May 4, 2004
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:45 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Rundle presiding and members Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner present. Lawrence High School representative Jacob Gage was present.
PROCLAMATIONS
With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed Saturday, May 8, 2004 as “Sertoma Bar-B-Q Cook-Off Day”; the week of May 2 – 9 as “National Music Week”; the week of May 10 – 16 as “Cover the Uninsured Week”; and the month of May as “Mental Health Month”.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of April 20, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the Convention & Visitors Bureau Advisory Board meeting minutes of March 30, 2004; the Arts Commission meeting minutes of January 14, 2004, February 11, 2004, and March 10, 2004; the Board of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters meeting minutes of January 21, 2004; the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of April 8, 2004; the Task Force on Homeless Services meeting minutes of March 30, 2004; and the Public Incentive Review Committee meeting minutes of April 15, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve claims to 310 vendors in the amount of $1,407,251.69 and payroll from April 18, 2004 to May 1, 2004 in the amount of $1,346,890.57. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the drinking establishment license for The Phog Bar & Grill, 623 Vermont (Continuation of C-3 Food Sales Zoning Sales Nonconforming Use); The Bella Lounge, 925 Iowa; and the Retail Liquor License for Dangermond Retail Liquor, 923 North 2nd. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to set a bid opening date of May 18, 2004 for various 2004 Waterline Improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7703, rezoning (Z-07-22-03) 6.195 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-1 (Single-Family Residential District), property located at the extensions of Foxfire Drive and Burning Tree Drive south and west of the existing Foxfire Development. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7711, rezoning (Z-08-27-03) 23.9380 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RMD (Duplex Residential District), property located on the south side of K-10 Highway and west of O’Connell Road. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading, Ordinance No.7712, rezoning (Z-08-28-03) 8.6220 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District), property located on the south side of K-10 Highway and west of O’Connell Road. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7732, Text Amendment (TA-09-03-03) adding water/wastewater review requirements and park service area standards to the Joint Subdivision Regulations. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7764, rezoning (Z-12-50-03) 20.1626 acres from B-3 (Limited Business District) to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential District) property located at the northeast corner of Clinton Parkway and K-10 Highway. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7774, increasing fees and mileage rates for ambulance services and deleting certain additional costs. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 7784, changing the name of Woods Court in the final plat of The Woods on 19th to Villo Woods Court, 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. 7786, establishing “no parking” along the east side of Stone Meadows Drive from 15th Street north 730 feet, 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. 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, 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)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to adopt Resolution No. 6545, approving a special warranty deed for E & E Specialties Inc. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the request from Briarwood Addition developer to extend time allowed for the completion of sidewalk construction for the seven remaining tracts, per the Amended Final Development Plan, from April 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Mortgage Release for Vicki Pepperdine, 829 East 13th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
The request to authorize the Mayor to sell 130 Providence to Tenants to Homeowners, Inc., for future affordable housing was pulled from the consent agenda and deferred until May 18th 2004. (14)
Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda the site plan for an existing 4-plex located at 1000 Mississippi for discussion. Commissioner Schauner asked if the 4-plex was originally approved without meeting the parking requirements.
Sandy Day said the location at 1000 Mississippi was previously site planned and based on the zoning and the fact that it was a 4-plex, site plans requirements were required as part of that review. She said staff would need to do quite a bit more research to go back and figure out the exact timing of when that conversion actually took place. She said for all practical purposed it had the appearance of a single-family home and might have been that at one time.
Commissioner Schauner asked it those particular 2 or 3 bedroom studios need eight off-street parking spaces.
Day said yes. She said the back lot was not formal and did not have striped parking. She said several vehicles could probably fit in that rear lot.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to defer this particular site plan until there was additional information. He said there was question of whether there was ever a site plan or if the property owner was in conformance with the requirements for that neighborhood.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to defer the site plan (SP-03-20-04) for minor alterations to an existing 4-plex, a site plan for the modification of a basement apartment of a building located at 1000 Mississippi Street, for one week or if staff needed more time to inform the City Commission. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
The temporary use permit for the excavation/fill of 7.12 acres on the southwest corner of 15th Street and Haskell Ave was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion by a member of the public.
Sandy Day presented information about the temporary use permit. She said there was a section of the zoning code that discussed the placement of fill and other construction type materials and that action should be approved by the City Commission which was cited in the staff report. The temporary use permit reflected the fact that the activity was temporary in nature and it was not an on-going project. She said Planning Staff did talk with the City’s Stormwater Engineer and recommended that the activity period be valid for one year to reflect the existing stormwater project in that neighborhood.
She said there was quite a bit of fill being added to the property and staff did review that both on the site plan requirements as well as looking at any future street and road improvements. She said staff also asked the Stormwater Engineer to review the application in terms of its impact in the area.
She said a grading plan had been required and that plan complied with minimum City standards. The activity was held off the property line a distance to account for future dedication of right of way if that was necessary in the future of the property or to be re-platted or subdivided in the future.
Michael Almond, resident in the Brookcreek Neighborhood, asked if staff knew where the fill was coming from. He said the site was 7.12 acres, on the southwest corner of 15th and Haskell Avenue. He said the site was previously heavily wooded, one of the few remaining, wooded sites on the east side of Lawrence. There was a large wooded tract, north of 12th Street that was owned by the City known as Woodland Park. Another large tract was The Villo Woods on 19th Street which had now been leveled except for 1 acre. He said the neighborhood had valued those sites as a resource aesthetically for wildlife habitat and environmental concerns. The neighbors had been concerned for a number of years because the property itself had been severely neglected with trash, debris and one residential structure that was severely blighted and was going through demolition by neglect.
In January and February 2004, the neighborhood had been talking with Neighborhood Resources and they noticed that the property owners were clearing up a lot of trash on that site. He said there was an enormous amount of trash hauled out from the inside of that structure as well as the trash on the outside. He said there were also make shift shelters on that property. He said the neighborhood was glad that site was being cleaned up until March 12, 2004 when huge excavating machinery moved in with no notice to anyone, including the City, and totally leveled the woods in that area. He said the neighbors looked into what happened and realized that the landowner wanted to fill that site with a lot of dirt, but the lower end of the property which was approximately at a 20 or 25 foot lower elevation than at 15th and Haskell.
He said the neighborhood found out that in conjunction with the stormwater reclamation/naturalization of Burroughs’ Creek at the foot of that property by Purnell Park, the contractor needed to dispose of 40,000 cubic yards of dirt. He said the Stormwater Engineer told the neighborhood that that dirt would be going to that property on 15th and Haskell.
