March 30, 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.
Mayor Dunfield delivered the State of the City address: It's been an eventful year in Lawrence. We began it with a trip to the NCAA tournament final game and followed that with a tornado, all within the first month of my term as mayor. The responses of Lawrence citizens to both of these events say a lot about the quality and character of our town.
When the tornado hit last May, city crews responded quickly and effectively, and the community rallied to offer help.
When the KU basketball team went to the NCAA championship, the partnership between the university and the city worked effectively to plan for the post-tournament celebrations.
We are a city that has a reputation for diversity of opinion, and for certain tenaciousness in making our opinions known. Sometimes we worry that Lawrence is a divisive place, that the openness and vigor of our public discourse indicates that we lack direction or cohesion. I believe to the contrary, that our arguments are a sign of community strength. The participation of our citizens means that we are passionate about Lawrence, and the enormous effort contributed by citizen volunteers is a key to our success as a community.
In the last year, we have seen this passion expressed in the debate over the living wage, and in the current question of the city's response to the Patriot Act. Tomorrow, the city will hear the report of our task force on smoking in public places, another emotional issue on which unanimity is unlikely to be achieved.
When the Hobbs Park Memorial was dedicated 2 years ago, former Kansas City mayor Emmanuel Cleaver said "We ought to hold on to our history until we get our blessing from it." If we are to get our blessing from Lawrence history we can never take what our community has for granted, while acknowledging that there is always room to improve.
Let's start by not taking for granted the excellent services that our city employees provide. One way to measure the effectiveness of city operations is to look at the awards and recognitions our staff has received from outside sources. By this measure, the past year has been an extremely good one.
Lawrence Fire Chief Jim McSwain was honored as the Kansas Fire Chief Association's 2003 fire chief of the year. Chief McSwain's contributions over 25 years have helped Lawrence maintain one of the highest ratings for fire response in the Midwest.
Rehelio Samuel, our director of Human Relations/Human Resources was recognized during the annual Kansas League of Municipalities Conference as Kansas Human Relations Commission member of the year.
The Government Finance Officers Association of the US and Canada granted our city's financial report its highest award, and recognized the city's budget with a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award.
Finally, Lawrence Parks and Recreation's Aquatics Division received the highest award given by the National Recreation and Park Association, the Excellence in Aquatics Award.
Congratulations are in order for all these accomplishments, and for many more that don't receive such official recognition, and that are all too easy to take for granted. I doubt that there are awards for pothole filling, but our street crews have done an excellent job getting us through an unusually demanding season.
We continue to modernize and take advantage of changing technologies in our efforts to improve city services. Internet based information now includes agendas for city commission meeting, city ordinances, and links to all city departments. These changes have resulted in a real reduction in the amount of paper generated at city hall and have made city services more accessible to its citizens. To name only two examples, it's now possible to enroll in Parks and Recreation programs and pay water bills on-line.
I am proud to have been a member of the commissions that initiated thorough overhauls of both our zoning regulations and building code. The city's zoning ordinance had not undergone a full review in almost forty years, and has become a complicated patchwork of provisions. In the case of the building code, changes occurring at a national level have spurred a comprehensive reevaluation. In both cases, the final recommendations will result in a better, clearer, more consistent approach to building and development in Lawrence.
As a member of the commission that established the T, I have watched its ridership steadily increase throughout its still young history. We continue to improve the T, especially by looking for additional ways to combine the city's transportation needs with those of our public school district and universities.
Over the past two years, groups of citizen volunteers have been working to create a heritage area, centered on the unique place held by Eastern Kansas in the national struggle for human rights and freedom. That story takes in the founding of Lawrence as a Free State stronghold, the inspirational evolution of Haskell Indian Nations University, and the place of eastern Kansas in the national civil rights movement of our own era. In just the last two weeks, bills have been introduced in both the US House and Senate to establish a Bleeding Kansas National Heritage Area, of which Lawrence can and should be the focus.
Growth and development issues continue to be a focus of community interest. Within the next several weeks, the Public Improvements Task Force will be introducing new proposals for policies and financing methods to ensure that growth is channeled in ways that provide the most public benefit at the most equitable cost to all parties.
Much has been said about the current commission representing a shift in the political climate of the community. I see little real evidence of a "party line" division on this commission. I think that the last election should be seen as a culmination of a trend taking place over several years toward what has been termed, for better or worse, "smart growth."
For example, it is not the current commission, but its predecessor that rejected the proposed development for the northwest corner of 6th and Wakarusa. When representatives of that development argue that they have been prohibited from building based on an approved plan, they are simply wrong. The department store use that 6Wak wants to build was rejected by the previous commission on a supermajority vote. It was rejected because it violated the zoning conditions of the developer's own previous development plan, conditions that both this commission and its predecessor believe are in the public interest. The current commission's actions have not contradicted those of its predecessor.
I am greatly encouraged by the efforts I have seen at better coordination among the city, county, and school district, and by the very visible and effective cooperation of the chamber of commerce in working with the city on economic development issues.
I urge this and future commissions to focus our development efforts inward as well, and look for new opportunities to encourage preservation and infill development of our existing neighborhoods, through tax credits and other incentives.
In our sesquicentennial year, it is appropriate to look back at the ideas and the sense of purpose of the original Lawrencians, and to reflect on the power of ideas to shape a community.
Within months of establishing our city on the banks of the Kaw, the first map of Lawrence had already been created. Although it carries a surveyor's name, it is more than a technical record. It is a statement of intention, a first attempt at a vision of what Lawrence might become, identifying future college grounds and a capitol hill. Although the capitol never came to be, the college did, and the map set a high standard for the future of what was then a collection of shacks. Those early settlers were determined to create their own destiny on this land, and our goals should be no less lofty.
RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Dunfield recognized the 2004 Kansas Master Teacher, Pat Grzenda.
With Commission approval Mayor Dunfield proclaimed the month of April to be “Mathematics Awareness Month.”
The City Commission received a presentation from the Rotary Clubs for the Rotary Arboretum.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, approve the City Commission meeting minutes of March 16, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting minutes of February 10, 2004; and the Recycling/Resource Conservation Advisory Board meeting minutes of February 24, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve claims to 450 vendors in the amount of $1,568,661.84 and pay roll from March 7, 2004 to March 20, 2004 in the amount of 1,355,655.46. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the drinking establishment license for Papa Keno’s, 1035 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to appoint Steve Lane to the Board of Zoning Appeals/Sign Code Board of Appeals which will expire September 30, 2004; appoint Michael B. Sizemore to the Historic Resources Commission which will expire March 1, 2004; and appoint Lynn Goodell to the Housing Trust Fund which will expire December 31, 2003; and appoint Robert W. Augelli, Ph.D., to the Human Relations Commission which will expire September 30, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to set a bid date of April 13, 2004 for the 6th Street, Arizona Street to Arkansas Street, Milling, Overlay, and Pavement Marking (KLINK). Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract agreement with Dodson-Davis Company in the amount of $215,795.06 for the 2004 Manhole Rehabilitation Project. The project will be funded from the Department’s non-bonded construction fund. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Bartlett & West for additional construction engineering services for the O’Connell Road Improvement Project in the amount of $154,135.30. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to execute a Force Account Agreement with KDOT in the amount of $235,643.70 for construction engineering services for the O’Connell Road Improvement Project. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for road salt for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Hutchinson Salt $29.45 / Ton
Central Salt $36.88/ Ton
Cargill $37.60/ Ton
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to award the bid to Hutchinson Salt, in the amount of $29.45 / Ton totaling $73,625 with the option to buy an additional 500 tons for $14,725 total bid with option, 88,350. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
Ordinance No. 7769 was deleted from the consent agenda as unnecessary. (6)
Ordinance No. 7759, designating Congressional Drive, between West 6th Street (U.S. Hwy 40) and Overland Drive, within the corporate limits of the city as a main trafficway pursuant to K.S.A. 12-685, et. seq., 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. (7)
Ordinance No. 7760, designating Overland Drive, between Wakarusa Drive and Queens Road, within the corporate limits of the city as a main trafficway pursuant to K.S.A. 12-685, et. seq., 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. (8)
Ordinance No. 7758, moving parking from the east side of Avalon Road to the west side of 9th Street and Cambridge Road, 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. (9)
Ordinance No. 7761, repealing the building permit moratorium on the effective dates of the rezoning ordinances, 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. (10)
Resolution No. 6531 was deleted from the consent agendas as unnecessary. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to adopt Resolution No. 6532, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount of $650,000 for the summer overlay program. This amount has been budgeted in the 2004 Capital Improvement Budget. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading, Resolution No. 6533, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount if $350,000 for 6th Street, Arizona Street to Arkansas Street. This amount has been budgeted in the 2004 Capital Improvement Budget. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading, Resolution No. 6534, directing and ordering a public hearing on April 27, 2004 on the advisability of the construction of Alabama Street from 3rd Street approximately 200 feet south. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading, Resolution No. 6535, directing and ordering a public hearing on April 27, 2004 on the advisability of the construction of 3rd Street from Alabama Street to Illinois Street. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Manager to execute a letter of engagement with Gilmore & Bell for bond counsel legal services. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve a request from Friends of the Lawrence Public Library to place signs regarding the annual used book sale in various rights-of-way between 6th and 9th Streets and between Massachusetts and Tennessee Streets from Friday, April 2 to Saturday, April 10, 2004. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the City Clerk to file the appropriate documents to remove the special assessments for the demolition of the structure and weed mowing ($3,870.11) at 1032 New York to facilitate a sale for first time homebuyers. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
Patricia Sinclair pulled the drinking establishment license for La Familia. She said she was aware that staff was taking a longer look at the subject of downtown drinking establishment licenses, but she saw no reason why the City Commission could not examine individual applications where there were irregularities.
