June 15, 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.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed the month of June, as “Kansas Business Appreciation Month”; and the week of June 15 – 20 as “Lawrence Juneteenth Celebration.”
Mayor Rundle recognized the Lawrence Arts Commission’s 2004 Grant Award Recipients which were:
Organization Amount
Van Go Mobile Arts, Inc. $1000
Kansas Public Radio $700
Juneteenth Community Planning Committee $500
Lawrence Committee for the Advancement of the Visual Arts (Bert Nash) $500
Lawrence Civic Choir $500
Lawrence Children’s Choir $500
Ecumenical Ministers Fellowship $500
Langston Hughes Elementary School $500
Lawrence Art Collective $300
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of June 8, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve claims to 441 vendors in the amount of $2,777,487.05 and payroll from May 30, 2004 to June 12, 2004 in the amount of $1,431,612.29. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the retail liquor license for Stafford’s Liquor, 1906 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the purchase of in-car mobile systems for seven patrol cars from Motorola Direct, the sole vendor, for $58,403.45. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Shafer, Kline, and Warren, Inc., for the study phase services for the Anderson Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements, not to exceed $5,880. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with BG Consultants, Inc., for the study and design phase services for the 6th Street and Indiana Street Sanitary Sewer Improvements, not to exceed $23,724. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Delich, Roth, and Goodwillie, P.A., for study phase and engineering services for the following relief sewer studies: i) 21st Street, Ousdahl Road to 23rd Street and Naismith Drive, ii) 24th Street and Crossgate Drive, and iii) Wakarusa Drive and Harvard Road. The amount shall not exceed $51,331. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7794 rezoning (Z-02-06-04) 11.5587 acres from B-3 (Limited Business District) to PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District), property located north of Clinton Parkway and east of K-10 Highway (SLT). Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7790, establishing “no parking” along the east side of Kentucky Street from 15th Street south 85 feet. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7798, changing the street name of 16th Street, located between Wakarusa Drive and Research Park Drive) to Research Park Way. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Charter Ordinance No. 37, relating to trial proceedings in Lawrence Municipal Court, exempting the City from K.S.A. 12-4501 (pertaining to the Kansas Code of Procedure for Municipal Courts) and adopting substitute provisions in place thereof. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-03-14-04) a tract of land approximately 4.07 acres from A (Agriculture District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District). The property is generally described as being located south of West 6th Street (Highway 40) and west of East 1000 Road (Queens Road/Branchwood Drive extended); and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-04-15-04) a tract of land approximately 26.712 acres from A (Agriculture District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District). The property is generally described as being located north of Harvard Road (extended) and east of George Williams Way (extended); and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-11-20-03) for Foxfire Addition No. 5, a cul-de-sac realignment to the southern end of Burning Tree Drive, accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following condition:
1. Accept the dedication of rights-of-way and easements for the revised Burning Tree Drive cul-de-sac as shown on Foxfire Addition No. 5.
Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for L&S Investments, 1033 New Jersey Street. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said the City’s Management Team updated the departmental objectives associated with the City Commission’s goals and priorities.
Also, Wildgen informed the City Commission that through much work, David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, managed to close on the Orchards Golf Course and the City was now in possession of several easements. (13)
REGULAR AGENDA
Receive Public Improvement Task Force White Paper Report.
Commissioner Dunfield presented background information. He said the task force heard from several cities. He said like many processes like this it took more time than anticipated, but they had made good progress. He said there were some specific recommendations for the City Commission to consider and the Task Force also mapped out some next steps, beyond the immediate future.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, presented the Task Force’s recommendations. He explained the long-term and short-term recommendations. The short-term recommendations focused on amendments to the City’s Development Policy that staff believed were appropriate to consider. Those recommendations included the articulation of a policy which would be in writing where the deferral of a special assessment would be provided. He said to some extent, staff’s review of this issue had been overtaken by the City Commission’s direction on some public improvement projects, such as Folks Road, where staff had executed agreements for the deferral of special assessments on four tracks, three different property owners and also, direction in regards to deferral of special assessments for the improvement of 3rd Street. He said staff recommended a written policy be implemented in regards to this issue and the Task Force struggled with the issue that the City Commission had dealt with concerning when or when it would not be appropriate to consider.
Staff thought it would be valuable for the City to have written authority so that certain funds could be escrowed with the City for public improvements. Again, staff had followed that procedure in certain situations, primarily with larger development projects where there were funds from, for example, Home Depot for the improvement of 31st Street. The Home Depot provided the City with funds ahead of time, the City then executed an agreement to improve 31st and Iowa. The City also paid for a portion of those improvements. There was nothing in the development policy that would allow a property owner to escrow funds for a certain public improvement. The property owners could pay for an entire public improvement, but staff thought it was valuable for the City and many cases, the developer to be able to provide funds to the City for a certain public improvement. Those funds would be tied for that specific public improvement and expended on that public improvement within a reasonable time period. He said the City and developer would have an agreement where the developer would provide the funds and the City would spell out how those funds would be used. He said he thought that was a significant step up in practice versus those agreements not-to-protest a benefit districts where there was no financial contribution and many cases not an intention to do those improvements.