He said apparently the landowner had privately been talking with attorneys, engineers, and City staff about his plans. He said there was no reason the demolition had to happen, overnight, on a weekend without a permit for whatever reason. He said this temporary use permit upon review was a retroactive permit to do something the property owner had already done. He said the permit was for excavation and fill. The excavation was done, but the fill remained to be done.
He said City Staff had placed standard conditions on granting that temporary use permit and had recommended approval. He said staff did not have any power to tell the property owner that they were in violation of the laws, not to mention that there were probably some national pollution discharge elimination system permits that had not been processed. He said staff has done all they could regarding conditions. He said if this issue was approved it would be sending the wrong message.
Almond requested, depending on what the NPDES required, to fine the property owner or not give him the soil until trees were re-planted, deny the permit or downzone the property, require additional right-of-way for the traffic circle at 15th and Haskell, or the City Commission could deny the temporary user permit because he did not go through the proper channels. He said the neighborhood would like to see something done and the neighborhood was concerned what that property would be used for. He asked the City Commission to consider something other than granting the property owner what he had asked for without any reservations and conditions.
Mayor Rundle said he received email comments about condition number 4 concerning staking boundaries and whether or not that could be done prior to the plat.
Shelia Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, said 15th Street was a designated collector street and Haskell Avenue was a designated arterial street. The future right-of-way was set through the subdivision regulations and what the staff report indicated was that the contractor should state those right-of-way lines and not place fill within that future right-of-way area so that there was not a problem in the future. She said staff anticipated that right-of-way would be dedicated when that property was redeveloped because it was an un-platted parcel and the property would need to be platted before there was any actual development activity.
Commissioner Schauner asked staff if the fill was coming from the City’s drainage project.
Wildgen said yes, but he clarified that the City had not made any agreements with that property owner. He said the contractor had the responsibility of removing the dirt for that project.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the clearing of that ground required some approval from the City before the leveling took place.
Wildgen said property owners could remove trees without a permit. He said the temporary use permit was for fill on that property. He said that permit was required before any fill could be added.
Commissioner Schauner asked if currently, the work that had been done on that corner was consistent with what was permitted under City Code.
Wildgen said yes.
Vice Mayor Highberger said there was an allegation of some excavation.
Stogsdill said it was her understanding that the trees were cleared. She said if the contractor used a bulldozer that might have led to some excavation.
She said the contractor asked the City inspector if he needed any permits. However, the contractor did not ask that question until the trees were cleared. The contractor was immediately informed of the need to go through that process to get approval before any dirt was placed on the property.
Commissioner Schauner asked whether a permit was needed before using bulldozers to remove those trees and soil.
Stogsdill said typically the contractor would need a permit because the City did not have a grading permit requirement.
Commissioner Dunfield said while this wasn’t a very happy situation, he did not see that the City had any cause to turn down the temporary use permit or punish the property owner for actions that he had taken up to this point.
Commissioner Hack agreed.
Mayor Rundle said he was confused about why there was not a requirement to plat before the property owner could start developing a site.
Stogsdill said the plat process was usually triggered by a building permit. She said this activity was preceding that pre-development stage.
Vice Mayor Highberger suggested conditioning the granting of that permit on receipt of the NPDES permit.
Mayor Rundle asked if the Parks Department request for creating a conservation plan, was moot because most of the trees were gone.
Wildgen said yes.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to approve a Temporary Use Permit Upon Review (TUPR-03-07-04) with an additional condition of requiring any necessary NPDES permits for Excavation/Fill of 7.12 acres located on the southwest corner of 15th Street and Haskell, also known as 1503 Haskell Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement;
2. Provision of a note on the face of the site plan that states the property shall be re-seeded within 60 days of completion of the grading project;
3. Grading shall be completed within one year of the City Commission’s approval; and,
4. Provision of a note on the face of the site plan that states: “The boundary of the future right-of-way shall be staked by the contractor. No fill shall be within the boundary of the right-of-way.
Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Wildgen updated the Commission on the Hobbs-Taylor amendment to their parking agreement. He said the Downtown Parking Advisory indicated that they favored that amendment for parking.
Commissioner Schauner said he was satisfied that the Downtown Parking Advisory Board was polled and provided input.
Mayor Rundle said a board member suggested that a meeting be scheduled to discuss general parking issues as the project proceeded.
Wildgen also reported that the Commission was provided a report from Rich Barr, Fire Marshall, on the blasting issue. He said there would be a permit that addressed the area beyond the 500 feet that would be issued. He said a representative from Southern Star Central would meet with the neighbors on May 10th to answer questions about the neighborhood’s concerns about the gas line.
Also, during the City Manager’s Report, Ed Mullins, Finance Director, presented a summary of the First Quarter Financial Report - 2004 for the City of Lawrence. The report covered the first (3) months of 2004. (16)
Consider the adoption of the 2004 Action Plan of the Consolidated Plan and consider Resolution No. 6548, authorizing the Mayor to execute agreements for the 2004 CDBG and HOME programs and other such documents as may be required to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for such programs
Mayor Rundle said he received a request to move this item up to the first regular agenda item and approved that request.
Margene Swarts, Community Development Manager, presented the staff report. She said the City was required to submit a 5 year Consolidated Plan or an Annual Action Plan to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) each year regarding the CDBG and HOME Programs. She said this year’s submission was the 2004 annual plan of the Consolidated Plan for the years 2003–2007. The plan discussed housing and community development needs and priorities for the community and the investment summary do to all the activities that were recommended for funding to address those needs. Priorities were determined both by the assessment of needs and which prior activities had been completed. The Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee (NRAC) made the final recommendation for the CDBG and HOME Programs with input from both the Practitioners Panel and the public. Direction also came from the annual City Commission study session.
She said the this year, as in past years, NRAC paid special attention to the Step Up to Better Housing Strategy and general information was derived from other interested parties as well as census data.
She said the NRAC conducted a public hearing on April 22nd which opened the 30 day written comment period and so far staff had received one written comment by email which was included in the document and if staff received any additional comments they would be included as well as any verbal comments.
She said concerning the investment summary, she pointed out that by Federal Regulation staff was limited on the expenditure of funds in two areas, one area was public services and which was no more than 15% of the CDBG Grant could be used for public services and there was also a cap on administration. She said for CDBG the cap was 20% and for HOME the cap was 10%. The allocations that were recommended to the City Commission by the NRAC on the investment summary were within the regulatory caps. She said there was no cap for Capital Improvement Expenditures.
She said the next step in the process was adoption of the resolution that authorized the submission of the CDBG and HOME Grant documents, the annual plan, and the investment summary.
