June 29, 2004 Meeting Minutes

July, 6, 2004

The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence, met in regular session at 5:30 p.m. and then recessed in executive session in the City Manager’s conference room to discuss the possible acquisition of real estate with the justification for the executive session to keep possible terms of real estate acquisition confidential at this time.

After returning from executive session, the Board of Commissioners met in regular session at 6:45 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Rundle presiding and members Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, and Schauner present.

Site plan (SP-05-33-04) for a new rear patio and 2^nd story deck for Quinton’s Bar & Deli, located at 615 Massachusetts Street was removed from the consent agenda for one week. (1)

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of June 29, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to receive the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of April 1, 2004 and May 6, 2004; and, the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of May 12, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve claims to 292 vendors in the amount of $961,037.27. Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for The Sandbar, 17 East 8^th; Pancho’s Mexican Restaurant, 711 West 23^rd, Ste: 28; the Caterer License for Krause Catering, 700 Massachusetts; the Retail Liquor Licenses for Ray’s Liquor Warehouse, 1215 West 6^th; and Ray’s Wine & Spirits, 731 Wakarusa, Ste: 107. Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Program for 2104 Tennessee and 1628 East 19^th Terrace for the Neighborhood Resources Department. The bids were:

BIDDER 2104 TENNESSEE 1628 EAST 18^TH TERR

General Construction, Inc. $30,963 $19,688

Master Plan Management $34,330 $22,840

Old Home Depot, Inc. $17,173

Clovis Construction $21,850

Staff Estimate $29,500 $25,000

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to award the bid for 2104 Tennessee to General Construction, Inc., in the amount of $30,963; and 1628 East 18^th Terrace to Old Home Depot, Inc., in the amount of $17,173. Motion carried unanimously. (2)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7792, rezoning (Z-02-04-04) 1.01 acres, from C-3 (Intensive Industrial District) to RO-2 (Residence Office District), property located at Lots 231, 233, 235, 237, 239, 241, 243, 245, 247, 249, 251, 253, 255, 257, 259, & 261 of the plat recorded in 1869 named the south half of block five, City of North Lawrence. Motion carried unanimously. (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7801, changing the name 25^th Terrace (within Fairfield Farms West Addition) to 25^th Place, and changing the name 25^th Street (within Fairfield Farms West Addition) to 25^th Terrace. Motion carried unanimously. (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the temporary use permit (TUPR-06-20-04) for a fundraising event which will take place on Saturday, July 17, from 5:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., at Meadowbrook, located at the intersection of 15^th and Crestline Drive, subject to the following conditions:

1. Tents shall not be within 20’ of property lines, buildings or parking;

2. Tents must be certified flame retardant;

3. Provide 2A1OBC portable fire extinguisher;

4. “No Smoking” signs must be posted and enforced;

5. No open flame devices or cooking permitted within the tent;

6. If walls are provided, Exit signs, emergency lighting and proper exit openings must be provided

7. Signs displayed in conjunction with this use shall comply with City sign regulations and shall not be located on public right of way. Signs for this activity can only be displayed during hours of operation

8. Provide personnel for traffic control/direction to assist in parking vehicles in the area

9. Comply with all alcohol related laws; and

10. Clean up any mud on adjacent sidewalks or streets which results from use of grass parking areas.

Motion carried unanimously (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to sign a Subordination Agreement for Barbara Wiseman, 1032 Lawrence Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. (6)

Jason Boots, K.U. Student, pulled from the consent agenda Ordinance No. 7796, establishing requirements for the picketing and tethering of dogs.

Boots had concerns about the definitions of the dangerous dog portion of the ordinance 3-301(B) which read: “Any dog which in a viscous or threatening manner, approaches any person in apparent attack upon the person while on the streets, sidewalks, or any public ground or places; or on private property.” He said that added language seemed inclusive of the entire City. He said in principle what was needed was “on private property outdoors” to make sure children were safe in other people’s yards when chasing after a ball. He said it seemed fair that a lot of times people use their dogs to protect their homes and people should have the ability to protect their homes when an invader has actually entered their house. He said that would not prove as a dangerous dog if someone were to enter their house. He suggested a wording change to make it “private outdoor property” or “private property outdoors.”

Mayor Rundle asked if his latter concern was a dog guarding personal property.

Boots said correct, guarding inside the person’s house.

Mayor Rundle said it was his understanding that there was language elsewhere in the ordinance that addressed legitimate behavior of a dog on private property being provoked or guarding an individual.

Boots said the language was not clear enough. He said the ordinance needed to be cleaner.

Patricia Sinclair said there had been problems on her block with dangerous dogs, biting dogs, mistreated, or perhaps dogs made vicious through tethering. She said across the street there was animal abuse. The problem was that an animal control officer would need to observe, for a continuous period of time, that the dog was continuously tied which made it difficult to determine unless the house was staked out for a day. She said those dogs unfortunately remained with the abusive owner. She said her reading of this ordinance seemed to say that a dangerous dog “bites” or “attacks” would be a dangerous dog.

She said there was a situation within the last few weeks where the letter carrier was attacked, but nothing happened to that person except the dog had to be quarantined because the dog did not have his shots for rabies. There was no penalty and the dog was back on the tether or in the house with small children on the block.