He said the third item the Task Force identified fell under the label “No development prior to public improvements.” Currently, the City did not have explicit City Code authority for the denial of building permits where the Commission had already indicated that they did not want development to occur until certain public improvements were in place and that idea should be explicit in the City Code. He said staff thought it was valuable to go an additional step further. He said the City Commission already had a comprehensive document that talked about needed public improvements in the community, the Capital Improvements Plan. The City Commission reviewed that plan annually and the Planning Commission spent a great deal of time in the review of that document to ensure that future public improvements were in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He said the Tasks Force’s recommendation was that in the Capital Improvement Plan, it would specifically say what development would be allowed with those particular improvements in place and also what development would not be allowed without those improvements. For example, the Capital Improvements Plan would speak toward the improvement of Franklin Road in the southeast area of the community. He said there were also development requests in that area at this time. He said there were not clear statements in the City’s planning documents as to what development should proceed until Franklin Road was improved. The Capital Improvement Plan forecasted that that was needed, but it did not say what development would be allowed in the absence of that improvement. By placing that statement in the Capital Improvement Plan, that statement would be telling property owners what public improvements needed to be in place so that the property owners could plan and make financial decisions accordingly and the statement would also be telling the City as to the plans for those public improvements. The Capital Improvement Plan was not a budget or did not financially commit the City to spend funds, but it was an important tie. He said this got back to the goal of adequate public facilities because a document was being used to forecast that public infrastructure and when development would be allowed based on that certain public infrastructure.
He said if the City Commission desired for staff to proceed, staff would come back to the City Commission with the development policy that was currently in resolution form, adopt that resolution as an ordinance, and include those amendments in that document.
He said the long-term recommendation was that the City would retain consultant services for a Cost of Growth Study and the general outline in the study objectives as to what the study would include and focus on. He said the Task Force also wanted to proceed with the recommendation that would come from that Task Force Report that outlined the various topics that would be reviewed.
He said there was also interest, as a long-term recommendation, that the City pursue watershed stormwater planning efforts. He said there had been a presentation from Chad Voigt, Stormwater Engineer, where Voigt detailed the success of the stormwater utility, but there were other advancements in the area of stormwater management where watersheds were being planned ahead of time similarly to how sanitary sewer watershed were being planned and the scope of study.
Commissioner Dunfield said there were three water related issues, the Water and Wastewater Rate Study which was an on-going process with Black & Veatch. He said the Task Force set that issue aside and they said the City Commission would make its determinations based on Black & Veatch’s work. He said although the costs implications would certainly be something that they would want the consultant to consider as there looking comprehensively at the cost of growth, it stood to the side in some ways. Stormwater also stood aside in that the City had a stormwater utility that was in place, but there was a next step that was partly driven by changes in the regulatory environment and partly based on good stormwater management practices. The Stormwater Engineer was working on those issues with or without the Public Improvement Task Force.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked whether sidewalks were included in public improvements that were considered that were to be in place before a building permit would be issued.
Corliss said he thought that could be done. He thought Vice Mayor Highberger was talking about the practical effect of the installation of a sidewalk. He said staff tried to recognize that idea, particularly on the non-single family home construction issues where there were apartments, commercial or industrial sites, property that had been site planned and staff had allowed for that private construction to proceed and not allow occupancy until the sidewalks were in. He said residential lot development was a challenge because a number of lots might sit and there might be sidewalk gaps for a number of years, but when a sidewalk was put in, in some cases the sidewalk would be damaged during residential construction.
Commissioner Dunfield said that was a good point because by the same token you don’t want to put the final surface on a street until the major construction work along that street had been completed. He said staff might need to make sure the language was clear.
Commissioner Schauner suggested escrowing the cost of the sidewalk installation as part of the escrow process.
Corliss asked the Commission to keep in mind that when the public improvements were constructed, even privately when the improvements were constructed in a development that the City required that those funds be escrowed with a private bank and those funds were then dispersed as the private contractor made the public improvements. Essentially, the requirement that no building permits be issued until public improvements were in place was in reality, no building permits would be issued until the City knew they had the money in hand to construct those public improvements. He said what usually happened was that the public improvements and the private development were concurrent. This language addressed the more regional issue of that they did not want to focus on the fact that in some situations the community did not want development to proceed.
Commissioner Schauner said the theory of the no development prior to public improvements concept was that the City wanted to be in front of the development rather than being pulled along by development that might had occurred without any input from the City-at-large. He said that was how he read the intent of this issue. He said it did seem that it would give the Capital Improvement Plan a lot more importance in terms of how it intersected with Horizon 2020 or other planning documents. He said it would require a lot more coordination of those documents in order for this issue to be effective or for us, as a City, to develop a vision of what we would want the City to look like and on what timetable it would operate.
