated February 7 saying that the license expired and she had asked for an explanation, but she did not receive an explanation. She said Abe and Jakes did not pay their $250 last month.
She now wanted to address the Replay Lounge. She said there were several issues of interest which were: 1) the waiver issue; 2) what happened back in 1993 when the Replay applied for their first waiver; and 3) some of the circumstances since that time in addressing concerns in Bank’s letter (attorney for Replay).
She asked the Commission to follow the City code in playing by the rules and book in treating people uniformly. She said this was a situation where people were giving emotional appeals, discussing the procedures in place, and the facts that were stated by the applicant and his attorney. She said there was a waiver in the code that applied to churches and schools and it was her opinion that there was a presumption by having that waiver requirement in the code that there was an interest in the public health and safety and that applied to all churches and schools. She said it would be up to an applicant to demonstrate why this case would be different.
She said one of the interesting issues was that Price Banks was the Planning Director for the City of Lawrence during the time that this issue was being considered in 1993 and 1994 when the ordinance passed, therefore, she suggested that it might be inappropriate for Banks to be representing the applicant in this matter and the applicant might wish to seek other counsel.
In a Journal World article, just shortly after the application for the first waiver, Bank’s was quoted as saying: “Price Banks, Planning Director, said the issue stretched beyond nighttime bar traffic which was filing complaints about verbal assaults, property damage, in the downtown. Part of the problem is that you’re losing retail use downtown Bank’s said, bars were tending to move in where solid retailers are moving out. Cases in point, Sidewinders Saloon replaced a carpet business on New Hampshire and the Replay Lounge replaced Kaw Valley Mercantile on Massachusetts.”
She addressed the license lapses. She said it was nice to say that a system was in place and that the City stopped sending out those notices, but they were going to start sending the notices again and that the City had never had a license lapse, but that was not true.
She addressed the police list. She said the Replay Lounge was on the police list for 2003 which the Replay had 73 calls for service and 6 reports.
She said at the time of the original application for a waiver of the distant requirement, the Replay did not have a drinking establishment license, they had a cereal malt beverage license. She said the Salvation Army was not included in the notification and it was an error on the City’s part and whether that in itself rendered a waiver, she said she did not know. She said whether the waiver being granted for a cereal malt beverage license and never being reapplied for at the time they became a drinking establishment made the waiver invalid, she said she did not know.
She had said before that the waiver was not part of the zoning code. She said the first State drinking establishment issued to the Replay was April 28, 1994 and the City license was later. She said sometime in June of that year they received their first drinking establishment license. She added that it was April 12th 1994 when the ordinance was signed and published shortly after. In other words, they did not apply for a drinking establishment license until after the ordinance had been passed. They had a cereal malt beverage license.
She said in reviewing the files there had not been a consistency in letters sent to all establishments. She would also like to point out there were some establishments who had sent in their City license renewal just like clock work. She informed the Commission about some of the letters.
She said there was no lease except the original lease from 1993 in the file. It was required that you were the owner of the property or submit a new lease every time. Although something was faxed to the City Clerk’s office which exercised an option which was a completely different entity and completely different owner of the building. She said currently there was only a lease from 1993.
She said there had been considerable renovations and she did not know if that patio was added, but if it was not done with permission under certain conditions from the City, you were not allowed to take an existing legal non-conforming use and expand it except under certain conditions. There was nothing in the file about the expansion or renovations.
She was not trying to put people out of work, but she did not know why they chose that particular spot given the need for a waiver.
Stephanie Harsin, Lawrence, said she enjoyed the cultural diversity, nightlife, and shopping in Downtown Lawrence which was a huge drawing card to this city. She spoke in support of the reissuing of Replay’s license. She said maybe there had been some problems in the past, but the fact of the matter was that had been allowed to continue.
She said this was a unique venue downtown and there were a lot of places which were specific niches for people in the community to go. She asked the Commission to support the re-issuance of the license.
Ed Tato, President of East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said they had a board meeting in which they talked about this issue. He said the association voted to support the Replay’s request for a waiver. He said the Replay was unique and they wanted to see that establishment to stay and thrive. He said he and his wife spend a lot of time at that establishment.