She said there were two questions about La Familia. One was the drinking establishment license renewal that was before the City Commission. The other question was about the history of the licensing at this location. She suggested that it was inappropriate at this time to grant that renewal of the City drinking establishment license to the applicant and she further suggested that the history did not lend itself to any grandfathering status with regard to food sales.
She said there were two specific reasons for not granting the drinking establishment license at this time. She said one was the State’s idea and one was the City of Lawrence’s idea. She said on the City’s application, the application asked for the individual owner, partnership or corporation which in this case was La Familia Café and Cantina Inc. The application also asked: “If corporation or partnership, please attach a listing of names, addresses, and birthdays of all officers/partners”, but she said there was no such information submitted. She asked the City Commission to honor those rules for applying for a drinking establishment license. She said this drinking establishment license was granted by the State a year ago, so the applicant was in the second year of the State which began March 6th or March 7th.
She said the second reason for not granting the drinking establishment license was the Alcohol Beverage Control and the Department of Revenue had many rules about licensing places that sell alcohol because those entities liked to know who was involved and who had financial benefit. She said one of the State rules was that the same legal entity was on the application, the license, and the lease or that the applicant owns the building, but that was not the case. She said when she began looking at the applicant’s file in January, there was no lease, but there was a post-it note stating that staff was waiting on the lease. She said when she mentioned that point, a lease appeared under the name of Phillip Rodriquez, doing business as La Familia and that lease started in February 2003, but the application and the State drinking establishment license was quite clearly in the name of a corporation and that was not appropriate. She said the City did not have the information about the applicant’s corporation or an appropriate lease. Therefore, the City should not, by the City’s rules, grant a license to the establishment. In fact, she suggested consulting with the State about why the State issued a license to the applicant.
Approximately 10 years ago when the City adopted an ordinance concerning food sales downtown, La Familia had a cereal malt beverage license. That license was not issued by the State, but issued by the City to another person other than the applicant or his corporation.
Also, there were a wide variety of addresses cited at that location making it a very confusing issue and she would like some reassurance that the location had not changed or expanded over the past ten years.
She said the last cereal malt beverage license that she looked at before the applicant switched to a drinking establishment was incomplete. She said the applicant started out with a bad cereal malt beverage application that ended December 2002, then they applied to the State a year ago in March for a drinking establishment license and didn’t get around to coming to the City until the end of October which was 8 months later. She said the applicant never submitted a lease and failed for a long time to submit a State license to the City.
She said in summary, the renewal of this application by the City’s rules should not go forward because there was not information about this corporation and the lease was in a different entities name which was not what the State required.
Mayor Dunfield asked if Frank Reeb, Administrative Services Director/City Clerk, could respond to those issues at hand.
Reeb reminded the City Commission that this application was a renewal. When this drinking establishment license was placed on the agenda staff felt that all of the issues that the applicant needed to address were addressed. He said the applicant provided the City with a State license that was valid through March 7, 2004 to March 6, 2005 and it was in the name of La Familia Café and Cantina Inc., Corporation, located at 733 New Hampshire. He said the application for the City license was in La Familia Café and Cantina Inc., located at 733 New Hampshire.
He said the issue with respect to the lease, it was true that it was in the name of an individual, but it was his understanding that the purpose of a lease was to provide proof that the entity would be at that location for ¾ of the period of the licensed year. He said when he looked at the lease prior to placing the establishment on the agenda for approval, he felt that the lease was proper. He said he was not aware of any requirement that the same legal entity that was on a license application needed to be the same legal entity that the lease was under. The lease showed proof that this establishment could be at that location for at least nine months of the period of the license. He said when he placed that establishment on the agenda it was appropriate to be approved and staff recommended that the license be approved.
Commissioner Schauner said a memo dated January 2004 from Reeb indicated a timeline that listed drinking establishments and the year that those establishments first secured a license to sell alcohol. He said that memo also indicated that La Familia was first granted a license to sell alcohol in 1991 along with Quniton’s Bar and Deli and the Granada.
Reeb said he believed the license for La Familia was to sell cereal malt beverages in 1991.
Commissioner Schauner said for purposes of the City’s permitted non-conforming use continuation policy, he asked if it made a difference whether La Familia had a cereal malt beverage license at the time of the food requirement or not.
Corliss said it was his interpretation that going from a cereal malt beverage license to a drinking establishment license would be an expansion of the use because of the expanded hours and what was allowed within that establishment. He said that was consistent with the City’s position when the City challenged the uses at Bullwinkles at 14th and Tennessee.
Commissioner Schauner said this might be a moot point because La Familia clearly sold a ton of food at that location. He said the Commission might be talking about semantics and not the City’s food sales requirement.
Mayor Dunfield said there were two different discussions being discussed. He said what was on the City Commission’s table was a renewal of a drinking establishment license and he did not see any reason not to grant that license. He said there might be a legitimate question as to whether the food sales requirement should be applied to that establishment in the future or not. He said the change from cereal malt beverage to drinking establishment might be relevant, but that was not on the City Commission’s agenda.
Commissioner Schauner reiterated that the concern might be a moot point, because that establishment sold a lot of food, but it would be a good idea to at least clean up the history of La Familia and what type of license La Familia was granted.
Corliss said staff needed to research the 1991 records for La Familia to see if La Familia was allowed to sell alcohol at that time.
He said in the late 1980’s there was a dramatic shift of establishments going from cereal malt beverage establishment to drinking establishments because that was the mode of operation with the liquor law changes in the late 1980’s. He said that was most likely what happened to a number of establishments and La Familia might have come several years later.
Mayor Dunfield suggested adding that question as staff was looking at those downtown drinking establishment issues.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Highberger, to approve the drinking establishment license for La Familia Café and Cantina. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda the rezoning (Z-12-5-203) and preliminary development plan (PDP-12-12-03).
Commissioner Schauner said on next week’s agenda, an issue related to this same development was going to be discussed, except the location was on the east side of O’Connell Road. He said rather than dealing with the west side, at this time, and the east side next week, he asked for some additional time to look at the staff report and the area plan. He suggested having conversation with staff and perhaps take the east and west side of the roads proposals next week and the site plans all at one time.