Commissioner Dunfield said he thought Commissioner Schauner was saying that it made the Capital Improvement Plan a much more important document because it tied it much more integrally into the whole planning and development processes and that was part of the intent.
Commissioner Hack said the key term was that it was “menu” and it was not a method of financing. She said she believed the Commission wanted to direct where the City grew, but as the Commission looked at the urban growth area, those were privately owned pieces of property and there wasn’t a developer who would put the money into escrow to do those roads. She asked where that financing mechanism was.
Commissioner Dunfield said that would continue to be an issue and the next step was to get a more objective and comprehensive grasp of what those costs really were.
Commissioner Schauner said if the City was to levy a platting fee or some other form of excise tax to create a fund of money with which the City could build out those arterial streets as a way to direct where, as part of the City’s capital improvement process, planning an actual installation process. He said that would be one way of addressing where the money came from and the money would not all come from the developers pocket for that specific process it would come out of platting fees or other fees.
Mayor Rundle said it was important to remember that the Commission was discussing the short-term implementation. He said once staff received that costs for the growth study, no development prior to public improvements might not need anything else if that fund was in place. He said the City might have that major thoroughfare completely done in a new area and waiting for the development that would fill in at a later date.
Commissioner Schauner said if a nice arterial road was built, it was likely that people who own ground on either side of the road would want to build out that area because there would be transportation.
Commissioner Hack asked Commissioner Dunfield if he had in mind a mechanism for making those plans and was the cost/benefit of growth study going to take that mechanism into consideration.
Commissioner Dunfield said he didn’t know the answer to that question at this time.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the consultant would be a City Planner because one of the pieces of that consulting was the cost of building out infrastructure.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said what the Adequate Public Facilities Study had recommended to the Commission was that such a study could be conducted and consultants who did those types of studies were connected to the development community both public and private and they knew both sides of the equation.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Phil Struble, Public Improvement Task Force member, thanked the other members of the Committee. He commented on the “no building permit” until there was a public improvement recommendation. He said to remember that that was a 2 way street. He said there was a Capital Improvement Program, but what was really being discussed was Trail Riders Road. He said that was how far out in the future the City was thinking about solving problems.
He also commented on the consultant recommendation. He said he made contact with consultants in looking at those types of projects. He said he did not think they wanted to tackle the whole City. He suggested taking a digestible bite and solving those problems one at a time.
Commissioner Schauner asked what would a digestible bite look like
Struble said the problem the committee dealt with regularly were collector and arterial streets. He said those streets were problematic and cost the City.
Ron Durflinger, Public Improvement Task Force committee member, echoed Struble’s comments. He reiterated Struble’s comment about taking this issue in pieces rather than as a whole. He said he dealt with projects daily and if a person was to take down a list of what it took to build a house, it would be daunting. However, if compartmentalizing that list, that project would be done rather rapidly.
He said the road issue was primary. He said there were already mechanisms in place when planning for sewers, wastewater and parks, but if concentrating on the big issues that were the most expensive and accomplish those issues, then it would be easier to focus on other issues and it would also take less time to complete the project. He said it was important to coordinate the transportation planning with the sewer and wastewater improvement and get the school district involved to work together and keep those expenses to a minimum.
He said he agreed that there should be some type of financial structure put in place in order to make this issue happen. He said he had expressed his preference for impact fees for those financing mechanisms rather than excise taxes because those fees would be generated from the private sector as they brought forward development projects and as such, they need to look at that as an investment for their work. He said impact fees were directly attached to the issue at hand. An excise tax however, gets thrown into the general fund. He said there were concerns with other neighboring communities that excise tax monies might get diverted into other projects and the necessary infrastructure that they were led to believe was going to occur within a certain time period wasn’t occurring as expected and was disappointing. He said a direct tie through the use of impact fees rather than excise tax would be preferable.
He said the development community was at a critical point as far as the number of challenges it was facing due to cost. He said the community accepted the fact that they lived and worked in an economic pyramid which had a broad base of lower income and a small point at the top with the highest income levels and as prices were increased, large sections of the market were taken out.
He agreed that this was a planning situation that he supported. He thought transportation and infrastructure should be concentrated on in working together.
Commissioner Schauner said if a road was going to be built that was 31 feet wide and the likely build out of the area would not be handled by a 31 foot road, he asked Durflinger if we should know in advance what the density of that area was going to be as part of the decision making process.
Mayor Rundle asked Commissioner Schauner if he meant building the road full size initially, rather than expanding the road two or three times.
Durflinger used the analogy of building sewers. He said we don’t always build sewers to capacity because there were inherent problems that actually make it a waste of money. He said roads were a little different in that you would need to figure out how to amortize the cost of the road and the timeline of the development process.
