July 13, 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.
Mayor Rundle recognized Lois Orth-Lopes as the Mayor’s Excellence in Education Award Recipient.
With Commission approval, Mayor Rundle proclaimed the week of July 18 – July 24, 2004 as “National Aquatic Week.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of July 6, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to approve claims to 390 vendors in the amount of $2,802,428.00 and payroll from June 27, 2004 to July 10, 2004 in the amount of $1,435,817.13. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Panda Garden, 1500 West 6th; Moon Bar, 821 Iowa; and La Parillia, 814 Massachusetts. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and reappoint Maria Martin to the Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board, to an additional term which will expire July 1, 2008. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for the 2004 Overlay and Concrete Repair Program, Phase 3, for the Public Works Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID
Engineer’s Estimate $704,915.50
LRM Industries, Inc. $575.753.80
Kansas Heavy Construction $614,662.95
Larkin Excavating, Inc. $636,358.32
D.F. Freeman Contractors, Inc. $738,212.76
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to award the bid to LRM Industries in the amount of $575,753.80. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to place on first reading, Ordinance No. 7800, rezoning (Z-03-14-04) 4.07 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District), property located south of West 6th Street (Highway 40) and west of East 1000 Road (Queens Road/Branchwood Drive). Motion carried unanimously. (2)
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, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
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, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 7801, changing the name 25th Terrace (within Fairfield Farms West Addition) to 25th Place, and changing the name 25th Street (within Fairfield Farms West Addition) to 25th Terrace, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request to rezone (Z-05-17-04) 1.59 acres, C-4 (General Commercial District) to M-3 (Intensive Industrial District), located in North Town Addition, North 2nd Street and Lyons Street; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-05-02-04) for Summer Camp at Googols of Fun, located at 4931 West 6th Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of a copy of an approved license from the Douglas County Health Department prior to operation of the childcare facility. (Submit the copy to the Lawrence Planning Department and reference file UPR-05-02-04);
2. The use permit is for a morning and afternoon Child Care Center Program for a maximum of 24 children (enrolled in kindergarten through 6th grade) under Googols of Fun’s direct supervised care in the facility at any one time;
3. Provision of a revision to the approved Final Development Plan, for any outdoor play area, if such is required by the Douglas County Health Department;
4. The building will require a supervised fire alarm system, which must be zoned to show an activation at Googols of Fun;
5. The permit will be reviewed by the City in 5 years (Calendar Year 2009); and
6. The permit will expire at the end of ten years, unless an application for renewal is approved by the local governing body.
Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to concur with the Planning Commission recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the UPR (UPR-08-06-81) for revision to the approved site plan portion of the existing UPR to modify the fence type along the side and front of the property, located at the Penn House, 1035 Pennsylvania. Motion carried unanimously.
(8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to authorize the Mayor to sign an Encroachment Agreement with Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline for the Fox Chase South Subdivision. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda, the Preliminary Development Plan for Oread West Office Park. He expressed a concern about the consumption of that limited resource for residential purposes that did not create jobs and did not provide for the economic health or welfare of the community.
He said increasing the dwelling units to 75 was not the issue, but the fact that this property had been rezoned for this residential purpose. He asked that in the future when any other similar rezonings were requested, that the City Commission think long and hard before they rezoned any of that property from its research or economically developable purpose that would provide jobs and economic development in the community.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-05-06-04) for Oread West Office Park, property located at the northwest corner of 15th Street and Wakarusa Drive. Aye: Rundle, Dunfield, Hack, Highberger. Nay: Schauner. Motion carried. (10)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen discussed the Parks and Recreation project list that had been distributed to the Commission. He encouraged the Commission to review the list to see where the City was and where it was going.
Mayor Rundle asked about the 212 Fund.
Wildgen said Fund 212 was the City share of the County wide sales tax. He said Fund 216 was the special recreation fund. The money that came from the City’s share of the County wide sales tax was used for the maintenance of parks and recreation facilities.
Vice Mayor Highberger commented that the design work for the Clinton Park Shelter was on the list. He encouraged staff to continue consulting with the neighborhood to make sure the design was compatible with the neighborhood. (11)
REGULAR AGENDA
Receive Economic Development update from Vice President of Economic Development, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce.
Lynn Parman, Vice President of Economic Development, Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, presented an update to the City Commission. She said as of June 30, 2004, there were 231 new jobs being created along with the announcement of the expansion and creation of an additional 100 jobs for Affinitas.
