April 27, 2004
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Rundle presiding and members Dunfield, Highberger, and Schauner present. Commissioner Hack was absent.
PROCLAMATIONS
With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed the week of April 26 – 30 as “Tree City U.S.A. Week”; the week of May 2 – 8 as “Be Kind to Animals Week”; the week of May 2 – 8 as “Drinking Water Week; the month of May as “Bicycle Safety Month” and the week of May 16-22 as “Bike-to-Work Week”; and the month of April as “Fair Housing Month.”
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of April 13, 2003
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Grant Review Board meeting minutes of February 9, 2004; the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Board meeting minutes of March 11, 2004; the Task Force on Homeless Services meeting minutes of February 27, 2004; the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of March 10, 2004; the Recycling and Resource Conservation Board meeting minutes of March 10, 2004; the Traffic Safety Commission meeting minutes of April 5, 2004; and the Business Retention Task Force meeting minutes of March 29, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 291 vendors in the amount of $494,704.13. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the drinking establishment licenses for Coyote’s Dance Hall, 1003 East 23rd Street; Set’em Up Jacks, 1800 East 23rd Street; Bambino’s, 1801 Massachusetts; and Thai House Restaurant, 724 Massachusetts (C-3 Food Sales Requirement). Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for 6th Street, Frontier Road to Arkansas Street, milling, overlay, and pavement parking for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer’s Estimate $550,535.95
LRM Industries $462,297.90
R.D. Johnson Excavating Co. $495,022.05
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to LRM Industries, in the amount of $462,297.90. Motion carried unanimously.
(1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of June 1, 2004 for the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Projects at 2104 Tennessee Street and 1628 East 18th Terrace. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid date of May 11, 2004 for the 2004 Concrete Repair Program. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7784, changing the name of Woods Court in the final plat of The Woods on 19th to Villo Woods Court. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7786, establishing “no parking” along the east side of Stone Meadows Drive from 15th Street north 730 feet. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7788, authorizing the sale, consumption, and possession of alcoholic beverages at Broken Arrow Park on Friday, May 7 and Saturday, May 8, 2004 for the Sertoma Club BBQ Cook-off Fundraiser. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance No. 7762, annexing [A-12-15-03] 50.6397 acres of land located north of Clinton Parkway and east of K-10 Highway (SLT), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 7763, rezoning [Z-12-49-03] 18.9332 acres from B-3 (Limited Business) District to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residential) District, property located north of Clinton Parkway and east of K-10 Highway, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Ordinance No. 7765, levying maximum assessments to pay a portion of the costs for construction of the intersection of Kasold Drive and Peterson Road including property acquisition, traffic calming/control devices, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, and other necessary and appropriate improvements, as authorized by Resolution No. 6520, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
Ordinance No. 7766, levying maximum assessments to pay a portion of the costs for construction of Peterson Road from Kasold Drive to approximately 900 feet west of Monterey Way, including property acquisition, traffic calming devices, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, water main, and other necessary and appropriate improvements, as authorized by Resolution No. 6519, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
Ordinance No. 7767, levying maximum assessments to pay a portion of the costs for the construction of Monterey Way from the intersection of Peterson Road north to Grand Vista Drive, including property acquisition, traffic calming devices, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, water main and other necessary and appropriate improvements, as authorized by Resolution No. 6518, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously.
(11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to approve the construction of appropriate speed humps on Massachusetts Street between 23rd Street and Indian Avenue and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to establish “no parking” along the east side of Stone Meadows Drive between 15th Street and the eyebrow at 1328 Stone Meadows Drive and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Traffic Safety Commission’s recommendation to approve the construction of a permanent traffic calming circle at the intersection of Goldfield Street and Eldridge Street, to include it in the Harvard Road Project, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
The request to deny “no parking” along the south side of 11th Street between Connecticut Street and Haskell Avenue was deferred unit May 11, 2004. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve City endorsement of application of Van Go Mobile Arts, Inc., for Kansas Department of Commerce Community Service Tax Credit Program. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve the continuation of the “T” Sticker Program with KU on Wheels pursuant to staff memo. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement with Larry and Barbara Miller, 1325 East 16th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (18)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Subordination Agreement with Alejandro and Waldina Sabillon, 1005 Parkview Road. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda, the approval of the amendment for the City/Border’s/Hobbs-Taylor parking agreement for discussion.
Hunter Harris said there have been ongoing discussions with Borders Inc. He said Borders has asked them to ask the City to give up its public parking requirements.
Commissioner Schauner asked what would happen to the 63 parking spots
Harris said those would temporarily go away for about 11 months and there was precedent for this with the 900 block of New Hampshire
Mayor Rundle asked Mike Wildgen to confirm that there was precedent for this type of agreement.
Mike Wildgen, City Manager, said a similar type of thing occurred during the construction of the parking lot on the 900 block of New Hampshire.
Mayor Rundle asked if this was a matter of timing.
Harris said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if any of those parking spots were currently metered.
Wildgen said none are currently metered.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Downtown Parking Advisory Board had reviewed this proposal.
Wildgen said no.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like that group to consider it. He suggested approving the agreement subject to approval of the parking advisory group.
Commissioner Dunfield said this is one of the concerns with infill development projects. He supported approving this item this evening.
Commissioner Schauner said that he would like for staff to follow protocol and perhaps what staff should have done when that letter was sent was to have convened the Downtown Parking Advisory Board to look at that issue and provide input.
Mayor Rundle asked if there were strong reservations against bringing this issue back next week.
Wildgen said staff could draft a report and try to get together with the board in the next three business days. He said email might be a way of handling that issue quickly.
Vice Mayor Highberger said this was not his preference, but to break the deadlock, he could go along with that process as long as staff received the opinion from the Downtown Parking Advisory Board.
It was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve an amendment to City/Border’s/Hobbs-Taylor parking agreement subject to positive comment from the Downtown Parking Advisory Board. The amendment allows for the removal of the public parking spaces on the Border’s property when construction of the new public parking spaces (and the rest of the new development) on the Hobbs-Taylor property (to the south of the Border’s location) begins. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
During the City Manager’s Report, Ernie Shaw, Superintendent of Recreation and Operations, Parks and Recreation Department, reported on the 2004 NRPA Excellence in Aquatics Award that was received by the Parks and Recreation Department at the National Aquatics Conference earlier this year. This award honored agencies that demonstrated excellence in planning and managing diversified aquatic services.
Jimmy Gibbs, Aquatics Manager, Parks and Recreation Department, gave the presentation that was given at the 2004 NRPA Excellence in Aquatics Award that showed the diversity that was illustrated in their Aquatics Division. He introduced some of the Aquatic Division staff.
Rich Barr, Fire Marshal, updated the Commission on the blasting west of Stonecreek in West Lawrence. He read the highlights of a memo he emailed to the Commissioner earlier concerning request that were made by the City Commission concerning the blasting permit.
1) The copies of the blast plan, in weatherproof form, were posted at the entrance to the development. These copies were, admittedly, not the full size site plan that is on file; however a “pdf” copy of the site plan was emailed to the President of the West Lawrence Neighborhood Association to assist in providing the information.
2) A Blasting Permit Application checklist was developed in order to clearly identify the documents needed to issue the permit. A copy is attached.
3) The definition of “structure” is being questioned so contact was made with Mr. Greg Gress with the International Code Council for an opinion of the “code” definition of structure. His verbal reply was “that’s a true perversion of the word” in reference to domestic utilities meeting the definition of structure as defined in the code.
4) Contact was also made with Mr. Leo Haynos of the Kansas Corporation Commission Pipeline Safety Division in regard to the Southern Star Central gas pipeline being considered as a structure. Based upon the scenario I provided to him, he indicated that the pipeline should be considered as a structure.
Barr said in response to a letter from Price Banks, Attorney representing neighbors in the vicinity of the blasting area, they were concerned that the code had not been followed. He listed the questions and his responses to those concerns.