She said she talked to the animal control officer at the police department and was told that there would need to be an attack, not a bite, for the dog to be considered a dangerous dog, but when reading the ordinance, it seemed to say “bite” or “attack.” She said she thought it was and “attack.” She said an attack being defined by, “the dog isn’t the one who chooses when it’s over.” A bite would be a bite and that the dog retreats. If there was any confusion in the City Commission’s mind about this issue, she hoped it was clarified for enforcement purposes because she was unhappy with having that dog back on her block. She said she felt sorry for the dog because reportedly the dog had been tethered most of his life or kept in the basement.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he initially shared Boots’ concerns, but staff pointed out a section of the code that said: “no dog may be declared dangerous if any injury or damage is sustained by a person or animal who at the time such injury or damage was sustained, was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner.” He said that language addresses those concerns that were raised by Boots.

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7796, establishing requirements for the picketing and tethering of dogs and amending the definition of dangerous dog; all in the Animal Control Code. Motion carried unanimously. (7)

REGULAR AGENDA

During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said the City’s Household Hazardous Waste Facility received a small (8 oz) glass container of crystallized picric acid included within a larger mixed load of household hazardous waste. Picric acid, when crystallized, is extremely unstable and very explosive. He said because of staff’s training, the situation was taken care of without any public safety issue. He said staff did a great job.

He also presented pictures to the City Commission concerning Friday’s weather event. He said various Public Works crews took care of channel work and police, and public safety helped get people to safety.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there were any of those open ditches, based on the last episode that could use some clearing or other work.

Wildgen said probably. He said staff received a call from some residents south of Harvard that asked for tree and channel work.

Also, he informed the City Commission that the work at 933 Rhode Island was progressing, but it was not quite on time.

Commissioner Schauner asked Wildgen about the vehicle hybrid portion of the City Manager’s Report. He said he would like to see some analysis of whether part of the City’s current fleet of vehicles would be good candidates for becoming hybrid vehicles. He said staff could look at the whole fleet to see which of those vehicles, when replaced, would be good candidates for replacing with hybrid vehicles.

Mayor Rundle said the fact that there were no accidents last Friday, reflected that the Commission could give credit to the fact that staff was working on stormwater projects. He said the City Commission acknowledged that the City made it through the flash flood without any problems. (8)

REGULAR AGENDA

Discuss with the Board of County Commissioners economic development issues related to the Farmland site.

Mayor Rundle said the Commission was interested in the economic development issues related to the Farmland site. He said he wanted staff to secure further expertise on this issue. He said at this point, the Commission would let Charles Jones, County Commissioner, and his leadership role continue to take whatever action, in terms of research, and bring items back to the City Commission for further discussion.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Danny Drungilas, Prairie Park neighborhood, said he would like to offer to the City and County Commissioners his group as a point of contact to get feedback on the neighborhood on what happened with the Farmland properties and that possible development.

Vice Mayor Highberger said that the City Commission encouraged any input from their neighborhood.

Commissioner Dunfield said he appreciated the offer, but at this point this issue was a research project. He said there might have been some expectation of dramatic actions, but this issue was quite a long way from that type of action on this particular issue.

Mayor Rundle said it would be good for Drungilas’ group to meet with Jones so that he was aware of any concerns or issues. (9)

Receive staff report from Victor Torres, Director of Neighborhood Resources, regarding proposed amendments to the health and sanitation code and consider adopting Ordinance No. 7802, amending Chapter 9 of the City of Lawrence code.

Victor Torres, Director of Neighborhood Resources, presented a summary of the proposed ordinance. He said changes in Section 9-203 and 9-204 were due to the current changes in the current state statute. He said more specifically were items addressing abatement of nuisances, notices, collection of costs, and procedure. Overall, it was a more formal process that talked about the governing body making the process move forward by removing the abated item from the property.

He said Section 9-103(b) the language talked about the timeframe, extensions, and process of certified mail that was what staff currently used.

He said in 9-204 the language dealt with the collection of costs that were incurred during the abatement removal, providing a notice and the cost that could be collected by the City and charged against the tax role of the property itself. He said in both of those sections of the ordinance were state statutes that changed last year and staff was conforming to those existing state statutes.

In section 9-407 spoke to the removal of trash receptacles and a specific time frame for removing those receptacles. He said currently staff ran into issues where trash containers remained on the curb all week long and there were no provisions in the code for addressing that type of issue. He said by including a specific timeframe from when the trash receptacles were placed on the curb and the trash was picked up, would help staff in their enforcement action. Staff would be able to make contact with the property owner and notify the property owner of the timeframe requirement.

Mayor Rundle asked if that section of language was taken from the Sanitation Department’s code.

Torres said the definition of trash receptacle was out of the sanitation code.

In section 9-603.2 was the definition section of this code. He said there were a number of definitions that staff had added and in some cases the definitions had been modified to make the language more clear for enforcement actions. He said for example, 9-603.2(H): Definitions on driveway surfaces and what constituted a driveway surfaces. He said staff had encountered some events where there was dispute about what was a driveway surface and again, this definition was similar to the existing code in the Public Works section of the City Code.

He said the term furniture, 9-603.2(J), was a new item in the definition section which spoke to furniture such as couches on front porches. He said the term furniture was defined as “outdoor shall mean weather-resistant furniture designed and manufactured for outdoor use.” He said that way there was no misunderstanding of what staff was referring to when talking about whether resistant furniture and its design. He said there had been numerous complaints to his department and the way the code was currently written, staff was unable to take any action.