Bill Newsome, 6WakLand Investments, said that they had separated the west side from the east side and while those areas were all out there, those were separate proposals. He said he would respect Commissioner Schauner’s suggestion for more time to look at those issues, but relative to what the issue was, it was limited to the multi-family and was not connected to the site. He said he would prefer that that issue remain on the agenda.
Mayor Dunfield asked Newsome if there was any critical timeframe.
Newsome said no.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Newsome said if that issue was going to be deferred, he asked that this issue be discussed on April 13, 2004.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to defer the discussion for the rezoning and preliminary development plans for the south side of K-10 Highway, west of O’Connell Road, until a date agreed upon by staff and the applicant. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Commissioner Hack removed from the consent agenda, the second readings of Ordinance No’s. 7755, 7756, and 7757, concerning the area West 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive and West 6th Street and Folks Road. She asked that the City Commission vote on those ordinances as separate votes opposed to voting on those items on the consent agenda.
She said two weeks ago Commissioner Highberger indicated that if the City Commission was not under litigation with regard to those issues there could be some explanation, but that explanation would need to come at a later time.
Commissioner Schauner said in regards to Ordinance 7755, rezoning the northwest corner of West 6th Street and Wakarusa, one of the issues that was brought to his attention last week after the City Commission voted on those ordinances, was that permitted use for that location was a “department store” and it seemed that was inconsistent with the direction of the prior City Commission. He asked for City Commission discussion and perhaps remove that permitted use from the ordinance.
Commissioner Highberger recalled seeing that permitted use and it was his assumption that with the reduction of the maximum size of any one building, at that location, removed some of the concerns about the term “department store.”
Commissioner Schauner said he noticed that “variety stores” were not a permitted use, but “department stores” were a permitted use. He said it seemed consistent that compliance with Horizon 2020, protecting the downtown retail establishments that that was part of the rationale for “department stores” not being a permitted use as identified by the prior City Commission.
Finger updated the City Commission on the response from the Planning Commission minutes concerning Ordinance 7755. She said the Planning Commission asked the same question about the department store. She said in Horizon 2020, in community commercial center, a small department store was acceptable and because the size of the store was limited, it was consistent with the Commercial Chapter that was in place at the time the Planning Commission considered this rezoning. She wasn’t sure if the same language was in the new Chapter 6 the City Commission has subsequently adopted.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the definition of “small” was fairly clear.
Finger said yes in this case it was as the ordinance itself limits the size of a building.
Mayor Dunfield asked if there was discussion by the Planning Commission about the fact that “department store” had been specifically excluded at that location.
Finger said yes. She said she was trying to find the specific discussion. She said Planning Commissioner Schachter had raised the issue and then staff had referred back to Horizon 2020 because that was how the staff report had been written to make sure the recommendation was consistent with what was in the adopted Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, at that time.
Schauner asked how “department store” is defined.
Finger said “department store” had not been redefined from the (current) zoning code definition. Any store of 20,000 or more gross square feet, having 60% of that (floor) area devoted to non-food items.
Corliss said that definition also included “a wide variety of goods and services”.
Commission Schauner said the prior City Commission’s direction to the record about those permitted uses for the northwest corner and perhaps it was the size that was the motivator, but there was a broader reason for department store exclusion from that corner and it had to do with protecting of downtown Lawrence as a significant motivator in excluding department stores as a permitted use from that corner.
Mayor Dunfield said Commissioner Schauner was correct. He said the concern was about competition with downtown and when reading into the Planning Commission’s discussion with the limitation on size that concern with competing with downtown must have been lessened.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the approval was for a home improvement store or a variety store. He said the Planning Commission’s discussion and ultimate action was not just what was excluded, but what was allowed.
Finger asked for clarification from Vice Mayor Rundle, was he comparing the action of the Planning Commission most recently with the originally approved plan?
Vice Mayor Rundle said yes.
Finger said on the original approved plan, though there were presentations given that included mention of a home improvement center, there was never a part of the application that it would be, in fact, a home improvement center. She said that discussion came up with the Commission after some public hearing discussion that home improvement stores could be one of the uses, but department store, because it had the ability to directly compete with the downtown businesses was a use that was stricken from the list of permitted uses.
Dunfield asked if there was anything that would prevent the City Commission from removing “department store” as an allowed use in this rezoning.
Finger said she was not sure how the new Chapter 6 articulated community commercial centers. She said what staff checked (at the Planning Commission meeting) was the Commercial Chapter (adopted) in place and it included the small department store language. She did not have the most recently adopted version of Chapter 6 in front of her and was not able to answer Mayor Dunfield’s question.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Bill Newsome, 6Wak Land Investments, said he did not anticipate this item being removed from the agenda. He said previously when this issue was before the City Commission, he said as a landowner, he vehemently opposed the down zoning and that remained the case. He said down zoning significantly reduced the value of their property and relative to the issue that had come up, at this time, if there was one more use taken away as part of this down zoning it would further reduce the value of their property.
Gwen Klingenberg said the concern with the department store was important to the neighbors surrounding that particular nodal plan because if the City Commission allowed “department store” then a small department store might move in and ask for an expansion. She said the neighborhood preferred that the Commission keep the “department store” that was done by the previous City Commission because it did control the kind of businesses that could go in there that could affect the downtown as well as their neighborhood. She said if a department store went in, the landowner could go in with a building permit and nobody would have a say on that issue.
She said zoning could be rezoned and rezoned, but this would at least give the neighborhood, the Downtown Lawrence Association, along with anyone else the chance to look at what type of department store that the owners were trying to building at that location.
Mayor Dunfield said given the importance of the intersection, he was not comfortable making a decision at this time. He did not want to defer another issue again, but he needed to know more about the Planning Commission discussion concerning “department store” and definitions in the Commercial Chapter about Community Commercial Centers and other relevant data that led to that use being included.
Commission Schauner agreed.
Hack asked if all three ordinances would be deferred or only Ordinance 7755.
Commissioner Schauner said only Ordinance No. 7755.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to defer until a mutually agreeable time between staff and the property owner, Ordinance No. 7755, rezoning at the northwest corner of West 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (21)
Commissioner Highberger said he was uncomfortable with the motion for Ordinance No. 7755 and would like that comment noted for the record.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to adopt on second reading, Ordinance 7756, rezoning (Z-06-19-03) approximately 18.938 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) with restrictions (the property is located at the northeast corner of West 6th Street and Wakarusa Drive). Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Hack. Motion carried. (22)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Highberger, to adopt on second reading, Ordinance 7757, rezoning (Z-06-20-03) approximately 25.214 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District) with restrictions (the property is located at the northwest corner of West 6th Street and Folks Road). Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Hack. Motion carried. (23)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
During the City Manager’s Report, Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented a review of the department’s 2003 Annual Report. He said his department launched their first website in May 2003. Some of the information available included contact information, pot hole reporting, snow route information, board meetings and agendas, policies, weekly construction progress, bid information, driveway permits, truck routes, street guide, the annual report, solid waste and recycling information, residential solid waste collection areas and other information.
He said his department maintained approximately 30 facilities for the City and addition, they completed several projects last year including the Carnegie Stabilization Project, reconstructed trash enclosures in the 800 Block of Vermont, installed security cameras at City Hall, constructed a memorial for fallen officers at the ITC Building, provided assistance and helped setup for the air show at the Dole Institute, staff painted parking stalls, garages and lots, and staff installed electrical service for the old hangers at the airport. He said this department also hired a licensed electrician for their department and that had saved a lot of money. In addition, another staff member became certified as a backflow prevention tester and that employee could now service the City’s backflow valves and systems within the City’s facilities.