Banks’ Question:
1. Not everyone within 500 feet of the planned blasting was notified of pre-blast survey 15 days in advance of the planned blast date;
Barr’s Response:
All structures within 500 feet of the proposed blast site have been notified in writing 15 days prior to the commencement of blasting in those areas. In the absence of specific information to the contrary, I assume this is directed toward the domestic utilities in the area and their proposed classification as a structure. Since I have never defined the utilities in an area as a structure, the pre-blast survey notification was not required to be provided to them.
Banks’ Question:
2. Those located within 1,500 feet were not in formed of the insurance company or the claims process until the fact was reported to the City Manager. After that, the blasting company distributed an announcement containing that information;
Barr’s Response:
As I have informed the Commission earlier, the original notification that was provided to the neighborhood did not include the insurance information as required by code. That was my error. This has been remedied by the re-issuance of the notifications.
Bank’s Question:
3. We believe that the definition of “structure” in the fire code includes gas pipelines and other infrastructure. If we are correct, then the appropriate procedures have not been followed. (Notification and pre-blast surveys);
Barr’s Response
We do not believe that the domestic utilities are defined as structures per my communication with the ICC. We have decided to apply this definition to the Southern Star Central pipeline based upon the comments from the KCC representative;
Bank’s Question:
4. The blasting company was storing approximately one ton of explosives about 350 feet behind one of the homes in the area. When residents expressed concern, the material was moved more distant form the homes; and,
Barr’s Response:
Upon reviewing the documents and visiting the site, I contacted Charles Mestagh with McClouth Excavating and directed him to move the magazines a minimum of 1000 feet from buildings. I received absolutely no comment or concern from anyone regarding the explosives magazine locations prior to initiating this action; and,
Bank’s Question:
5. We have not reviewed a blast plan that meets the requirements of the code.
Barr’s Response:
This item is going to be more extensive in the reply, primarily because Mr. Banks has not provided specific requirements that are not being met. Therefore, I am going to go through each section of the City Code as it relates to blasting and indicate the information provided to me, that in my opinion, meets the requirements.
He said in his report that it was, “especially important that all codified procedures are followed to the strict letter of the law. Apparently, that has not happened. If the procedural notification requirements are being “winked at”, we are concerned that other provisions of the code may not be complied with.”
Barr’s comment was, “While I believe they meet the requirements as set forth in the City Code, I may be interpreting the requirements differently from those reading it since I originally drafted the language for adoption by the Commission. The reason for these requirements is to provide better regulation of these operations than what existed prior to their adoption and it was done so to protect the public.”
Barr said there was no current or valid blast permit at the site. The previous permit had expired and staff was looking at renewing that permit upon resubmitting some updated material for the blasting plan.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the new blasting permit would require going through the same pre-blast surveys and notification of the affected homeowner as the first blasting permit required.
Barr said no. He said the permit was being renewed with changes, but staff would ensure when that contractor provided staff with the information with those changes in the blast plan and that all appropriate notifications and pre-blast surveys would be conducted prior to issuance of the permit.
Commissioner Schauner said if a pre-blast survey was completed as part of the initial blast permit that would count towards satisfying the renewal application process as well.
Barr said yes. (21)
REGULAR AGENDA
Discussion of the industrial land identification process.
Mayor Rundle said this was the next step in a long-standing relationship with the Chamber of Commerce, Douglas County, and the City of Lawrence for Economic Development. He said in reviewing the minutes and the resolution there was some confusion about steps and sequence in the industrial land identification process. He said there were some meetings planned that would hopefully point everyone in the same direction.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said staff has been identifying general industrial areas based on the criteria for future business park identification and that criteria were referenced in the joint ordinance/resolution. Those criteria gave staff general guidance.
She said staff would look at current areas that had been identified through the adopted Comprehensive Plan process which was Horizon 2020 for the City and County, through adopted area or neighborhood development plans which included the 6th and SLT/K-10 Nodal Plan, the Southern Development Plan, and the SLT Corridor Land use Plan. She said staff would also look at draft area documents that had public input, but not final Commission approval such as the Southeast Area Plan or the North of North Street Plan.
Additionally, because this issue was Countywide, staff had contacted Lecompton, Eudora, and Baldwin City. She said within those cities Comprehensive Plans or in the revisions that those cities were drafting in their Comprehensive Plans, Baldwin City and Eudora had some areas identified for expansion of existing and new industrial development. Those areas were being consolidated into a map that staff would have for the Commission along with data on May 5th. The map and existing data would include existing acreages of what was industrial zoned that was undeveloped, existing acreage of zoning that was pending for industrial development, and approximate acreages for areas that were on those adopted maps.
She said with the information provided by staff to the City and County Commission, staff hoped that information would help the City and County frame a discussion regarding policy issues related to existing and future sewer capacities, other primary infrastructure, and implementation of adequate public facilities polices that both the City and County had been reviewing.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the maps would identify currently zoned industrial property.
Finger said the maps would show areas that were in Horizon 2020 in service area one; areas that were existing industrial zoned that were not developed, but might be on the fringe; areas identified in Nodal Plans or adopted Area Plans that were complimentary to Horizon 2002; and the Baldwin City and Eudora area that had identified areas in their Comprehensive Plans.
Mayor Rundle said it would be helpful for staff to put those policy issues in writing.
Finger said those issues were being put into writing by another party.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the report would be available before the May 5th study session so there would be an opportunity to review that report before hand.
Finger said the map would be available before May 5th. She said County Commissioner Jones was asked to make the presentation on the industrial land identification process. She said City staff would be providing County Commissioner Jones the raw data. (22)
Conduct City bond and note sale. Receive staff report on bids. Award bids on bonds and notes to the lowest responsible bidder.
Ed Mullins, Finance Director, said thee were two sales today under a Parity System. One sale was for temporary notes totaling $10,115,000 and the other sale was for general obligation bonds for $3,520,000. He said the interest rates were going up and the next time the City conducted a sale there would be significantly higher rates.
He said the temporary notes were unusual in that those notes were for a four month term due to some outstanding issues which involved benefit districts in which staff hoped to resolve. He said the City would have $27,000,000 worth of temporary notes due October 1, 2004.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a call feature on the temporary notes so if the outstanding issues with the benefit districts could be resolved before the end of the four month term, those notes could be refinanced.
Mullins said the four month term was approximately the amount of time it would take to conduct another sale. The notes did not need to be bid publicly and staff could negotiate with local banks. He said when talking about $10,000,000 in notes, it was much better to make it a competitive process. He said there were call provisions on the bonds which were 12 year maturity with 10 year call features, but if staff would have tried to do a call feature on the notes, staff would not have received bids.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if Mullins could briefly summarize the content of the ordinance and resolutions that the Commission needed to adopt.
Mullins said the resolutions were lengthy and would include all of the legal information that the City was required to disclose so that the bond holders felt comfortable buying the City’s bonds.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, the City Commission reviewed the bids for General Obligation Temporary Notes, Series 2004-I. The bids were:
BIDDER Net Interest Cost ($) True Interest Cost (%)
Banc of America $48,552.00 1.270588%
Parker/Hunter, Inc. $48,810.45 1.2774%
Piper Jaffray & Co. $50,327.74 1.317059%
Commerce Capital Markets $50,732.34 1.327647%
UMB Bank $57,722.93 1.510588%
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to Banc of America for the Net Interest Cost of $48,552.00 and a True Interest Cost of 1.270588%. Motion carried unanimously. (23)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for General Obligation Bonds, Series 2004-A. The bids were:
BIDDER True Interest Cost (%)
George K. Baum & Co. 3.417385%
Stern Brothers & Co. 3.470005%
Hutchinson, Shockey, Erley & Co. 3.537147%
Piper Jaffray 3.537438%
Wells Fargo Brokerage 3.6742132%
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to George K. Baum & Co. for a True Interest Cost of 3.417385%. Motion carried unanimously. (24)
Moved by Dunfield , seconded by Schauner, to declare an emergency and adopt on first and second reading Ordinance No. 7787 authorizing the sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2004-A . Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried. (25)
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6542, authorizing the sale of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2004-A for $3,520,000. Motion carried unanimously. (26)
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6543, authorizing the sale of General Obligation Bonds/Temporary Notes, Series 2004-I for $10,115,000. Motion carried unanimously. (27) Conduct public hearing on the City of Wichita’s proposed Bond Refunding Issue for the Presbyterian Manors, Inc. The City of Wichita has issued health care facility revenue bonds for several Presbyterian Manor facilities in Kansas, including the facility in Lawrence. This bond issue is now proposed for refunding.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Marcia Wood, Hinkle Elkouri Law Firm, City of Wichita’s bond counsel, said most of the money for those bonds was going to refunding and a small amount of that money would be used for improvements, particularly improvements to the Salina and Kansas City facilities, but then some minor equipment purchases in other facilities throughout the State including Lawrence.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the debtor was not the City of Lawrence, but rather the City of Wichita.