He also informed the Commission that Section 9-603.2 (K) concerning garbage was amended to agree with the existing code.

He said in Section 9-603.2(P) the definition of “porch” was a new definition to the code which stated: “A structure adjoining an entrance to a building which is not fully enclosed by permanent walls and/or windows.”

In Section 9-603.2 (R), protective treatment had been defined because there had been some issues of dispute over that term “protective treatment” and what type of wood would require that type of treatment. He said by including that definition in the code it would resolve that issue.

He said “refuse” was in the existing section of the Sanitation Code so that there were similarities in the definitions.

In Section 9-603.2(W) concerning the definition of trash receptacles was more specific than the code itself. That section was part of the Public Work’s section of the code and staff wanted to be consistent with the terminology.

He said in Section 9-605 concerning enforcement standards, staff was proposing to strike language “of a quality and appearance not commensurate with the character of the neighborhood,” and replace that language with “that violate this code.” He said that section of the code had been troublesome for staff in enforcing because what was commensurate with the neighborhood might violate the code. He said a neighbor could point across the street and point out a violation.

He said on the legal side of this issue there were problems where the judge asked staff to prove that a certain violation was not commensurate with the neighborhood. He said it was tough to enforce that section of the code because there were some parts of town where certain things might be in violation and it made it more difficult for staff to enforce sections of the code.

In Section 9-606.1 concerning exterior conditions, staff had deleted the terms “bicycles” and “lawn mowers” as furniture that would be considered outdoor furniture. He said that was a recommendation from the public. He said the intent was the accumulation of bicycles, lawn mowers, televisions, and sinks would constitute an environmental blight.

He said in Section 9-606.1 (D) referring to dead trees, staff received complaints on a regular basis concerning dead or dying trees. He said the code that was written today had no provisions to remove those trees and those types of trees constituted a hazard. He said unfortunately, until those trees fell down, staff could not take any action.

In 9-606.3 concerning missing house numbers, that issue was a problem in some sections of town where the numbers were not clearly displayed. He said staff ran into that problem when they were trying to identify a problem.

He said Section 6-606.4 concerning trash and/or trash containers was consistent with the Public Works section of the code and that would help staff in their enforcement actions.

In 9-607 concerning notice of violation, staff was suggesting that the changing of the timeframe an individual might have in correcting a violation from 45 days to 30 days. He said by reducing that timeframe, staff would be able to identify if there was any intent by the property owner to make any improvements to correct the violation. He said that would save 15 to 30 days for mailings and re-inspections to take place.

He said in section 9-608, concerning penalties, staff’s recommendation was to increase the maximum fine from $100 to $500. He said that increased cost might motivate individuals to take some of those actions seriously. He said in some cases the Judge might suspend part of the penalty, if not all of the penalty. In the meantime, that property owner had waited to go to court and the violation existed.

In Section 9-610 referring to removal of vehicles, that section was changed to comply with the state statutes.

He said finally, Section 9-613 concerning expenses allowed the City to recoup the cost that the City incurred regarding any type of environmental actions that resulted from enforcement.

Torres moved on to the staff report and how they could address structural blight in the community. He said the draft environmental ordinance was not intended to be a stand alone document as a sole tool to effectively address structural blight, but it would be one component of a set of tools. He said environmental blight was progressive in nature. He said a blight might start out as un-kept property and would ultimately result in a severe structural blight problem and be termed as “demolition by neglect.”

He said one other option that was provided to consider dealing with structural blight was a blight abatement program. He said staff would develop that program that the City would undertake. He said his department would need additional staffing to pursue that program which was a proactive approach in dealing with structural blight as opposed to a reactive approach where staff received complaints from citizens and staff then took action. He said this type of program would require additional funding if that was a route the City Commission wanted to pursue. He said if the City incurred any costs on abatement, staff would collect those dollars through the tax roles. He said an example was Fairfax, Virginia. He said that town had a good blight abatement program and that program could be found on their website.

The other option was staff reassignment. He said the rental registration program had been in effect for two years and staff had done a good job. He said staff had inspected and re-inspected over 2,500 units. The rush on that program had already taken place and they could use their inspection staff to deal with other issues on a part-time basis to begin looking more seriously at structural blight issues. He said the other staff members who might be available were the environmental inspectors.

He said the last option was the Neighborhood Revitalization Act. He said this was a program that encouraged property owners to improve their property. He said the act allowed tax rebates for property owners who made improvements to their home.

Commissioner Dunfield said staffing implications for the first two options were discussed. He asked Torres what kind of impact the Neighborhood Revitalization Act would have.

Torres said that act would require an intensive type program as well. He said part of that Neighborhood Revitalization Act would require staff to inventory the section of the town that would be suited for that act. He said staff needed to take an inventory of all the buildings, property owners, assessed values and that individual would need to follow that program through to make sure as new upgrades were made, staff could track those improvements.

Commissioner Schauner said when the City Commission discussed the issue of 933 Rhode Island, he asked, at that time, what tools staff needed to better deal with blighted demolition by neglect cases. He also asked if staff’s memo included all the tools that staff needed.

Torres said the environmental code was only one piece. He said an ideal situation would be that the environmental code be amended as per staff’s recommendations, a blight program with staffing and funding, and a Neighborhood Revitalization Act that would support any type of development or correction of homes that were in danger of structural blight.