Greg Moore, Chair of NRAC, thanked staff for their hard work and thanked the other members of the NRAC for presenting a quality plan. He said this group had focused heavily on the Step Up to a Better Housing Strategy as directed in the last study session with the City Commission. He said this year had been difficult due to continued decrease in funding their grants were reduced by $37,000 less than in the past two years.
He said a lot of those decisions were tough to make this year and due to those difficult deliberations, they decided to begin a series of meeting May 20th to discuss many of those issues. He said they were looking forward to a study session this fall and to the Task Force on Homelessness and their concerns.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the 2004 Action Plan and adopt Resolution No. 6548, authorizing the Mayor to execute agreements for the 2004 CDBG and HOME Programs and other such documents as may be required to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for such programs. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
Commissioner Highberger requests discussion of the motion made at the April 20, 2004 City Commission meeting directing staff to assist in the smoking ordinance referendum issue.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Rundle to reconsider the decision made two weeks ago to direct staff to work with the ordinance proponents to place the ordinance, subject to the minor drafting changes as discussed during the meeting, on a future election ballot. Aye: Rundle, Dunfield, Highberger. Nay: Hack and Schauner. Motion carried.
Vice Mayor Highberger explained his motion. He said he made the motion to submit this issue to a referendum at the end of a long City Commission meeting and his motion was made with little or no discussion. He said the City Commission did not have the opportunity to adequately explore the potential pros and cons in bringing the issue to a vote. He said after thinking through his decision, he thought it was inappropriate to place the public heath community in the position of gathering signatures and campaigning for a referendum. He said he realized that this issue might become a voting issue and it still was his preference that the citizens spoke on this issue, but he did not think it was appropriate for the City Commission to place the public health community in that position. (18)
Adopt on first reading Ordinance No. 7782, concerning smoking in public places
Toni Wheeler, Staff Attorney, explained the changes to Ordinance 7782 as follows:
1. In the recital section of the ordinance the word “carcinogens” with “ETS”;
2. Changed the definition of smoking and returned the definition to the definition that existed in the current smoking regulations;
3. In 9-808 removal of subsection (C) which concerned smoking paraphernalia;
4. Removal of 8-812 and 8-813 which concerned tobacco products for person’s under the age of 18 and moving that to a separate article in the City Code; and
5. In 9-812(A) removal of “except for violations noted in Section (B) which was to clarify that the property owner could be held responsible for violations that occur on the premises.
Mayor Rundle said he believed that the City Commission had ample comment on this issue the first time this smoking issue was discussed. He said he was not sure what purpose it would serve by having discussion on the smoking ordinance.
Vice Mayor Highberger suggested public comment on the question of a referendum. He said citizens might want to speak to this smoking issue, but suggested that the citizens not go over material that was covered in the previous meeting.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Commissioner Dunfield suggested limiting public comment to three minutes.
Matt Baum, owner Limerance Coffee and Cocktails, said the wording in the ordinance created an unfair business practice in that people with a covered patio were allowed to have smoking. He asked what would happen to the other business owners that did not have the option of outdoor smoking. He said for example, he had 17 foot ceilings at his establishment and he could argue that he had better ventilation than somebody with a covered outdoor patio. He asked if the City Commission would be willing to discuss the option of making it a blanket ordinance or perhaps waiting for a solution to the smoking issue. He said he would not have made those substantial investments in his business, if he knew he would need outdoor seating in order to compete.
Marion Lynn told a story and ended the story by saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t’ fix it.”
David Dick asked about other cities passing a smoking ban in terms of the potential for businesses closing and loss of revenue and in turn the business owner would need to cut labor costs. He asked if the City Commission had a plan to help those employees who would be unemployed.
He said business owners had a large financial investment and he suggested if there was a loss for those businesses maybe the City might need to do something about that loss.
Nick Carroll, business owner, said he did not like smoking bans and it took away rights from individuals. However, many cities were opting for smoking ordinances of various types and some type of smoking ban in Lawrence might be inevitable. Since one ban did not fit all communities, many communities similar to Lawrence had selected bans that consider the welfare of current employees and businesses, the loss of liquor tax consequences, and the preservation of culture.
The Ames, Iowa, ban which was the same as the Salina, Kansas ban, had targeted the biggest issue for the voters which was to eliminate second hand smoke during food serving hours. The smoking ban proposed to the City was draconian and overly broad. He said its extremeness was in the top five percent of all smoking bans presented and if the ban passed, that ban would hurt Lawrence in three ways which were:
1. Loss of jobs due to closing businesses;
2. Potential loss in liquor tax; and
3. Damage the music and artistic culture of Lawrence.
Matthew Sullivan spoke against the ban. He said the workers livelihood, well-being and liberty were also matters of this City Commission’s concern. He said second hand smoke was a debatable health risk and we needed to look at OSHA standards. He said no one knew what the dangerous level of exposure was. He said less and less people smoke every year and there had been improvements in ventilation. He suggested bringing this issue to a public vote.
David Kingsley spoke about the referendum issue. He urged the Commission to adopt the ordinance drafted by the City Legal Department. He said in Austin, Texas the City Government released a report concerning their total ban. He said the report indicated that their City continued to see an increase in revenue compared to the previous timeframe.
He said the City Manager of Salina, Kansas, indicated that they were also seeing an increase in the restaurant business.
John Hiebert supported the ban and presented information regarding a smoking ban in Helena, Montana and the reduction in heart attacks. He said in consideration of that information together with the well documented evidence that environmental tobacco smoke was associated with increased clotting in arteries that it increases the spasm of arteries and that only thirty minutes exposure to environmental tobacco smoke was associated with those effects. He said the Center for Disease Control (CDC) concluded that there were serious and potentially lethal side effects of environmental tobacco smoke. He said the CDC recommended that all individuals who were at risk of heart attacks and heart disease avoid gathering places in which there was exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
He said as a physician in the Lawrence community, he strongly urged the City Commission to endorse the ordinance and join the Countries of Ireland, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand and India who all have smoking ban laws.
Stephanie Staves opposed the ban. She was surprised that this City Commission, a Commission that prided themselves on caring about local business owners and there was no mention of looking at another plan in a city that holds more similarities with Lawrence. She said the proposed ban was a quick fix that would not work for this town. She said with this proposed ban the City Commission was failing to realize the value businesses bring to this City.
She said not only in the spirit of compromise, but also in the importance of recognizing the reality of downtown, she urged the City Commission to take a step back and find another plan better suited for the City of Lawrence.
Gary Hawke, a former small business owner, said he understood the business owner perspective. However, he said this was not a right one way or the other, but a decision of health versus convenience. Those who were in favor of Clean Air Lawrence were not suggesting that all smoking be banned, but they were only saying that it was a little inconvenient for you to provide for the health of the workers and for those who were visiting the business.