He said the two issues he had concern with the letter from Pastor Forney was: 1) what was the ordinance for; and 2) the Replay is not adversely affected the Salvation Army. He said he was not sure what this ordinance was suppose to do, but he understood the City often had waivers or request for waivers. He said one of the issues that needed to be addressed was what was the Commission trying to accomplish. He was not sure how 400 feet away from a church would do harm whether at 300 feet or 200 feet. He said he could see how a person might have some offense to the church or an incompatibility with their mission, but he did not understand where the public harm came from. He said the Commission might want to look at that idea, but more importantly the Salvation Army was essentially saying that there was no harm and there has been no harm done.
He was not sure why the Replay should be accountable for the lapse of, in the future, potentially one of Salvation Army’s clients because the temptation was all around Lawrence. It was everywhere that the Salvation Army’s clients were and not just the Replay Lounge. He said it was difficult to understand why one particular bar was going to be singled as more tempting than any other bar.
Sam Pepple, Owner of Everything But Ice and the owner of the building that was located at 936, 940, and 942 Massachusetts. He said he had been a resident, homeowner and business owner in Lawrence for 23 years.
He said Nick Carroll and the Replay Lounge had been very good neighbors. He said they were a hardworking group. He said Carroll took the building that was ill suited for most purposes. He said Carroll and his staff worked and created a very popular bar that continued to evolve and meet the needs of downtown youth/adult scene. He said in addition, the Replay was a music venue that highlighted many up and coming national bands and also served as a place for local bands to gain experience and exposure playing in front of local crowds. He said this added to the creative spirit of Lawrence.
He said the Replay continued to be good neighbors and the patron of the Replay has caused no problems for him or his business since he opened his business 10 years ago.
He said it would be a shame for Carroll’s staff to lose their jobs and the hard work they had put in to create a prosperous, exciting, and taxpaying business. He asked the Commission to grant the wavier and allow the Replay to continue to be an active part of downtown.
Phillip Bradley, Executive Director of the Kansas License Beverage Association and a resident of Lawrence, said Carroll was an excellent young businessman and entrepreneur. He said Carroll not only ran this operation but Carroll had found ways to improve the industry and Carroll had several different operations, one being an inventory system that he and Carroll’s father developed themselves and they marketed nationwide.
He said Carroll was one of the first to work with the City and Downtown when Downtown Lawrence Association had some concerns about trash. As it turned out that trash was generated, not by the Replay Lounge and Carroll was one of the first to step up and resolve that issue. He said as a practice, the Replay was very proactive and worked hard to be good neighbors.
He said Carroll was also one of the founding members of the Kansas License Beverage Association and tended to have a professional nature the way he went about his business.
He said the drink tax that Carroll had mentioned ($60,000 a year) essentially in lieu of the sales tax was 10% higher than sales tax and 70% of that tax came back to the local community.
Pat Sinclair asked the City in a general way to try and start looking at enforcement of the existing code. She had no personal animosity, but she was more concerned that their license lapsed for more than 6 months which she considered by code to be sufficient for a place to lose any grandfathering status.
Commissioner Rundle said he noted that question directed at the Commission from Forney. He said he pulled up the code to try and find an answer. It seemed that it was the impact on public welfare and safety that the City “might” revoke a license. He said this was a way to mediate to try and put some expectation that people were going to be good neighbors and obviously it could not be enforce that, but hope it would occur naturally. He said the ordinance stated that the Commission might revoke their license if it lapsed longer than 60 days. If it was under 60 days, the Code said it shall be disregarded. He said the fact that this was a use that was continued and nothing had changed, he said he could in good conscience grant the waiver.
Commissioner Highberger said what distinguished this case from the case they had last week involving Pepperjax was that this case involved an existing business that had been in business for 10 years and had not caused any problems.
He said as far as the question raised by Forney concerning the 400 foot requirement and what that ordinance accomplished. He said the Replay local institution that was a very important part of the local music scene. He said there had been some concerns about the City’s record keeping and that was something that could be addressed. He said it would be inappropriate to deny the wavier for Replay Lounge.
Commissioner Schauner said he agreed largely with Commissioner Highberger. He said this was a case where the City had undertaken the mailing of notices for renewal. He said that process had been relied upon by those who possess Cereal Malt Beverage or Drinking Establishment Licenses as a trigger for making their payment for their annual licensing fee. He said he preferred that the City get out of the business of mailing anyone a notice.