Commissioner Schauner said the environmental code was the hammer and the other pieces were carrots that gave incentive for people to improve their properties with the long-term advantage to the City being, after the abatement period was over on the improvements, increased revenue for the City as well as a less blighted area.

Torres said correct. He said the Neighborhood Revitalization Act was a good program to help the community. He said to implement such a program, there would need to be partnerships with other players in the community to accept the same type of program which were the School District, County, and the City. He said that group would then need to identify that section of town for revitalization. He said ultimately, the citizens of this community would benefit.

He said there was a question about the loss of revenue, but that revenue was not lost because a person would maintain those tax rates and every year those rates would increase by 5% or 10%. He said there was an increase, but ultimately at the end of that 5 or 10 year period, the full amount of that appraised value was realized.

Commissioner Schauner said what neighboring communities had done was there was an abatement of up to 80% to 95% of the increase in assessed valuation that came about as a direct result of improvement to those properties. He said the underlying assessed valuation would stay the same plus whatever normal increases in assessed valuation might have occurred.

Torres said correct.

Commissioner Schauner said some of the typical paybacks were as long as 10 years on the abated abatement of the increased tax or assessed valuation.

Torres said there were different programs for commercial, residential, and industrial as well.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the City had to be an early partner in looking at those improvements so that there could be some type of baseline for the value at the beginning of the project versus the value at the end of the project.

Torres the first thing that needed to occur was the partnership between the three entities. He said if the City did not get buy in from the other two entities the program would not be as successful. He said the City needed to be involved initially to identify a process to implement the plan.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said he was familiar with that law and its amendments through the years. He said one of the key components was a planning element that required that there be a Neighborhood Revitalization Plan for a designated area. He said some communities designate the entire community, but other communities focused on certain areas. He said the more aggressive code enforcement of the pro-active blight abatement they would have the carrot of rebating that incremental value back for improvement to their property. Clearly, the key element was a plan from the beginning as to what the community expected in a certain area and what were the needed improvements and the property owner would need to come in on a case by case basis and qualify for a rebate depending on what threshold the governing body would determined appropriate.

Commissioner Schauner asked if a property owner would receive a rebate. He said a rebate suggested that a person would pay something and get money back later. He asked if the property owner would get a rebate or abatement.

Corliss said the property owner would receive a rebate because the money was collected and then sent back. He said as Torres pointed out there were three major property tax, taxing entities which were the City, County, and School District. He said in order to get some value with the increment all three of those partners would need to participate in that type of program. He said as the community moved on neighborhood planning that could be a valuable tool.

Commissioner Schauner asked if those parties would need to come up with some agreement about what they wanted an area to look like assuming all the players and stakeholders took advantage of the program.

Corliss said yes. He said the idea was to have a plan so that a goal could be achieved as opposed to planning on an incremental basis.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Jason Boots, K.U. Student, said he had a couple of concerns with the environmental code specifically concerning students. He said concerning removing a trash receptacle, he was not sure there was a warning process after the first incident. He said even if there was a warning process there was a problem with only one warning because traditionally with a lot of the student resident areas, the students turn over every year. He said one student might get a warning, but later on when someone else moved in and they did the same thing, not knowing the new rules, they would have the same problem and fined $50.

He said the next issue was the furniture which specifically targeted students. He said outdoor furniture did not necessarily constitute environmental blight.

Patricia Sinclair said she was one of the few people who attended the public meeting and she did not feel that the minutes reflected the total exchange.

She said it would behoove the Neighborhood Resources Department to prioritize and go after the worst cases first especially those cases with health consequences rather than going after small infractions while leaving large houses that were demolition by neglect and that ultimately get bulldozed. Also, some of those issues infringed on people rights, individuality, or questioned their taste. She said even the idea that one would try and categorize furniture whether it was manufactured for indoor or outdoor use was something that could occupy the City’s two inspector’s fulltime.

Also, the department asked for more than they wanted. The code should be precise for example, if junk cars were a concern, cars that don’t run, that aren’t going to run and look awful or the yard was filled with cars, then let’s say that. A car that was registered that was in a private driveway that was not an eyesore that might have a mechanical problem, a broken window, or a flat tire should not be subject to that code.

She said the same idea for couches. She said if the problem was upholstered indoor furniture like couches or chairs, let’s not make the whole thing, indoor versus outdoor manufactured furniture.

She said if trash barrels were a concern with people leaving them out all the time, let’s say those trash barrels could not be left for three days or more. She said probably half the people in the City Commission room had left their trash barrels out for more than 24 hours.

She said in the public meeting what they heard was a problem that was worse than what the code was saying and the code was written for very tiny things like 24 hours after the trash people left and that was not going after the problem that the Neighborhood Resources Department stated they were trying to resolve. She said that left too much discretion to the individual inspectors and could result in unequal treatment and no recourse for the person who was cited.

She said there was a section of the code that talked about adding “the built environment” and when reading that section it was opened to interpretation that a person could be cited for virtually anything. She said there was also a statement on the “built environment” that included, but not limited to. Again, that was wide open interpretation where problems were ran into with individual’s rights and individual’s interpretations of what a tidy little place was.