He said he was a non-smoker and had asthma and heart disease, but he did not expect everyone in the Country to make rules to protect him. However, there were thousands of people in this service area that did not go to those particular places, but wanted to go. He said a smoking ban was good for business.
He said some people take the position that people who drink, like to smoke and if they could not smoke, they would not go drink. He said he disagreed with that position. He said a lot of people who drink a lot would just assume drive home drunk, but those people can’t because we’ve made rules that stated that those people were not allowed to do that because it caused problems.
Jason Fizell spoke in support of the ban. He said he did not attend the last City Commission meeting concerning this issue because he felt that he had gone to the polls last election and elected this City Commission to do the work of the City.
He pointed out that we could smoke in our own homes or outside and there would still be smoking in this city. He also pointed out that the City already widely bans smoking in many businesses.
He read from the current law which stated “The City of Lawrence prohibits the smoking of tobacco products in public places except in designated smoking areas. To regulate the smoking of tobacco products in place of employment and to strike a reasonable balance between the needs of smokers and the needs of non-smokers to breath smoke free air recognizing that where the needs conflict, the need to breath smoke free air shall have priority.”
T.J. Bross, Eudora High School, SADD Program (Students Against Destructive Decisions), said passing the law would help the youth with growing up healthy.
Sara Huslig spoke in support of the ban.
Chuck Magerl said he respected and supported the goal of reducing the number of active smokers in this society. He said that laudable goal needed to be backed up with correct action. He said the 15% target was missed for smokers by the year 2000. He said they tried warning labels, tax hikes, and public education, but they were still at that 20% to 25% level. He said frustration at missing that goal should not justify extreme action. He said he assumed that most people desired the same thing which was responsible hospitality and healthy lifestyles. He said they wanted moderation and healthy citizens. He said his commitment was to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the individual’s right to make personal choices based on informed decisions. He said the efforts of business owners to achieve those goals should be honored and the market place would seek a proper balance. He said this proposal was an extreme attempt to alter the market place. Fewer than 5% of the communities that had adopted smoking prohibitions have imposed total bans that extreme. He wanted both customers and employees to realize that smokers won’t kill you and we had demonized a whole group of people in our society. He said his personal recommendation was to relax, have a drink or two and stroll down Massachusetts Street after a meal. He said hypertension was a bigger threat than secondhand smoke. He said recent studies from Europe indicated that two drinks would suspend the harmful cardiovascular affect of one cigarette.
He said concerning the Helena, Montana study that was mentioned, the American Legacy Foundation which was the main point for anti-smoking in the United States had described that study as not a scientific study, but a natural study. He said when that report first came out, the issues were reduced by 60% and this year it was 40% and in a few more years it would be looking good.
He said in the “Whereas” section, that stated “Tobacco use is the single largest cause of preventable death in Kansas”, in the ordinance, unless the Commission was talking about banning cigarette smoking, that phrase should not be in that ordinance.
He also said there was a non-retaliation clause in the ordinance and he asked that that clause be explained.
Mike Casey, Vice President, Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association, Wichita, Kansas, spoke against the ban. He said many opponents to smoking had claimed State and County tax receipts indicated that sales increased in bars and restaurants after a smoking ban had been implemented. He said that was not an accurate assessment as tax receipts would provide only a very rough estimate of revenue generated by bars and restaurants.
He said another reason those receipts were not able to show the true impact of smoking bans was because many establishments were forced to increase prices to remain in business.
He reviewed a research project recently conducted on behalf of the National Restaurant Association. He said the study confirmed that there was an economic impact of local government, non-smoking ordinance on many table service restaurants. The study interprets the issue more closely than others and concluded what common sense had been telling many for some time. He said depending on many variables the banning of smoking by a government entity had a positive effect on some restaurants, no effect on many, and a negative effect on many more. The industry believed that restaurant operators should be able to develop a smoking policy that worked best for those operators and their patrons, both non-smokers and smokers, free of a “one size fits all” mandate by State or local governments. He informed the City Commission of some key highlights of that research. He said to determine what effect this ban would have on Lawrence’s table service restaurants and bars remained to be seen. However, research continued to indicate a smoking ban would negatively impact sales and profits immediately and in the future. He said when restaurant sales decline there would be a direct negative impact on the employment base. He continued to urge the City Commission to vote “no” on Ordinance 7782.
David Boulter spoke against the ban. He said if the Commission thought that the public health overrode the ability for adults to make reasonable choices, then he suggested that the Commission vote for this issue. He said if the Commission voted for this issue, each one of the Commissioners must never smoke a cigarette or cigar and not attend places that allowed smoking because the overriding principle that the Commission would be stating was that individual choice was not as important as public health. He suggested looking at specific studies for Lawrence, Kansas.
Price Banks spoke on behalf of the Jackpot Saloon and the Replay Lounge. He said many people find smoking repugnant and offensive, but those people should have a choice to be in areas that were smoke free. He said there were many public areas in the community that were smoke free. He said it was certainly possible to avoid exposure. He said employees also had choices and there were many places of employment that were smoke free. He said why not allow all citizens the right to choose whether they want to work, eat, or be entertained in either areas that were smoke free or areas that were not. The issue was about choice and this ordinance would deprive a substantial segment of the City’s population’s right to choose. He said there were businesses that depend largely upon those persons that get together to drink, listen to loud music and smoke. However, all three of those practices had negative health ramifications, but all three of those practices were legal.
He said the ramification of this ordinance was dramatic, especially to downtown businesses and downtown bars. He said the City Commission passed an ordinance to allow downtown restaurants to have patios, but bars could not have sidewalk patios. The downtown bars that were not allowed those decks, were not going to be able to accommodate the smoker at all. He suggested a non-binding referendum and sample the population and find out what the community wanted. He said violation of this ordinance would create a criminal record for the people that were convicted. He said this violation would be a misdemeanor and not a traffic infraction. He said a person called him because that person was refused a position because he had a misdemeanor on his record. He urged the City Commission to re-think this issue, give the issue some time and sample the community.
Autumn Jones spoke against the ban. She said she was a single mother that worked two jobs to support her family. The money that she received from bartending was money she counted on to help her raise her daughter. In a City where rent prices were astronomical and gas prices going through the roof, her main income was not enough to get by. She was afraid to lose her job or that the bar she worked in would close its doors.
She said cities have adopted smoking ordinances that allowed smoking between 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. and she urged the City Commission to look at that type of alternative.
She said if that ordinance was adopted, she would fight to turn that ordinance into a referendum vote. This issue was much too large to allow the five Commissioners to determine its fate.