He said he assumed Carroll was obviously good at creating inventory systems and there were tickler systems available. He preferred that everyone handle their own licensing tickler system to know when their licenses were due so that the City did not get into the business of creating a system and ending up with this type of problem.
He said this was not the right time to talk about grandfathering issue and it should be addressed at the upcoming study session, along with food sales, waivers and a number of other issues.
He said this case was different than all the other alcohol related issues that the Commission addressed in the last month. He said this was the first establishment that he would have voted in favor of and under those circumstances the Replay relied on the City’s pattern of mailing out licenses and he did not think, in this particular case, they should deny the waiver.
Commissioner Hack voted in favor of the waiver. She said the Replay has been a good downtown partner with the local businesses. She said in terms of the music venue, the Replay Lounge was a spectacular place.
In terms of the reminder notices for licensing, she thought about the analogy in terms of driver’s licenses. She thought they looked at their driver’s license more than an establishment would look at their Liquor License. She said she did not know when her driver’s license expired.
Commissioner Schauner said Banks had it correct, 10 years ago when Banks was quoted that the character of downtown was changing. He said they were seeing fewer retailers. He said the number of retail establishments had gone from 90 retail businesses to approximately 45 retail businesses in the past 20 years. He said although those figures did not affect this particular case, he said they were relevant to future discussions about how to address food sales issues and other issues related to this general drinking establishment or cereal malt beverage license issue.
Mayor Dunfield said he was not willing to have this City act to put a good business out of businesses on a technicality. He said that was not the intent behind any of their ordinance, whether it was this one or any other that might be looked at.
In terms of letting licenses lapse, he said Commissioner Hack’s comments reminded him that the one time in his driving career that he failed to renew his car registration on time was the time that he was not notified that it was coming due. He said he thought the City had a proper role in notifying licensees, but that was an issue that could be discussed at the study session. The question of whether the 400 foot regulation was still a relevant and useful ordinance was also an issue that should be discussed at the study session.
He thanked everyone who came out to speak and listen. He said from what was already heard from the Commission, the result was going to be anticlimactic. He said this had been a good discussion and one that would continue in the context of the study session.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he was committed to having clear and consistent policies. That was necessary so that the playing field was level. He said the City needed to administer City policy clearly and consistently which would make a lot less work for the Commissioners and they could focus on much larger issues and goals. He said the Commission was expected to use judgment and expected to deviate from policies which was good cause for process and the chance to appeal.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to grant the wavier request for the restriction of the sale and serving of alcoholic liquor within 400 feet of a school or church, pursuant to section 4-113(a) of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas regarding the Replay Lounge. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
The City Commission took a 5 minute recess.
Conduct a public hearing concerning the vacation of a portion of the right-of-way at the intersection of Pinewood Drive and Michigan Street adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1, Riverside Addition, Consider approval of the Children’s Learning Center parking lot expansion, 205 north Michigan Street to R.D. Johnson Excavating Co., in the amount of $59,950.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said when the area was platted the lots in that subdivision were actually rounded off instead of squared off. He said they needed additional area to square off that parking lot and for a stormsewer. He said all the property owners had been notified and there were no utilities in the area. He said staff recommended vacation without reservation for an easement.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to order the vacation of a portion of the right-of-way at the intersection of Pinewood Drive and Michigan Street adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1, Riverside Addition. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to approve the Children’s Learning Center parking lot expansion, 205 north Michigan Street to R.D. Johnson Excavating Co., in the amount of $59,950. Motion carried unanimously. (23)
Receive a report from Public Works regarding snow removal policies and procedures).
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said Ordinance No. 7456 established the requirements and enforcement of the policy for snow removal on sidewalks. This process was initiated with a complaint to Neighborhood Resources and is handled as followed:
1) City identifies property owners through the use of GIS;
2) City calls each property owner in the area;
3) If possible, City makes an effort to drive by the area to check on the status of the sidewalk and at times, will visit with property owner;
4) Letter gets sent out to property owner;
5) Failure to remove snow or ice within 5 days after the violation notice, a citation may result; and,
6) Property owners may be assessed a fine of $20 for each day the violation occurs, if found guilty of the violation in municipal court.