She said an enormous problem was selective enforcement. She said there was a reason Judges asked about that commensurate with the neighborhood. The reason they asked about that in court was because selective enforcement was not legal. It meant she could not be required to do something that a neighbor did not need to do or that worst conditions could exist when a person was penalized. The enforcement had to be fair, evenhanded and applied to all. It meant she could not go out and suddenly enforce an ordinance that was on the books that no one ever enforced like loitering or jay walking, just because she really wanted to get somebody for something else.

She said there were long standing violations that were not fixed especially commercial use in residential areas and right-of-ways blocked by hedges and other materials. The public right-of-way should be a place where even if there wasn’t a sidewalk, a pedestrian could walk and that was a problem in Lawrence when we often don’t have sidewalks on either/or both sides of the streets.

She said the notice should not be shortened and the fine in question was not $100, but $100 a day, so $500 a day was quite a hefty fine. She said the notices were lengthened not that long ago, she suggested not shortening those notices.

She said zoning violations was an area that she though was very interesting for the Neighborhood Resources Department to incorporate more closely into the code. Commercial and residential property, right now, according to Neighborhood Resources, if it was discovered even if it had been a long standing violation, there was no penalty to the occupant as long as they discontinued the commercial use. She said to her that said a person would only have to pay for it if that person got caught and that did not seem like much of an incentive to comply with zoning.

She said in her neighborhood there were several contractors, landscapers that had large accessory building sometimes as big as a house, parking on the lawn sometimes there was a little gravel sprinkled down, parking of large dump trucks or bobcats, piles of debris and that was not considered wrong. She said by her most recent inquires to the Neighborhood Resources Department citing specific places. She said right now, she suggested that the department did not appear to be familiar with what was allowed in residential zoning as home based businesses or other commercial places or where a person could create a parking lot on their lawn. She asked that be an area that the Neighborhood Resources Department might direct their attention to in terms of learning and if there needed to be additional code that talked about a penalty for a zoning violations then let’s add that code and not stuff about sofas.

She said it would also be nice to look at health things. She said West Nile, people had heard a lot about it and had not done anything about it, but probably the health department was working on this issue. She said it would be great to go after standing water and large things of tires. She asked about this the first year West Nile was coming up and apparently there was no enforcement or problem with places like gas stations that had those large piles of tires.

Another area of concern was light pollution. She said the County had looked into that issue, and she suggested that the City also look into that issue.

She said noise pollution wasn’t addressed at all. She was told that this was sort of a visual code. She said some of the Oread neighbors had a problem with a new air conditioning unit that K.U. installed and found that they were powerless to deal with the additional noise. She said she had that problem with a couple years old air conditioning unit that was just a few feet away from her property line and a few feet away from her window where she sat and worked on her computer all the time, it vibrates and was incredibly loud, but it apparently wasn’t in any violation of the code.

She also had concerns with parking and blocking sidewalks. She presented pictures, to the City Commission from 2001 to present, of properties with debris.

Richard Heckler, resident in Brookcreek neighborhood, had a concern about what brought this discussion to the table and who currently paid for the piles of furniture that were placed out in front of many of those houses throughout the City.

Wildgen said it was the bulk rates for the sanitation department, but there might be certain items that the Sanitation Department might charge an extra fee.

Heckler asked who was going to define outdoor furniture. He suggested that a Neighborhood Associations should be brought into this process for input.

James Dunn discussed the environmental code. He said when the legal notices went into the paper, the notices were sent to people at a great distance from Lawrence. He said it seemed that there were repetitive situations in that every year it would be the same properties concerning the environmental code. He suggested that in the beginning of the season, a letter could be sent to those property owners to put them on notice that there was an issue last year and to remind those property owners that this year, they would be watched. He said that might slow down the process of those legal notices because if people were reminded, then that would keep their thinking up front.

He said he was concerned about the enforcement and the time frame involved. He said he was specifically thinking about a property at 9^th and Ohio where the wild lettuce was almost his height and about ready to go to seed.

Mayor Rundle said he met with staff today. He said the housekeeping matters were worth pursuing. He said the one concern was the language that was placed into the code to recognize varying neighborhood standards that one area of town might want everyone’s grass to be cut short and others might encourage people to use natural perennial plants.

Commissioner Dunfield had similar concerns. He said there were good questions about the enforcement issues and selective enforcement. He said the neighborhood standards were legitimate, but on the other hand if starting to say that there were different standards in different neighborhood, then how could enforcement be consistent.

He said if we say that we want to deal with the most egregious example first, which made a lot of sense, especially those that posed a public health hazard, then once again, how do you do that in a way that did not open us up to charges of selective enforcement.

He said environmental code that he had done with neighborhoods had always been a sticky issue because of the neighborhood standards question and because of the potential for abuse or misuse by people for personal or political reasons. He said they had seen people trying to use this environmental code for political reasons recently and we certainly see it in situations where neighbors don’t get along with one another and were looking for ways to express that.

He said recognizing the character of the neighborhood was something that the City Commission needed to consider leaving in place.

He said he agreed that the porch furniture issue was one that was probably not something he felt needed to be changed. He said as far as those fundamental issues of enforcement and how we go about it, he did not have any answers. He said most of what had been presented was housekeeping issues and worth going ahead with.

He said he was interested in pursuing the structural blight related ideas in more detail and he would like to continue that discussion whether in the form of the Neighborhood Revitalization Act or one of the other suggestions. He said that put a more positive face on what the Commission was trying to do and it took it out of this strictly retaliatory type of realm.