Wood said it was not even considered a debt of the City of Wichita, but Presbyterian Manor’s that was required to make those payments that would go to the bondholders. She said those bonds were not payable from the general revenues or taxation from the City of Lawrence.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the debt of Presbyterian Manor that was conveyed through the various municipalities, would impact the City of Lawrence’s bond rating in any way.
Wood said no.
Moved by Dunfield seconded by Schauner, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously
Moved by Dunfield seconded Schauner, to adopt Resolution 6544, authorizing the issuance of certain health care facilities refunding and improvements revenue bonds in the principal amount not to exceed $24,000,000. Motion carried unanimously. (28)
Receive Staff report and review options for design of Folks Road from 6th Street to Mulberry Road.
Chuck Soules, Director of Public Works, presented the staff report and background information. He said last November the City Commission approved the improvements for Folks Road from 6th Street to Mulberry Road. The Commission also provided staff with specific directions with respect to the design of that road which were:
1. Folks Road is a collector street which will connect through from 6th Street to Mulberry Drive;
2. Bike lanes and sidewalks will be established on both sides;
3. A northbound left turn lane will be installed at 6th Street;
4. A traffic calming plan will be established. Various devices such as narrowing of the street width at Mulberry, speed cushions, neighborhood entrance treatment, traffic circle at Old Oak Court, and an alignment offset would be evaluated; and
5. Adjacent owners and the Harvard Road neighbors would provide input into the design.
He said in January, a selection committee was formed which included the Harvard neighborhood group and a resident from the benefit district. They selected the Peridian Group as a consultant for this project.
Lance Johnson, Peridian Group, presented the four design options developed for this road. He said it had been a challenge to try and get a road that would accomplish everybody’s wish, but he thought his company had come up with a proposal that everybody could live with.
He presented the four options to the City Commission. Those options were:
Option 1: Includes two speed cushions between the McVey and Mayhugh properties and the Pinnacle (Stephens) and Hodges properties. The entrance treatment at Mulberry contains an island narrowing the lanes to 12 ft. and a “speed pillow” in each lane. Mulberry is a 31 ft. wide street and Folks Road north to 6th Street will have bike lanes and be 36 ft. wide. Therefore, a slight narrowing will be exaggerated with small shrubs following the narrowing behind the curb. The speed cushions are placed approximately 400 ft. apart.
All the owners of property within the benefit district (except the McVeys) preferred Option One. City Staff and the design consultant are also recommending Option One.
The McVeys, Mayhughs, and Hodges have agreements with the City to defer any special assessments until such time as the property redevelops and the maximum assessments for these properties is limited to $7,500.
Option 2: Includes the same speed cushions, the neighborhood entrance, and adds the roundabout at the intersection of Old Oak Court. Staff’s review of this option was that the roundabout at this intersection was not warranted as the traffic on Old Oak Court would not be very significant. Secondly, the splitter islands proposed are very close to the taper for the left turn lane on 6th Street which could cause a problem if left turn stacking length was shortened to accommodate the island. Finally, none of the benefit district property owners liked this option.
Option 3: Includes same speed cushions (exact location may vary); however, entrance to the neighborhood is reduced to 23 ft. from back of curb to back of curb. An island would not fit and provide sufficient clearance. There was not much discussion on this option. The Fire Department prefers this option due to the fact of not having the island into the Harvard neighborhood. (Their second preference is Option 1.)
Option 4: Includes the speed cushions entrance treatment, and a “wiggle” in the alignment. The McVeys prefer this option, which places the street as far away from their home as possible.
Mayor Rundle asked Soules if the bend in Option 4 would have signage.
Soules said if the design speed of a curve was less than the design speed of the road then that curve would be signed. In this case, he did not think that design curve would slow traffic.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if there were any options proposed that were not given the full treatment.
Johnson said they looked at the “wiggle” in the alignment and the road to the west. He said also at the entrance to Mulberry, they looked at placing a traffic circle in that area.
Commissioner Highberger said if narrowing the roadway to 34 feet, he asked if it would be possible to take those two feet off of the east side.
Johnson said he thought they could go with a 34-foot section. He said one foot could be taken off each side without alignment change.
Commissioner Schauner said if the road was narrowed, he asked would that have an impact of the width of the bicycle lane or the driving lane.
Johnson said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked Johnson what were the 2 or 3 specific issues that Johnson relied upon as support for Option one.
Johnson said it was more ruling out the other three options than it was selecting Option 1. He said in Option 1, they liked the straight shot and the speed cushions.
Mayor Rundle asked if Option 1 and Option 4 were essentially the same except for the small curve in the road.
Johnson said yes.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the mid block splitter island was considered and if it was rejected, why was it rejected.
Johnson said it was rejected because of the driveway locations.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the splitter island would not work at mid block because of the driveway locations.
Johnson said they would need to look where they could place one of those splitter islands. He said there was quite a bit of traffic calming with the short distance of Folks Road.
Commissioner Schauner suggested substituting a splitter island at approximately where the McVey’s property met the Mayhugh’s property, south of the intersection and there would still be one set of speed cushions going south. He said he remembered the comment from Commissioner Dunfield, and it seemed like an attractive approach that would be both aesthetically pleasing if it were planted as well as a traffic calming device.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Doug Compton, property owner on the west side, spoke in support of getting the road built. He said at the meetings with the Peridian Group, City staff, and the property owners’, he heard City staff spend time talking about Option 1 from a safety standpoint by placing a wiggle in the road. He said City staff had spent a lot of time over the last several months trying to come up with the best design. At this point, he would like to see that road built a soon as possible.
Debra McVey, property owner on Folks Road, spoke in favor of Option 4. One of the repeated comments, she heard during the presentation for Option 1, was that it was a straight shot down the street and she was afraid of creating the impression among drivers that there was a straight shot short cut down to Harvard Road. If the plan for Option 4 with the curve in road could be made safer by making the curve wider that was fine, but by creating that curve that would help protect the landscaping of her property. She believed that even though the curve might not control traffic, the look of creating a more residential street that was not a straight shot would give a psychological impression that might impact drivers and help keep those drivers from speeding.
Roger Bain, property owner on Harvard Road, asked if there was consensus from the property owners on Mulberry to Folks Road on what option was preferred.
Soules said his impression was that the Harvard neighborhood, generally supported Option 1, but the McVey’s supported Option 4.
Bain said he also supported Option 4 and his second choice was the roundabout, but that roundabout would cut into the McVey’s property. The criteria behind those two choices, was to not have the appearance of a straight shot. He said there was comment made concerning traffic counts, but he asked how could there be a traffic count when the property had not been developed. He said there multi-family dwelling development was going to be constructed at that location and would increase traffic.
He said he wanted as many traffic calming options installed so that it appeared that road was not a straight shot or a short cut between 6th and Harvard Road. He said the curve in Option 4 would accomplish that appearance with extensive landscaping. He liked the idea of transitioning into Mulberry with the island.
Brenda Jackson, property owner on the corner of Harvard and Mulberry, said the Harvard/Mulberry Grove neighbors did have consensus on the treatment into Mulberry. She said they all agreed that there was only one response in not liking the island treatment with the cushions. She said there was some consternation about what to do on the northern part of Folks Road, but the neighbors tried to talk through that issue.