In conducting a web based search of other communities to see what their cities policies and practices were, they found very few except those in the northern areas that took any responsibility for clearing certain sidewalks. The majority of those cities passed those responsibilities along to the adjacent property owners. The time varied for removal from 6 to 48 hours.
Some of the other issues in the report were that the City being the owner of property also had a responsibility to remove snow adjacent from any property they owned. He said most of the City of departments did some type of snow removal adjacent to City facilities.
He said snow removal was a labor and equipment intensive process. He said additional funding from labor, equipment and materials would probably be necessary if they attempted to take on additional responsibilities.
The types of storms made a difference on how staff approached the snow removal process.
He said they could be assuming some liability issues associated with people who might slip on sidewalks that the City had cleared.
He said there were options for an increased level of services to ensure better pedestrian access after snow and ice events which included:
Again, he said snow removal was a labor and equipment intensive effort. He said it was not merely allocating funds in the budget, but staff’s time and equipment.
Student Commissioner Gage asked how often citations were issued.
Soules said last year in 2003, 132 complaints were received and in 2002, 77 complaints were received.
Vice Mayor Rundle said there was an enormous amount of work that was accomplished even though people were dissatisfied with where the snow landed. He asked if staff could keep away from the curb on residential streets and still have room in the lane to let traffic through.
Tom Orzulak, Street Division Manager, said the problem with snow on the sidewalk stems from where the sidewalk was physically right next to the street. Typically that problem was in the campus area. Those streets were much narrower than the standard street.
Commissioner Hack was concerned about private owned parking lots where the plowing would be done on the lot, but no plowing on the sidewalk. She said the Commission needed to do something with the citizens and the major business owners along the major thoroughfares because that was where people walked.
Orzulak said for instance, on 6th and Iowa Streets, staff would plow that sidewalk, but when staff plowed that wide street it took up the sidewalk.
Commissioner Schauner said staff did a terrific job. He said no matter what staff did, they would not satisfy everyone. He said he recognized that sidewalk clearing was important and rather than the City excepting additional burden to clear everyone’s sidewalk, he would like to see some type of winter or pre-storm campaign to remind people that they had a legal responsibility and a common good neighbor responsibility to clear their sidewalk. He said perhaps the City could tweak the policy to make the notices happen sooner, but the City would not ultimately achieve a much better solution than the City already had in terms of compliance, unless the City raised the public’s awareness about the need to be good neighbors and citizens.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked staff for the following information
1. An inventory of those streets that had sidewalks next to the curb;
2. If staff did shorten the notice to 24 hours and after that period staff cleared and assessed that property, what would be the impact;
3. If it was possible that a business could be held to a higher standard to provide public access to their business; and
4. If staff did consider putting arterial sidewalks and school routes, what would be the impact.
He said if the City did a public campaign perhaps staff could solicit volunteer assistance so that those elderly people who could not shovel their sidewalk could call those volunteers to clear their sidewalks.
Mayor Dunfield said the good neighborly aspect of this issue was one that needed to be emphasized. He said the City issued press releases to remind people of their obligations to shovel sidewalks, but maybe staff could be more active in that area.
He said if the City were to take on additional burdens of clearing certain strategic sidewalks, he would want staff to do that by contracting the work out. He said he did not want to add to the City’s equipment or labor pool in order to take on that type of issue.
He said it was one thing to allocate some money to the budget and use it if the City needed it, but it was something else to have equipment and manpower that might not be needed.
He said as far as the City going out and actually clearing sidewalks based on complaints, he had concerns based on the number of sidewalks that did not get cleared. He said staff would be responding to complaints, but staff would quickly find themselves in the position of having that person who had his sidewalk cleared because the neighbor complained and that person whose sidewalk was cleared complaining about other neighbors in the area.
Vice Mayor Rundle said staff often divided streets and sidewalks apart, but they were part of the City’s transportation system.
Commissioner Schauner said he liked the idea of some inventorying of what might be considered arterial or heavily foot traffic.
Commissioner Hack echoed Commissioner Schauner in that the Street Department had done a remarkable job. She said people appreciated the job they did, but people, at times, were hung up on what was not going right.