Commissioner Hack asked Torres how long staff had been working on this process.

Torres said this process had been a several month process where staff and the public were involved.

Commissioner Hack said she did not want anyone to think that all of a sudden, in the last couple of weeks, staff decided that this was a great idea.

She said the major concern was demolition by neglect and the situation on Rhode Island hit them hard that that had been allowed to decline. She said she looked at this issue with the language and was parallel with state statutes and within and among the departments. She said it cleaned up the ordinance particularly in the area of definitions. She said the proposed ordinance did allow for better enforcement.

She said she did not have a problem with porch furniture.

She said the Neighborhood Resources Department could tell the difference between a front yard full of perennials and a front yard full of weeds. She said the neighborhood standards issue did not seem problematic.

Corliss said the weed code requirements were in a separate code.

Commissioner Highberger said the question about who defined outdoor furniture was not addressed. He said the way he read that, there was no specific definition of outdoor furniture in the code, so staff would be making that call.

He said there was a process for neighborhood participation, but it wasn’t highly utilized.

He said the question from Jason Boots about notices to students it was his understanding that for a notice to be effective it would need to be delivered to the person to whom it was to be enforced against. The problem with changing residents in the apartments wouldn’t necessarily be a problem.

Corliss said to go to court there had to be a person. He said if the tenant changed then they would be after another person. He said what Boots was commenting on was if there was a warning notice before the actual violation was sent.

Torres said a warning notice was sent first. He said most of the issues were reoccurring issues. He said it was valid point that every 6 to 12 months there were new tenants, but staff directly contacted the property managers. He said those property managers were aware of the City’s ordinance concerning this matter and what the requirements were. He said staff sent out courtesy notices allowing those tenants adequate time to make corrections. He said he could not guarantee that every single tenant had that information because staff’s main contact was with the property managers. He said in some cases staff made site visits and visit with the tenants.

Commissioner Hack said that might also be something Landlords of Lawrence might be interested in assisting with or being involved with.

Commissioner Highberger said concerning the comment Dunn raised about on-going violators, it was his understanding that there was a provision that once a notice was issued then further action could be taken within a certain period when it was with the same violators.

Torres said yes. He said that type of issue was more common with weed type notices. He said staff would send a notice to the property owner and if that property owner did not follow up with the request, then staff would follow up with mowing that property.

Commissioner Dunfield asked about the issue of the fine being per day. He said it was his understanding that was the case, but that typically it had not been assessed in that way.

Corliss said correct. He said in order for the fine to be more than one day, there would need to be another charge. He said that would mean that the notice provisions and more importantly that the prosecutors sending the notice of violation, the actual citation would need to be everyday. That had not been staff’s practice, but the letter of the law would allow for that type of procedure.

Mayor Rundle asked whether that was up to the discretion of the judge.

Corliss said yes. He said when staff discussed this type of issue with the Judge, the Judge correctly pointed out that staff only cited that individual for one day worth of violations and that was all the Judge would be adjudicating at that time. If the violation was continuing for six months, then that issue was not before the Judge and the Judge would only cite on that particular day. He said staff’s practice was to try and receive compliance. Many times the Judge suspended the fines if the property was cleaned up according to the code and if the inspector reported accordingly then the fine would be dismissed.

Commissioner Schauner asked whether the City had the authority to declare some habitual violator status that would permit the City to impose a different level of fine for those types of places. He said it seemed that that was one of the issues that the Environmental Inspectors faced, that they go back to the same places over and over.

Corliss said that issue was taken into account with the prosecutor’s recommendation as far as a fine when there had been habitual problems with the same property owner and that property owner had not been responsive. He said that non response would be communicated to the Judge with a recommendation for a fine. Also, there could be multiple charges for different days. There was not a separate code classification for habitual violators because there were important legal principles such as double jeopardy issues about re-trialing the same issue over and over again.

Commissioner Schauner said this type of issue was not a criminal matter in the sense of imprisonment.

Corliss said this issue was a criminal matter. He said individuals had been placed in the County jail for failure to respond to that type of issue, but it did not happen often. He said this was a criminal proceeding and staff would need to prove all of the elements of the code violation beyond a reasonable doubt. He said the importance for staff’s recommendations for those definitions was because the Judge held staff correctly to that standard.

Commissioner Dunfield asked whether there was some review process to determine whether something qualifies as “yard art” or a pile of trash. He said when the City Commission dealt with the case of the famous umbrella trees, he asked if the staff setup some type of review process for “yard art.”

Corliss said the code allowed the property owner to request a hearing. He said 9-611 allowed for a hearing to be requested within 15 days which that hearing would be before the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee. He said that committee would have the discretion to look at that item to deal with that particular situation. He said in the case of the “yard art” that property owner requested a hearing with the City Commission. The City Commission conducted the hearing and the Commission directed staff that they did not find this type of “yard art” to be a violation.

Mayor Rundle said like Commissioner Hack mentioned that inspectors were expected to understand the difference between perennial flowers and weeds. He said likewise art had intentionality. He said they could go to the Arts Commission to define art if that were necessary, but he expected staff to use their judgment.

Corliss said after that issue, there was an issue of native vegetation and as a result, there was an amendment to the weed ordinance that allowed for property owners to register with Neighborhood Resources Department, notifying the department that they had native vegetation and they were allowing the vegetation to grow beyond what was considered to be the manicured lawn and some property owners had taken advantage of that amendment.