She asked why wasn’t there more considered than a “wiggle”. She said the neighbors had actually talked about a curve in the road that would have traffic calming effects. She said Johnson replied that they did not think it was warranted because there was going to be enough traffic calming. She asked if a “wiggle” in the road would be considered along with a larger offset that would have that traffic calming effects and might make more of the neighbors happier in the long run. She suggested Option 4 with a longer “wiggle.” She said the consensus was Option 1 or Option 4, but they were supporting the McVeys. She said they would like to know what would happen if there was a larger offset.
Mayor Rundle said the Commission had seen drawings with a large “wiggle.” He said he had a hard time taking the safety issue seriously because it seemed that there were roads that abruptly change. He said if going over the hill on 9th Street past Lawrence Avenue, a person would need to turn right at the bottom of the hill. He said it was pointed out that there were a lot of curved streets, but some of those road curve more. He said drivers always had to be cautious for changes in the road. He said this was an infill development and they were trying to make it compatible with existing built areas as well as having a nice product. He was leaning toward some type of curve in the road and he hoped that all of the utilities problems could be mitigated by the final design.
Commissioner Dunfield said he was supportive of Option 1 after hearing from the design professional. He said it seemed clear that if he was traveling from 6th Street on Folks Road, headed south, that he could look ahead and see the straight shot in front of him. He said crossing or crowding that centerline was going to be a temptation in that situation because it was not a real curve in the road, but a jog in the road.
He said as a way of adding one more traffic calming features to this issue was an idea of narrowing the total street width from 36 feet down to 34 feet so there would be 11 foot driving lanes. He said this was a short enough street with an island, two speed cushions and narrower lanes. He favored Option 1.
Vice Mayor Highberger concurred with Commissioner Dunfield. He said narrowing the street would help. He said he was not sure that the amount of “wiggle” would have a dramatic effect on the speed of that road. He said there were straight streets in the older part of town where the traffic and traffic speed were fairly manageable. He said there were curved streets where traffic was way out of hand. He said there was some significant traffic calming devices proposed with the two speed cushions and narrowing of the road at the far end. He supported Option 1.
Mayor Rundle said when talking about safety there was some scientific basis for it. He said he had not heard anything that was any stronger than an opinion that it was safe or it would be better. He said there needed to be some type of scientific basis that that “wiggle” was a major safety hazard. He said this was not done just for safety, but to accommodate existing property owners. He said a brand new development was being squeezed into an area that was already developed and why should the existing residents have to pay the costs of disrupting their property when this was a profitable new development. He said they had an idea that they were going to seriously consider a curved road from the very beginning.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not know if a curve or wiggle of this magnitude made any difference in safety on this street or not, but having recent experience with the extension of Research Park Drive from 15th to 18th which was a straight street and no traffic calming devices, and having been surprised at the increase in traffic and speed on that street, he believed the street would be a shortcut from Harvard to 6th Street and carry more traffic because of the denser development on the south end. He said he did not favor a narrower street. He said he favored a street alignment with a “wiggle” not because of a safety consideration, but because of the preservation of the neighborhood. He said a splitter island at the south end was helpful. He said a street with some character, some movement, other than just a straight line did more to create and/or preserve a neighborhood look than a straight street. He said all things being equal, a straight street with the fewest distractions was the safest street, but this was a fairly short street and he would like to do what they could to maintain some sort of a residential character.
He said he was not substituting his judgment for the engineer’s with respect to the safety of the “wiggle.” He said if there was some tangible evidence that this “wiggle” made this a less safe street, he could be convinced that Option 1 made more sense.
Commissioner Dunfield said Commissioner Schauner made a comment about not substituting his opinion for the professional judgment of the engineer but that was exactly what Commissioner Schauner was doing.
Mayor Rundle said when traffic warrants were needed there was a certain volume of traffic, a certain number of accidents, or a certain level of conflicting traffic with pedestrians. He was willing to hear a more expanded rationale for that issue.
Johnson said he did not have an equation or anything that neat. He said it was not good engineering practice to put a small jog in the road. He said when seeing a curved road there was usually a gradual meandering curve over a longer distance. He also pointed out that the bicyclist would also have to make that curve in the road.
He said the splitter island mid-block would not work with the bicycle lanes because traffic would be directed into that bicycle lane.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the loss of bicycle lane at the splitter island was a safety issue which should considered.
Soules said at the entrance into the Harvard neighborhood, Mulberry was only 27 foot wide. He said there would not be a bicycle lane. He said at some point in the future, the characteristics of what that road was going to be used for might be different. One of the issues with putting that road all the way through was not for a short-cut, but to provide in and out access to the Harvard neighborhood. He said staff felt that Option No. 1 provided a better facility for the City.
Commissioner Schauner said if the street was 2 feet narrower without the “wiggle” and keeping the splitter island at the south end, keeping the bicycle lanes intact along with the speed cushions, he asked what impact did that narrower street have on the safety quotient for the street.
Johnson said the guidelines were 10 to 12 foot driving lanes. He said in his professional opinion and in the guidelines set in engineering practice that was an acceptable driving lane width. He said from an engineering practice standpoint, there was no problem going from a 36 foot to 34-foot wide street.
Mayor Rundle said the jog that he referred to on North Michigan was west of the hospital where south of 2nd did not align with north of 2nd Street. He said he was hoping Soules would know so Soules could give the Commission and idea of the distances people were traveling either south before they hit that or going north and they would need to abruptly make an adjustment.
He said he was not trying to impugn the reputation of anybody’s background, but there was something called common sense. If coming off 6th Street, just before getting to that jog, there would be a narrowing in the road which had the same type of subtle change that a person would experience when seeing a road making a subtle curve to the west. He said that person had not gone far just coming off of 6th Street and did not have a lot of time to build up speed. He said that person would come up on an intersection where there was traffic coming and going from the new development. There would not be a street light so there were going to be people making judgments pulling out into traffic.
He said it seemed that given the short distance traveled, and the lack of time to build up speed, that common sense told him that this could not be anymore major of an adjustment than that jog on North Michigan or other jogs on existing streets.
Johnson said he did not have much of a problem northbound with the offset. He said there was more of a problem with the southbound. He said coming off of the intersection at 6th and Folks a person would need to gradually transition towards the centerline, but that was what worried him more then coming right back and jogging down to the west. There was a transition that would push a person towards the center of the street and quickly thereafter that person would need to maneuver to the west. The southbound movement bothered him more than the northbound. He said that Mayor Rundle was correct that traffic would not be going at a high rate of speed, but they also needed to account for someone coming through the green light from north of 6th Street if someone was coming on Folks crossing 6th Street.
Bain noted that if going past the transition onto Mulberry, Mulberry curved onto Harvard Road.
Commissioner Dunfield said he was amazed that this discussion was still going on after all of this time and at this late stage of the game the Commission was second guessing all of the professionals.
Mayor Rundle said the Commission had always deferred the discussion on the alignment. He said the Commission had not ever talked about the alignment until now.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked Johnson if he felt that Option 4 was unsafe.
Johnson said not as safe as Option 1.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he still had minor concerns about Option 4. He said he concurred with Johnson’s assessment that Option 4 was not as safe as the other options. He said he was comfortable with Option 4. He said his major concern was the traffic calming and that had been adequately addressed with the speed humps and the entrance treatment.
He said if narrowing the street in Option 4, he asked if there was any potential negative reaction.
Johnson said he did not have any problem with narrowing the street.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to receive the staff report on design options for Folks Road from 6th Street to Mulberry Road and direct staff to proceed with Option 4 ("the wiggle option") and recommended a 34 foot street width (29)
Moved by Dunfield, seconded Schauner, to recess for five minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Conduct a public hearing on the advisability of the construction of 3rd Street from Alabama Street to Illinois Street.
Conduct public hearing on the advisability of the construction of Alabama Street from the intersection of 3rd Street south approximately 200 feet.