Commissioner Highberger said he did not want the City to get involved in directly shoveling private sidewalks. He said he would like to identify some key routes and focus staff’s efforts on that issue, work on enforcement, change the code to make enforcement easier and work with neighborhood associations to coordinate a list of volunteers so that people who cannot shovel sidewalks know where to call to find someone to help. He also would like to see the City give snow shovels to the Homeless Shelters so that someone that needed their sidewalk shoveled could hire someone from the Homeless Shelter. (24)
Receive a staff report concerning proposed roundabout improvements at O’Connell and 25th Streets.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. O’Connell Road project was a KDOT project. He said currently the design proposed was a 3 lane road north and south of the center turn lane. He said a roundabout was included within the project at 28th Street and the project extended from 31st Street to K-10.
Back in December, staff advised the Commission that the development had approached staff and asked the Commission to form a benefit district to construct a roundabout at the intersection of 25th Street and O’Connell. At that time, the plans for O’Connell Road were in their final review with KDOT. At that time staff felt it would be better not to make changes to the plans because a conflict with the schedules. He said staff’s recommendation to the Commission was to bid the project and change order the roundabout at the intersection.
Later in December another proposed development, Farmland Northeast Addition, provided a traffic study to the City and KDOT to recommend substantial improvements to O’Connell Road and K-10. The City discussed with KDOT, in January, the options for O’Connell Road in which KDOT provided the City with three options which were:
1. Let the project as is in the April letting with no change orders for the roundabout allowed due to cost unknowns, right of way issues, utility issues, bidding criteria, the need to give all bidding contractors the same opportunity to bid on the work, etc. The building of the roundabout could be done by the city if and when the zoning changes occurred;
2. Redesign the project and include the roundabout. This will delay letting the project for six to twelve months. We would schedule a letting for the twelve-month time frame and move or reschedule it sooner when the plans are done, right of way acquired, and utilities are all moved. There are some design issues necessary that need to be dealt with when re-designing from three lanes to a roundabout intersection. KDOT Funds for this project will continue to depend on the amount of obligation authority available to Lawrence; and
3. Revise the plans and stop the project short of where the roundabout is planned to begin and call this Phase One. This could possibly be let sooner than Option Two but after the April letting date. The roundabout could be let as Phase Two as soon as the plans are done, right of way acquired, and utilities are adjusted.
He said staff met with the developers and came to a consensus to proceed with the construction as currently designed. The west side development could function satisfactorily with a T-intersection. Some of the residential could be established on the east side and that intersection would be okay.
He said some of the issues staff had were right-of-way and utility issues which were setup three-lane section. The other issue was the Farmland Northeast Project which was not zoned or there was no plat approval.
He said staff’s recommendation was to proceed with the project and at a later date when those development were finalized the way the developers were proposing, than staff would establish benefit districts and make modifications, but that would be in a 3 to 5 year timeframe.
He said staff was asking for the City Commission’s direction on how to proceed with that project.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Soules would like to build the roundabout now.
Soules said that had been discussed and there were some alignment issues with going from 5 lanes to 3 lanes. If they centered it on the 3 lane section and then it was widened, he said they could only widen it to one side because of the existing private utility easements on the other side. He said staff needed to look at how that roundabout needed to be situated if a 5 lane section was necessary.
He said in regards to Commissioner Schauner’s question he said no, staff would not want to put the roundabout in centered at that intersection down to three lanes.
Commissioner Schauner said whatever options staff took, there would be retrofit costs associated with that intersection and/or the widening of O’Connell.
Soules said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked which of the options would cost the City the least amount of retrofit.
Soules said the additional roundabout and/or the additional two lanes that might be necessary would all be done through a benefit district. If there were any City costs it would be minimal.
Mayor Dunfield said if they went from a 3 lane to a 5 lane obviously there would be a lot of changes involved. If they assumed that a 3 lane section was going to be adequate for the foreseeable future, he asked if there were things that they should be doing short of putting in the roundabout now that would help them keep the costs down.
Soules said staff thought about the possibility of shifting the centerline. If you have 5 lane section the centerline would move. He said in KDOT’s opinion that was not a substantial change and could be done in the field with contractor after the bid. Other issues might be stormwater inlets and piping which was mostly on the west side.