Rich Minder, Public Improvement Task Force member, said from the School Districts perspective, they were entering into this conversation as a partner in the government process. As such, understanding what investments they made in public facilities and how they related to the investments the City made was important to more fully understand. He said this process was helpful in a sense that that conversation needed to continually deepened and become more clear where the direction of the City’s development was going, what were the problems and opportunities associated with the investments they made, and how their investment, likewise, impact the rate of development particularly in the City.
He said the school district would not be asking for a study that would detail the costs and benefits associated with various scenarios and public investments. He said a study of some sort, by the City, could inform them as to the problems and opportunities of their partnership and give them direction on how that conversation could be most productive for the citizens. He agreed that they should not bite off too much of a chunk, but he held out the position that when considering designing this study to ask the question how those sorts of investments, on the City side, impacted that conversation and relationship.
Commissioner Dunfield said the question of how comprehensive to be versus how much to limit the scope was one issue they struggled with. He said he did not think there was a majority sediment on the committee that they should restrict themselves to arterial and collector streets. On the other, in terms of when getting to the implementation portion of that study, they would certainly need to look at digestible bites. He said he thought it was the sense of the committee, in terms of looking at cost of services, that they look at fire stations and parks and think about the implications of some of those other large infrastructure needs because the feeling was, unless they had a fairly comprehensive picture of the costs and benefits, it would be hard to design those individual bites.
Commissioner Hack said in looking at the cost/benefit of all of those parts, she said they would need to look at that as a whole. She suggested not moving so quickly as to losing input, but move quickly enough to see some of those issues happening.
Commissioner Highberger thanked the Committee and wholeheartedly supported moving forward. He said as far as the question of bits and pieces, it seemed that one result was going to be to either have an impact fee or an excise tax. He said for his term on the City Commission he wanted to make sure that new growth would pay.
Commissioner Schauner echoed Highberger’s comments He said this might be the most important task force that had been created. He said it would impact the next 50 years worth of development because the decisions that they made, with respect of how and where the City grew and how that was financed, would be trickling down.
Mayor Rundle said he hoped they moved forward in the same type of manner that would get to a result, if not unanimously agreeable, at least mutually agreed that they were making progress. He said the Commission needed to be aware that these were major changes. He said this issue would need to be done in pieces, but with an overall plan. He said the Capital Improvement Plan was probably going to change. He said they needed to figure out where they were now as much as where they wanted to go and what would need to be done differently in the future.
He said staff should bring back an updated development policy and bring back a request for proposals.
Corliss said the Commission had the skeletal outline of the RFP in the report where staff tried to articulate what the scope of services would be for the consultant, but it needed to be refined. He said he made inquiries into communities that recently retained consultants to look at their scope of services.
Mayor Rundle suggested that someone from the Task Force be in on that discussion.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to receive the Public Improvement Task Force White Paper Report and direct staff to proceed with the short and long term recommendations as outlined in the white paper. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
Receive letter from Jane K.R. Graves concerning storm shelter/safe room issues.
Jane Graves, Lawrence, said warning sirens on average gave five to seven minutes of preparation time before a tornado strikes. It might be longer, as in the 2003 tornado when there was approximately 17 minutes of preparation time. She asked where did Lawrence citizens go when a tornado was on the ground. Last year, her husband, their then two-year-old daughter and she took shelter in a neighbor’s basement three blocks away. Although they had their belongings prepared in advance for a quick exit it still took several minutes to reach their neighbor’s house. She said when time was of essence, many people had nowhere safe to go.
She said thousands of Lawrence residents live in slab houses or apartment complexes without basements and according to research and tests even those who live in structures with basements might still be in danger from flying debris or collapsed ceilings.
She discussed safe rooms and storm shelters. She said much of that previous information, as well as the information she currently presented, was from the Safe Room and Community Shelter Resource CD from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It included recommendations from their project team composed of the engineering staff of FEMA’s mitigation directorate, consulting engineers from the private sector, wind engineering faculty from the Texas Tech, and the National Association of Home Builder Research Center.
She said there were two primary risk factors used to determine their risk of being threatened by an extreme wind event. One factor was the historical severity of wind events in this area and the second factor, the historical occurrence of severe wind events in this area. She presented graphs to the City Commission and explained the wind zones.
She said building codes required that buildings be able to withstand design wind events which was fine and acceptable during normal conditions or storms, but a tornado could cause winds much greater than what homes and buildings were designed to withstand. The bottom line was if a person was not in a storm shelter designed for wind speeds up to 250 mph during a tornado, a person would face a high risk of injury or death.
She also presented graphs to the City Commission depicting the aftermath of the 2003 tornado that hit Lawrence. She said Lawrence was lucky that no one was killed. She said there was an unusually long amount of time to prepare and seek shelter and it was a category F2 tornado so it wasn’t one of the most severe events, but would Lawrence be so lucky next time.