Chuck Soules presented the staff report. He said that the Commission needed to open two public hearings, one public hearing for the improvements to 3rd Street, and one public hearing for the improvement on Alabama Street. Those benefit districts were being brought to the City Commission because of the development of six lots. When those lots were developed, the owner, at that time, entered an agreement not to protest for Alabama Street, Third Street and Illinois Street. Since that time the property had changed hands, and now Tenants to Homeowners owns the property and they had a different type of plan. Typically, City Code stated that if a person had a lot that was adjacent to a right-of-way that there should be some type of access. The Tenants to Homeowners plan, however, was basically assuming the access from an access easement along the back. Their position was that they did not feel that Alabama Street improvements were necessary. The Medical Arts Facility was also included in the benefit district and one of the property owners was not interested in the establishment of Alabama Street.
He said all that area was in a drainage way and there was a fairly mature existing tree line. One issue was the screening from the parking lot to the residential area. The other issue with Alabama Street was that the benefit district was only to improve Alabama two hundred feet which was in the agreement not to protest. He said when this property was platted, part of Third Street was vacated. He said a benefit district based on front footage basis could be established for those two hundred feet.
At some point, the Commission would probably need to consider two houses that front off of a small twelve-foot access and dropped off into the Medical Arts parking lot. He said he did not know if any of those residents there would be interested in building a street all the way through. There were some undeveloped lots, but at some point in the future, those lots might be developed and that benefit district might have a better chance and extend the street further to the South.
He said this benefit district was brought to the City Commission because the City’s standard policy was that lots needed to be accessed from streets, but those three lots would not have street access, they would only have an access easement. The City would not maintain that section, plow the snow, or repair potholes.
Soules said the second benefit district was on Third Street and ran through Alabama Street to Illinois Street. The benefit district included six lots and tracts on the north side. Third Street was the only street in that area that was not improved. He said Alabama Street, Third Street to the west and east, and Illinois Streets all had curb and gutter.
He presented some pictures to the City Commission of the 3rd Street and explained the development. The public hearing needed to be held, pending comments. He said if the Commission so desired, they could direct staff to proceed with the establishment of one or both of the improvement districts.
Mayor Rundle asked about the Alabama Street right-of-way. He asked if that right-of-way was intact all the way between Third and Fourth Streets, including that small section.
Soules answered that yes, but the City did maintain a right-of-way all the way through.
Commissioner Schauner asked why Third Street was not improved between Illinois and Alabama when it was improved either direction from those two streets.
Soules said there were some improvements when the water plant went in.
Wildgen said that when the health center was constructed staff improved Alabama, Second and Third Streets because those were access points that surrounded that particular facility. He said that those improvements did not extend east because those streets did not touch upon that particular project.
Commissioner Schauner asked how Third Street’s improvements were financed west of Alabama.
Wildgen said with the bonds. He said the City and County shared that project and the countywide sales tax project was paying for those improvements.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there were any benefit districts.
Wildgen said that there were no benefit districts.
Mayor Rundle asked Soules if he knew how the cost would be assessed.
Soules said that both of the benefit districts were based on a front footage basis.
Mayor Rundle asked if there was City participation.
Soules said that at this point, there was no City participation. He said that was the reason for this public hearing. He said if the Commission wanted to make any changes, when staff came back with the resolution authorizing and directing those improvements, staff would make those changes.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Thomas Howell, President of the Board of Directors for Tenants to Homeowners, explained that the organization was a community housing development organization, which was dedicated to providing affordable, accessible housing for the City of Lawrence. He said this project has been on the table for some time. He said that Tenants to Homeowners felt that the benefits that they were bringing to the table, in terms of providing housing, doing an in-fill development, which was to the benefit of the lower and medium income people, to the City of Lawrence outweigh the costs of, finishing Third Street. He said that they had also spoken to the neighborhood about Alabama Street portion, but the residents in that area were not in favor of Alabama Street being finished. He said they would prefer to keep it as a right of way and not a finished street. He said that they recognized that Third Street between Illinois and Alabama Street needed attention and they were asking for City participation in that improvement.
Commissioner Highberger asked if they were planning sidewalks on the Alabama side of the three lots.
Howell said yes. The three lots on the west side of the development, the houses faced toward the west and the access there was off of a sidewalk which was in front of the house. He said that there was also access through the back through their east lot on the back side.
Highberger said that it was his understanding that those lots would be held by community land trusts.
Howell said that their current position was that Tenants and Homeowners would hold the title to the lots themselves. There would be 99-year leases to the residents who would actually purchase the houses.
Alan Bowes, Director of Tenants to Homeowners, said they would like to put their money into the energy efficiency and the sustainability of those homes. He said that they would like to make those homes so that people could live in those homes for a long period of time in an affordable way. He said that energy costs were going to be very important in the coming years and that was where they would like to put their money to make those homes very energy efficient.
The easement would be owned by the land trust and the land trust would maintain that easement. Their plans were to overbuild that easement so the land trust would be responsible for snow removal and other issues. The driveways would lead to garages off of the access road.
He said that their costs were down as far as they could get those cost down. Tenants to Homeowners would finance the land with the land trust. It was being built by a nonprofit organization. They would use the City’s First Time Homebuyer’s Program to get people into those homes. They would be using their own house plans to use minimum architecture fees, just for construction drawings. He said they did not have any other costs that they could actually cut.
The people they want to get into those homes were people with disabilities, people with part-time jobs, single parent families, working couples who did not have the option of increasing their incomes. He said if they had to increase the cost of the homes, those costs would need to be borne by those people and it would eliminate a lot of people that would not be able to access the project. He said that was why the Tenants to Homeowners was asking the City to be a bigger partner. He said not improving Alabama Street would not cost anything, but they were asking the City to be a bigger partner with Third Street, because those people did not have the option of just increasing their income. He said they would need to sell the houses to people who could finance more money.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Tenants to Homeowners would like City to participate on 50/50 basis with the cost of Third Street improvement.
Bowes said yes. He said they decided that was the most sensible position. They would rather the City put forward all the cost, but the board thought that this would be a better position to take.
Commissioner Schauner asked what was the sales price difference with a six thousand dollar assessment.
Bowes said he was hoping that the people could get into those houses for $60,000 with all the subsidies. The houses would cost more than that, but they would need to finance that $60,000. He said that it was a little different because this would be spread over ten years. It would be different than just increasing the costs of the home. The figures that they came up with would be the difference between making $16,000 to making $21,000 a year, and up for bigger homes.
Ed Tato, Secretary of the Board of Tenants to Homeowners, said that he had read the Mayor’s quote in the newspaper about this issue. He said he thought that it was a competition of priorities. He asks the Commission to remember that the City throughout its recent past and its documents had a well-coordinated plan to try to encourage affordable housing and at the same time there were Public Works requirements. He said in this instance, he would like the Commission to consider what was required as for Alabama and Third Street and to think about the rationale behind those requirements, what would be gained, were those standards intended for a property of this nature, or were they intended for the majority of new development in the City. He said that it was difficult, because City staff could not make this decision, and it was a Commission decision. He said they were asking that the Commission look at that particular parcel in its context and not in the context of a Public Works policy document that had to address the whole City. He said the question was how could the Commission and this Municipality figure out what worked best with competing interests. He said it seemed clear that staying with Alabama and Third Street strictly because a document stated that that was the way the City did things, there was no rationality to that, because what you want was what was the best use of that property, what was the best use of resources that the City had and ultimately what was the best result for the City as a whole when that property was developed. He said to look at this issue strictly in terms of the transportation aspect that was built for a city on the amount of square mileage and the different types of developments and to say that that standard must apply in this situation, neglected all those other things that came into play in this particular context.
Harold Shepard, property owner on Third Street, asked if Third Street was actually a street and did Third Street come under the same policies as all the other block grant rehabilitation projects in Lawrence. He said Third Street was over 100 years old and that street was on the map before 21st Street. He asked why should the property owners be in a benefit district when Third Street was already established. He said there had been millions of dollars of taxes that people had paid for Third Street and those people had not received any benefit. He asked if there was any justification in asking the property owners to pay for Third Street, when the City had developed all the other streets through bonds or taxes. He said he had been down to City Hall several times asking City staff to place some safety covers over the manholes on Alabama. He said the property owners in that area were now being asked to put in a new street. He asked the City Commission to take that burden off of the taxpayer and put the burden on the City which should have been done years ago.