She said ProtectionOne would be relocating their corporate headquarters from Topeka, to the I-70 Business Center. Also, Jayhawk File Express and Barrister Books would be locating to Lawrence. The Chamber would announce three other businesses to Lawrence in the next week. She said project activity in Lawrence was very good.
She said the Small Business Development Center, housed in the Chamber of Commerce, provided counseling and resources to individuals wishing to start a business. She said the number of clients served and counseled was up in demand which was a good indicator of the economy.
She noted to the City Commission that USD 497 Workforce Development Task Force would spend a year discussing and making recommendations to the City Commission, County Commission, and School Board, on technical training courses and how those courses could be offered more readily in Douglas County. She said the technical training would be from manufacturing to Informational Technical Training, to even bench Scientist for the Bio-Tech Industries. She said that Task Force was comprised of 35 people throughout the region from Community Colleges to Higher Education Institutions, and the private sector. She said the recommendations from the Task Force would be made to the City Commission within a year as to enhancing the training offerings in the area. She said the community needed to match their workforce with the current jobs and jobs that would be coming to the community in the future.
She said the business retention surveys had been completed and they were working on the analysis component of those surveys. The results of that survey would be released at the end of August.
She said the Bio-Science Task Force was continuing to meet. That group was developing strategies as to how to grow the Bio-Sciences Industry whether that was research from the University as well as attracting more Bio-Sciences companies to the community. The Task Force was now developing a strategic plan which would have specific goals and objectives as to how more jobs could be created in that particular industry.
She informed the City Commission the impact study was underway and the results would be released at the end of August.
She highlighted the Chambers marketing efforts to the City Commission.
She reminded the City Commission that the V.I.P Tour for Serologicals Corporation would be held July 21, 2004, 9:00 a.m.
Commissioner Schauner said he was pleased with the 331 jobs that were going to be created this year. He asked about the wage range of those new jobs.
Parman said the Chamber had that wage information and would provide a summary of that wage data at a later date.
Commissioner Schauner said the company that caused him to raise that question was Affinitas and the 100 jobs that would be created. He said he would like to know the pay range of those call jobs.
Parman said she would provide those pay ranges in terms of the average wages of those 331 new jobs.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he appreciated Parman’s work especially with existing businesses and the workforce training. (12)
Consider approval of expansion of non-conforming use. Consider approving site plan SP-05-33-04: a site plan for a new rear patio and second story deck located at Quinton’s, 615 Massachusetts Street.
Lynn Zollner, Planner, presented the staff report. She said the property was located in the C-3 (Central Commercial District) and was listed on the Lawrence Register of Historic Places. The Historic Resources Commission reviewed the site plan on May 20th and approved the proposed expansion with the condition that the applicant work with the Architectural Review Committee to finalize the deck and the deck roof so it was compatible with the historic structure and the environment of the Downtown Historic District and the Conservation Overlay District.
The applicant met with the Architectural Review Committee and finalized the drawing.
The site plan was processed as an expansion of the non-conforming use because Quinton’s was not required to report food sales in relation to the 55% rule as established by the adoption of Ordinance 6527. Chapter 20, Section 1302, identified the limitations on non-conforming uses and gave the City Commission the authority to grant expansions provided the project met the terms established in Section 1303 of that same chapter.
She said this issue was somewhat different than what was looked at in the past. She said instead of just approving the site plan, the City Commission would need to address granting the authority for the expansion of the non-conforming use and then the site plan approval with the conditions set out by staff.
Commissioner Dunfield said the basis for granting that authority as stated in the staff report was, “where such extension was necessary and incidental to the existing use”, and that was the specific condition that was being followed and if the City Commission wanted to grant that authority.
Zollner said correct. She said staff viewed this issue as an incidental expansion of that used because there was currently a patio at that location.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if the new roof design addressed any of the current concerns about access to Waxman’s roof.
Zollner said yes. She said the roof line of the proposed deck roof was down below the existing roof of the structure and in the design it increased the railing to the north of the deck to eight feet to prevent people from accessing Waxman’s roof.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the proposed occupant load for the second story addition.
Zollner said she did not have the occupant load figures, but staff could get those figures from the architect.
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, said they had presented their plans to the Historic Resources Commission. He said he agreed with staff’s memo in that it should be allowed use for an expansion of a non-conforming use.