She had a concern about where school children would go during a tornado. She said school officials do the best they could to protect children during a tornado with the resources they had. However, there was more information now then there was when the schools were built before. She said from research and testing that the safest place to be during a tornado was in a specially designed storm shelter. She said now that this information was known new schools could be built to provide children the safety they deserved.
She said we could decide to use knowledge about safe rooms and the resources available to save lives from future tornados and high wind events. She said it was now known that residential safe rooms and shelters were the most effective way to provide “near absolute protection” for individuals and families.
She said FEMA had free plans to our community builders to put shelters in schools, homes, and apartments. She said it was much less expensive and easier to build a shelter in a new construction rather than trying to retro-fit. Also, FEMA recommended having the safe rooms inside a dwelling so that it was more likely to be used and easier to get to during severe weather. She said the cost for safe rooms varies, but those rooms could be as inexpensive as $2,000 for a slab on grade in ground construction. If a home cost $120,000 to build, this would amount to 1.6 percent of the cost. She said for school construction the cost would be approximately $100 per square foot. In areas designed to also serve as a storm shelter, such as hallways, library, or a multi-purpose room, the construction cost would be an additional $30 to $40 per square foot.
She said once again, seen in the research provided from FEMA, wind engineers, consulting engineers, and the National Association of Home Builders Research Center, that safe rooms were the most effective way to provide “near absolute protection” for individuals and families. She said this was a chance to make a change before a disaster occurs. She asked that the City Commission approve a new ordinance for construction or an amendment to the current building code as followed: “Every new dwelling and new school, built within the City of Lawrence, shall include or provide immediate access to an underground storm shelter or safe room meeting FEMA standards.”
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Ron Durflinger said he did not want to say anything “for” or “against” this idea, but he would like to provide some information to the City Commission. He said so many times when the City Commission looked at decision that were brought before them, the Commission saw snap shots of a problem and the Commission was expected to create a solution. However, when stringing all those snap shots together to get a big picture, the solution that was originally chosen might not have been quite as appropriate.
He said what FEMA estimated, on the cost of a slab house for the reinforced concrete shelter at $3,500, was in line. However, you had suddenly created approximately 24 square feet of additional space in that house. As Commissioner Dunfield could attest, sometimes we start chasing that space and it created more space. He said this idea was not as easy as it looked and it required a lot of work.
He said in the 30 plus years that he had lived here, a tornado had touched the City of Lawrence on June 19, 1981 and May 8, 2003. He said this was a risk assessment issue and it would have some cost, but the true cost would be considerably higher.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the Planning Commission was very interested in seeing some type of requirement for a shelter as they reviewed the draft Subdivision Regulations.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if the Planning Commission was interested in looking at requirements for individual structures or subdivisions.
Finger said requirements for slab subdivisions.
Commissioner Dunfield said this was a difficult issue. He said people were generally not good at understanding levels of risk. He said he was not sure that he understood, in the case of tornados, just how much we were at risk in comparison to other things that we experience. He said every time he stepped into his car, he was putting himself more at risk, than he would ever be, from a tornado. He was pretty sure that nobody in the room had ever lived in a place that would survive a direct hit from an F5 tornado. He said he was having trouble knowing how to respond to this issue in terms of evaluating the cost versus the risk. He said he did not know whether the extent of the risk was sufficient to justify the expenses, regulations, and affordability. He said he would be interested in hearing more from the Planning Commission and more about the risk assessment factor.
Mayor Rundle said it was interesting to hear that the Planning Commission was interested in incorporating this issue into the review of the Subdivision Regulations. He said when there was the building code review to discuss the International Code, there were a number of points of interest that came up such as adopting an energy code. He said there was quite an extensive family of International Codes in addition to the basic codes. He said it was possible that another group might take on one or more of those additional codes and this issue could possibly be rolled into a committee. He said he thought this issue deserved some sort of process that would produce a thorough study.
He said some of the Habitat houses did have safe rooms and that was an organization that was concerned about affordability of housing, but yet that organization some how managed to incorporate those safe rooms into their buildings and not put the affordability at risk, but they might had made the type of compromise that Durflinger discussed. He said if the Planning Commission would like to take this issue on and get a thorough review, it should be done. If this issue seemed more appropriate for a building code type of discussion, than there would be some opportunities because people were continually asking the Commission to consider the energy code.
Vice Mayor Highberger thanked Graves for her thorough and well-researched presentation. He said he was not ready to approve a requirement for a safe room in every single family dwelling. He said from gut feeling, he thought the cost would be high and the risk was low. He said he was interested in seeing some safe room requirement for multi-family dwellings larger than duplexes and certainly with slab subdivisions.
He said installation of a safe room in an existing home was dramatically larger than the numbers presented. He said one of his concerns was affordable housing. He said if they required safe rooms it would create another barrier to affordable housing. He did not support a blanket requirement, but he supported safe rooms for multi-family housing.
Commissioner Hack said she echoed Vice Mayor Highberger’s comments regarding Graves presentation. She said it was important for the community to remember that sirens were not the only warning factor. She said the community needed to become more aware of radio communications so that they were not relying on a siren. She said if the Planning Commission was willing to address this issue, she was willing to listen and learn more.