The Engineering Department provided all of the engineering inspection for the City’s infrastructure programs. He summarized to the City Commission all of the public infrastructure contracts administered and inspected by the Engineering Division, including overlay and curb repair, benefit districts and private projects
The Stormwater Division completed several projects including 21st Street, Stewart Avenue to Naismith; 21st Street, Kentucky to Barker Court; and 27th Street to Saratoga Court. Soules said the 13th and Oregon Storm Drainage Project would be completed in late 2004.
The Administrative Staff in the Stormwater Division was working with the local contractors on site developments where there was a lot of construction activity to educate those contractors on erosion control.
The Traffic Division held a lot of neighborhood meetings along with the Traffic Safety Commission in which there was a lot of public involvement. He said the Traffic Engineering Division reviewed plats, and site plans, street plans, and analyzes data. He highlighted some of the accomplishments of that division.
The Central Maintenance Division provided maintenance for over 600 vehicles which included equipment. He said a new fuel management system had been installed and was working well. The Central Maintenance Division recycled oil products, antifreeze, batteries, and mercury switches. He said one of the more significant accomplishments that would benefit the City in the long run was joint purchasing with the school district and the County.
The Street Maintenance Division was responsible for routine maintenance of the City’s Streets, alleys, curbs, and gutters. He highlighted the street division accomplishments for the City Commission.
The Solid Waste Division represented an enterprise fund, or utility, created for the purpose of managing the solid waste for the City of Lawrence. He said the division consisted of residential collection, commercial collection and Waste Reduction and Recycling.
The Recycling Division received and Environmental Excellence Award from Bridging and Gap, a private resource conservation and recycling group. He said this division expanded on existing collection programs, made program improvements, and added new programs in 2003.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to see additional use of hybrid vehicles and perhaps have additional discussion during budget sessions.
Mayor Dunfield asked Soules to expand on the Household Hazardous Waste Program.
Soules said, at this time, that program was not running on Saturday’s, but staff was running that program by appointment. He said staff would accept most waste such as paints, pesticides, cleaners, batteries, oils and solvents. He said there was no cost for this service for City and County residences, but there was a cost for some waste that needed to be disposed of through a hazardous waste handler. He said also paint was available to the public at no cost.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the Household Hazardous Waste Program has continued to grow. He said that program was a success story and there was a lot of volunteer effort by the community and City staff.
Soules said yes.
Commissioner Hack said she heard favorable comments about the Public Works Department. She said the community appreciated City staff’s work. (24)
Wildgen reminded the public that the Public Transit Advisory Committee would hold a public hearing April 10, 2004 to gain input from the community on proposed route changes.
REGULAR AGENDA
Receive report and recommendation from the Code Review Committee (CRC). Refer the designated codes to the appropriate trade/advisory boards to undertake a technical review of the pertinent ICC code and existing code amendments.
Victor Torres, Neighborhood Resources Director, presented the staff report. He recognized members of the Code Review Committee (CRC) and reviewed the executive summary. He said the committee compared the two model building code organizations to determine which organization ‘s code set was most suitable for adoption by the City of Lawrence. He said the CRC considered various factors which included:
· minimum life-safety needs;
· adequate support for training, certification, and interpretations;
· clear language within the code;
· minimal impact of transition on code users;
· the acceptability of the codes by staff and the development community;
· minimal financial costs to the City for ongoing maintenance, and
· clear and adequate provisions for the construction of one- and two-family dwellings.
He said the committee was in favor of supporting the International Codes.
Torres summarized some of the comments from the Code Review Committee which included:
Commissioner Highberger asked if there was any review of the International Energy Conservation Code.
Torres said currently, this City did not have a model energy code. He said once they get into the process, the committee would review that model energy code.
Commissioner Highberger said after the City Commission referred a particular family of codes to the committee, he asked was that when the review would start.
Torres said correct. He said one of the important issues to this process for the committee was looking at the National Fire Protection Association and the International Code Council and the services they provided. He said once they went through that process, the next step would be that those individual boards would conduct their technical review of those individual codes which should take 6 to 9 months.
Vice Mayor Rundle said there might be a number of other codes that might be of interest to the community, but he said the CRC looked at what the City currently had now.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City Commission was up against a timeline to adopt either the NFPA or the ICC codes.
Torres said the issue with the building code was that the existing Uniform Building Code (UBC) was no longer being supported. He said the City was currently under the 1997 UBC.
Schauner asked if they could pick and choose between the family of codes for each specific type of code.
Torres said that was an option. The preferred method to the committee and City staff would be to pick a single-family set of codes.
Commissioner Schauner had a concern about what parts of codes provide the safest built environment for citizens. He said he would like to see more specific input from each of the committees as to which code they, as a committee, would like to see adopted rather than the City Commission making that decision since the Commission was not practitioners of the various trades.
Rich Barr, Fire Marshal, said from a fire code perspective, he did not believe either code was any safer than the other in terms of life safety. He said right now the State Fire Marshall’s Office has gone before the Legislature trying to adopt the International Fire Code for the State of Kansas. In the past the State Fire Marshall’s Office had been under the NFPA, specifically the life safety code. He said the City of Lawrence has always adopted the Uniform Fire Code (UFC). He said he had to deal with two codes because he had to go with the most stringent code and if the State life safety code happened to be more stringent than the City’s Uniform Fire Code that created a problem for those people who were being compelled to comply with the code. He said neither the NFPA nor IFC was more protective of Lawrence citizens than the other. He said they looked at it from a process and support standpoint. The support that they ended up getting with the IFC was more local and would allow City staff to get trained more cost effectively because staff would not need to travel. He said one of the issues now was that the Fire/Medical Department referred to a large number of NFPA codes, but getting trained in those NFPA codes required travel outside the current 4 State restriction therefore limiting the Fire/Medicals Department to get trained through NFPA.
Commissioner Schauner said Barr’s comments made a point with respect to the fire codes and perhaps the ICC was the best code, but he did not know if that was true for each of the trades. He said he would like to see input from each of those committees about which code those committees believed provided the best tool for their trade.
Barr said the Fire/Medical Board had started looking at those codes. He said at this point the Uniform Fire Code Board of Appeals was looking for some direction on which code to narrow down because he did not believe one code was safer than the other code. He said they would amend those sections that they believed, as a community, were not as safe.
Commissioner Highberger asked about the difference between the two codes in terms of obtaining code interpretations.
Barr said he had experience getting code interpretations through the NFPA and through the Uniform Fire Code. He said both of those associations accept telephone calls, emails and letters. He said both of those associations would give an opinion, but they were not able to make an official interpretation. They typically allow the jurisdiction to make that call.
Mayor Dunfield called for public comment.
Kevin Chaney said over a year ago when he was chair of the Uniform Mechanical Code Board of Appeals, he came before the Commission and asked to defer the matter and recommended to the City Commission to allow each individual board to review the differences between the 2000 Uniform Mechanical Code the 2000 International Mechanical Code, but that had not happened.
He said the Code Review Committee only looked at the organizations and not the individual codes. He asked the Commission to table this item and allow the various boards to review the various differences in the codes and report back. He said it would be a lengthy process.
Alan Inlow, representing International Association of Plumbers and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO), said they were not referenced in the dissertation between NFPA and the ICC. He said he read the staff report and it was well done, however, he had some points that needed to be clarified about the Uniform Mechanical Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code.
He said the report states that the form and format being very much the same, but the process and procedure were very much different. The ICC codes were written under a governmental consensus procedure which was referenced in the report and the report stated that it was an open process. He said that process was opened to government employees. He said people from the trades, citizens and even elected officials could appear at public hearings and give their testimony, but beyond that, unless they were invited, they had no place in the process.
The Uniform Mechanical and Plumbing Code were American National Standards which guaranteed that they had to have a totally open process. He said literally anyone who desired to have a voice and a vote in the process could have that vote and in the end to make sure there was balance and special interests in no way controlled the process. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), which was a third party referee, looked over the entire process and if they find any fault, they require that the process be corrected. If anyone objected in the final vote, ANSI would guarantee that they would get an answer which needed to be compatible with all of the ANSI procedures. The final stop at the ICC process was with the ICC Board of Directors.