He said concerning access to the Waxman’s roof, they had agreed to place an eight foot screen or guardrail between those two structures to limit any possibility of someone accessing Waxman’s roof.
He said the occupant load was estimated at 30 to 70 people because it depended on how the patio was setup. He said the maximum occupant load would meet the building code.
He said the patio would be constructed of steal, concrete and a metal roof which would be a vast improvement from a deck that was currently all wood.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the second floor occupants, during an emergency, exit out that second level addition. He asked if that would be an approved fire exit.
Werner said yes.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Jade Brown, representing Waxman Candles, said his concerns had been addressed. He said they wanted to make sure that the height of the northern barrier was sufficient to deter access as well as trash and litter from being tossed over on their roof.
Patricia Sinclair asked the City Commission not to grant the expansion. She said for the record, from her reading of the code that brought a food sales requirement in 1994 to establishments in the C-3 zoning district, she did not believe any of those establishments were “grandfathered.”
She said it would be helpful to think about the reason this City had legal non-conforming uses, what was the purpose of zoning, and how those two issues came together. She said when an area received a zoning code change and there were existing businesses that did not meet the new zoning, sometimes because those businesses were already functioning, they were allowed to continue under certain conditions. She said this was not a life time pass. She said in many municipalities there were time limits and the businesses would need to convert to the existing zoning. She suggested that the idea of a legal non-conforming use was not something that the City had determined to be in the best interest of the City or something the City necessarily wanted to continue and expand, but just exist because they had a use different from what the City Planners thought was appropriate for that location at a later date.
The word “permitted” was used and she looked through the permitted use table for the C-3 area. She thought the word “permitted” meant what was according to code as opposed to a legal non-conforming use. For example, Quinton’s was reference to its use as a restaurant. She said if Quinton’s was a restaurant, their discussions would be quite different and simplified. She said Quinton’s was not restaurant, but actually a licensed drinking establishment. She said she was not convinced that this was a permitted use. She said she did not see “drinking establishment” anywhere in the table of permitted uses for that area.
She said she had a concern about increasing fire risk. She said she heard the architect’s comments about non-combustible materials, but there were combustible materials nearby. Anytime there were people in a dense environment were moved above the ground level and those people were drinking, there was a tendency to throw cigarettes and the target might not be the intended target. She said there was a potential fire hazard.
She said this issue somewhat flew in the face of expanding an area that was clearly going to be opened to smokers and would expose those staff members to smoke whether staff was outdoors or indoors which was contradictory toward the recent non-smoking ordinance.
She said the key item was the Planning report did not say that this expansion was necessary and incidental, but the finding indicated that it was incidental, not necessary and incidental. According to that section of the Code, the code required that the expansion be both necessary and incidental. She said the City Commission could only approve an expansion if it met one of five criteria and even then, with limitations. She said the applicant did not submit any evidence that this expansion was necessary. She did not believe that the code gave the City Commission authority to approve that expansion. She asked the City Commission to think about other cases that might be coming before the Commission. She said when looking at legal conforming uses and those businesses getting bigger without a food requirement, that was a substantial portion of the downtown businesses.
Laura Burger, 500 Block of Tennessee, asked if a noise study had been done and expressed concerns that a band might be able to play on the expanded deck, making more noise and disturbing neighbors in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Mayor Rundle asked Linda Finger, Planning Director, about the idea of a noise study.
Finger replied that the noise would be addressed through other non-planning means, like the noise ordinance. She informed the Commission that they could include a restriction on bands on the site plan.
Werner stated that Quinton’s did not normally have live bands and he would be opposed to any restrictions on the site plan. He argued the noise ordinance would take care of any problems related to too much noise.
Finger discussed the staff report. She said staff did not make a determination on if the expansion was necessary because that was a determination that staff did not have any criteria to base that on. She said staff could assess this issue from a fire code/safety prospective. However, staff intentionally did not make that determination if it was necessary and was leaving it up to the City Commission to make that determination.
Rundle stated that he had encouraged musicians in the downtown area and would not want to tell one business that they could not have a band. He expressed confidence in the noise ordinance to deal with that problem.
Commissioner Schauner said if the building had a zero lot line on back, would the building be able to expand in airspace above the alley.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager, said he assumed the alley was public right-of-way, but he did not know if that portion of the alley had been vacated or not.
Wildgen said that alley was active.