She understood that every $1,000 that was added on to the cost of a house, a group of people was driven out of the market.
Commissioner Schauner agreed with Commissioners Dunfield and Highberger in that you can’t take all the risk out of life. He said it was a matter of trying to assess what was reasonable risk and what wasn’t.
He said with respect to multi-family dwelling, he would like to see the Planning Commission look at Subdivision Regulations and make some recommendations with respect to providing shelter to citizens in those places that had nowhere to go in case of a bad weather event. He said he would like to see more information from the Planning Commission and perhaps some building code work. He said there was not enough information to create an ordinance at this point.
Vice Mayor Highberger said the subdivision question would be an issue for the Planning Commission, but the other possibility of requiring shelter for multi-family dwelling could be addressed through an ordinance.
Finger said when you talk about it not being related to the division of property that could not fall within the Subdivision Regulations.
Mayor Rundle suggested that staff take a look at addressing some of those concerns.
Wildgen suggested sending information to the school district and homebuilders for their comments. Also, he suggested sending those issues to the appropriate code boards that were reviewing the new codes.
Mayor Rundle said it seemed they were placing more work on the code board. He said since that code board had the task ahead of them of going through the actual details of the codes that were recommended, there might be another committee that could take that task or at least wait until the code board finished the task that was ahead of them.
Corliss said the code board had not done the usual staff work as far as contacting the other communities or looking at other practices, but he was sure there was a lot of good information out there. He said they had not looked to see if there was any differentiation in how communities responded in the Midwest.
He was not sure how the subdivision regulations would work as a tool. He asked if the Planning Commission was talking about requiring certain public improvement related to this issue.
Finger said the Planning Commission had not discussed this issue to any length. She said what the Planning Commission had talked about related to plats. She thought they might be talking about a track set aside for a public use or public shelter such as in a mobile home park where that type of community facility was required.
Corliss suggested more staff research and analyses on what other communities had done. He also suggested sending this issue to those stakeholders as Wildgen had mentioned.
Commissioner Schauner said part of that discussion could be looking at what other communities had done in this general wind risk area about roof tie down construction and to what wind load did we build current structures and whether that was enough or not. He said maybe there was a step between having a safe room or an in ground storm shelter.
Finger suggested that Paula Phillips, Douglas County Emergency Management, could also provide input. (15)
Conduct a public hearing on the proposed special assessment benefit district for the construction of Lake Pointe Drive, north of Clinton Parkway.
Mayor Rundle called a public hearing on the proposed special assessments benefit district.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said Lake Pointe Drive was a collector street and would be 31 feet wide from back of curb to back curb with six foot sidewalks on both sides. The street was not identified on the bicycle facilities map as either a bike route or a bike lane facility. Intersection improvements would be evaluated at Clinton Parkway for safety, efficiency, and capacity and would include a roundabout, signal, and other geometric improvements. He said the estimated cost of those improvements was $1,166,000 and the method of assessment was based on front footage. The benefit district would pay 100% of the cost. He said the property owners were in concurrence with the benefit district and staff had prepared the resolution in advance if the City Commission so directed.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Upon receiving no public comment, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt Resolution No. 6550, setting out the findings and determination of the Governing Body of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, and ordering the construction of Lake Pointe Drive from the intersection of 22nd Terrance, south to Clinton Parkway including property acquisition, traffic calming/control devices, intersection improvements at Clinton Parkway and Lake Pointe Drive, bicycle facilities, subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, and other necessary and appropriate improvements. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Receive Black & Veatch & Veatch Executive Summary and attachments regarding Wastewater Systems for Southeast Area.
Wildgen said this report would be sent to the County Commission for their review.
Commission Dunfield said he was satisfied with the report.
Commissioner Schauner had a question about adequate public facilities. He said this was going to be a big area of growth in this City for a number of years. He said the Commission was on the verge of making decisions about the infrastructure in this quadrant which they would be making under current practices and not taking into account what they might be doing in terms of adequate public facilities in the future. He said he wished the timing was different on this issue and more ground would be developed, adding infrastructure, without the benefit of doing this differently.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Mayor Rundle asked if any of the short-term policy developments were relevant to this issue.
Corliss said some of the short-term policy developments would be relevant as you see some of the development requests come in. He said in the case of Franklin Road, there would be questions when development requests were received in relationship to how much of that area should develop prior to Franklin Road. A lot of those decisions had already been made as far as acquisition of the property and submission of rezoning and annexation requests. He said the deferral of special assessments would probably be a valuable tool with the property owners in that area. One of the large property owners was the Youth Ranch and they had not indicated any interest to develop and they indicated a strong interest to stay away from the costs of development. He said he did not think that this development would hinder the Commission ability to reflect the values of adequate public facilities as the Commission received those request.