Mayor Dunfield said they were not putting in a roundabout at this point, but if they were to put in that roundabout and maintain the 3 lane configuration at a future date, he asked if there were things that they should be thinking about in the design phase that would help keep the cost of that future improvement down.
Soules said staff could address that issue. He said staff was working with the current plan. He said the base work could be kept and the intersection would probably need to be moved.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the intersection was not designed as a whole unit considering utilities, roundabout, and five lanes. He asked why this project was being done a piece at a time.
Soules said staff did not know they were going to have the development that had been proposed in that area. The intersection had been designed for a 3 lane section, but nobody had any idea of this type of development.
Finger said there was no set development. The long-range plan had not included Farmland because those properties were assumed to be not developable in the near future. The City’s Southeast Development Plan, which was a draft plan did not anticipate the type of density of growth that had been proposed between O’Connell and Franklin Road. She said it was comparable to the Baldwin Creek area to the northwest part of the City.
She said when staff first started looking at O’Connell Road, they were looking at improving a collector street. She said staff still believed that O’Connell was a collector street that it should function as a collector street, then staff would look at the higher intensity uses that were proposed in Chapter 6 of the Commercial Study. She said staff wanted to focus on Franklin Road.
She said there were things that could be done as far as directing traffic to the intersection to where it should go rather than to a collector street and those would come forward as the development moved through the process.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if they would get the right-of-way.
Finger said yes, that would be a request to dedicate right-of-way.
Soules said the development would enter into agreements not-to-protest for the intersection improvements and any other improvements that were needed.
Commissioner Schauner said this struck him as the kind of example of where the City was trying to catch up with development rather than having said in advance where they wanted to place a street and development would follow that. He said he wished this process was reversed and as they talked about the urban growth area to the south, he hoped they would take a very different approach and not have that type of conversation in the future. He said there were costs to be borne by someone, it might not be the City in this case, but he was concerned about the sequencing of this project.
Soules said O’Connell had been planned as a collector street.
Commissioner Hack said the situation was that they did not know Farmland was going to make it available. She said the City needed to be ahead of the game, but it was dumped in the City’s lap before having a chance to get ahead.
Vice Mayor Rundle said when the road was assessed as a potential collector, he asked Finger if she looked at full development of that area of town.
Finger said yes. She said there was the ability to design the commercial and neighborhood center there such that it took primary traffic from Franklin and ultimately that was what the arterial would be when they had a connection to Franklin and that it could be designed along O’Connell that it served the residents to the south, but not traffic into the neighborhood. The traffic into the neighborhood was designed to function accessing their property from Franklin.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City took the position that O’Connell would remain a collector and the City was not going to expand that road, in fact, require the main access to come off of Franklin for this development, then they would be able to minimize the retro-fit expense.
Finger said correct or phase the development such that you could not have “x” amount of traffic volume until there was access to Franklin.
Mayor Dunfield concurred with staff’s recommendation.
Corliss said staff had advised the current property owner that when the improvements to O’Connell would be necessitated by that development, they would bear the entire costs of those improvements pursuant to the City’s development policy.
Commissioner Schauner opposed staff’s recommendation because he believed in the long run it was less expensive both to the developer, the ultimate consumer, and the ease of traffic in that area to build a roundabout now and not later. He voted against staff’s recommendation. He said the roundabout should be done now and condition all future development plans in that area to a Franklin arterial access.
Vice Mayor Rundle said he would be interested in assessing the short term savings offset by the ultimate higher costs.
Finger said there was a safety issue at that location at this time. She said a resident who primarily used O’Connell Road had a hard time getting in and out and they were looking forward to this project for over the two years. The biggest issue for staff was to clear up the safety issue.
Mayor Dunfield said his main concern was if staff went ahead with the roundabout now there would be a 6 to 12 month delay.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked what they needed to do to shift the way they did things so that they could build a facility the size they wanted for full development. He said it was not a simple question.
Finger clarified for the Mayor and said that it would take longer than twelve months to revise those plans. She said it would take approximately 6 – 12 months to revise plans to get them through the whole process. Then it was whether they hit the building season or not. So what they were saying was that they could not go ahead with this project.