Commissioner Schauner said it appeared that the reason Quinton’s wanted to expand was because of the recent smoking ordinance to try and find an additional outdoor venue for those who wanted to drink and smoke. He said it was his sense that the City Commission would see a number of creative requests, from downtown business, to expand their facility in some fashion, into an outdoor venue. He said other than the code section that was being addressed, what other guidelines would be there to use as benchmarks against which the City Commission would measure those request. He suspected that this was not the last time the Commission would see a request like this. He would like to find a way to be consistent tonight and in the future with respect to this request and others and to treat all of those who wanted to expand in that fashion fairly. He said he did not know what those benchmarks were and he asked staff for guidance on that issue.
Commissioner Hack commented that while this issue might solve the issue with the smoking ban, the owner of Quinton’s stated that the request for expansion of the patio deck had been in the chute much longer than the smoking ban.
She said the City Commission was going to address sidewalk dining guidelines in August.
She said that deck was a safety hazard and she wanted to thank Quinton’s for trying to make that deck safer and more attractive.
Commissioner Schauner said he was not in opposition to Quinton’s request, but he wanted to find a way that the City Commission could measure not just this request, but others. He said the Commission would have other roof top request and other creative ways of finding an outdoor venue to provide smoking and drinking in one place. He said it would be helpful to have matrix of things to look at when considering this and other requests.
Commissioner Dunfield said the issue was a useful extension of the discussion that the Commission wanted to have concerning sidewalk dining in looking at other aspects and for the Commission to understand what the regulations were concerning developing in the right of-way and other issues. He said as far as this particular item, the best gauge of necessity was the willingness of the owner to make an investment that was substantial. He said he did not think that the Commission should be in the business of second guessing a business plan.
He said he agreed with Finger’s comment in that the Commission had no objective quantitative ways of determining what was necessary or not in this case.
As far as the noise, he agreed with the Mayor in that rather than establishing a fairly arbitrary restriction on a particular business, the noise ordinance needed to do its job. He voted to approve the expansion.
Mayor Rundle suggested getting a rough sketch of the non-conforming and conforming drinking establishment/restaurants to find a matrix of what the City Commission might expect.
He said concerning the noise ordinance, there were some businesses that made efforts at being good neighbors. He said there was a wealth of experience in having quality music events. He suggested that other venues take advantage of using some of those good neighboring skills.
Commissioner Hack suggested that Finger contact Maria Martin, Downtown Lawrence, Inc., because there were surveys that had been taken on conforming and non-conforming uses.
She said she agreed that the City Commission was headed towards the direction of increased demands for alterations to existing businesses for a variety of reasons.
Finger said the issue at hand was non-conforming for a different reason than typically found in the code. She said it was the other reasons for non-conforming uses.
Commissioner Schauner said staff had provided the City Commission with an aerial map of downtown with a listing of the non-conforming uses based on food sales.
Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, that the expansion of the non-conforming use was necessary and incidental to the exiting use of the building. Motion carried unanimously.
It was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to approve the site plan (SP-05-33-04) for a new rear patio and second story deck located at Quinton’s, 615 Massachusetts, subject to the following conditions:
(A) the City Commission grant the authority to enlarge the building devoted to a non-conforming use as the extension is necessary and incidental to the existing use of said building and the conditions set forth in section 20-1303 (Expansion of Non-Conforming Uses) are met; and
(B) approval of the site plan for the expansion of the non-conforming use subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the Historic Resources Commission conditions of approval: (a)The applicant provide detailed information on how the new construction will be attached to the historic structure; (b)the applicant work with the Architectural Review Committee to explore roof options and determine final roof selection; and (c) the applicant provide complete construction documents with material notations to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Resources Administrator prior to release of a building permit;
2. Execution of a site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;
3. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following changes:
(a) Provision of a note on the face of the site plan indicating the Historic Resources Commission approval of DR-04-33-04 on May 20, 2004 subject to conditions;
(b) Correct dimension notations;
(c) Show exiting utilities per Section 20-1431;
(d) Correct Impervious Surface Table;
(e) Identify material for sidewalk on east side of structure;
(f) Identify dimensions of planters located on east side of structure;
(g) Identify species of trees in landscaping notes;
(h) Identify net square footage;
(i) Provide lighting information including mounting height and fixture type;
(j) Identify utility access and utility pole;
(k) Correct general note 1.2 to specify use;
(l) Identify all lines on plan with correct dimensions or notations;
(m) Identify property lines; and
(n) Change the title block to include “Rear Patio/Deck Addition.”