Peter Curran spoke on behalf of the owners of J & S Holdings LLC., Johnson and Sollars, who owned tract 2 in the proposed benefit district for Alabama Street. He said Soules indicated that he had discussions with Johnson in that J & S Holdings join with Tenants to Homeowners’ suggestion that it should not be necessary in this instance to improve 200 feet of Alabama Street at a cost of over $100,000. He said J & S Holdings requested that the City Commission not go in that direction.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to close the public hearings. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schauner said it was curious that Third Street was not improved between Alabama and Illinois when the street was improved west of Alabama. He said Shepard made a good point that Third Street had been there a long time and there had not been much finding for improvements in the past. He believed that the City, consistent with its general obligation to maintain neighborhood streets and its commitment to Tenants to Homeowners, should bear the entire cost for that street improvement. He said that was a fair result and it served a good public purpose in terms of Tenants to Homeowners and it was the right thing to do.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he generally agreed, but he would not be so generous. He supported a 50% City share. He supported deferring the assessments on Shepard’s lots until such time as those were developed. He said this was an excellent project and applauded Tenants to Homeowners for bringing this issue forward. He said he was excited that the land trust concept had finally came to town and it was an excellent way to ensure the long-term availability of public housing by making sure that the dwelling units remain affordable. He said he would like the Commission to do anything they could to help that project out. He said the Commission needed to balance this issue with the needs of the rest of the City. He felt comfortable asking the project to assume part of the cost of upgrading Third Street and deferring the assessments until Shepard’s property redeveloped.
Mayor Rundle said there were probably a lot of different stories for different streets as things have redeveloped in the area.
Wildgen said in other parts of town there were benefit districts formed every year where the cost for those local streets were assessed against the property which was the basic policy. He said Shepard had never had a City standard street in front of his house. He said that street had not been improved by the City because of the general policy. He said there were many streets that fit into that category. He said there was an opportunity to improve that street because there was a new development that would place more traffic from that south side. If the City Commission funded this project 100% then the Commission would need to go back to that major thoroughfare issue which seemed odd to call that street a major thoroughfare, but that was the finance tactic. He said those costs could be apportioned with City participation. He said there was a minimum of 5% City-at-large participation.
Commissioner Dunfield said this was a discussion that was discussed when talking about adequate public facilities with the Public Improvements Task Force. He said the fact that there were in-fill situations like this and the question would arise if current standards should be imposed on older neighborhoods on existing situations when those standards might not be what was expected in that particular area and this issue was a great example. He said on the one hand Third Street in its current situation clearly did need to be improved especially with new development on the south side. He did not think there was any question that the Commission needed to raise the standard of that particular street. On the other hand there were chip and seal streets like Learnard in his own neighborhood where people with those types of streets and there did not seem to be a driving reason to improve that street. He said there needed to be methods of dealing with that issue of different standards in different areas based on the history of the streets. In this particular case, the 50/50 split on the benefit district made sense. He said if the Commission deferred that assessment on Shepard’s property and as long as that property stayed occupied like it was, then there was no assessment on that property. However, if that property redeveloped then the City would have a reasonable expectation to collect some money back from that street improvement. He said that was a fair and reasonable way to proceed.
Mayor Rundle said when Commissioner Dunfield mentioned that Learnard was chip and seal street, he asked if that street would be improved as chip and seal. He said it was obvious that 3rd Street needed to be improved.
Commissioner Dunfield said the difference was a 250-foot strip of street that was curb and gutter and a lane in between.
Soules said the drainage in the area would be improved with curb and gutter.
Commissioner Schauner said he took a slightly different view of this issue. He said he would not favor deferring the assessment on the north side of the street. He said he would favor a slightly higher level of City participation than 50% without the deferral. He said both sides of that street would benefit from that street being improved whether living there or owning property in that area or both. He favored a 75/25 percent split and not deferring the Sheppard property assessment for improvement of that street to current City standards.
Commissioner Dunfield said the only reason the City Commission was talking about forming a benefit district in the first place was because of the new development on the south side. He said that was the trigger and it made sense that the Commission would apply the same logic to say if it was not for the development going on, that street would not be improved. He said it made sense to defer Shepard’s property because his property was not redeveloping.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the 75/25 split with a deferral was acceptable.
Vice Mayor Highberger said by his calculation with 75% City participation, the cost would be increased to approximately $35,000.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he realized that this project would be bonded, but given the budget discussions that would take place in the next few weeks, that was a significant amount of money.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to direct staff to proceed with construction of 3rd Street from Alabama Street to Illinois Street with the City at large share at 75% and also defer the Harold Shephard properties (on the north side) so long as the property remained in its current use. Aye: Dunfield, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Highberger. Motion carried. (30)
Commissioner Dunfield said as far as the Alabama Street benefit district, he did not see a good argument for building Alabama Street the first 200 feet or any amount of Alabama Street at this time. He said he understood why it was proposed and that it made sense looking at the City’s development standards, but on the other hand, he did not see any benefit to anyone in building that street. He said if a street was constructed those three houses on Alabama would face a Medical Arts parking lot rather than a wooded drainage area. The idea of entering those new houses from a wooded pedestrian lane sounded nice.
Mayor Rundle said the right of way still existed in that area and there was an agreement not to protest a benefit district.
No City Commission action was taken on the Alabama Street benefit district.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Bob Pechal, homeowner on Stonecreek Drive, said his backyard was directly connected to the easement where the Southern Star Pipeline was located which was directly connected to the Foxchase South development which was in the excavation phase and possibly the location of blasting close to his home. He said while he preferred that no blasting occurred in the Foxchase South development area, he understood the need for the development. He said what he did not understand was the sense of need by the developer, the contractors, and representatives of the City to allow blasting close to his home and close to the pipeline.
He said there had been a lot of discussion about code and the issue of notification. He said in talking with the people in the industry that utilize contactors that perform blasting, he understood that the majority of the time notification was made with certified mail which provided a record to make sure that residents were properly notified and in this case, their notification came from a flyer that was placed on the door. He said he did not know that all the neighbors had been properly notified.
He said insurance was another large issue. He said he understood that the code required that homeowners be provided the name of the insurer that was underwriting the activity, but he had not been provided that information.
He said they also believed that blasting had occurred without the proper permit. The home at 1025 Stonecreek had a blast of 528 feet from the house. The Southern Star Pipeline was about 125 foot closer to the blast location which meant that the blast would have occurred within the 500-foot area.
He said a representative of their group met with the contractors to bring this issue to some resolution. However, there was no interest in negotiating with the neighborhood and due to that unwillingness that was why several of the homeowners were present.
He said for the neighbors on Stonecreek Drive and the southwest end of Harvard, what they were asking the City Commission was to direct staff to not issue a permit to anyone to blast within 500 foot of a structure in the Stonecreek neighborhood.
He said they were also asking the City Commission to review the current code with respect to blasting and prohibit any future blasting in City limits within 500 feet of any structure.
Mayor Rundle said his colleagues recognized that there was a policy and the avenue to take action was a grey area.
Price Banks, attorney, representing the Stonecreek neighborhood, said there was an alternative to blasting. He said rock could be dug out hydraulically and some areas could be dug out with backhoes, but blasting was faster and in this case less expensive although the contractor had not indicated how much less expensive blasting was.
He said when purchasing a home you purchase a bundle of rights and one of those rights was the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property. He said there could be no more egregious violation of that right to peaceful enjoyment of your property then having high explosives being detonated within 200 feet.
In this case, the managing member of the limited liability company sold many of those homes where high explosives would be detonated. He said those residents were not notified when they purchased their home that their home was going to be next to an area of high explosive detonation. He said why should the existing property owners need to bear the cost of new development. He asked that if the Commissioners were not persuaded to direct the Fire Marshall not to issue permits for blasting within 500 feet of those homes that before the Commissioners made any decision, that they ask the developers to allow the Commission to experience a blast within 200 feet. He suggested that the City Commission take a field trip to see what that blast was like and what kind of impact that blast had.