Another major distinction between the two codes, the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, were written in a turnkey format where they tried to include as much of the reference work so much of the job could be done out of one book as possible. The ICC had adopted a multiple book concept which for instance, required three books to install a water heater. He said they thought the single book was the better method.
He said the report talked about harmonization and amendments, and no matter if you had a blended set of codes or not, regardless of what codes the City Commission chose to adopt, there would be a harmonization process and there would be local amendments. He said they would be happy to work with the City and provide the resources for that harmonization with the Plumbing and Mechanical Codes.
He pointed out that right now there was that mixed family of codes and it served the City well. The harmonization and amendment process was exactly how the codes worked in this City today.
He said the report talked about free training and code books. He said they would commit, if the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes were adopted, to come to Lawrence and offer the training to all of the industry, but provide that training for free along with all of the necessary books to the code enforcers for that training.
He said there was a question about industry assistance and interpretations. He said they had a 1-800 call number for anyone to use to get that code advice. He said it was very much like the Fire Marshall described that process. He said they would give their opinion and advice and what it meant and if a person would want that advice in writing, they would give that advice in writing. He said a major differentiation there was no matter who called that person would get that advice. He said it was his understanding that the ICC worked through the building official meaning that if a contractor had a problem with an inspector they would need to go to a building official and that official would need to call in, get the advice and then would need to spread the word.
He said the people who had the technical expertise needed to look at the codes. He said they had successfully serviced the City for 30 years and worked well with the industry. He said all of the industries needed to have a voice and an opinion in how the codes would serve the community.
Commissioner Highberger said he heard earlier that the uniform codes were not supported, but it sounded as if those codes were.
Inlow said the three building official organizations made the decision 10 to 12 years ago to merge which was completed in February of 2004. He said they did write a complete new set of codes and abandoned all of the building official codes that they had previously written. The Uniform Fire Code was done by the Uniform Fire Code Association and marketed that code through the ICBO therefore they thought it was ICBO's book, but that was now part of the NFPA Uniform Fire Code. He said they did the same thing with the Plumbing and Mechanical Codes. He said they chose not to merge because they wanted to maintain the ANSI accreditation and give everyone a voice in the vote.
Bill Wall, representing the International Code Council, said the committee spent 9 months reviewing the comments and concerns that were expressed earlier. He recommended adopting the recommendation of the Code Review Committee. He said blended codes could work, but those types of codes were not ideal. He said the International Residential Code contained all of the disciplines, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, structural and non-structural requirements in one document. He said there was a single document for 80% of the permits that were issued. He hoped the City Commission would trust the review, evaluation, and recommendation of the Code Review Committee.
Lynn Barrington, member of the Mechanical Board, said he had a concern that if the International Mechanical Code was adopted at this time, it would do away with the present Mechanical Code Board of Appeals. He said the International Code stated limitation of authority on the Board of Appeals. He said the code also stated that the Board of Appeals would have no authority relative to interpretation of the administration of that code nor shall such board be empowered to waive requirements of that code. He said that would place everything back on the code officials and the way they would interpret it. He also had concerns about the qualifications and requirements for the members of the Board of Appeals.
Lee Queen, member of the Uniform Building Code of Appeals, said the City Commission would be directing the boards to go back and amend the code to meet Lawrence’s standards. He said the code was not being adopted this evening and the real work would start after the Commission made a decision. He said he was confident the Code Review Committee made the correct decision out of the two choices. He said the International Residential Code was a huge benefit.
Bryan Wyatt, Vice Chairman, Mechanical Code Board of Appeals, said he was the one abstention on the CRC vote. He said they looked at two organizations, but they did not look at any technical merits and he thought that was important to keep in mind. He felt this issue should come back to the boards for their technical opinions and decide what was best for the mechanical and plumbing boards. He said the Electrical Board was going to stay with the National Electrical Code regardless.
He said concerning having one book, if decided, there would still be an International Building, Mechanical, and Plumbing Code Books. He said thinking that there was going to be one book was not reality. He said he did not care for the process of the Code Review Committee.
Commissioner Highberger had a concern that if the City Commission adopted the International Codes at this time, then the boards would go back and compare the City’s existing codes with the new codes and make any technical changes necessary to have the type of codes that they wanted to see.
Torres said that was the correct process. He said at this time, they were looking at the concept of a family of codes and the recommendation from the Code Review Committee was the International Family of Codes, but the codes were not being adopted at this time.
Commissioner Highberger said he liked the idea of only one set of codes. He asked if there were any other communities in the area that had picked and chosen the type of code.
Torres said staff initially took a survey and he would be able to provide that survey to the City Commission. He said Johnson County had adopted all of the International Codes. He said Topeka was currently under the Uniform Codes, but they had adopted the International Residential Code (building portion only). He said Topeka was going to develop a committee similar to Lawrence’s Code Review Committee and look at both organizations this summer. Again, he said the whole concept of that committee was not to look at the technical aspects, but to look at the organizations and the services they provided. The intent from the very beginning was that any technical issues would be looked at by the individual boards and the boards would make recommendations and changes.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the City Commission could change the structure of the Mechanical Board.
Torres said correct. He said any of those codes were subject to amendments and the boards were fully aware that they had that authority to make recommendations.
Commissioner Schauner asked if he was a mechanic in the field with a question about what he was permitted and not permitted to do, under the ICC, he asked would he as the individual mechanic or tradesman be able to get a telephone opinion from the ICC.
Wall said yes. He said it was the policy of all of their activities to try to assist the code official. He said they were a not-for-profit organization owned and operated by the code officials who use and adopt their codes. The effort was to provide services to the users of the code and part of the misconception was that under ICBO, they had a written policy, however, it wasn’t followed by the employees. The written policy was that they would only provide verbal interpretations to Class A members, code officials, because of problems that had been created if a designer, architect, engineer, contractor, or a trades person called in and asked ICBO or ICC a question, those persons would slant that question to try and get the answers they wanted. He said some of their Board of Director’s who were code officials got caught in a vise because someone would call in and get an answer and then that person would go to the Code Official and say that ICBO said they could do that. When in fact if the code official and the technician, contractor or whoever called jointly they could hear the whole story and then that question would be resolved and it would not cause a problem. In general, in the ICC there was not that blanket rejection or written position that you could not respond to trades people, contractors, or engineers.
Chaney said he was opposed to designating the code, but not a review for technical amendments.
Wyatt said the ICC set of codes was membership driven and you could get an opinion, but you would need to go through your code official.
Commissioner Hack thanked Torres and the committee for their information. She said the information about adopting building, mechanical, and fire codes from different code sets might result in different regulations between codes or mission of regulations for critical building elements causing increased research time for City enforcement staff and designers, increased confusion among all users and increased subjectivity and enforcement. She said that was where they found themselves sometimes in terms if subjectivity.
She said concerning the word “designating”, what that word signified was that it designated that family of codes, but it was also placing those codes on the all of the board’s agendas. She said by using that word, it was saying that those boards were the experts in those fields, take those families of codes and make them work for Lawrence.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the report was clear and the committee was clear that the committee did not review the technical aspects of these various codes. He said he preferred passing those items on to the various boards for review and comparison with the City’s existing codes and report back.
Mayor Dunfield said as the individual who recommended setting up this committee, he would not approve starting over. He said the intention of the Code Review Committee was to resolve the question and the committee had given the City Commission a unanimous recommendation and he thought it was appropriate.
He said he worked with many different building codes and he was in no position to comment on the technical aspects of the mechanical or plumbing codes, but working with other codes over the years, the biggest problem comes from working with outdated codes. He said right now they were working with a 1997 code and the City Commission needed to do something about that. The different model codes that now have been brought together under the International Building Code changed over the years in parallel ways. He said one code might adopt new provisions a few years before another one did, but typically they evolve concurrently with one another as the safety issues became clearer and new technologies were available. He said the biggest risks to the Commission were to not get something done and not trying to get into the 21st Century with the City’s codes.