Commissioner Schauner asked Corliss what he meant when he said “reflect the values.”
Corliss said one of those strong values coming out of the Adequate Public Facilities Report and the White Paper was that staff wanted to ensure that they had planning and financing mechanisms in place for major public improvements. In this case, the first major public improvement was sanitary sewers. He said there would be struggles with Franklin Road and the development of 31st Street, but if looking at the time horizon on the schedule map, those plans were years out. He said hopefully staff would have some of those additional tools and financing mechanisms in place to give the Commission those options.
Commissioner Schauner said this issue did speak to the urgency in working on those short-term goals so there were better tools to work with in addressing issues like Franklin Road.
Moved by Rundle, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Black & Veatch Executive Summary and attachments regarding Wastewater Systems for the Southeast Area and direct staff to proceed with the development of a City/County agreement. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
Receive correspondence from the Lawrence Farmer’s Market regarding future relocation and improvements to the Farmer’s market.
Barbara Clark, Chair, Lawrence Farmers Market Board of Directors, said over the past three years the Market had researched the possibility of finding a new location that would afford them to grow both their vendor and patron base. During that time, they heard individually from many Commissioners and long-time patrons on the value placed on the Downtown Lawrence Farmers Market within this community. She said there was a long-standing, 30 year tradition, of the Market not only for filling its role as a place where important food links were created between farmers and consumers, but where a strong social fabric was woven in this community. The common bond of food brought members from the Lawrence community together in a welcoming, positive environment that in their opinion deserved considerable nurturing.
The Saturday bustling atmosphere and full stalls gave the impression of health and vigor, but behind the scene, administrative issues were more telling. For many years the Market had not been able to offer all their farm applicant’s permanent stalls. Some of their large scaled vendors had requested additional stalls to display and sell their inventory and the Market had been forced to deny those requests. It was extremely difficult to ask vendors to come to market and wait to be placed as a floater. A floater was a committed vendor who had paid for a seasons pass, but did not have the assurance of a permanent stall assignment. Those severe limitations had capped all growth potential for the Downtown Lawrence Farmers Market.
As she stated earlier, the individual endorsement the Market received and the expressed desire of their vendors motivated them to move forward. She knew that some of the current Commissioners had visions of a future that included a permanent sheltered home for the market, one that would meet its present needs and allow for continued future growth.
She said the Lawrence Farmers Market would like to seek the start of a collective process, one that incorporated vendors, City officials and staff, business owners, and community members. It was their hope that through a task force including some of those visionary individuals that just such a future could be achieved for the Downtown Lawrence Farmers Market. She said the Market respectfully asked that the Commission consider forming a group to start the implementation of that process. She said it was the Market’s belief that there was a way to allow the Market to reach its potential while at the same time enhancing both the community and Cityscape of Downtown Lawrence.
Emily Miller, Market Coordinator, said the initial reason the Market considered relocation this year was because of waterline construction on streets surrounding the market and that was still a concern, but in addition to that issue, there were limitations at their existing location. The primary example was the 64 stall spaces at the current location and this year the Market received 85 stall requests from their vendors. She said they host a total of 69 vendors and 12 of those vendors were participating on a floating basis. Their membership was growing as they had 6 new vendors ready to participate in the Farmers Market this season, but no room to accommodate those vendors on a permanent basis. She said in past years Market registration had peaked at 88 vendors in 2003 and 90 vendors in 2002.
She said aside from the strain on their membership, the Market faced limitations in terms of visibility and parking for their customers. During the past year, the Market had been working to create a vision for growth and development of the Farmers Market. She said they had received a grant from USDA , Kansas Department of Commerce and Kansas State University last year to research and develop a business plan for the Farmers Market. A steering committee was formed of vendors and patrons and over much research the Market had came up with a plan that addressed market organization, marketing a promotional strategies, communication, and relocation. In the implementation of this plan they hoped to further integrate into the Lawrence community.
She said they took a survey of their vendors this May, in the face of the waterline construction issue, and asked who was open to relocation. She said 67 of their 69 vendors were open to relocation and waterline construction was their primary concern. Vendors also expressed a desire to create a new home for the Market on a permanent basis in addition to more permanent stalls for their vendors. She said the vendors were interested in an open air covered structure to protect them from the heat of Tuesday and Thursday afternoon’s and the rains that came on an unexpected basis along with running water, electricity and a room for the elderly to sit and rest in the shade.
The vision they wanted to create of Downtown Farmers Market was that they were a destination event, gathering place, and a community center. Therefore, their effort was to involve in their task force, members of the City Commission and Downtown Lawrence to develop that vision. She said they wanted to clarify that they were a Downtown Lawrence Farmers Market and they fully intended to stay downtown because they valued the sponsorship of DLI and they considered their Market as part of the heart of this City. She said they took pride in bringing over 2,000 patrons to Downtown Lawrence on a Saturday and they wanted to continue to provide this healthful activity for Lawrence as a community.