Dan Wilkus, resident in the Stonecreek neighborhood, said there were risks involved in doing those types of blasting operations. He asked why else would a pre-blast survey be conducted on all their homes within the area. He said the City Commission would hear from the experts that this blasting was done all the time and sometimes within 25 feet of structures and gas lines. He said what would happen if something went wrong. He said the residents in the area did not want to be the guinea pigs for a situation gone awry. He said if something were to happen, the risk would be placed on the property owners. He said the property owners would need to deal with the insurance companies and prove that they had damage not to mention, their small children. He did not like the idea of blasting being conducted in a neighborhood full of children as though this was some type of quarry operation. He had never heard of a situation where 7,000 feet of blasting was done to put in sanitary sewer pipes, there were alternatives. He said there were hydraulic means of removing that rock which came with a time factor. Since there was a time crunch, the residents were now shouldered with the risk associated with that blasting. He said the residents did propose to the developer to negotiate and no counter proposal was given and no there was no discussion.
He presented the City Commission with the City of Lawrence blasting code. He said the blasting code was similar to many other cities. He said many of the local codes particularly Olathe, Shawnee, and Johnson County were very similar.
The first issue was the actual permit document and under the first section Chapter 8-207.55, Article 7701.3.1, stated that that the permit shall expire 30 days after date of issuance. He said the permit was issued on March 23, 2004 was issued for approximately 37 days. He said this issue had been corrected as many of the code issues after discussions with City officials. He said this particular permit actually expired last Thursday and issued in error at the time the permit was issued.
As far as insurance, the City had provided the information and the insurance was valid.
He said in Chapter 8-207.59, Section 7703.6.1 was the blasting plan. He said this document was the ground work for the entire permit. It was basically a permit application. It contained a number of issues that were critical to make sure that the blasting was planned out. He said he requested a copy from the City of the blasting plan for the March 23rd permit and he received a copy of what he thought was a complete blasting plan on March 31st from the Deputy Chief, but subsequent emails exchanged over the last week indicated that maybe he did not have all of the documentation. He said he received additional information concerning the blasting plan on April 22nd. He said the information that he received he had no idea what was submitted before or after the permit was issued.
He said the blast plan required a scaled drawing and on the original permit the contractor was not planning on being within 500 feet. He pointed out that under the blasting plan it required that the distances be indicated to where the explosive magazine would be stored with relationships to buildings or other features. He said he understood that there was a separate permit that had a map that showed those distances. Again, he was not provided that information and that particular map did not show any houses.
He said another requirement was evidence of notification of adjacent property owners including the written notification and list of addresses of those notified. He said the only evidence was that someone placed a check mark by the names of all the residences. He said he received a pre-blast survey at the company that he worked at from a coal mining company by certified mail. He asked how did they know that people were notified or were made aware of this issue.
He said in Chapter 8-207.59, Section 7703.6.2, the chapter concerned notification of adjacent property owners. He said the applicant should provide written notification of property or utility owners within 1,500 feet of a blast site and should include: Notice of intent to blast; name of blasting contractor; agency making the pre-blast survey; and insurance company providing the coverage and claims process. He said it was his understanding that Utilities had never been provided written notification as required by that section. He said if the residence did experience damage, they would like to know what needed to be done.
He said in Chapter 8-207.59, Section 7703.7, concerning pre-blast survey it stated: “At least 15 days before initiation of blasting, the surveyor shall notify, in writing, all residents or owners of dwellings or other structures located within 500 feet of the blasting area of the intent to conduct a preblast survey.” He said not all of the residents had received written notification. He said he had received notice by talking to one of the personnel assigned to the blasting company on April 12th and he was notified, at that time, that he was included in that preblast survey. He said there seemed to be some confusion over the definition of structure in the regulations.
He presented the City Commission with the Olathe City Code which was similar to other municipalities. He said the blasting plan survey was similar to Lawrence’s Code, but provided extra detail which stated: “Structures such as pipelines, cables, transmission lines, wells, and other water systems warrant special attention.” It went on to say that the assessments of those structures might be limited to surface conditions or other readily available data. He said the neighbors found it mind boggling that this code had been in effect since 1993 and this was the first time they were trying to determine what the definition of a structure was.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to extend the meeting until 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Wilkus said under section 7703.8, concerning ground vibration and the maximum peak velocity which indicated that it could not exceed one inch per second. It was important to note that this was an after the fact standard meaning that there was no stop button in the event that that value was exceeded.
He asked about the explosive magazine and its proximity to the homes. He said those explosives were in the area for a number of weeks and mysteriously moved before the group meeting at the site. He said the neighbors wanted to understand if there were too many explosives stored there at that time and that was why those explosives were moved or were additional explosives going to be brought in at a later date.
Mayor Rundle said that he understood that the residents in that area originally had a proposal that they were going to negotiate. He asked if those requests were encompassed in Wilkus’ comments.
Price Banks said their proposal was that blasting not be permitted within 500 feet from homes and within 425 feet from the pipeline. He said they had talked to the limited liability company representative about the proposal and the representative said that they were not willing to compromise
Mayor Rundle said it seemed that there was some grey area. He asked if Banks’ wanted the City Commission to direct staff to resolve all of those grey areas.
Banks said the neighborhood’s first priority was the request relating to distance. If the City Commission was not persuaded in that direction then they would ask the City Commission to direct the Fire Marshall not to issue permits until some of those other areas could be taken care of. He said there were a number of indications that there had been a lack of attention to procedures and carelessness in storage of high explosives and that was something that they should be picky about. He said they should adhere stringently to procedures. He said again, if the City Commission was not persuaded to change the blasting limits then they were asking the City Commission to not issue permits until some of those areas were resolved. He mentioned again that he was serious that the City Commission should arrange to experience a blast from within 200 feet.
Commissioner Dunfield said obviously staff needed to adhere strictly to procedures. He said the City Commission could not change what had been done they could only go forward. He said the Fire Marshall’s report to the City Commission on what had been done and what was intended to be done from this point forward was satisfactory to him. One of the points that was made was that the City’s blasting policy was similar in terms of its fundamental issues to those in communities all across the country. He said this City has had a lot of blasting permits apparently approved and exercised without incident over the last number of years and the City had a policy that was congruent with what was being done in other parts of the country.
He said it sounded like the City needed better notification procedures and that was a policy issue that the City Commission might need to give staff direction to see how to improve that procedure. Given the policy in place and the response from the Fire Marshall and his personal confidence in the professionalism of the job that the City’s Fire Marshall did in this City, he did not see a reason to stop that particular project from going forward.
Mayor Rundle said if the City Commission was to direct staff to not issue permits there should be something in the policy to invoke that demand. He said it would be appropriate to find out how other communities in the area implemented notification for assurance to the community. He said if the Commission was uncomfortable that staff was not following procedures then he was sure staff would be interested in responding to those particular procedures.
Commissioner Schauner asked Barr if he had any further evidence of notification in addition to what was submitted earlier.
Barr said no. He said staff had always required a list of addresses that the contractor notified and a copy of the piece of information they provided to the affected property owners as notification. He said the City did not currently have in the code a requirement for certified mail and he did not see that as a problem, but it had never been required before. He said staff did similar notification on burning permits and staff tried to make sure that people were aware that was going on. He said the information from Wilkus was the only information aside from the actual notice that was placed on the door for notification.
Commissioner Schauner said someone had that list of addresses and went to the door and deposited some notice and checked off the address as having received a notice.
Barr said typically what they did was they recorded the address when they post the notice.
Commissioner Schauner asked if staff knew in this particular case how notice was given or other than that list, if the residents even received a notice.
Barr said that list and the notice were provided based upon the note that was placed inside the door.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the two insurance companies identified were one in the same.
Barr said he would defer that question to the blaster, but it was all on the same document that was provided for evidence of liability insurance.
Commissioner Schauner asked if in the City’s policy that it was permissible to blast more than 100 feet away from a structure.