Motion carried unanimously. (13)
Consider approving site plan SP-10-62-03: Wisconsin Apartments, located at 1710 W. 7th Street.
Jeff Tulley, Planner, presented the staff report. He said the Wisconsin Apartment site plan proposed a 25 unit, multi-family apartment building at the northwest corner of West 7th and Wisconsin Streets. The subject property along with properties adjacent to the east and west were zoned RM-2 (Multiple-Family Residence District). The site was bordered on the west by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles Lodge and to the east by some multiple-family residential units. The area was zoned C-5 (Limited Commercial District) to the north which was the College Hotel and the recently completed SHEPCO Tire Store. To the south of the subject property were single-family homes on large lots.
He said the subject property was also part of the area being discusses for the 6th Street Area Plan which was the following item on the agenda.
He said RM-2 zoning required a minimum lot area of 2,000 square feet for each dwelling unit. The subject property at approximately 50,997 square feet allowed for a permitted density of as many as 25 dwelling units on that site. The submitted site plan proposed 25 units in one building, 15 one bedroom units, and 10 two bedroom units located on two floors.
The submitted site plan proposed the apartment building to be sited on the northern half of the subject lot and oriented east and west. The parking lot would provide 39 off-street parking spaces including two handicapped accessible spaces. Access to the sites parking lot would be off of Wisconsin and there would be two access points.
While the submitted site plan met the City Code requirements, in terms of the allowed density for the RM-2 zoning and the applicant had worked to provide compatibility with surrounding land uses, Planning Staff remained concerned with the number of dwelling units proposed for that project. He said although permitted by the existing zoning, it did not appear to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020. He said based on the density proposed by the site plan that project fell into the category of high density residential development which was a density of 16 to 21 dwelling units per acre. Based on Horizon 2020, high density residential development was appropriate in locations near high intensity activity areas or other high density residential developments, neither of which appear to be true to the subject property.
He said Planning Staff had asked the applicant to consider a less intensive density for the subject property, such as medium density residential development reflecting an overall density of seven to fifteen dwelling units per acre which would provide a better transition. He said this site plan was permitted by current zoning and staff recommended approval of the site plan with a number of conditions as identified in the site plan review document.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the minimum number of parking spaces for 25 dwelling units was.
Tulley said he believed that number was slightly over what was required by code which was 38 off-street parking spaces based on the number of dwelling units.
Commissioner Schauner said this location had a maximum number of dwelling units and exceeded the minimum parking spaces by one.
Tulley said correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was an alleyway that provided fire access to the west end of that building from that driveway.
Tulley said no. He said that location for fire access was within the minimum standards required by the Fire Department. He said it met the code compliance for fire standards in terms of being able to provide fire access to that location. He said this access had been reviewed extensively by the Fire Department and it met their code requirements.
Emily Hill, Lawrence, spoke on behalf of the Pinckney, Old West Lawrence, and Hillcrest Neighborhood Associations. She said the architect met with their neighborhoods on several occasions and they believed that the architect made a sincere attempt to lessen the impact on the existing neighborhoods, but no matter how good an architect he was it was impossible to disguise that proposal. She said the proposal was a 25 unit apartment building squeezed onto a 1.2 acre lot. She said the proposal was 21.4 units per acre development which was more than a high density apartment building. She said Horizon 2020 defined high density as 16 to 21 units per acre which she called “maximum density.”
She emphasized that their three neighborhoods, Pinckney, Old West Lawrence, and Hillcrest did not object to a multi-family development on that site. She said they were believers in in-fill development and they were excited for the potential of a low or medium density, multi-family development to help revitalize the neighborhood and to make a positive contribution to what they saw as a fragile but very important part of Lawrence.
The central problem with the proposal was not because it was multi-family development or that it would change the neighborhood, much of which they acknowledged that the neighborhood was ready for growth and change, the problem was that it did not comply with City Code and it directly contradicted the fundamental principles of Horizon 2020 and therefore it did not meet the conditions for approval of a submitted site plan.
She said out of respect for the City Commission’s time they had attempted to distill the violations of both City Code and Horizon 2020 into three central points which were:
1. Both City Code and Horizon 2020 required that in-fill development be compatible with adjacent and surrounding residences and uses in order to merit City Commission approval;
2. Horizon 2020 called for appropriate transition between low and high density developments; and
3. Horizon 2020 explicitly ruled out the possibility of placing a high density development on the corner of two local residential side streets.