He said the International Codes would be an enormous benefit to everyone in the trades as well as building officials to have a single family of codes to work with. He said just the fact that there was an International Building Code, International Fire Code, and an International Residential Code together would make a tremendous difference in the industry and a change for the better.
He said as to going through the code official for an answer that was the way to do it. He said the idea of getting the code official and the designer or tradesperson together and asking those questions was the only way because otherwise different people would be filling in different parts of the story and arguing back and forth about the real interpretation.
He said the Code Review Committee had done a good job, their recommendation was appropriate, and the technical difference between the Uniform Mechanical and Plumbing Codes and the International Mechanical and Plumbing Codes could be resolved by the trade boards. He said those issues could and should be looked at. He said he was confident once those codes were looked at, the City would have a single family of codes with some amendments particular to Lawrence and it would be a much better scenario then the blended suggestion.
Commissioner Highberger said he liked the idea of consistency and the idea of being consistent with other jurisdictions in the area since the board handled jurisdictions. He asked Vice Mayor Rundle to explain the specific CRC recommendation and also whether there were other options for the various boards to consider.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the CRC just compared those two organizations. He said they also researched communities that were completely in the international system and those communities that had blended codes were some of the data the committee received. He said the committee never intended to perform the detailed technical analysis because that was going to be up to the individual boards.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was Vice Mayor Rundle’s belief that allowing those individual boards to do side by side comparisons of the ICC and NFPA would not be more time consuming than placing the technical revisions with the ICC.
Vice Mayor Rundle said going through a revision of the Mechanical Code would take a number of months. He asked Tom Patchen if he thought that comparing those two codes would be more involved than just going through one code.
Tom Patchen, Chairman of the Mechanical Board, said it took approximately a year to go through all the changes from the code of 1997 to the code of 2000. He said to go from Uniform Mechanical Code to the International Mechanical Code would probably take longer than one year.
Vice Mayor Rundle said having gone through that process, perhaps the familiarity with the 2000 code would not be much extra work.
Patchen said it might not take much extra work, but the change would still take approximately one year.
Vice Mayor Rundle made a motion to refer the International Building Codes to the various committees. He said he assumed the Uniform Building Code would be adopted by the City Commission and the process of reviewing that code should begin. He suggested that the Uniform Mechanical and the Uniform Plumbing Code Board of Appeals perform a comparison of the International Code and come back to the City Commission with the board’s comments, concerns, and recommendations.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the motion was to “designate” the International Family of Codes.
Vice Mayor Rundle said the motion was recommending to “refer” those codes to the various boards and not “designation” with the exception of the Uniform Building Code since there was only one option.
Commissioner Hack asked Commissioner Rundle if his motion was to have the Code Review Committee review the family of codes from the ICC with the exception of mechanical and plumbing codes.
Vice Mayor Rundle said as stated earlier, there was only one International Electrical Code that was adopted by reference.
Commissioner Hack said looking at this issue as a family of codes was not going to throw out the possibility of adjusting the code to what the City wanted. She said Commissioner Highberger was right in that there was a concern about the makeup of the board. She would rather see the City Commission support this issue as it came to the City Commission and then that would designate the boards to look at those issues in the codes.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to designate the International Codes as the base model codes, except for the mechanical and plumbing codes, and refer the codes to the appropriate boards for technical review.
Vice Mayor Rundle added that if everyone pleaded ignorance of those codes, he did not feel like he had anymore basis for saying that it was really important to adopt a family of codes until he had heard from those people who were out in the field in those trades.
Commissioner Schauner said the testimony he heard was that the Mechanical Board didn’t have a specific set of discussions about the International Code and he did not hear about the Plumbing Board in that regard. He said he thought that the Code Review Committee looked at the organizational structure of the ICC versus the NFPA as opposed to the technical aspects of each code. He suggested giving that power back to the Mechanical and Plumbing Boards and let them make a recommendation to the City Commission about which code to adopt.
The motion was made a second time. It was moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to designate the International Codes as the base model codes, except for the mechanical and plumbing codes, and refer the codes to the appropriate boards for technical review. Aye: Rundle and Schauner. Nay: Dunfield, Hack, and Highberger. Motion failed. (25)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to consider the recommendation of the Code Review Committee to designate the family of codes from ICC as a base model codes for the City of Lawrence and refer the codes to the appropriate boards for technical review.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the Commission was preventing those boards to make a comparison of those two codes.
Commissioner Hack said no.
Commissioner Schauner said if the City Commission designates the family of codes at this time, the City Commission would still be in the position to review that decision based on recommendations from mechanical and plumbing boards.
Commissioner Hack said the City Commission was not adopting the codes, but designating the family of codes and asking the professionals to review those codes based on the Code Review Committee.
Commissioner Schauner asked if those professionals came back to the City Commission and suggested that they thought that for Lawrence the NFPA was a better mechanical code than the ICC then that would be a matter for the City Commission to reconsider.
Mayor Dunfield said the City Commission could always reconsider that issue.
The motion was made a second time. It was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to consider the recommendation of the Code Review Committee to designate the family of codes from ICC as a base model codes for the City of Lawrence and refer the codes to the appropriate boards for technical review.
O International Building Code (IBC)
o International Fire Code (IFC)
o International Residential Code (IRC)
o International Mechanical Code (IMC)
o International Plumbing Code (IPC)
o International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
Aye: Dunfield, Hack, and Highberger. Nay: Rundle and Schauner. Motion carried. (26)
Vice Mayor Rundle said there was a reference in the International Building Code and the International Residential Code to include the International Energy Code by reference. He said that was at least one major area of gray matter. He said staff needed to identify those complications and bring those complications back to the City Commission so they could decide how to address those issues for example, by forming another committee to look at the energy code.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the City Commission would be receiving a recommendation from the Electrical Code Board of Appeals, at next week’s City Commission meeting, to adopt the 2002 National Electrical Code.
Mayor Dunfield said on behalf of the City Commission they appreciated all of the time and effort that both the Code Review Committee and all of the members of the boards from the different trades put in on those issues. He said it was not always easy to agree, but it was easy to agree that the City Commission appreciated the effort.
Receive K-10 corridor report from Rich Caplan
Rich Caplan, Executive Director of the K-10 Association, said currently the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners was accepting names for persons to serve on several committees that those Commissioners were going to appoint to oversee the redevelopment of Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant. In particular there would be a formal redevelopment board that would of necessity be residents of Johnson County. He said the chairman said there would be several advisory boards and with the help of a Planning Commissioner in Eudora, they made sure that Johnson County was receptive of having representative from Lawrence and Douglas County serve on one or more of those boards. He said if any of the City Commission was interested or would like to suggest names to get those names to the appropriate person as quickly as possible.
He also said KDOT was undertaking a major transportation study along K-10 and one of the key issues was the possibility of new interchanges along K-10 in addition to the 15th Street potential interchange. He said there was no funding for those interchanges, but the planning was underway and the decisions that get made as part of this plan were very critical.
He said there were goals and objectives that were adopted by the Lawrence City Commission in 1995, adopted by the association in 1996 and they were in the process of updating those goals and objectives. He said his association would bring back those goals and objectives sometime later this year.
Dean Palos presented a review of the K-10 Corridor Study. He said it was important to understand this was a study and not a plan. He said the corridor was considered to be approximately 33 miles in length, but it was noteworthy that there was more traffic on K-10 since 1985 than on the equivalent length of highway to the north on I-70. Today there were approximately 33,000 average daily vehicles on K-10 between K-7 and East Hills Business Park as there was compared to approximately 26,000 vehicles to the north on I-70 on the equivalent route.