Darrell Lea spoke in support of the ban. He said he was a cancer survivor and lost his father to cancer caused by cigarettes. He said he worked part-time in bars and saloons as a singer. He supported anything that removed cigarettes from the fabric of society.
Jason Boots spoke in support of the referendum. He said the excuse that not burdening ourselves by having to create a public awareness campaign for this referendum was a joke to voters. He said if this issue was something that this City was interested in getting the opinion of community, it was important for a public awareness campaign and get the voter information from the referendum. He said the student senate and legislative awareness board would be working hard to make sure all the students were voting.
Jeff Singer spoke against the ban. He suggested coming up with a compromise instead of an all out ban. He said he was a business owner and made a choice to locate his business in Lawrence. He said if this issue was going on at the time he was making his choice to locate in Lawrence, he would pass on Lawrence because he would wonder what other ordinances would be passed to make it more difficult for him to do business in this town. He thought the Commission was worried about making Lawrence friendly, but this issue was not going to make Lawrence more business friendly.
Ryan Bishop said he heard comments about choice, but when a person was not a smoker they did not have a choice of not inhaling that ETS.
Steve Bruner spoke in support of the ordinance. He said the City Commission ran for their positions to be leaders of this community and the Commission needed to do what was right. He said if the Commission passed this ordinance, in 20, 30, or 40 years, there would be young people alive who would otherwise not be alive if the Commission had not done their duty.
Commissioner Hack said a smoking ban might or might not work for Lawrence, but she could not jump that hurdle of the issue of choice. She said her voting on this issue was not specifically in opposition to a smoking ban of some kind, but her opposition to the ordinance was the process and the Commission had not looked at any middle ground and also that the Commission had not clearly looked at the unintended consequences of that ordinance to the downtown, law enforcement personnel, and small local businesses.
Mayor Rundle asked staff to explain the non-retaliation clause.
Corliss said that provision was taken from the El Paso Ordinance that stated “No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire or in any manner retaliate against any employee, applicant for employment or customer because such employee, applicant or customer exercises any right to a smoke free environment afforded by this Article.” He said if there was a violation of that prohibition that person or employer would be charged as violating the ordinance and if found guilty, that person or employer would be found guilty of a misdemeanor.
Mayor Rundle asked Corliss if he had any comments on the unfair advantage of those establishments with outdoor dining.
Corliss said he did not know if that issue rose to the level of a legal concern as far as advantage. He said the comment he saw in the Salina ordinance was when there was an outdoor dining area in Kansas, there was ventilation. He said staff wanted to make it clear in the ordinance that if there was a patio outdoor dining area or courtyard that was not an enclosed place, that smoking was not prohibited by that ordinance.
Commissioner Schauner asked staff to discuss the difference between an infraction and a misdemeanor.
Corliss said an infraction was a subset of a misdemeanor. A misdemeanor was all that they were able to prosecute and adjudicate in municipal court. He said all of those actions whether it was speeding, OUI, or public parking violations and it rose to the level of where a citation was issued, all of those prosecutions were criminal in nature because there was not a civil court system with municipalities.
Commissioner Schauner said this was the most intractable issue he has faced in the year he had been on the Commission. He said the concern about this ordinance was that this ban was on the far side of the spectrum. He said under the proposed ordinance, there would be winners and there would be losers in the economic climate. He said essentially if a business did not have an outdoor venue for doing business, it seemed that those businesses would suffer some negative economic consequences if that ordinance were passed. He said his decisions were not based on his political career, but based on what he hoped was a method of limiting smoking in public places that would not forge the chain. He would like the City Commission to consider a smoking ban that was not at the far end of the spectrum and the Salina ordinance was an ordinance that the Commission should give very serious thought to. He said he would like his fellow Commissioners to consider some additional information, refinement, and alterations of that proposed ordinance to soften the blow for those whose footprint of their business could not accommodate that ordinance. He said he would like to find a way to move the City a lot closer to a smoke free public environment without the fractionalization which he feared would come as a result of this ordinance.
Commissioner Rundle said he had the opportunity to talk to the owners of the Replay Lounge about this issue and at that time he made a personal pledge to take serious the idea that the economic impact might be unevenly felt by particular types of businesses. He said he leaned on Kingsley who had satisfied him that this was not an outcome that was demonstrated in other communities. He said the referendum was still an option which would be up to the individuals who opposed the ordinance. He said the claims that the Commission was interfering with people’s rights were loud and clear, but what had taken place over the many years that Lawrence had not had a smoking ban was the quiet tolerance by people who have had to put up with smoking. He said there were health consequences. He said once this issue went through a certain period, that that fractionalization was going to subside.
Vice Mayor Highberger said there had been a lot of discussion about taking freedoms away, but this was a matter of balancing freedom and rights. He said the proposed ban was overwhelmingly supported by the people of Lawrence.
Commissioner Dunfield said regarding options, the task force gave the Commission a stack of options. He said that in his own consideration of the options presented, the more that he looked at those options, the more he thought that a simple and direct ordinance was the best ordinance and the only one that really addressed the fundamental question of workplace health. He said the most profound piece of information that he had heard over the last two weeks, was from an article that he read in the Journal World, quoting the Kentucky State Supreme Court’s opinion, “among the police powers of the government the power to promote and safeguard public health ranks at the top. If the right of an individual runs afoul of the exercise of this power the right of an individual must yield.” He said that was in reference to Lexington, Kentucky’s smoking ban which seemed similar to the ordinance the Commission was presently addressing.
Commissioner Schauner said in listening to the conversation it was clear that there were three votes to pass this particular ordinance. He said he did not favor this ordinance, but he favored something that would provide some additional leeway for those places that won’t be able to physically comply with this ordinance. He said he would however, vote for this ordinance because he felt that the City Commission did have reason to protect the public health. He said he firmly believed there would be a referendum on the issue and the public would get a chance to participate in the vote. He said he wished that the public would be voting on a different ordinance, but at least this ordinance would get the matter in front of the public for discussion.
Moved by Commissioner Dunfield, seconded by Mayor Rundle, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7782, concerning smoking in public places repealing Chapter 9, Article 8 of the City Code of the City of Lawrence Kansas, 2003 Edition and amendments thereto and enacting new provision in place thereof. Aye: Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: Hack. Motion carried. (19)
Moved by Dunfield, seconded Schauner, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7789, concerning cigarettes and tobacco products, enacting Chapter 9, Article 8A of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas 2003 Edition and amendments thereto. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (20)
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner to recess for fifteen minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Receive the 2003 annual tax abatement report.
Frank Reeb, Administrative Service Director/City Clerk presented the staff report. He reminded the Commission that the annual report requirement was now part of the City Code and the Public Incentive Review Committee (PIRC) was required to submit the report by May 1st.
He said Table 1 was the general information regarding each of the thirteen abatements that currently existed. The report was general information regarding the abatement itself and its expiration date along with some capital investment information.
He said Table 2 contained information regarding the number of employees for each of those particular abatements. He said on this particular version of the report the Commission was able to see three years of data to see a mini-trend over the last three years on the progress of each business. He noted that the “over/under projection” was essentially the December 2003 information compared to the information that was projected on the abatement application. He said that it was evident the businesses that were over the projection and those businesses that were under that projection.
He said Table 3 was the largest of the tables in the report. With the 2003 report staff was able to get a good handle on job specific information. In years past, there was a struggle to get a meaningful benchmark. The City Code in the Tax Abatement Policy does require that the benchmark is the Kansas Wage Survey. He said for the most part, the benchmark for each of the job specific codes was the 2003 Kansas Wage Survey, mean wage for that specific six-digit SOC code. When that particular benchmark was not available, staff used a four-digit SOC code benchmark that was obtained from the Kansas Department of Human Resources in the special report that they prepared for the City. Those benchmarks were listed in Table 3 with the double asterisks. The majority of the benchmarks were from the Kansas Wage Survey for 2003.
One thing to note was the bulleted information after each of the businesses was for the job categories and not for individual positions. For example, in terms of total employees, the bulleted information would match the number of job categories for each of the businesses, but it would not match the number of total jobs.
He said Table 4 was tax information related to the abatement and it was important to remember that this was tax information for the property related to the abatement. What you would not see on Table 4 or anywhere else in the report was the additional taxes paid by those various businesses and in some respects, it was quite substantial.
He said Table 5 was a short table that had some information regarding industrial revenue bonds and the various pieces of information about those six companies.
Table 6 was information regarding local expenditures and local sales.
Lastly, Table 7 was some information regarding company achievements in the area of environmental practices, community service, job training and other information.
Commissioner Hack said Reeb had done an incredible job of adding to an ever-changing document.
Mayor Rundle called for public comments.
Delbert Phlipot, Vice President of Manufacturing from AMARR Garage Doors, spoke about changes to the tax abatement policy. He said there had been discussion in the PIRC meetings about possible alterations or changes to some of the policy that was put in place regarding the abatement.
He said AMARR manufactured residential and commercial garage doors. He said they had been in this community for fifteen years and looked forward to many more productive years in Lawrence. Recently, AMARR had been awarded an $18.9 million dollar abatement and they were in the process of tearing down walls and laying in the groundwork for a 120,000 square foot addition. This was in addition to their already existing $250,000 square foot facility.
He said he spoke to the City Commission concerning two issues. First, the tax abatement policy that was in place before November of 2001, for all of the companies listed in the most recent abatement update report, only required that the target objectives for recommendation of granting an abatement were investments, jobs, wages, etc. There were no clear standards in place for compliance of those objectives. He said it would seem unfair to now create standards for agreements that were made many years ago. Therefore, any changes being considered or actions taken should not reflect punitively on those companies. If need be, a grandfather clause should be created and implemented to assure this.
Secondly, the City Commission had never defined substantial compliance, nor had the state legislature. By lacking some reasonable definition of substantial compliance to refer to, it was not possible to hold organizations accountable, as there was no measurable tool available.
Lastly, he said in business world today, the only thing constant was change. Companies must constantly adapt to the changing environment in which they must operate. Their educated estimates were just that. It was impossible for a business leader to know exactly what was going to happen many years ahead. Many companies had been hurt by the poor economy, and we should be thankful that we have been able to retain those businesses and corresponding jobs. Companies should not be penalized for situations out of their control. He said he recommended that the past practice in relation to the November 2001 abatements be kept intact and enforced. This Commission must continue the efforts of past Commissions to develop and retain quality employers in their community. By keeping the Commission’s previous practices in place, you are honoring those commitments made by your predecessors.
Lynn Parman, Vice President of Economic Development with the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, spoke regarding the 2003 tax abatement report and specifically Resolution 5431 that was in place for all of the companies that were encompassed in this report. She noted that all companies and abatement in the 2003 report fell under the resolution that was adopted in 1991. She said if looking at the initial tax abatement application dates, those dates were all before 2001. She said there had been three abatements since that time, but those abatements would be in the subsequent reports. She said the reason she was bringing up that issue was because the language that was in Resolution 5431, that was established in 1991, was somewhat different than the wage floor ordinance that was passed last year, as well as even the document in place in 2001. In specific, she said when looking at the language regarding obligations of companies in terms of fulfilling their promises, Section 22, under the section about the annual report, stated that to ensure that the ownership and use of the property and other criteria were met which was defined as adequately satisfied and that the City Commission might remove or modify the exemption, but the terminology that they used in the 1991 resolution was that the criteria from the application should be adequately satisfied, but there was no definition anywhere in that policy stating what it meant to be adequately satisfied. She said it would be difficult to say what the intent would be when looking at 2004, to what the intent was of what was adequately satisfied.
Lastly, she said with those companies in that 2003 report there had been over 2,100 new jobs that had been created with those projects alone, and $160,000,000 dollars of new investment made in Douglas County.
Mayor Rundle said Phlipot’s concern was the application of the current resolution to previous abatements. The Commission was aware that there were three different policies and the City Commission should be aware of when those companies received their abatements. He said the next direction for PIRC would be to look at a broad collection of those issues.
Commissioner Schauner said he would like to see PlRC take a look at defining substantial compliance. He said reasonable people could disagree about what substantial compliance meant, but if projecting 371 jobs and were 201 jobs off, that was clearly not substantial compliance. He said everyone would be better served if they understood the definition of substantial compliance.
Mayor Rundle said there was interest on part of PIRC, to hear from companies on why they had not met their performance.
Commissioner Dunfield said since he was involved in the PIRC process last year and now looking at the process from the outside, he thought that it was clear that staff had made some good strides in putting information together that were useful to the City Commission.
He acknowledged the concern about changing rules in mid-stream. He said clearly the abatements that were in place under previous ordinances needed to be evaluated on the basis of those previous ordinances. He said some of the ambiguities about responsibilities and about what terms meant, led to the recent changes in the ordinance. He said the one change that staff had made in terms of the current abatement was that the information that the City Commission was receiving in the annual report was much clearer and more useful.
Hack echoed Commissioner Dunfield’s comments. She noted there was no current definition of substantial compliance and the definition did not occur as a term in any of the abatement policies. She said it was stunning to look at the number of jobs and the amount of money that had been invested in this community.
She said it was important to thank businesses for doing business in Lawrence and create some kind of mechanism in the tax abatement policy to reward those companies that far exceeded their investments.
Commission Schauner said he did not support changing the rules after the game was started, but rewarding companies for better performance carried the risk that the abated company in making its application would purposely understate what they could invest and how many jobs they would add. He said he would like to see a better way of recognizing legitimate abatement applications. He said he wanted to make sure the Commission did not unduly give incentive to those companies that performed better than the abated application proposed, nor did he want to see the Commission unduly penalize those companies that did not do as well in the abatement period as their proposal had anticipated. He said the Commission needed to try to find some way to balance those competing interests.
Vice Mayor Highberger said that the cost benefit calculation addressed that issue.
Commissioner Hack said no company was going to underestimate their application because it would affect their cost benefit analysis.
Commissioner Schauner said the problem with that thinking was if the cost benefit analysis took 15 years to be a benefit and the abatement was for 10 years, then it seemed that the Commission was already stretching the measure for benefit beyond the period of the abated operation.
Mayor Rundle suggested adding that issue to the list of issues for PIRC.
Moved by Hack seconded by Schauner to receive the 2003 Annual Tax Abatement Report. (21)
Consider the following Fire/Medical facility items:
Mike Wildgen presented the staff report. He said staff received a letter from the County indicating their financial support. He said staff had drafted a resolution for the funding of Stations No. 4 and 5. He said he graciously recognized the contribution of the land that the Endowment Center had leased to the City at 19th and Stewart Avenue.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt Resolution No. 6547, ordering the issuance of general obligation bond for the design construction of certain city facilities pursuant to Charter Ordinance 32. Motion carried unanimously. (22)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt Resolution No. 6546, ordering the improvement and authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds for the design construction of certain facilities pursuant to Charter Ordinance No. 32. Motion carried unanimously. (23)
Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning requests, and authorize drafting of ordinances for placement on future agenda for the 6th Street Nodal Plan.
Sandra Day, Planner, presented the staff report. She said there were several items before the Commission related to the project referred to as Diamondhead. This project started with the applicant meeting with staff throughout the late 1990’s. She said there was ultimately a preliminary plat submitted in 1989 of 120 acres that included several different zoning phases. The Planning Commission considered the development proposal and ultimately approved the Preliminary Development Plan as well as a series of rezoning requests. She said this was the establishment of the framework for the phase development, sewer and water services, as well as other utilities services that were generally available to the subject property or could be easily extended. She said the property at that time was in the City’s Urban Growth Area and was reasonably anticipated for development.
She said during this project when it was initially being looked at, staff was still working through the timing and phasing of West 6th Street improvements and the comprehensive plan in which the City Commission had recently considered a commercial chapter for was slightly different when staff reports were initially prepared.
The discussion of the subdivision plat was directly tied to the rezoning request and the predominate discussion centered on the timing of the project with respect to West 6th Street improvements as well as the physical relationship of the commercial property as it related to the residential elements. The Planning Commission ultimately approved the Preliminary Plat and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the residential request.
The Planning Commission also forwarded a recommendation for approval for the Planned Commercial Development (PCD) request and their vote reflected their concern that that particular request lacked a development plan. The Commission was aware that additional improvements would be required and specifically that staff was anticipating the submission of a rezoning request on the north side of 6th Street for the Graham property. She said those were two files that were active and might be proceeding to the May or June Planning Commission meeting.
She said there were two conditions that were added to the PCD request that before the zoning would become effective the final plat and the Preliminary Development Plan would need to be approved.
She said there was 32 acres of proposed single-family residential zoning at the southern end, 14 acres of proposed RM-1 along George Williams Way, 7 acres of a residential office district in the center of the property, an additional 12.8 acres of slightly higher density multi-family, and approximately 30 acres of PCD along the frontage of West 6th Street and its access would be limited to George Williams Way.
The preliminary plat was not an item that did not come back to the City Commission, but the final plat would. The applicant would not be proceeding with the final plat until the applicant concluded this step of the land use approval process. She said the nodal plan was completed and the land use was consistent with the findings of the nodal plan. Staff would look at the revised commercial chapter as it would apply to the PCD piece when a development plan would be ultimately submitted. She said what the preliminary plat did and ultimately what a final plat would do was set out the exact lot boundaries as well as the internal street network and access and utility easements that would be applicable to the lots as the property was developed.
Commissioner Schauner asked if a traffic impact study had been done for George Williams Way as part of this consideration.
Day said no. She said this first came to the Planning office as a planning item in the spring of 1998.
Commissioner Schauner said if the applicant was asking for the City Commission’s approval for rezoning, he asked if it would be consistent with the City’s current policy to require a traffic impact study to that PCD.
Day said staff would see the Traffic Impact Study with the applicant submitted plats and subsequent site plan and development plans so there was a specific user to be associated with that traffic impact study rather than a generalized land use expectation in that document.
Commissioner Schauner asked how many square feet were proposed for the PCD along 6th Street.
Day said staff did not have that documentation, but staff had the gross acreage that would describe the base district.
Commissioner Schauner said staff really did not know how this PCD would fit into the permitted square footage of commercial development at that intersection with that information.
Day said with this particular application no. She said staff would require that the applicant submit with the plat and development that type of detail. That detail would be reviewed in tangent with the current Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6, commercial recommendations when staff gets to that step.
Commissioner Schauner asked how this rezoning request limits the Commission’s ability to review proposed development uses on this ground when those proposals came to the Commission in more detail.
Day said she did not believe approval of the request would limit the City Commission’s action on that development proposal in the future.
Mayor Rundle asked whether this project was subject to the revised Commercial Chapter.
Day said no. She said the zoning application pre-dated the revised Commercial Chapter. Any specific development proposal would be subject to the current recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Rundle asked if Horizon 2020 would apply before it was amended.
Day said only for the determination of zoning district. If a development plan was submitted today, then staff would use the current, adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Rundle said the previous plan had a clause about assessing impact on existing commercial.
Day said when staff was looking at just the zoning without the development plan staff did not have much to evaluate. The critical factor for this particular project was how it related to the other proposed land uses through the platting process. It was staff’s opinion that staff had sufficient detail to look at the relationship of the land uses at that gross physical level and to be able to make more specific recommendations when staff had the site plans for the multi-family as well as the development plan for the commercial piece.
Moved by Schauner seconded by Hack, to extend the meeting to 10:15 p.m.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Vernon Jarboe, attorney appearing on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the rezoning. He said this project had been around for a couple of years and the developer had waited to see what would happen with various changes in Horizon 2020 and the Nodal Plan. He said the rules had been changed after Diamondhead had started through the gate and despite the change in rules, that plan still fit because it still complied with all of the various review processes that it would need to go through if it had been submitted today. He said this was not the last time the City Commission would be able to look at that project. All that did was to let the developer go to the next step to see whether or not the users that would step up to the plate and then come up with a development plan and answer the Commission’s specific questions about how the site would be used. He said this ground was zoned agricultural with the adoption of this matter then all of the various land uses that staff introduced would be approved and the applicant could go forward with the next step. He said a part of the plan included development of George Williams Way which the developer was willing to dedicate the right-of-way which staff would like to have so that George Williams Way could ultimately be approved which was contingent on the plans.
He said the other limitations that had been placed on that project in terms of the various restrictions that were approved at the Planning Commission level. He said this issue had been all worked out through staff’s efforts. He said there had been a lot of interest expressed by various parties in the development of that site and he expected that if they could get highway 40 improved and George Williams Way underway as a project then those land uses would emerge quickly.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not see any reason not to approve those rezonings, but his nagging concern was that the Commission would be faced with a lot of pressure to exceed square footage that had been approved for that node. He suggested sticking to the nodal plan and square footage allocation on those four corners.
Commissioner Dunfield said that was the reason for going though that process and why the Commission created the nodal plan. He said that was a consideration for a future step. He said in order to get to that future step approving those rezonings was what the City Commission needed to do.
Hack agreed.
Commissioner Highberger said the plans appeared to be consistent with the nodal plan. He said he was ready to approve those rezonings.
Mayor Rundle said he would not apologize for the delay because one of the City Commission’s goals was managing growth and good planning and that was why it was delayed.
He said he would like staff to resolve the confusion about when those revised plans took effect because they did not have a good common understanding of that process. He said it was difficult to apply those when the development plan was not with the zoning. He said that would change with the new zoning regulations.
Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, said the new zoning regulations would require that PCD have a preliminary development plan accompanying them at the rezoning request. She pointed out to the City Commission action would approve the drafting of that ordinance and the PCD zoning would not be published until there was a development plan that was submitted and approved by the City Commission. She said the approvals would give the developer some assurance to move to the next step, but it would not be on the zoning map until the City Commission had the opportunity to look at the particular uses. The nodal plan had a recommendation that no building permits be issued for the commercial portion until 6th Street was completed.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-29-02) 32.253 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single Family Residential District), located on the southwest corner of 6th Street and George Williams Way; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (24)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-30-02) 14.467 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residence District), located on the southwest corner of 6th Street and George Williams Way; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (25)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-31-02) 7.013 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RO-2 (Residence-Office District), located on the southwest corner of 6th Street and George Williams Way; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (26)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-32-02) 12.836 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residence District), located on the southwest corner of 6th Street and George Williams Way; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (27)
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-09-33-02) 32.713 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial District), located on the southwest corner of 6th Street and George Williams Way; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (28)
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Hilda Enoch spoke about adoption of the Action Plan. She addressed the need for supporting the Lawrence Open Shelter and the Community Drop In Center. She said the City needed a facility with detoxification services. She said the City needed a coordinated and collaborative plan so that people were not out on the streets and services were available for the homeless.
Vice Mayor Highberger thanked Enoch for coming down. He said he was waiting for a recommendation from the Homeless Task Force before the Commission changed their funding priorities. He agreed that homelessness was a problem the Commission needed to tackle.
Mayor Rundle said the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Homeless Task Force was going to be given over to two stake holder meeting on May 18.
Moved by Hack, 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 Date – May 8, 2004 Waterline improvements.
2. Ordinance No. 7703 – 1st reading, rezone (Z-07-22-03) 6.195 acres, A to RS-1, Foxfire & Burning Tree, S & W of existing Foxfire Development.
3. Ordinance No. 7711 – 1st reading, rezone (Z-08-27-03) 23.9380 acres, A to RMD, S side of K-10 Hwy & W of O’Connell.
4. Ordinance No. 7712 – 1st reading, rezone (Z-08-28-03) 8.6220 acres, A to RS-2, S side of K-10 Hwy & W of O’Connell.
5. Ordinance No. 7732 – 1st reading, (TA-09-03-03) adding water/wastewater review requirements and park service area standards to Joint Sub Regs.
6. Ordinance No. 7764 – 1st reading, rezone (Z-12-50-03) 20.1626 acres from B-3 to RM-1, NE corner of Clinton Pkwy & K-10 Hwy.
7. Ordinance No. 7774 – 1st reading, increase fees & mileage rates for ambulance services & deleting certain additional costs.
8. Ordinance No. 7784 – 2nd Reading, Woods Ct in final plat of The Woods on 19th to Villo Wood Ct.
9. Ordinance No. 7786 – 2nd Reading, “No Parking” E side of Stone Meadows from 15th N 730‘.
10. Ordinance No. 7788 – 2nd Reading, sale & consumption of alcoholic beverages at Broken Arrow on May 7.
11. Resolution No. 6545 – Special Warranty Deed for E&E Specialties.
12. Site Plan – (SP-03-20-04) 4-plex, 1000 Mississippi.
13. TUPR – (TUPR-03-07-04) 7.12 acres, SW corner of 15th & Haskell, 1503 Haskell Ave.
14. Final Development Plan – Extend time for sidewalk construction, Briarwood Addition.
15. Mortgage Release – 829 E 13th, Pepperdine.
16. Tenants to Homeowners – acquisition of 130 Providence.
17. City Manager’s Report – Fire/Medical Dept accomplishments for 2003/First Quarterly Financial Report.
18. Resolution No. 6548 – 2004 CDBG & HOME Programs.
19. Ordinance No. 7782 – 1st Reading, smoking in public places.
20. Ordinance No. 7789 – 1st Reading, cigarettes & tobacco products.
21. 2003 Annual Tax Abatement Report.
22. Resolution No. 6547 – authorizing GOB for design of certain city facilities.
23. Resolution No. 6546 – ordering GOB for design of certain city facilities.
24. Rezone – (Z-09-29-02) 32.253 acres, A to RS-2, SW corner of 6th & George Williams Way.
25. Rezone – (Z-09-3-02) 14.467 acres, A to RM-1, SW corner of 6th & George Williams Way.
26. Rezone – (Z-09-31-02) 7.013 acres, A to RO-2, SW corner of 6th & George Williams Way.
27. Rezone – (Z-09-32-02) 12.836 acres, A to RM-2, SW corner of 6th & George Williams Way.
28. Rezone – (Z-09-33-02) 32.713 acres, A to PCD-2, SW corner of 6th & George Williams Way.