She said the developer had not addressed the impact to the north of a three story maximum density development over-looking 6th Street at the main gateway into town. She said City Code read that developments should be landscaped to be in “harmony with adjacent land uses and would provide a pleasing appearance to the public.” Yet the developer appeared not to have considered the view from 6th Street or the view from east or west. She said the developer had not addressed the impact on the one and two story low density to the east.
She said these rentals provided reasonably priced housing for a number of families with children who had lived there for a long time and no one had asked the question on the impact of those families.
In summary, judging from the plan that was submitted, the conditions required for approval of the site plan, per section 20-1432 of the City Code, could not be met. Based on the evidence presented, this site plan failed on two out of seven conditions required for approval.
She presented to the City Commission a handout of proposed revisions from the neighborhood of the Planning Office’s findings. She said from those seven conditions, the site plan failed to meet both (b) and (e). She said they had come up with proposed revisions to the Planning Office’s finding.
She said the proposed revision to (b) “The proposed arrangements of buildings off-street parking, access lighting, landscaping, and drainage was compatible with adjacent land uses.” She said their proposal was to: “As revised and submitted, the proposed arrangement of the apartment building, off-street parking, access, lighting, landscaping and drainage were incompatible with adjacent land use. The incompatible elements include, but are not limited to, arrangement of the apartment building, including building height, location and arrangement of off-street parking landscaping.
She said the second requirement which the site plan did not meet was in regard to landscaping. The neighborhoods proposed the following revision to the site plan reviews findings which was “Although the site plan meets the minimum requirement as mandated in City Code, the landscape berm on 7th Street has allowed reduction of interior landscaping to 10%. In part, as a result of this reduction, and of the focus on 7th Street, the proposed development would not be in harmony with adjacent land uses to the east or the north and would not provide a pleasing appearance to the public.” She said that was particularly true from 6th Street, the main arterial connector between West Lawrence and Downtown and the main gateway into Lawrence. She said the submitted site plan therefore, was not compliant with this condition required by City Code for the approval of a site plan.
In conclusion, approving the site plan as proposed would not only violate the City Code, but also essentially invalidate the significance of Horizon 2020 which was a strategic document as they as neighborhoods truly hope still had relevance and therefore they asked the City Commission to not approve the site plan.
Sean Williams, President, Hillcrest Neighborhood Association, said there had been an extraordinary political ground swell of the community support in addressing planning issues for the neighborhood. He said the neighborhood was concerned with the amount of the traffic and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He said as a result, a resolution was previously presented addressing the inadequacies of decade old zoning and addressed some concerns for a plan which the City adopted.
He said in terms of zoning, they were talking about what was implied, what was on record, what was practiced, and what they wished today. He said he drove by 8th and Ohio to remind himself of bad use of proper zoning.
He said as a realtor, he had discovered in investigating the history of development in Lawrence, why people called for specific types of housing. He informed the City Commission of the different styles of homes through the years.
He said as a resident living next to a multi-family high density unit, there was a difference to having a swimming pool and basketball court that served four to six family members and one that served four to six dozen tenants.
In summary, he said he wanted to illustrate there was a non-professional ground swell of grass roots effort to get the City Commission and City Staff to address good planning. He asked the City Commission to reject the site plan and call for a revised plan that provided for lower density multi-family living, improved screening and buffering to protect the existing neighborhoods and he also asked for neighborhood input into the building elevations. The site plan alone was insufficient demonstration of whether or not this development would meet the neighborhood’s concerns.
Allen Belot, Belot-Hartronft Association, LLC., said he had offered to Emily Hill to review the plans as those plans progressed.
He stated that there were not any correct items as far as the zoning ordinance was concerned and the site plan was in compliance with the ordinance.
John Pepperdine, President of Pinckney Neighborhood Association, said he had talked to his neighbors in getting a sense of how their community felt about this issue. He said most neighbors could not comment because they had not seen the site plan. He said when he looked at the big issues affecting their neighborhood, it was usually traffic. He said whenever putting in any type of development, the number of units made a difference. He said the proposal did not seem congruent with the surroundings, high-density traffic, or Horizon 2020.