Hack asked what the level of KDOT’s participation in that project was.
Soules said KDOT‘s participation was 80% of construction. He said they had already paid to relocate those utilities for right-of-way.
Corliss said another point was that they had to wait for development proposals from the east side to come to some level of finality to know where to locate the land tie.
Commissioner Schauner said the intersection was already failing.
Corliss said the road was substandard and it was a County standard and not a City standard.
Soules said that road was in need of a lot of repair and that repair had been put off because staff knew that this project was coming up.
Wildgen said that road improvement had been on the STP five year plan.
Mayor Dunfield said that needed to be clarified that the safety issues was not the intersection, but the road itself.
Finger said that KDOT made it clear to staff that if they wanted the roundabout, that project would be off for this calendar year. She said they thought they could do a minor adjustment which would be the plans being redrawn to offset the centerline. The roundabout was significant to KDOT.
Soules said those were right-of-way and utility issues. He said KDOT did not want to put a project out there for bid knowing that there might be right-of-way and utility issues.
Mayor Dunfield said he did not think with the safety and funding issues that the Commission could delay a decision. He said it was unfortunate that the City could not build a roundabout. He agreed with Commissioner Schauner that the city should stick with its original plan and maintain that the road as a three lane. He said they could build a roundabout in the future, but in the meantime they needed to address those issues of concern.
Commissioner Schauner agreed with the Mayor that the plans should go forward.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the O’Connell and 25th Street improvements and direct staff to bid the project in April. Motion carried unanimously. (24)
Receive a staff report concerning KDOT Economic Development project on 23rd Street (K-10) from Iowa to Louisiana.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, presented the staff report. She said KDOT would like to approve an Economic Development project which was to implement consolidation of curb cuts along 23rd Street which followed the 23rd Street Corridor Study. She said KDOT would like to do the project 50/50, rather than 80/20 because that would stretch KDOT’s money further and it would show the City’s commitment. Finger said staff needed the Commission’s concurrence to proceed. She said staff did not have a specific area identified, but somewhere in the corridor between Iowa and Louisiana on 23rd Street. She was not sure if staff would start on the east or west side, but they would pick a block and see how far the money would go. She said staff would like to approach this project on a block-by-block basis to see if they could get some consolidation of access based on the 23rd Street Corridor Study. She said the City would be buying cross access easements and not specific access.
Commissioner Schauner asked if they would close that road.
Finger said they would close that road because the City would purchase cross access easements. She said they would close some curb cuts.
Commissioner Schauner said that would be a retrofitted frontage road type of project. He said the project should proceed. He thought that there wasn’t a street in town more criticized than 23rd street. He said he hoped that the City would learn from this experience as they moved west on 6th in developing that corridor. He was genuinely concerned that they would see increasing pressure for additional cuts in that road along with development requests increased along the north side of that street.
Finger said that was in local agreement with the State. She hoped that between the City and State that would provide strength.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the City would need to cover an increased cost to the City.
Wildgen said this was a new project and staff would place in the Capital Improvement Budget in two years.
Commissioner Schauner asked if they had another opportunity to close an access, between now and 2007, would they do that.
Finger said if that opportunity happened, she encouraged the City Commission close an access based on the adopted 23rd Street Corridor Plan.
Corliss said there was a good example of an access management opportunity that Planning staff had aggressively pursued immediately to the west of the Farmland property to close off access at that point where there was a church and duplex that accesses onto 23rd Street. He said staff tried to work out some arrangement with the plat and the City’s design goals and access opportunities. He said staff tried to pursue something that staff could favorably recommend to the Commission, but it did not happen.
Moved by Commissioner Highberger, seconded by Hack, to direct staff to notify KDOT for the acceptance of KDOT’s Economic Development project on 23rd Street (K-10) from Iowa to Louisiana. Motion carried unanimously. (25)
Discussion of a joint resolution supporting Life Sciences Initiative. Staff will provide a draft resolution prior to the meeting.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the staff report. He said he provided a draft Resolution 6525 and also information about the Kansas Economic Growth Act (KEG). The Draft resolution 6525 anticipated a number of signatories. He said there was also a comment from the Mayor to include an additional recital.