The study did note commuting patterns that studies that were done as information both from the census as well as from KDOT. He said there were approximately 13,000 Johnson County commuters, about 5,500 of Douglas County commuters commute to Johnson County daily and about 1,500 Johnson County commuters come to Douglas County, but that did not include students. The study also identified the high educational levels within the corridor and the fact that there were 6 school districts serving the corridor. He said there was a tremendous amount of growth within the K-10 corridor and approximately 47,000 building permits were issued within the cities between 1991 and 2000. The report contained also had a summary of each community’s plans within the corridor as well as a section on opportunities and constraints.
Mayor Dunfield said he was impressed with a couple of areas of emphasis within that association. One was the quality development and capitalizing on the particular strengths of the corridor both in terms of its technology and the educated workforce.
The second idea was in addition to talking about the growth opportunities and urging quality growth, the association has always been very strong in defending the scenic quality of the K-10 corridor and maintaining the natural character of the scenery along the corridor which was a very good balanced combination.
He said in the latest draft goals from the association, those goals talked about encouraging sustainable building through the Leadership and Energy and Environmental Design. He said that type of a goal tied the idea of quality development and protection of the natural environment.
Commissioner Schauner asked how much of a role would the K-10 organization play in the redevelopment of the Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant.
Caplan said that had been a source of debate on how active the K-10 Association should be. He said up until the last 6 months many people thought there was a vacuum in dealing with that issue because that area was an unincorporated area and the area was controlled by the Federal Government. Now in the last 6 month to one year the Johnson County Commission had recognized with the action of Governor Sebelius and Governor Graves in signing some documents that start the transfer process that it was now a reality. He said he did not know how active their association would be on that issue, if in fact, once there was a formal redevelopment board that carried that ball.
Commissioner Schauner said he assumed that it would be of the interest of the association to have an active role on this issue.
Caplan said absolutely. He said the Federal Government did have some advisory boards that had been in place to deal with various issues associated with the remediation and staff and elected officials have been involved in various boards like that.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there were any consensus about the remediation issues involving the plan in disposal of nitrate etc.
Caplan said there was a plan in place and it was simply a question of how much funding came from the private sector in terms of redevelopment and how much funding would come from the Federal Government and whether that timeframe gets implemented. He said in terms of strategy, there was a clear technical consensus on what was needed.
Mayor Dunfield said one of the issues that was worth mentioning about the Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant was that Johnson County had actually produced a master plan for the Sunflower property which was a very progressive type of master plan and the K-10 Association had indicated its support for that plan. He said at this point the interested bodies were moving in the same direction whether the K-10 Association would have any actual influence was an open question.
Caplan said it was important to note that when Sunflower closed in 1998 there were more employees from the City of Lawrence than any other single community that worked there. Even though it was in Johnson County it was obviously a major workforce opportunity for Lawrence residents.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any chance that plant could be reactivated.
Caplan said no.
Palos said Johnson County made it clear that Johnson County wanted it cleaned to the highest levels which the EPA considers residential levels. (27)
Consider approving SP-01-02-04: North Town Business Park, a site plan for a 57,500 SF warehouse building located at on the west side of N. 2nd Street north of Lyon Street. Submitted by Landplan Engineering for Allen Development, Inc. contract purchaser
Sandy Day Planner, presented the staff report concerning the site plan for North Town Business Park. She said some of the issues that staff had looked at throughout the review process dealt with how to cover infill development and address some of the standard development questions such as platting, access management, and zoning. There was a site plan for a 57,500 square foot building that would provide multiple spaces within the single structure. She said staff had talked with the applicant, at length, about access management and one of the opportunities that were identified.
The other issue involved whether the property would need to be platted. She said the platting question, as staff went through the review process staff discovered that the subject property was made up of a series of platted lots, but those were parcel lots that were divided by vacations of rights-of-way so there was no longer a single parcel intact. She said portions of those remaining parcels ended up on the east side of the street. In addition, there had been adoption of the sanitary sewer that required the sanitary sewer to be extended to each individual lot and that public sewer lines could not cross individual property lines. She said there was a need for the property to be replatted and that was reflected in the conditions.
In addition to the conditions of approval that staff recommended there was a site condition that this property actually had some split zoning and was predominantly industrial zoned and there was a small piece that was commercially zoned. Exactly where that boundary was depended on which zoning map was looked at. She said when looking at the electronic version of the zoning map that zoning boundary would actually fall through the portion of the building and if looking at the older hand drawn zoning maps that zoning district would be within the parking lot therefore there were some issues to resolve. She said staff had asked the Commission to go ahead and initiate the zoning change to clear that issue up.
Vice Mayor Rundle asked if the rezoning would not take place.
Day said no. She said staff looked at the building setback which complied with the higher standard of the greater setback requirement of the industrial zoning district. It was more of an administrative problem with the zoning district and it was unclear what land uses would be allowed in the building in the future if the tenants were changed. She said parking requirements were different for commercial than they were for industrial.
Commissioner Highberger asked if this area was in the floodplain would it need a permit from the Corps of Engineers.
Day said there were two different permits that were required. One permit was from the Corps of the Engineers and there was also a Local Floodplain Development Permit that would be required. The applicant had been directed to provide the necessary documentation to the Director of Public Works, who was the sole contact for the Corps of Engineers. The individual applicant did not have that communication with the Corps of Engineers.
Commissioner Highberger asked about floodplain concerns.
Day said there was a LOMR that was completed for the building to look at elevation of that pad site to remove it from the floodplain, but it dealt only with the building pad site. A portion of the subject property was still within the regulatory floodplain. She said staff needed to go through that process to document for FEMA the records of development. In this case there was not going to be any additional fill added to the site which was staff’s understanding and that was what staff was documenting in the floodplain development permit. She said all staff would be doing was adding impervious surface for the parking lot as well as curbing, landscaping and other elements.
Finger clarified that a LOMR was a letter of map revisions which was something that physically removed the property from the designated federal floodplain which was what the City regulations were in sync with. However, that was not done with the entire site so there were still portions where a local floodplain development permit because of some degree of manmade change within what was still on the designated map would be impacted by this development.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a pre-existing LOMR for part of that property, but not for all of it.
Finger said that was her understanding. It was just where the building pad site was. She said the parking lot was also within the floodway fringe. Finger said they would need a local permit.
Todd Thompson, attorney for the applicant, said many of the items identified in the staff report had been identified. He said as a result, they did not have a lot of issues to address. He pointed out to the City Commission that this was infill development that was North 2nd Street and would constitute a major improvement to a long standing vacant piece of ground. He said there was an issue on the timing of the planning, but that issue had been worked out because the parcels of ground that existed today were not the result of anything that the owner did, but a result of vacations of rights-of-way and taking of right-of-way when the route of North 2nd was changed. The subdivision regulations regarding subdividing by an owner were not applicable and they had been able to work through that.
Jo Anderson spoke in support of this project. She said she believed that the City Commission believed in smart growth. She said this was infill development in a CDBG eligible neighborhood on ground that had been unused for at least ten years providing economic opportunities, growth enhancement, aesthetic improvement of a major gateway into the City and jobs in the areas that otherwise wouldn’t have them.
The North Lawrence Improvement Association endorsed this project and former Mayor Bob Moody who lived only a block away thoroughly endorsed this project. She read a portion of a letter from former Mayor Bob Moody concerning smart growth. The letter stated that former Mayor Moody had worked for improvements to the North 2nd Street corridor believing that those improvements would translate into more improvements and investments from the private sector. The letter further stated that it was no secret that the delayed response to the City’s investment was a big disappointment. The letter stated that they now had the opportunity to recapture some of that investment.
Anderson said she was on that City Commission, at that time, and she remembered the hours spent talking about the North Lawrence corridor. That gateway to the City was the one that required the most improvements. She said there was some good business at that location, but there had not been any development of the type they had envisioned since Tanger Mall and now this development had come along. She said this was like a text book case of smart growth.
She said she wanted to talk about process because the process did not work like she thought it should. The planning procedure should encourage smart growth and development, but it did not do that. She said following proper procedures was important, but the City‘s system was confusing and convoluted. She said sometimes the procedure resembles the Mad Hatter Tea Party than it did a carefully planned agenda for development.