Belot said next month that project would be celebrating its first birthday. He said his first pre-submittal conference was September 16, 2003 and he submitted that site plan for staff review on October 7, 2003. He said since then, it had been through three complete staff reviews, multiple corrections, meetings with the immediate neighbors, and multiple phone conversations with the neighborhoods representative. He said he had not tried to push this site plan through because he had an extreme sensitivity to the surrounding neighbors, especially, to the south. He said RS-2 did not describe the nature of that neighborhood.
He said in the whole process, he had used Horizon 2020 and the zoning ordinance to create a site plan that complied with the ordinance and complied with as many things in Horizon 2020 that he could. He said Horizon 2020 had some contradictory goals. He said he tried to take Horizon 2020 and include that plan into this site plan as much as possible. He said he also attempted to bring the immediate neighbors intimately into this process. He said he was disappointed in Hill’s comment in that they were only doing minimal landscaping because they were building significant fill along the south property line to raise the grade so they could plant some trees to screen from the neighbors property. He said he had included his presentation about his design process and how he balanced Horizon 2020 with the zoning ordinance. He said that design process descriptively and graphically explained the analysis that he went through in regards to the location of the building, massing, parking, buffering both visually and sound, solar, and wind.
He said when he first started this project, he said he was looking at 20 units, 10 two bedrooms and 10 three bedrooms units. He said from his professional perspective, concerning apartments, people did not rent dwelling units, but bedrooms. He said bedrooms converted to people and people converted to density because it was people that made the noise, drove the cars, and have the parties that generated trash. He said he quickly rejected the 10 two bedrooms and 10 three bedroom units because that interpreted to 50 tenants. He said he dropped back to 15 one bedrooms and 10 two bedrooms that had the same parking requirements and reduced to 35 tenants. He said from his point of view, he did reduce the density and that was in the confines of the zoning ordinance. He said this was an attempt to reduce the impact of this apartment building, by reducing the density, for the southern neighbors.
He said the zoning ordinance recognized that three bedroom units did have a greater impact on a neighborhood in the development because it increased the parking requirements for three bedroom apartments by 60%. He said he had reduced the density and was in compliance with the ordinance. He said they had made an attempt to integrate and be compassionate toward all the neighbors and he hoped that the City Commission would concur with the staff report and grant this site plan.
Price Banks, Attorney, spoke on behalf of the applicants. He said he was surprised to hear the discussion about density because he had not heard that before when they were talking about zoning. He said probably some of the confusion came from all of the debate that went on when they discussed PUD’s (Planned Unit Developments) and the various types of density and other ways that the development could be affected. He said they were not talking about a PUD or granting zoning. He said zoning did set the density, standards, parking standards, height limitations, and the bulk limitations.
He said Horizon 2020 was the Comprehensive Plan and that plan was implemented by zoning, Capital Improvement Programs, Subdivision Regulations, and a number of other governmental actions and ordinances. He said Horizon 2020 was not an ordinance that established standards.
He discussed the character of the site and the location of the building. He said the intention was to place the building on the site as far away from 7th Street and far away from the properties to the south as possible. He said that strategy resulted in a considerably lower profile for the building, if it was viewed from the south because of the slope of the site the building would sit much lower on the site. The floor level at the upper story of the building would be substantially below the grade of 7th Street. In reality, because of the elevation south of 7th Street, the view from the residences in that area would be the roof of the structure on the site. If that structure was moved up to 7th Street, that structure would be moved up in elevation to the point where there was a three story structure looking out on 7th Street, similar with the situation at Highpointe Apartments. The high density development was one property removed to the west of the proposed development and had access to 7th Street. He said this property did not take access onto 7th Street and it was illogical to consider that it would create traffic onto 7th Street west of Wisconsin street because there was no place to go. The Highpointe Apartments have parking lots on 7th Street.
He said the planned placement of the building would also result in substantial noise attenuation because of the topographic buffer as well as the distance. He said the development of the site was simply not possible to perch the building on top of the hill. The excessive earth work would be astronomically expensive and it would spoil the natural features of the site contrary to the requirements of Horizon 2020.
He said 6th Street was looked at as a gateway into Lawrence. He said when crossing 6th and Iowa there were apartment buildings (Highpointe Apartments). He said those apartments were closer to 6th Street than the proposed apartments.
Banks said he was confused about the density being lowered. The zoning ordinance provided that development in the RM-2 District have a minimum lot area of 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit. He said that was the formula used in designing this site. The requirement for lower density flew in the face of the statutory requirements. The statutory requirement was that zoning regulations be uniform for each class or type of building or land use throughout each district.