Torres said there were some properties that probably had met those criteria.

Commissioner Schauner said as he understood the environmental ordinance it was designed to protect both the health and safety of the environment plus it played a part in crime deterrence and so forth. He said there was a line between creating Stepford and creating an environment in a city in which diversity could play a reasonable role in how people maintain their property. The difficulty was in the detail. He said the old adage was one person’s trash was another person’s treasure was apparent. He supported better definitions that were enforceable and understandable. He said whether the City should go so far as to prohibit people from exercising their taste in decorating their front porch was an area that might go over the line for him. He said there were a lot of ways that the Neighborhood Resources group could focus its energies and clearly they know where those habitual violators were. He said he suspected that some specific focus on those areas would produce good results.

He said he was interested in finding ways to use carrots instead of sticks. He said the neighborhood revitalization idea was intriguing and he would like to see staff look at developing a program that would give people the incentive to cleaning up their property and increasing the value of their property. Neighbor’s improvement their property tended to have a synergistic effect on neighboring properties and he would like to see that type of approach. He suggested scheduling a meeting with the City, County and School District concerning this matter. He said with that approach a lot could be accomplished and not have people feel like the City Commission was creating another set of rules that impinge on their civil rights. He was generally supportive of the ordinance, but there were some issues such as furniture that should be removed. He would like this issue brought back to the City Commission with additional information about a blight control program and a revitalization program.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he was basically supportive of the ordinance, but he had some concerns. He said he understood the need and desire to take out the provision about standards commensurate with the character of the neighborhood, but in reality neighborhoods did have different standards.

He said he realized that the City’s existing code banned furniture of all types on porches, but he had spent the best years of his life on Oread porch couches and he hated to see that taken away.

He said he would like the code to distinguish between yards and porches because right now they were lumped together and those areas served two different functions. Junk in the yard was one thing, but a porch was a mediating space between public and private and he thought the standards should be different. He said if the real goal was public, health, safety, and welfare then the standards should address deteriorating furniture rather than outdoor furniture which might be difficult to define in some cases.

He said he was supportive of the blight abatement idea, but it was too late to get that idea into the budget cycle for an extra staff position this year. He said if an extra staff position could be accomplished through rearranging this year that would be good and suggested looking at funding that position next year.

He also liked the Neighborhood Revitalization idea. He suggested contacting the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods and making sure that they were aware of that program and have neighborhoods come to the City Commission with proposals for areas that might be better served.

He said Sinclair raised a lot of concerns and some of them should be addressed at some point like the light pollution and noise pollution, but those concerns were outside of the scope of what the Commission was currently addressing.

He also had a concern about the “garbage” definition because he wanted to make sure that did not preclude people from composting their yard or people maintaining a well composted pile.

Commissioner Hack said it seemed that the City Commission was in agreement with the furniture issue. She said she would hate to see Torres’ department be responsible for defining what was a good and bad couch or indoor versus outdoor, but her sense from all of the work was to make portions of that ordinance, clear, simple, and easy to enforce so that there was no selective enforcement.

She said concerning the Neighborhood Revitalization, the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association took on an inventory of their neighborhood. She said some of those projects might be complete or partially completed and that would be something the Commission could look at.

She said she would feel comfortable with the draft ordinance with the exception of the furniture.

Commissioner Dunfield said as far as the furniture portion of the ordinance, the distinction between a porch and a yard was significant.

Commissioner Schauner said concerning the character of the neighborhood issue, he said he saw that as a minimum type of standard rather than creating a higher bar for everyone to pass. He said again, the Commission was not trying to create Stepford in every neighborhood, but a minimum health, safety, and welfare standard that inspectors in the field had good tools with which to enforce which he supported.

Mayor Rundle said one part of the implementation of the code ensured that it would be enforced on a complaint basis. He said if someone was living on one side of town driving through and turning in numerous complaints in another part of town, that person would be creating a Stepford situation. If people in the neighborhood filed complaints and when the public hearing took place, those people could encourage everyone in the neighborhood to follow a specific type of garden, art or porch.

Vice Mayor Highberger said if the Commission addressed some of those other issues they would be happy with taking out the phrase “commensurate with the character of the neighborhood.”

Commissioner Schauner said he thought the Commission considered this to be a minimum set of standards. He said this should be applicable to everyone, otherwise he did not know how staff would enforce different rules for different parts of town.

Commissioner Dunfield said several years ago he was walking to City Hall to have a meeting with the former Neighborhood Resources Director. He said he walked down two blocks of alleys behind Rhode Island Street and as he looked at the detached garages and fences along the alleys he found three quarters of those out building that could have been cited under the environmental code. He said his feeling was that they certainly don’t want the inspectors to feel that they had to go out and cite every single one of those cases. He asked how staff would not find themselves in a selective enforcement accusation if there was not some type of allowance. He said by taking a look at those two blocks and comparing those homes in the area to that particular house, he asked if it would be really worth while that house was being cited as a blighted spot.

Mayor Rundle said there was a fence in North Lawrence made out of piano frames from upright pianos. He said if that type of fence was in a new subdivision, people would be concerned about property values because it would be different from new houses.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not think that was what this code tried to address. He said that particular code was addressing, trash, rubbish, abandoned vehicles and things of that nature, not differences of opinion about whether a fence should be built out of 1 X 6’s or piano frames. He said he did not read this code as an attempt to discourage the type of neighborhood creativity that everyone liked.