He said the draft indicated the various entities support of the bill and tried to indicate its level of priority. He said in a news release it indicated that the bill had two different components. One was an effort to consolidate and promote some of the entrepreneurial incentive aspects of the State as a minor financial component and it was in the portion of the resolution initialed “Kansas Entrepreneurial Initiative.” Another component was a creation of a Kansas Biosciences Authority that would develop and fund the bioscience industry initiatives in the State and essentially as the bill was structured, as he understood it, it would forecast additional revenues from the improved and growing biosciences industries in the State. The State revenues did not include local revenues. The State revenues would be used to retire the debt that had gone into promoting the biosciences industries. Somewhat similar to a TIF although the analogy was not tidy, but it was the idea that the public’s investment would be paid off by the additional tax revenue that came to the State by an approved bioscience industry in the State. He said there was State revenue that was associated with this.
Commissioner Schauner said unlike a star bond with the building infrastructure and sidewalks paying with future sales tax revenues.
Corliss said that was a better analogy than the TIF.
Corliss said the bill was introduced a few weeks back and they would work with bond counsel to get the appropriate signatories.
Mayor Dunfield said the main element of this course was that economic development was a goal of the Commission. He said it seemed that Lawrence and Douglas County were ideally positioned to contribute to this effort as well as benefiting from it. Given the way the Legislature’s schedule went, if the City was going to make a statement, then the City needed to make it quickly and visibly. He said he had one suggestion about wording, but other than that, he was pleased with the resolution.
Commissioner Hack said the Commission needed to jump on this opportunity to show how important it was to this City.
Commissioner Schauner agreed. He said this was something that needed to be pursued as actively as possible. He said the City’s long term economic future was tied to this activity.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Hack, to approve the joint resolution supporting Life Sciences Initiative as amended. Motion carried unanimously. (26)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to adjourn at 9:53 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Engineering Service Agreement – Professional Engineering Consultants for design of Kasold Bridge for $124,000.
2. Engineering Service Agreement – All Points Surveying for surveying of 13th & Oregon Stormwater Improvements for $19,557.46.
3. Engineering Service Agreement – Bartlett & West Engineers for street design on Harvard Rd, E of George Williams Way for $32,786.25.
4. Engineering Service Agreement – Bartlett & West Engineers for reinforced concrete box culvert design on Harvard Rd, E of George Williams Way for $10,576.50.
5. Engineering Service Agreement – Bartlett & West Engineers for waterline design on Harvard Road, E of George Williams Way for $4,071.
6. Ordinance No. 7746 – 2nd Reading, 35 mph speed limit, Riverridge between Iowa & Michigan.
7. Final Plat – (PF-10-19-03) The Ridge at Alvamar, 24.6487 acres, N of Clinton Pkwu ½ mile W of Sport to Sport.
8. Final Plat – (PF-12-24-03) Tenants to Homeowners Addition, .399 acre, E side of Haskell, N of 19th.
9. Final Plat – (PF-12-24-03) ALDI Subdivision, 3.061 acres, N of 31st & W of Iowa.
10. Site Plan – (SP-12-71-03), Peoples Bank, N of 31st & W of Iowa.
11. Site Plan – (SP-01-09-04), re-approve Warehouse/Office Bldg at 911 E 11th.
12. Quit Claim Deed – .0790 acres, NE corner of Michigan & 3rd Streets.
13. Heritage Committee of Sesquicentennial Committee – graphic for coin.
14. Mortgage Release – 2708 Rawhide, Ruth Beebe.
15. Mortgage Release – 2001 Massachusetts, Shirley Connett.
16. Mortgage Release – 2009 Maple Ln., Cheryl Fugett.
17. City Manager’s Report – Traffic calming devices.
18. Special Assessment – Public Hearing, Folks Rd, 6th to Mulberry.
19. Special Assessment – Public Hearing, Monterey Way (Peterson to Stetson)
20. Alcohol – Wavier Request Public Hearing for Replay.
21. Vacation – Public Hearing, Pinewood & Michigan.
22. Snow Removal – Policies & Procedures
23. Roundabout Improvements – O’Connell & 25th.
24. KDOT Economic Development Project – 23rd from Iowa to Louisiana.
25. Life Sciences Initiative.