She said she talked about this issue with Vice Mayor Rundle because the process almost killed this development. This development that the City had been waiting and hoping for almost did not go through, not because of lack of capital, not because of lack of tenants, and not because of lack of material, but because of the City’s process. She said Vice Mayor Rundle suggested a check list that each developer received at the beginning so that those developers know exactly what was going to happen. She said whether or not those developers agree with the check list was for another discussion, but at least there would not be any surprises. She suggested that every item on that check list be clearly defined that every single person would know what was expected.
She said fortunately this project was going to go forward and this was done through private investment. She encouraged the City Commission and City staff to do whatever they could to expedite that procedure and make sure from now on that it went more smoothly so this project could proceed as quickly as possible.
Rundle asked if the timing and platting problems were worked out.
Corliss said he and Thompson were in agreement on the platting requirements for the property with the exception of the sanitary sewer requirements. He said they had a law that was helping the City ensure that public sewer mains were constructed. He said for those public sewer mains, each one of those lines touches an individual lot. He said this property was in the process of being replatted and that plat would hopefully come within a few weeks. This project needed to construct sanitary sewer lines and main so the issue was how to ensure fidelity to this requirement that each line touch a lot when in fact their sewer plans would not touch all of the existing lots. What was seen on the site plan was broken up into multiple lots. He said he thought they could work it out so that the sanitary sewer plans were approved and they could go ahead and start building if they were following that code requirement before their final plat was approved where in essence that line that they would eventually build would not touch all of the existing lots, but would touch the final lots.
Thompson agreed. He said it was standard practice for the City to review sewer improvement plans before the property was actually platted and tell the applicant that this would be approved at such time as the property was platted. He said the sewer plan would at that time touch each newly platted lot. He said they had already initiated the replatting of that property, but for a variety of reasons including the rapidly escalating costs of steel, they needed to be able to pull the building permit and proceed with ordering the steel as soon as possible. He said what they had discussed today would allow them to submit sewer plans in a few weeks that could be reviewed and tentatively approved subject to the replatting being finalized. He said they were willing to take that risk in that regard because the replat was something that everyone wanted to have happen. He said they were also willing to allow the City Commission to initiate the rezoning of that small C-4 piece of parcel, but they needed to have the site plan approved so that they could proceed and get the dominos falling as they need to. He said it was a timing issue on the platting that they worked out in terms of the building permit issue because there was no owner initiated subdividing that occurred. As to the sewer requirement, they had a little more time and they could deal with that issue after the plat was approved.
Corliss asked if it was correct that Thompson would not ask to construct the sanitary sewer main until Thompson had the property platted.
Thompson said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the City Commission was being asked to issue a building permit before they had an approved plat and sewer plans.
Corliss said staff was recommending approval of the site plan and staff was withdrawing the condition requirement that it be replatted.
Thompson said Condition No. 1 would have required execution of a final plat to be approved and recorded prior to release of the site plan for issuance of a building. He said staff was willing to remove Condition No. 1, but that did not change their obligation with regard to the sewer.
Corliss asked if the other item on the access point has now been moved to the south to be shared with the other property.
Finger said it was her understanding that it would straddle to some degree that south property line, but staff did not have that specific location determined at this point. She said Rob Otte from KDOT was available to answer any questions.
Thompson said their property alone had five access points. In addition the property immediately to the south had an existing curb cut. If the City Commission approved this site plan tonight, what it would result in was only three curb cuts with the one on the property to the south going away and moving to a shared access point right on the property line and two other access points on their property, one of which was also on the north property line and would become shared at that juncture with the property on the north.
Corliss asked if Thompson was willing on behalf of the applicant to agree that the conditions would then be modified to reflect that shared access and the closing of the other access point.
Thompson said correct.
Schauner asked if all 13 recommendations had been addressed.
Finger said staff was in agreement with 2 through 13 and Condition No. 1 would be removed.
Rundle asked if the platting process was going to take place what was the timeline.
Finger said it would be on the April 28th Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Schauner asked when Thompson would want to pull a building permit.
Thompson said the more crucial decision was placing the order for the building knowing that they could pull a permit and that Condition No. 1 was gone and that the site plan had been approved. He said the actual pulling of the permit would be weeks out.
Patricia Sinclair said this was the scene of a fatality vehicle accident. She also asked if this area had room for police evidence storage.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to extend the meeting to 10:15. Motion carried unanimously.
Rob Otte, Bureau of Traffic Engineering, KDOT, said KDOT was willing to approve the agreement with the three access points with the southern most access point being shared.
He said they had been talking about the concept of where those access points would be located and now that it was firmed up, LandPlan Engineering would go through and KDOT would ensure that the design vehicle that those turning radius at those entrance points were reasonable for the type of vehicle expected.
He said there was a traffic impact study submitted and during the peak hour less than 40 vehicles would be going into all three entrances. He said that traffic count was low and in fact KDOT did not have any recommendation for left or right turn lanes based on that volume.
Commissioner Highberger said he had concerns about the process raised by Jo Anderson. He said it looked like a great project and they had his vote.
Commissioner Hack referred to the Mayor’s speech concerning infill development and the Mayor stating that was the best type of development and he had convinced a lot of people that was the way to go. She appreciated everyone’s willingness to work and make this work. She said she would like to talk with Anderson to get her views on the City’s process.
Vice Mayor Rundle said this was a great opportunity to be able to do additional development in North Lawrence. He said he had concern to make sure that people were aware of the platting because they hoped that the preliminary plat had identified all of the issues. He said he was crossing his fingers that bending that principle would not come back to haunt the Commission.
Commissioner Schauner said obviously infill development was often more complex than new development because of the history of platting, replatting and rights-of-way. He agreed that this was a great project for the City. He supported the project.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan subject to revised conditions. Motion carried unanimously. (28)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Patricia Sinclair asked to revisit the drinking establishment license for La Familia. She said remarks were made about the La Familia issue being a moot point. She said it was not moot in the sense that they were probably already in compliance with the food sales. However, if La Familia was not condition that way and they did not need to report their food sales than it was not a moot issue. She said she was trying to raise this issue at an early stage so someone did not say that they had this license for a number of years and nothing could be done about it. She said she was hoping that the City would start a tradition of honoring the City Code.
Vice Mayor Rundle said Commissioner Schauner made mention of addressing the rest of the licenses. He said maybe the Commission could address that issue more specifically at a future meeting.
Corliss said he understood Commissioner Schauner’s direction and the rest of the Commission’s direction for staff to look at the issue on whether or not they expanded the use and whether or not that triggered the food sales requirement. He said staff needed to take a look at the movement from CMB licenses to drinking establishment licenses.
Mayor Dunfield said that was clearly the direction that the City Commission gave.
Sinclair said perhaps she misunderstood there was specific direction for a future meeting on that issue.
Mayor Dunfield said the Commission did not direct a future meeting on that issue, but directed that issue to be considered as part of what the Commission was looking at in terms of the drinking establishment downtown.
Commissioner Schauner said specifically with respect to La Familia, he said Corliss would be looking at whether La Familia, because of an expanded use now must comply with the 55 percent food sales requirement.
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Commissioner Hack mentioned that there would be a delegation of people from one of our Sister Cities, Hiratuska, Japan, on September 16 – 20th for the City’s Sesquicentennial events. She said that delegation was looking for home stays and was wondering if any of the Commissioners were willing to have one or two people home stay for that period of time.
Vice Mayor Rundle mentioned the City’s bus system. He said there was a major manufacture that had a pilot program for some alternative fuel buses that were out in some of the communities. He said they were manufacturing more buses which would go to additional cities. He asked staff to find out what the opportunity was, the timeline, what the City needed to do to apply, and what were the requirements if the City did get those buses.
Commissioner Highberger said he had become concerned about the lack of single-family development lots. He asked staff for a summary of the residential approval from last year and a breakdown of what type they were.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack , to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
David M Dunfield, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk