May 25, 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, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner present.
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Rundle recognized the Lawrence Student Delegation traveling to Lawrence Sister City, Hiratsuka, Japan; and Atsuko Wada, intern from Lawrence Sister City, City of Hiratsuka, Japan.
With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed May 30 – September 19 as “Lawrence Sesquicentennial Summer.”
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of May 18, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the Mechanical Code Board of Appeals meeting minutes of November 17, 2003; and the Lawrence Memorial Hospital Board meeting minutes of April 21, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve claims to 445 vendors in the amount of $1,070,337.22. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the drinking establishment license for Captain Ribmans Meat Market. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Kenneth Breithaupt to the Board of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, to a term which will expire April 30, 2004; appoint Aimee Polson to the Downtown Parking Advisory Board, to a term which will expire September 30, 2006; reappoint David Burress and appoint Sue Erickson, both to the Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Commission, to terms which will expire May 31, 2007; appoint Mike Treanor to the Lawrence Humane Society Board of Directors, as the City appointee; and appoint Linda Hyler to the Sister Cities Advisory Board, to a term which will expire December 31, 2006. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the Kaw Water Plant Control Room and Rest Room Improvements for the Utilities Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BASE BID (TOTAL)
B.A. Green Construction, Inc. $145,190
C.A.S. Construction, Inc. $232,400
May Contractors, Inc. $188,690
Penny Construction Co., Inc. $163,370
LHW Architects’ (Estimate) $150,000
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to B.A. Green Construction, Inc., in the amount of $145,190. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Nowak Construction Co., Inc., for the 2004 Waterline Improvements, in the amount of $521,738.10. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the 2004 Concrete Repair Program for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
Engineer’s Estimate $556,100.00
Larkin Excavating $280,650.04
Graybeal Construction $355,978.40
Kansas Heavy Construction $363,592.00
LRM Industries, Inc. $381,065.35
D.F. Freeman $528,369.40
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to Larkin Excavating, in the amount of $280,650.04. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for three Comprehensive Rehabilitation Projects for 204 North Minnesota; 1206 West 29th Street; and 1033 Rhode Island Street for the Neighborhood Resources Department. The bids were:
CONTRACTOR 204 N Minnesota 1206 W 29th Alternate 1033 Rhode Island
Harris Construction $17,974 No Bid No Bid No Bid
General Construction $15,290 $27,213 $7,160 $57,777
Old Home Depot $15,994 $34,994 $6,615 No Bid
Staff Estimate $13,500 $26,162 N/A $42,000
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bids for 204 North Minnesota, in the amount of $15,290, and 1206 West 29th Street, in the amount of $34,373, including the alternate bid, to General Construction. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for one hydraulic bending brake for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
American Machine Tools, Inc. $19,945.00
JWK Machinery Sales $20,313.20
Dreis & Krump $21,600.00
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to award the bid to American Machine Tools, Inc., in the amount of $19,945. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to set a bid date of June 22, 2004 for the 2004 Chip and Seal Program. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance No. 7713, rezoning (Z-08-29-03A) 7.1054 acres plus adjacent right-of-way from A (Agricultural District) to O-1 (Office District), property located on the south side of K-10 Highway and west of O’Connell Road, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 7771, rezoning (Z-01-01-04) 8.726 acres from RS-1 (Single-Family Residence District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District), property located east of Monterey Way and north of Stetson Drive, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Ordinance No. 7773, (Z-12-52-03) 20.1309 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District), property located on the south side of K-10 west of O’Connell Road, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to approve the site plan (SP-04-29-04) for Bismarck Inn, a site plan for the addition of an indoor swimming pool room and addition for the owner’s residence, located at 1130 North 3rd Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of Floodplain Development Permit FP-04-05-04 prior to release of the site plan for issuance of a building permit;
2. Provision of a revised Site Plan to provide a trash enclosure per City standards; and
3. Execution of a Site Plan Performance Agreement.
Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-02-06-04) of approximately 11.5587 acres from B-3 (Limited Business District) to PCD-3 (Planned Commercial Development District - with conditions), the property is generally described as being located north of Clinton Parkway and east of K-10 Highway (SLT); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to authorize the Mayor to sign two Subordination Agreements for Saundra Scott, 1901 Barker Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
During the City Manager’s, Chuck Soules presented additional information about the Pavement Management System. He said staff’s goal was to use the data collected information as a guide in 2005 Street Maintenance Program. Monthly updates were provided to the City Engineer highlighting the following:
1. Number of miles of pavement rated that month;
2. Total miles of pavement rated;
3. Area planned for survey next month; and
4. Identification of any issues that may need attention or further discussion.
(13)
REGULAR AGENDA
Consider unanimous recommendation from the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) to establish NO PARKING along the east side of Wisconsin Street between 5th Street and 6th Street.
David Woosley presented the staff report. He said this issue came about as a result of an email petition with approximately 21 residents along the street listed as supporting the request to remove parking along the east side of the street.
He said the Traffic Safety Commission unanimously recommended “no parking” on the east side of Wisconsin because of public safety concerns and it was a hardship on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was information from Police about whether the “no parking” on the west side of the street had been an effective strategy.
Woosley said he was not aware of any problems with parking occurring on the west side. He said at the Traffic Safety Commission meeting none of the residents indicated that there had been a problem with parking on that side.
Commissioner Highberger asked Soules if that stretch of Wisconsin Street was on the Capital Improvement Plan.
Soules said no.
Kim Murphree, Lawrence, said she lived in the area and gave a summary of some of the concerns because of parking on both sides of the street. She said right now an 8 foot wide emergency vehicle could not get through in that area. She urged the Commission to adopt the Traffic Safety Commission recommendation.
Steve Braswell, Vice President, Pinckney Neighborhood Association, voiced their support of eliminating parking on the east side of Wisconsin Street. He said he was surprised to hear that parking was not allowed on the west side because often cars were parked on that side. He supported everything the previous speaker mentioned. He said the Neighborhood Association urged the City Commission to take action to eliminate parking on the east side of Wisconsin Street.
Ed Collister, Attorney representing the Yacht Club, said the Yacht Club had been there since 1988. He said the owners invested in reliance on existing circumstances including allowing parking on the east side of Wisconsin Street. He said the owners thought that taking away parking on the east side of the street would damage their business.
He said many of the houses built in the area around the intersection of 5th and Wisconsin had been built since the Yacht Club opened in 1988. He said owners of the Yacht Club had worked out after hours parking arrangements with adjacent business owners.
He said the owners were willing to take additional measures to help ease any problems they might create. He said if there were no solutions to those problems, he suggested widening the street. He said the owner had stated he would pay his share for widening the street.
Commissioner Highberger said he applauded the owner for taking additional steps to increase his parking by working with adjacent business owners. He said the City Commission should decide whether Wisconsin Street was going to be a one-way street rather than that street becoming a de facto one-way street because of parking.
He said he did not want any unnecessary burden placed on business owners who invested a lot of money in their business. He supported the unanimous decision to remove parking on the east side of Wisconsin Street.
Commissioner Hack asked Woosley how many parking places would be lost if the City Commission eliminated parking on the east side of Wisconsin.
Woosley said there were approximately 10 to 15 parking spaces that would be lost.
Commissioner Hack said she agreed with Commissioner Highberger’s comments.
Commissioner Dunfield said he agreed with what the other Commissioners said. He said he had been an advocate for narrow streets, but this location went beyond what was acceptable from a safety point of view. He said narrow streets forced people to drive slowly on that street on Friday and Saturday nights.
He said as a partial compromise, he suggested allowing parking in the area adjacent to the Yacht Club property where the owner’s had created a parallel parking area along the side of the property where some landscaping rocks were put in place.
Murphree said sometimes people who parked at that location park their vehicles partially out in the street. She suggested making the perimeters so that those vehicles could not be extended out into the street.
Commissioner Dunfield said two feet encroachment into the street was a lot different than six or eight feet of encroachment and that was the basis for that compromise.
Commissioner Schauner said he would prefer approving the TSC recommendation and asked the owner or staff to bring back additional and specific information on extending parallel parking.
He suggested making it clear to people who were going to access that street and want to use the parallel parking exactly where a person could or could not park.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to place on first Reading Ordinance No. 7791, establishing “no parking” along the east side of Wisconsin Street between 5th Street and 6th Street and direct staff to work with the owners of the Yacht Club for allowing some parking near the business. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
Consider approving (subject to conditions) Site Plan SP-04-21-04: A site plan for a Salvation Army Community Complex to be located on the west side of Haskell Avenue between Lynn Street and Homewood Street, within M1-A (Light Industrial) and M-2 (General Industrial) Zoning Districts.
Paul Patterson, Planner, presented the staff report. He said the proposed site was 3.9 acres and the project south would be dedicating 20 feet of right-of-way along Haskell Avenue and 5 feet of right-of-way along Lynn Street, Homewood Street and Bullene Avenue.
He said the use of the property would be two buildings. He said building one would be a Salvation Army Family Resource Center which housed a worship center, chapel, classrooms, church offices, gymnasiums for community youth programs, kitchen, storage, space for family counseling and assistance which included a food pantry and food bank.
He said building two was a Salvation Army Booth Center. The Booth Center would be a 24 hour, 7 day a week, homeless residential rehabilitation program center, to include sleeping facilities for single men, single women, and families, classroom for instruction and education, offices, kitchen, and dining room for applicable programs. The rehabilitation would not be for drug and alcohol illnesses.
The site plan looked at the two zoning districts in relationship to the site plan. He said it was important to point out that property was zoned industrial and per Section 20-1448, that type of use, when a halfway house or service oriented rehabilitation center for persons with disabilities was located, neither commercial or industrial district requirement for a use permit upon review shall not be applied. The site plan shall apply to all uses listed in this section.
Mayor Rundle asked Patterson to explain the drainage concerns.
Patterson said the item had been reviewed by the City’s Stormwater Engineer and the Engineer had eight review comments. The proposal was revised to meet all of those conditions. He said in Condition No. 6 a Stormwater Prevention Plan would be produced as with all site plans that were greater than ½ acre.
He said the drainage basin was designed for the standard 10-year event that needed to be met and the Stormwater Engineer had approved that design.
Kurt Von Achen, representing the applicant, said they had met with staff and had accepted the six conditions that were listed in the staff report. He said the applicant would appreciate approval of the site plan.
Commissioner Dunfield asked Von Achen to explain the need for the drive that extended down between the two buildings.
Von Achen said there were truck dock points for each building and the reason for the drive extending down between the two buildings was a hammerhead for large delivery trucks to get in and out.
Commissioner Dunfield asked if it was possible to maneuver the truck into the dock at Building 1 by first turning in the direction of Building 2.
Von Achen said that maneuvering would be difficult especially with a large truck.
Mayor Rundle said he was looking out in the future for this project being completed. He said parallel to the project, he hoped the Homeless Task Force would be finishing their work and coordinating all of those proposals.
He said the concerns some people raised about the use, he wondered if there could be some type of statement pledging to resolve those issues as they advanced.
J.R. Demby, member of the Salvation Army Advisory Board, read a letter from Rich Fortney, Administrator of the Salvation Army Church. The letter read:
“In September of 2002, I came before the City Commission to introduce myself. Since that time, I have gotten to know most of you on a professional basis, others on a person-to-person basis. I made a statement in 2002 about the homeless clients that the Salvation Army was serving. I said, the Salvation Army would continue serving individuals with respect and dignity and on a courteous and professional manner we continue serving people, to this day, in the same manner in the love of the Lord. At this time, the most respectable thing we can do is to provide new facilities with adequate space for each service we currently provide and will provide in the future. Lawrence homeless individuals deserve a safe place while they start getting back on their feet, a safe place which will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We appreciate any consideration you would give us.”
Demby urged the City Commission to approve the site plan.
Janeine Cardin said the first step in meeting the needs of the homeless and poor by any City, cost effectively, was establishing a 24 hour, seven day a week, comprehensive shelter.
The in-poverty citizens of Lawrence deserve that step by the City Commission and the not-in-poverty taxpayers deserved the City Commission understanding the need to start the process of being more cost effective in serving the poor.
The neighborhood’s fears around the Salvation Army’s attempt at a comprehensive shelter were founded on their observations of previous gap filled care to the homeless, not on them understanding that what was being built was entirely different from what had gone on in downtown Lawrence. There had not been the best information given to the neighborhoods in a timely way to abate their concerns. The neighborhoods would actually benefit by the many services to youth, the utilities and rent needs and other assistance that the Salvation Army would provide.
She asked the City Commission to show sound leadership by allowing the Salvation Army to build a much-needed comprehensive shelter at the location they were requesting.
Beth Ann Mansur, President, Brookcreek Neighborhood Association, said her neighborhood had been battling the Salvation Army for four years and had not received satisfactory answers to their questions during that time. She said that led them to believe that those issues could not be addressed and no matter how those in this community might find offense of her next statement and no matter how politically incorrect it might be, this might, in fact, be a situation of “not in my neighborhood” and the poor target neighborhood was being singled out again to bear the burden for the City. Otherwise, why wouldn’t the City want this facility downtown.
She said the proposed location was approximately 1.5 miles from downtown and the service facilities such as access to free food and health care. Safe, continuous sidewalks did not exist along the streets between the two locations. This safety concern extended to the residents both commercial and residential, surrounding the proposed facility location. The areas between the current location and the proposed location are primarily residential. There was great concern for the safety of persons and property along any pedestrian root to the new facility. She said without an enforceable plan by the Salvation Army for transportation of clients there would likely be increased trespassing and potential for vandalism of property.
She said the transit system might provide adequate transportation; however, it did not run after 8:00 p.m., and would not pick up anyone after that time even if they were across town and heading home to their downtown depot. She asked how many transients actually had money to spend on public transportation. In addition, the individual drivers of the “T” had the option of not picking up any inebriated individuals. The Salvation Army would not accept such patrons, not even when sub zero temperatures prevailed. She asked, where those people would go when they were far from downtown. She said those people would go in the residents’ garages and sheds.
She said the Neighborhood Association had been told by three separate and anonymous Police Officers that it would be a mess if the Salvation Army moved so far from town. She said the Officers said that they might need to park a van and haul those people who were not welcomed back to town in the evenings, but the money and manpower for that type of vigilance was not available. She said the Officers also said that they liked the homeless downtown because they know where to find the homeless and the Officers could keep an eye on them for their own safety.
She said the current Salvation Army policy was to feed any persons who arrive for meals. There were no requirements for participating in the social job rehabilitation program as there was for remaining in the shelter. This would lead to increased foot traffic during the day and at the lunch hour which was the same time as the morning/afternoon session shift at the pre-school. The Salvation Army estimated it served 50 to 60 people at meal times.
Persons who arrived intoxicated or under the influence of illegal drugs were not allowed to stay in the shelter. This meant that persons who arrive for the evening meal who fail this requirement would be turned away into the surrounding neighborhood to find their own shelter for the night. There were several wooded areas surrounding the proposed location as well as several parks and playgrounds. There was concern that those who were denied shelter or chose not to stay for the night would seek shelter within the neighborhood. Again, that went back to the trespass and vandalism concerns as well as safety concerns for the homeless who were out at night.
She said late night concerns were directed primarily downtown. Experience told us that unless there was violent activity, the Lawrence Police Department was not likely to respond quickly to a call regarding an intoxicated homeless person in someone’s backyard or on the walking trail. It was no secret that the Police Department was routinely short staffed.
The proposed location was within three blocks of an early childhood education center and a recreation center. It was two blocks from the Boys and Girls Club and less than one block from two different parks and playground areas. The neighborhood was concerned about endangerment of children who use those facilities by unstable persons who were seeking services at the Salvation Army. She said they were not categorizing all homeless persons as unstable, but it only took one to cause a real problem.
She said the Neighborhood Association believed that placement of the new facility at the proposed location would decrease the property values of the surrounding residences.
There were continuing concerns about the additional stormwater run-off that would be generated by a facility of the size proposed. The areas to the north of the proposed location that were along the Burroughs Creek Drainage area already experienced significant flooding during heavy rainfall. New construction in that area would require retention ponds to address some of those issues, but those retention systems required long-term maintenance in order to function properly and their experience in the neighborhood was that maintenance was not done and downstream flooding worsens.
The proposed facility included duplication or triplication of some of the services already offered in the area such as a food bank, a gymnasium available for activities at the preschool and at the East Lawrence Recreation Center, community space for meetings, and a general community facility. If those were such desirable features for a neighborhood, as representatives for the Salvation Army claim, then the Neighborhood Association contends to take the homeless to a neighborhood that needed those services because the services were already in place in this area.
She said recently Richard Forney was making known that establishments such as retailing alcohol was an acute concern. Approximate distances were measured from the new site and 550 feet away was a convenience store, 725 feet away was a liquor store, and 825 feet was the Crosstown Tavern which was a daytime and late night establishment. She asked, why would the Salvation Army choose this site? She said it was curious to note that there was a petition being passed around, but the two businesses that did not sign their petition were the liquor store and the bar.
She said the Salvation Army was neither playing fair nor being a good neighbor. She said the Salvation Army requested $140,000 in CDBG money, yet were buying property which if not used for the new site, the Salvation Army was told to buy for investment property. She said the Neighborhood Association would like to know how they could take money meant for neighborhoods when the Salvation Army had enough money to invest in property.
She asked if this was, a “not in my backyard situation.” She said she hoped the City Commission realized that the Salvation Army should not relocate so far from downtown and she asked the City Commission on behalf of the Brookcreek Neighborhood Association to deny the site plan.
She also read an email from a citizen Melinda Henderson, in the Barker neighborhood which read:
“The biggest concern was whether or not the Salvation Army would have addressed the issues of the homeless pouring into our neighborhoods during the day, especially Parnell Park. She said they kept touting this issue as being geared towards families, women, and men seeking employment and permanent housing which was a quote from the Journal World newspaper. She asked if this was a different type of clientele than they were currently tying to service because she still saw a lot of people hanging around the current Salvation Army location during the day. She said what guarantees did the neighbors have that there won’t be the same kind of loitering.”
Jeanette Collier, Coordinator for Douglas County ECKAN, a community action agency which provided similar services to the Salvation Army, said they served similar clientele however, they did not duplicate services. She said all of the social service providers were terribly short staffed and they worked on very limited resources. She said at their food pantry, last month, they served 158 new families in four weeks. She said she was currently providing case management for 10 families, some of whom were homeless and some who were facing eviction at the end of the month.
She said she was in support, along with her agency, of the proposed facility that the Salvation Army would like to construct. It was difficult for her, as a provider, to have no place to send those who were either already homeless or facing homelessness. She said they received calls on the average of about 30 or 40 people a day, many of whom were facing potential evictions. She said she had been in her position for approximately ten months and had worked with approximately 1,200 families. She said the need was overwhelming and their agency was in support of any agency that was willing to tackle the problem of providing shelter because we would be a far safer community when people were being served effectively and efficiently.
Jim Schneider supported the site plan approval. He said he was on the Mayor’s Homeless Task Force and had been involved in several subcommittees that had surveyed other communities and programs. He said there were quality shelters and programs of less quality. He said he reviewed the Salvation Army’s plan and he rated the plan as a quality program for this community. He said the plan compared to some good programs in other communities and this program was a necessary part of the solution to homelessness in Lawrence. He said the Lawrence Housing Authority was an excellent part of the solution along with Bert Nash Mental Health Center.
Julie Mitchell submitted copies of petitions from residents who opposed the site plan at that location. She said there were 255 signatures on those petitions, 23 of those signatures were immediate property owners. She read the petition to the City Commission.
She said she had a lot of respect for the Salvation Army and at first she was not opposed to the proposed location, but when the Salvation Army spoke at their neighborhood meeting, they did not answer any questions.
She also pointed out that right now, on the Kansas Registered Offenders List, there were two registered sex offenders currently living at 946 New Hampshire
Carol Taylor supported the site plan proposal. She said the proposed facility would be supervised and she had no problem with the proposed site. She said she agreed there were liquor stores in the neighborhood, but this was a group that did not allow intoxicated people in their facility and the homeless were there anyway.
She said there were people who lived in Edgewood Homes who could not join the Brookcreek Neighborhood Association because they lived in Edgewood Homes and they were not considered a part of that neighborhood.
She said she supported the proposal and the Salvation Army had addressed some of the stormwater concerns. She said keeping the homeless downtown would not solve the problems because social services were all over Lawrence and the Social Rehabilitation Services were within four blocks.
She said transit services might not be running, but maybe more people would use the transit system if that was touted as a way of getting around.
Goldie Harmon said she lived in Homewood Gardens for approximately 60 years. She opposed the proposed location for the Salvation Army.
Michael Almon addressed some of the land use issues. He said as site planned this was not technically the place to discuss whether or not this facility could be built at that location. He said he did not think anyone would fault the Salvation Army for trying to provide services for the homeless or any social service agency. He said that was not the issue and that was not the concern of the neighborhood. He said there were two concerns. The first concern was that it was not fair and technically not legal under the zoning code for one party to benefit in establishing their rights for land uses at the detriment and suffering of adjacent property owners who had rights to use their property safely and effectively. In most cases, in the zoning code, the option was for someone to propose a land use in a location and the neighbors adjoining to either support the proposed land use or objected and in effect defeated the land use if enough neighbors opposed. In this case, the neighborhood had been denied that option and that was because of a technical loophole in the zoning ordinance. He said the neighbors wanted to bring up issues because there might be other ways to address this issue even if the City Commission approved the proposed site plan.
He said the Salvation Army had been providing good services for many years in their current location at 10th and New Hampshire Street. He said the problem was that the rest of downtown had moved in next door to the Salvation Army and that had become the motivation and the reason why they wanted the Salvation Army out of downtown.
He said, as far as the site plan, staff’s findings pointed out that this would be a permitted use under industrial zone. This wasn’t much more than a halfway house and he said the appropriate term would be “an attractive nuisance.” He said the facility would intentionally attract the police and vagrants. The more clients the Salvation Army had, the more funds they would receive.
He said there were 23 business owners and property owners adjacent to the site who had been in the area for 10 to 15 years and would need to put up security fences and lighting. He said the Salvation Army had taken no responsibility for anything that happened from their clients off site. He said if they want to turn away people who were intoxicated then the Salvation Army should take responsibility to provide transportation to those people. He had concerns about drainage, truck traffic, and parking
He suggested down zoning to commercial or residential to allow a fair review for the neighbors to have a legitimate legal say on the proposed site.
Mike Huff was concerned about stormwater run-off from the proposed structures. He was also concerned about homeless use of the abandoned railroad tracks and mentioned he lived near there and his backyard was adjacent to the abandoned tracks. He said the neighborhood was worried about their property value going down while their property taxes were going up. One other concern was law enforcement in the area. He said he was a Police Officer in law enforcement for 14 years. During that time, he worked with homeless people as a Sheriff’s Deputy in Osage County for five years. He said Lawrence was well known, nationwide, as a place for homeless people to go to. He was concerned about police presence like there was downtown with the bars and restaurants. He suggested a substation for the police department at 19th and Haskell.
Sharon Vaughn said several years ago she was on a committee that met with the Salvation Army as they were making their plans on where they would like to locate in the future. She said some of the same concerns that were voiced, were not answered at those meetings several years ago.
She said the Salvation Army served a lot of people in many good ways, but there were people who they chose not to serve. The people who the Salvation Army chose not to serve, the Salvation Armey was not responsible for. She had a concern on how those who were turned away would leave the neighborhood area.
She said on the other side of the coin not everyone was homeless for a noble reason. It was the City Commission’s responsibility as Commissioners to think about those situations.
She said a person told her that these types of issues were always in Brookcreek’s backyard. She said when nobody else wanted to deal with an issue, Brookcreek gets it. She said with a combination of County Government, School Board Government, and sometimes City Commission Government, their neighborhood had proposals for jails, public schools taken away, and they had everything that no one else wanted put in their neighborhood. She said the neighborhood wanted a safe and pleasant neighborhood.
She also had concerns about the stormwater run-off. She said this issue was a good idea, but a bad location.
Mary Sheppard said she was a homeless person and was helped by the Salvation Army services. She said the Salvation Army was doing the best they could. She said the people who the Salvation Army did not take care of, those people did not want to take care of themselves. She said the Salvation Army needed to be in a better place because the Salvation Army wanted to help those who wanted to help themselves.
Joe Takacs, Chairman of the Salvation Army Advisory Board answered Mayor Rundle’s original question concerning Neighborhood Associations. He said he had sent a brochure to the City Commission. In that brochure they pledged to continue to be a good neighbor and valuable resource to the public they served. He said the Salvation Army wanted to be an asset, not a liability. He said the Salvation Army planned on having a person on the Advisory Board that would work with each of the Neighborhood Associations.
Connie Hammer expressed concerns about why this needed to be in a residential neighborhood. She said the Salvation Army never seemed to answer any questions. She also had a concern about the people the Salvation Army would turn away.
She said no one was saying that the Salvation Army did a bad job. She said there needed to be a Salvation Army, but not in a residential neighborhood. She was concerned for her daughters. She said she did not allow her daughters downtown after dark because it was her job to protect them, but she asked what she should do when the downtown came to her backyard.
Mary Beth Harmon expressed concern about the bicycle trail. She said they enjoyed the bicycle trail that went out to 31st Street, but she understood that trail was going to go downtown and she wanted the Commission to take that into consideration.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked about the zoning history of this area and if the property had ever been zoned single-family residential in the past.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said staff could take a look at the 1966 map, but she did not have that answer.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked about the Brookcreek Neighborhood Plan in 1991. He asked if that plan recommended that this area be rezoned to single-family.
Finger said she did not know.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he understood the neighborhood’s concerns and he was not sure that was an ideal place for that type of facility. He had concerns about spreading services out, traffic, and people coming from downtown to this site, but what was before the City Commission was for the request for approval of a site plan. He said the City Commission’s options for approving or objecting the plan were narrow.
He also had some concerns about the stormwater impact of this project and he was not convinced that everything had been done to minimize the stormwater impact because there seemed that there were a lot of impervious surfaces added. He said given the conditions on the site plan that a stormwater prevention plan must be submitted with the site plan, he said he had to have trust in the City Stormwater Engineer that the project would not be approved if the project had an unacceptable stormwater conditions.
He said he applauded the Salvation Army for doing what they did to help the homeless population needs in Lawrence. Obviously, the Salvation Army did not meet all the needs of the homeless and he hoped that the Homeless Task Force could conclude its work and make progress towards a comprehensive approach in dealing with this issue in this community.
He said the Brookcreek neighborhood did get a disproportionate share of projects that had negative consequences. He said he lived a few blocks from downtown and when the Catholic Church had an overnight shelter, he did not experience any problems.
He was trusting that the Salvation Army would abide by its pledge to work with the neighborhoods to resolve any issue that came up and to try to minimize the impact that facility might have on the neighborhood. He could not enthusiastically support the proposal, but he supported the site plan.
Mayor Rundle said it would be a logical assumption that since he was the Chair of the Homeless Services Task Force, that he could address all of those concerns. He said the Task Force was underway and they were determined to address all of those issues that had been brought up in this context that were not solely going to be issues that were associated with this center.
He said he did not believe that the Salvation Army should necessarily serve every aspect of the homeless population. There was a special population of the chronic homeless as defined by federal standards that needed special supportive housing and we were likely to see that coming down the pike. He said there was a grant in the housing department for 10 units of housing that would give homes to 10 chronically homeless people. He said as the difficult part of the population were moved into housing, those units should open up for others.
He said he sat on the Commission in the late 1980’s when some of the industrial and businesses went into that proposed area. He said the people then spoke about trying to preserve this area as a family neighborhood and the neighborhood had slowly been chipped away. He said the people who strive to make those neighborhoods vital were the unsung hero’s of our community.
He said he hoped and pledged that they would work together as a community to make this an asset and he supported the site plan.
Commissioner Hack said she talked with Rich Forney about the proposed new site and the way he was going to change the operations of the Salvation Army.
She said technically this issue was a site plan review and not a use review. She said she was uncomfortable with some of the comments about the Salvation Army being pushed out to make for a better downtown and she did not think that was the case. She said this was a situation where the Salvation Army had looked at 19 different sites and this was a site that would provide many opportunities for many people.
Commissioner Schauner said he had some concerns about the technical loophole issue raised by Michael Almon. He said it concerned him with respect to this project and future projects. He said there was a lot of ground in this town which was zoned in a particular way which would permit uses like this and others which might be objectionable to neighbors about which neighbors might have little or no real say because this was just a technical review of a site plan as opposed to a use permitted upon review consideration. He said the City Commission had less flexibility than the neighbors clearly would like the City Commission to exercise.
He said he would like staff to look at the City’s zoning and use processes to make this sort of situation less likely to occur in the future. He said essentially not taking from neighbors the opportunity to have an active participation in discussing uses.
He said he did not think anyone would disagree that the homelessness issue was an intractable problem. If in fact we were looking at 40 or 50 additional families either becoming homeless or about to become homeless each week suggested that this particular project was not going to resolve the issue and at best a small step towards dealing with an increasingly difficult issue in our increasingly complex world in which more and more people were unable to unsuccessfully compete. He said he did support the site plan, but he also believed that we need, as a City, to look at our processes to ensure a greater voice to neighborhoods dealing with those issues as they might arise in the future.
Commissioner Dunfield said he would support this site plan, but he hoped to reduce the size of that service drive. He disagreed that this was a technical loophole in the zoning ordinance. He said this was precisely why we had the zoning ordinance so that there was predictability about what land uses were permitted and on what pieces of land.
He said the nature of what the Salvation Army was doing was going to make it difficult to gain approval to build anywhere and for the Salvation Army to have to rezone a piece of property in order to get that permission just added another hurdle and made it that much harder for this use to occur anywhere. He said the fact that the Salvation Army chose a piece of land that was zoned appropriately for their use was the way the process should work.
He said there had been a lot of characterization of homeless people, but homeless people were all of us. He said homeless people have problems, difficulties, and circumstances that they were struggling with, but they are just as likely good intentioned or ill-intentioned people as everyone in the room was.
Mayor Rundle said he did not keep in touch with Rich Forney during this process. He said he heard that concerns were not being addressed and he spoke to Forney at one of the Homeless Task Force meetings about the regulations being appropriate for this and they must do better at meeting with, identifying and addressing concerns, not simply satisfying the technical regulations. He said for this community center to be supported financially as well as in spirit by the neighbors was going to depend on addressing those concerns.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to approve the site plan (SP-04-21-04), subject to conditions, for a Salvation Army Community Complex to be located on the west side of Haskell Avenue between Lynn Street and Homewood Street, within M1-A (Light Industrial) and M-2 (General Industrial) Zoning District. Motion carried unanimously.
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement.
2. Submission of public improvement plans including sanitary sewer extension to property, 6’ wide sidewalk along Haskell Avenue, 5’ wide sidewalks along Lynn/Bullene/Homewood Streets, and for Homewood Street improvements to be built to city standards from Haskell Street past Homewood driveway entrance.
3. Provision of an Agreement Not to Protest the formation of a future Benefit District for street improvements to Homewood Street and for Bullene Street.
4. Provision for the existing utility easements which would be located under the proposed buildings to be vacated by either a separate document or a revised plat and document referenced on the site plan, prior to the release of the site plan to Neighborhood Resources for a building permit.
5. Dedication of the additional public right-of-way and 15’ x 15’ utility easement by either a separate instrument or a revised plat and dedication document referenced on the site plan (by separate instrument with Book and Page Number), prior to the release of the site plan to Neighborhood Resources for a building permit.
6. Per City Code Section 9-903(B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained.
Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to recess for 15 minutes.
Consider the mid year funding request from the Lawrence Juneteenth Celebration Planning Committee for $5,000 for the Family Festival portion of the planned event. Additional support for the event is requested from the following departments: Parks & Recreation, Police, and Fire & Medical.
Donna Bell, Lawrence Juneteenth Celebration Planning Committee, explained the funding request. She said Juneteenth served as a historical reminder of the ending of slavery. She said Lawrence would join more than 200 communities that were celebrating the significant milestone in our history. Based on the events planned, their objective was to bring together a diverse community and encourage respect and tolerance for one another and greater understanding. She reminded the City Commission of the events that would take place at this celebration.
She said the Committee was asking for $5,000 and planned on providing the funding for stage lighting and the generation of power, tables, and portable toilets. She said they had completed the reservation forms for the East Lawrence Center and Burcham Park and they would like to use those facilities at no cost. The also were requesting the support from Police and the Fire/Medical Departments because there presence would help in continuing to build a positive community relationship.
Mayor Rundle reviewed the Mid Year Funding Request Policy which included criteria in filling the gap in City services; meeting a City Commission or community goal; providing for a need in the community that was otherwise unmet; and helped leverage outside funds.
Commissioner Hack said she was excited about the celebration.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the funding request for the Lawrence Juneteenth Celebration Planning Committee for $5,000 for the Family Festival portion of the planned event. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Consider allowing the Amendment to Milestones for the Use Permitted Upon Review (UPR) at 805 Ohio Street as requested through September 2005.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said there was no additional information other than what was submitted concerning the amendment to the UPR for 805 Ohio Street.
Commissioner Hack asked if it was staff’s position that there was no problem with an extension, but the amount of time for the extension was too long.
Finger said that was correct. She said staff would like the extension to be one year and have a new ordinance in effect to offer a different opportunity to receive another UPR rather than amending the original UPR.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to allow the Amendment to Milestones for the UPR at 805 Ohio Street as requested through September 2005 (the Use Permitted upon Review for this adaptive reuse was approved in 1994 and set milestones for the temporary use of this house as a multi-family structure as well as for reconstruction deadlines for scheduled improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to adjourn at 9:20p.m. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 25, 2004
1. Bid – Kaw Water Plant Control Room & Rest Room Improvements to B.A. Green for $145,190.
2. Contract – 2004 Waterline Improvements to Nowak Construction for $521,738.10
3. Bid – 2004 Concrete Repair Program to Larking Excavating for $280,650.04.
4. Bid – Comprehensive Rehab Projects: 204 N Minnesota for $15,290 and 1206 W 29th for $34,373 and 1033 Rhode Island (Bid Rejected)
5. Bid – Hydraulic bending brake to American Machine Tools for $19, 945.
6. Bid Date – June 22 for 2004 Chip & Seal Program.
7. Ordinance No. 7713 – 2nd Reading, rezone (Z-08-29-03A) 7.1054 acres from A to O-1, S side of K-10 Hwy & W of O’Connell Rd.
8. Ordinance No. 7771 – 2nd Reading, rezone (Z-01-01-04) 8.726 acres from RS-1 to RS-2, E of Monterey Way & N of Stetson.
9. Ordinance No. 7773 – 2nd Reading, rezone (Z-12-52-03) 20.1309 acres from A to PRD-2, S side of K-10 W of O’Connell.
10. Site Plan – (SP-04-29-04) Bismarck Inn, indoor swimming pool, 1130 N 3rd.
11. Rezone – (Z-02-06-04) 11.5587 acres from B-3 to PCD-3, N or Clinton Pkwy & E of K-10 Hwy (SLT).
12. Subordination Agreements (2) – 1901 Barker Avenue, Saundra Scott.
13. City Manager’s Report.
14. Ordinance No. 7791, 1st Reading – No Parking along E side of Wisconsin between 5th & 6th.
15. Site Plan (SP-04-21-04) Salvation Army, W side of Haskell between Lynn & Homework within M1-A & M-2.
16. Funding Request – Lawrence Juneteenth Celebration Planning Committee for $5,000.
17. UPR – Amendment to Milestones for 805 Ohio.