Barr said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Commission had any authority to honor the request made by Banks that no blasting occur within 500 feet of a structure under the City’s ordinance and did the City Commission have that authority.
Wildgen said moratoriums had been placed on other City policies. He said the City Commission could defer this issue until other action was taken or an ordinance was amended or that public welfare was best served by that type of action.
Mayor Rundle said he appreciated Banks’ request for the City Commission to come out to experience a blast, but he agreed with Commissioner Dunfield that there were standards and knowledge that a certain amount of explosives would result in a certain impact. He said the reason for the survey was to see if damage did occur. He said the appeal was an emotional experience, but he expected staff to solicit that type of background research.
Barr said Dressler Engineering performed a large amount of blast consulting and they could provide information.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if the current project was different in magnitude or proximity of houses than other projects in the past.
Barr said there had been limited pre-blast surveys in previous blasting permits which meant that most of the blast occurred more than 500 feet away from a building. In that regard this project was somewhat different and this was the largest number of pre-blast surveys that he had seen with a blast permit.
Vice Mayor Highberger said this particular blast was both closer to existing dwellings and there was more blasting.
Barr said correct. He said there were more blasting operations going on, but the size of the blast was not any greater.
Mayor Rundle said he was interested in knowing how other communities implement those standards such as notification so that there was some adequate record and proof that the City’s requirements were met. He said it was one thing to have the requirement, but if there was no way of knowing with some assurance that it was being met, then there was a problem in the implementation.
Barr said staff would look into that notification issue to ensure that there would be some type of record for those people that were notified.
Commissioner Schauner said some of the blasting had already occurred and there was additional blasting to be done. He asked how close would the next blasting be to the nearest structure putting aside the pipeline.
Barr said by the scaled distance, approximately 250 feet.
Commissioner Schauner asked if staff knew how many houses were affected by that next blasting.
Barr said within the 250 feet approximately 14 residences. He said the houses that would be within the 250 feet would be the houses on the west, southwest side of Stonecreek.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to extend the City Commission meeting until 10:30. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Schauner asked if staff knew whether all of those houses had received a pre-blast survey and notice.
Barr said no, not at this time, because pre-blast surveys were still being conducted at the site.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Barr understood that all of the 15 or 20 houses would have a specific pre-blast survey before blasting would occur.
Barr said before he issued a permit those surveys would need to be completed.
Commissioner Highberger said the code should be strictly followed. He did not see any options for changing horses in midstream. He said there was obviously a problem with this issue, but there was a code that had been in place for 10 years without any substantial problems. He said the City Commission might want to look at amending that particular code. He said in the meantime there was nothing the City Commission could do other than making sure that the existing code was followed.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to find some way to move that blasting some distance, perhaps not as much as 500 feet, but something greater than the 250 feet as well as strict compliance with the current code. He said the code needed to be reviewed to provide additional distance from structures. He said as more development was done west of the City, more blasting would probably be required because of the general nature of that ground. He said future changes were important, but he would also like to see some relief for those particular neighbors. He asked if there were any other options to move that blasting some distance beyond 250 feet.
Mayor Rundle asked staff for a progress report on this issue.
Banks said the neighbors would like some assurance that if the code continued to be violated, such as notices not given properly, that the blasting cease.
The City Commission concurred.
An owner of a residence closest to the blasting asked when the blasting would occur what kind of notification would be given to pre-warn those neighbors in case they wanted to be away at the time of the blasting. He said the houses shake and it scared their children. He said she had been told that during pre-blast situations that there were horns that sounded, but most of the neighbors did not hear those warnings.
Russell Pilshaw, owner of Pexco Company, the blasting contractor, said he did not blame the residents for their concerns about the blasting. He said when hearing the word “high explosive” or “blasting” those words were destructing. He said he equated their blasting to an automobile where there was a tank full of fuel that was combustible and dangerous, but inside that engine was a controlled detonation. He said if his company used “x” number of pounds at “x” number of feet away from a house, they would do no damage.
He said this was exhibited by not only working for the City, but the Lawrence School District, where they were able to blast within 25 feet of the High School for the Indoor Aquatic Center and that was 12 feet of solid rock. He said what his company did was controlled, but the residents made it sounded like it was haphazard.
He said the warning signals were sounded and the blaster drove down the dirt road in back of each home prior to the shot at the nearest location.
Mayor Rundle asked if Pilshaw could meet with the neighbors to let them know when blasting would occur. He suggested posting when blasting would occur, such as, on a website.
Pilshaw said each one of their blasters took a survey of the neighborhood prior to the blast. He said the blast in the neighborhood had not occurred past 3:30 p.m. when they knew school let out.
Mayor Rundle suggested coming up with some proposals that would be mutually satisfying.
Theda Pierson, Stonecreek Drive, said the contractor did sound those alarms, but some of those children playing were younger and not in school and that siren that sounded was just another noise.
She said her house was solid, but if her house kept shaking when blasting occurred, then it would be expected that the house would give. She thought those blasts would cause damage later on even if that damage had not occurred at the time of the blasting. (31)
COMMISSION ITEMS: None.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
1. Bid – 6th, Frontier of Arkansas, mill and overlay to LRM for $462,297.90.
2. Bid Date – June 1, 2004, Comprehensive Rehab Project, 2104 Tenn & 1628 E 18th Terr.
3. Bid Date – May 11, 2004, 2004 Concrete Repair Program.
4. Ordinance No. 7784 – 1st Reading, Woods Ct in final plat of The Woods on 19th to Villo Wood Ct.
5. Ordinance No. 7786 – 1st Reading, “No Parking” E side of Stone Meadows form 15th N 730‘.
6. Ordinance No. 7788 – 1st Reading, sale & consumption of alcoholic beverages at Broke Arrow on May 7.
7. Ordinance No. 7762 – 2nd Reading, annex (A-12-15-03) 50.6397 acres, N of Clinton Pkwy & E of K-10 Hwy.
8. Ordinance No. 7763 – 2nd Reading, rezone (Z-12-49-03) 18.9332 acres from B-3 to RM-2, N of Clinton Pkwy & E of K-10 Hwy.
9. Ordinance No. 7765 – 2nd Reading, levy max assessment for Kasold & Peterson.
10. Ordinance No. 7766 – 2nd Reading, levy max assessment for Peterson, from Kasold to 900’ W of Monterey Way.
11. Ordinance No. 7767 – 2nd Reading, levy max assessment for Monterey Way from intersection of Peterson N to Grand Vista Drive.
12. TSC – speed humps on Mass between 23rd & Indian Ave.
13. TSC – “No Parking” E side of Stone Meadows between 15th & eyebrow at 1328 Stone Meadows Dr.
14. TSC – Traffic Calming Circle, intersection at Goldfield & Eldridge to include it in Harvard Rd. project.
15. TSC – Deferred “no parking” along S side of 11th between Conn & Haskell.
16. KS Dept of Commerce Community Service Tax Credit Program – Van Go Mobile Arts.
17. Transportation – “T” Sticker Program, KU on Wheels.
18. Subordination Agreement – 1325 E 16th, Miller.
19. Subordination Agreement – 1005 Parkview Rd, Sabillon.
20. Hobbs Taylor agreement to removed parking.
21. City Manager’ Report – Stonecreek blasting.
22. Industrial Land Identification process.
23. Bid – GOB Temp Note Series 2004-I – to Banc of America, for $48,552 , interest rate 1.2705588%.
24. Bid – GOB Series 2004-A – to George K. Baum & Co., interest rate 3.417385.
25. Ordinance 7787 – 1st & 2nd Reading, GOB 2004-A.
26. Resolution No. 6542 – GOB Series 2004-A for $3,520,000.
27. Resolution No. 6543 – GOB/Temp Notes Series 2004-I for $10,115,000.
28. Resolution No. 6544 – Revenue bonds for Health Care Facilities for $24,000,000.
29. Design Option 4- 6th to Mulberry with 34’ street width.
30. 3rd from Alabama to Illinois streets – 75% City share & 25% Tenants to Homeowners & defer Shepard’s property as long as it remained in its current use.
31. Public Comment – Stonecreek Blasting.