Commissioner Hack said rather than the City Commission digesting the pluses and minuses of that phrase, it might be helpful if staff could give the Commission the pluses for minuses for leaving or taking that phrase in or out. She said she was not an inspector and she did not know what problems would bring to leave that phrase in or out. She suggested that staff clarify the pluses and minuses of that phrase and bring those clarifications back to the City Commission.

Mayor Rundle asked staff to provide the specific cases in which the problems occurred in court.

Commissioner Hack said the City Commission was in agreement with looking into the Neighborhood Revitalization and she liked the idea of working with the readjustments of staff now and looking into staffing in the next budget cycle.

Commissioner Schauner said there was a connection between the quality of sidewalks as pedestrian ways in neighborhood and the way neighborhoods tended to think of themselves. He said if there was good pedestrian traffic and a good way for people to get around on foot, he believed there would be a payoff in terms of blighted structures. He said there was a relationship between the appearance of the street in the area and the way people tended to think of their properties. He said certain parts of the City had an inferior sidewalk infrastructure. He said this issue was part of the City’s responsibility to enforce that piece to be a partner in improving neighborhoods.

Mayor Rundle said the sidewalks are part of our overall transportation system. He suggested that staff could come up with a plan to divide the town up into sections and each year upgrade a portion of those sections. He said also staff could assess some type of budgetary impact. He said the existing ordinance required property owners to keep those sidewalks up, but there were people on low-income and fixed incomes and staff might figure out a way to address those needs.

Corliss wanted to make sure he had all of the correct changes. He said the furniture issue (9-606.1) and the staff report issue on the enforcement standards (9-605).

(10)

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Patricia Sinclair commented about the general construction at 19^th and Barker that had been under construction since January, the primary purpose being the roundabout being built against neighborhood wishes. Also, a waterline and box culvert was being installed. She said the box culvert would not benefit the Barker neighborhood, but it was being installed just east of Learnard.

She said she knew the contractors were behind schedule. She said she noticed that there were days of good weather with no work at that location. There was a whole week when the contractors were not working. In the recent week, she went to that site and noticed minimal activity or no activity for a number of days. She said she knew the Commission was interested in having that construction completed before the fair which was at the end of this month, but that was not going to happen.

She said an elderly lady in the area had to deal with the dust and noise of that construction. She said Meals on Wheels were unable to access the elderly lady’s driveway. She said there was hearsay from the a neighbor that a young women lived in her home who was wheelchair bound and now the bus that picked her up could not come to 19^th Street and that young women needed to find her way down a block daily which required finding outside assistance. She said that might be an ADA violation.

She said there were no safe access and standing water in that area. She also had a concern about the mound in the middle of the street that looked like when the street was finished there would be 3 foot high mound. She did not know if there would be flowers planted. She said she had a visual concern that driving into that roundabout being able to see what was coming.

Still another concern was the sidewalks being 3 foot and the standard was 4 foot. She said what had happened was that the sidewalks were being built a foot into the right-of-way which meant the remaining right-of-way would be smaller so the driveways had to be steeper.

She showed pictures to the Commission of the area of her concerns with the project.

She suggested that the City not give those contractors any more contract work until they finish this particular project because clearly they had more on their plate than they could handle. She said lets not give any more bids to R.D. Johnson, Penny Construction, and other subcontractors.

Commissioner Dunfield said it would be appropriate that staff prepare a report and send it to the City Commission by email and also to make sure Sinclair had access to that report.

Mayor Rundle said as a general topic area of the idea of incentives and penalties; he said that was in his court because staff had prepared a report. He said staff was getting together additional research and that issue would be placed on the agenda whenever that information was made available.

James Dunn said Commissioner Hack had mentioned Landlord’s of Lawrence as a venue for distribution of information to tenants. He wanted to mention that a person from the Environmental Protection Agency would be in Lawrence for a presentation to the Landlord’s of Lawrence and any other housing providers that might want to attend. He said the meeting would take place July 12^th at 7:00 p.m. at the Lawrence Public Library Auditorium.

He said in regards to the fair at the Douglas County Fairground, he suggested that the “T” operate later hours when the fair was in town.

Wildgen said the Public Transit Advisory Committee could look at that issue. He said they could not do one route, but the whole system would need to done. (11)

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.

_____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 2004

1. Site Plan (SP-05-33-04) rear patio 2 story deck, 615 Mass. (Quniton’s) was removed from the consent agenda.

2. Bid – Comprehensive Rehab -2104 Tenn to General Construction for $30,963 & 628 E 19^th to Old Home Depot for $17,173.

3. Ordinance No. 7792 – 1^st Reading, Rezone (Z-02-04-04) 1.01 acres from C-3 to RO-2, plate recorded in1869 named S ½ of Blk 5, N Lawrence.

4. Ordinance No. 7796 – 1^st Reading, picketing & tethering dogs, Animal Control Code

5. Ordinance No. 7801 – 1^st Reading, Street name change from 25^th Terr (within Fairfield W Add) to 25^th Pl, and 25^th St (within Fairfield W Add) to 25^th Terr.

6. Temporary User Permit (TUPR-06-20-04) Meadowbrook (Fundraiser – Boys & Girls Club) intersection of 15^th & Crestline.