Amie Redington, Liaison, Downtown Lawrence Inc., said the DLI fully supported the Farmers Market request for the City’s help and assistance in finding a permanent home for the Market downtown.
Mayor Rundle asked about the outcome of the research and development of a business plan for the Farmers Market.
Miller said the outcome was an official business plan. One of the key issues they found in their research about the success of farmers markets was visibility and being in the center of activity of a community and that was why a location became a primary consideration for the Lawrence Farmers Market in developing growth. She said they addressed a process in the business plan for relocation that included some of the process they had done so far in interviewing their vendors and talking with members of the downtown Lawrence community. She said they thought it would take more members of the community and a longer time process to really come up with the best outcome. She said the Market was seeking assistance in terms of identifying options, assisting them in a decision, and implementation.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Jerry Jost, Farmers Market, patron of the Farmers Market, said he was involved with some of the business planning. He talked about the history of farmers markets, the roles markets play in communities in comparisons to other markets, and then summarized a brief vision statement.
He read some research that was done by a graduate student at Kansas State University who studied markets across this State. It read:
“Farmers markets tend to draw people downtown that otherwise would not be there. Many of these people as well as vendors will then shop in surrounding stores because they are convenient. The result is favorable attitudes about the downtown among consumers and vendors.”
He said as a personal vision, he envisioned the Lawrence Farmers Market as a destination place. It was a place where you bring friends when you visit Lawrence. He said with beautiful permanent shelters and shady spaces, it was a friendly place to meet with friends and neighbors. Kids came to have fun and eat healthy foods and citizens came to learn what they could do to make our community a great place to live. He said he envisioned a market that partners with downtown business to create a lasting cultural center for this community.
John Pendleton said he farmed halfway between Lawrence and Eudora and they had participated in the Lawrence Farmers Market 22 years ago. He said every change that had come through the Farmers Market over the 22 years had been changes that had been talked about, well deliberated, and not always agreed upon. He said the Farmers Market had become an important part of many of the vendors’ income. He said a person would think that he, as a long time grower, would not be so interested in having more competition, but the Market needed more vendors. He said they desperately needed more parking for their customers and covered stalls would be icing on the cake. He also saw a need for bathrooms for sanitary reasons.
Commissioner Hack said she would love to serve on a task force. She would like to see what the Commission could do to help the Market be the best that it could be to meet the needs of the community.
Commissioner Schauner also volunteered to serve on a task force.
Mayor Rundle said the willingness to put the Markets move off this summer, even though they were still facing those risk of people not finding the Market or people not willing to take on small inconvenience, was a sign that the Farmers Market really did want to work this issue out in a way that was mutually satisfying.
Commissioner Dunfield said he strongly supported the Farmers Market. He favored a permanent home for the Market and the destination would be a great goal. He said concerning the question of parking, one of the reasons the Farmers Market worked so well and was so successful was that it made use of parking that was under utilized at certain times. He said on Saturday mornings, downtown, there was not a lot of competition for parking spaces. He said it was important to understand that when talking about parking downtown that sharing parking among different uses was absolutely essential to making the downtown work.
Commissioner Schauner said he also would like to serve on the task force (18)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 8:45. Motion carried
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 15, 2004
1. Purchase – in-car mobile systems for 7 patrol cars from Motorola Direct for $58,403.45.
2. Contract – Anderson Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements to Shafer, Kline, & Warren, not to exceed $5,880.
3. Contract – Study & Design phase services for 6th and Indiana Street Sanitary Improvements for $23,724.
4. Contract – Relief Sewer Studies to Delich, Roth & Goodwille for $51,331.
5. Ordinance No. 7794 – 1st Reading, Rezone (Z-02-06-04) 11.5587 acres from B-3 to PCD-2, N of Clinton Pkwy & E of K-10 Hwy (SLT)
6. Ordinance No. 7790 – 1st Reading, “No Parking” E side of Kentucky from 15th, S 85’.
7. Ordinance No. 7798 – 1st Reading, street name change from 16th, between Wakarusa & Research Park Dr., to Research Park Way.
8. Charter Ordinance No. 37 – Municipal Court, trail proceedings.
9. Rezone (Z-03-14-04) 4.07 acres, A to RS-2, S of W 6th & W of E 1000 Rd.
10. Rezone (Z-04-15-04) 26.712 acres from A to RS-2, N of Harvard & E of George Williams Way.
11. Final Plat (PF-11-30-03) Foxfire Add No. 5, cul-de-sac realignment to S end of Burning Tree Dr.
12. Mortgage Release – L&S Investments, 1033 New Jersey.
13. City Manager’s Report.
14. Public Improvement Task Force White Paper Report.
15. Storm Shelter/Safe Room issues.
16. Benefit District Public Hearing – Lake Pointe, N of Clinton Pkwy.
17. Wastewater Systems for SE Area, Black & Veatch.
18. Lawrence Farmer’s Market future location.