He said there were many examples in Lawrence where properties develop to the maximum density permitted in a district. If property was zoned RM-2 then it could be developed to RM-2 Density and people consider that when they were paying the price for their property. If property was zoned RD then it was appropriate for a Fraternity or Sorority House. He said in this case, the owner invested in the property in reliance of ordinance provisions and those provisions should not now be changed without a change in zoning. The plan conformed with all applicable regulations and the requirement to lower the density was going to impose a hardship on the owner.
He discussed the concern about compatibility with the neighborhood. He said the properties to the south were single-family homes on large lots, to the west were high density apartments and the Eagles Lodge, to the east was a mix of multi-family dwellings and directly to the north were commercial.
He said there was concern about being next door to multi-family, but next door to that structure would be the Eagles Lodge, additional multi-family, the College Motel, and the tire store. He said it was 50 feet from 7th Street and considerably more from the nearest neighborhood. He urged the City Commission to approve the site plan in accordance to staff’s recommendation.
Commissioner Highberger said he was generally reluctant to disapprove a site plan. However, this was an extremely dense proposal next to some extremely low density residential housing units. He said to him this seemed a gross violation of Horizon 2020 and he did not believe that it was compatible with the adjacent uses and for that reason he could not approve the site plan.
Commissioner Hack said these were the types of decisions that were difficult for the City Commission to make when a property had been purchased with the understanding of certain zoning in place. She said when Horizon 2020 and the zoning conflict and it was left up to the City Commission to decide, the Commission needed to rely on staff. She said when looking at the staff report there was clearly a conflict in the mind of staff of how this issue should be handled.
Commissioner Schauner referred to part of the staff report which quoted in part, Horizon 2020, Chapter 5 which stated: “The design and development of all new high density residential district should be carefully controlled to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, adequate screening and buffering, and attractive appearance from nearby roadways and a high quality environment.” He said part of this City Commission’s responsibility involved that careful control to ensure compatibility. He said he did not think that high density was compatible with the surrounding uses. He said this development provided maximum density and minimum everything else. As such, it did not satisfy for him the compatibility standards that should apply to this project or future projects if the City Commission was genuinely going to give full play to the clear public policy statements in Horizon 2020. He said he did not support the site plan as proposed.
Commissioner Dunfield added that when looking at the alternatives that were studied in terms of the placement of that building on the site, the architect made a good case for moving that building away from 7th Street and for providing the type of parking and buffering, but that very fact indicated the difficulty of the project from a point of view of making a transition to the neighborhood. A person did not generally think of a good neighbor as being someone who moved as far away from the street in a parking lot to separate himself from its neighbors. He said he did not mean that to be insulting or sarcastic, but it indicated that there was too much trying to be placed on a small piece of ground in order for that transition to happen gracefully. He said that indicated that the transition was not there and he did not support the site plan.
Mayor Rundle said he agreed in that the Comprehensive Plan was not prescriptive, but the courts were supportive on reliance on the Comprehensive Plan. A person would get into trouble when deviating from that plan without cause.
He asked Finger if the City Commission needed to make a finding on this proposal.
Finger said yes, the finding would need to be made based on the criteria in the staff report.
Belot said they were formally requesting to withdraw the plan.
Corliss said the plan had formally been withdrawn.
Mayor Rundle asked if there was any guidance that would be helpful to staff.
Finger said guidance would be helpful to staff. She said she anticipated that the applicant would be interested in a re-submittal.
Belot said he did not want negative marker against his site. He suggested starting from scratch.
Finger said if the City Commission could give direction, it would be helpful to all of the parties.
Belot said he did not want to be in a situation where he had a plan that had been denied and also, if he came back with another plan that did not meet the City Commission’s standard for a significant change.
Corliss said the applicant could submit a new site plan tomorrow. He said Belot was speaking on behalf of the property owners and had withdrawn the site plan application and therefore, the City had no action to take.
Consider adopting on first reading, Ordinance No. 7803, establishing a temporary building permit moratorium during the preparation of the 6th Street area plan.
Dave Corliss presented the staff report and explained the ordinance. He said pursuant to the City Commission’s direction, staff drafted an ordinance that established a temporary building permit moratorium. He said the recitals language stated why it was appropriate to have that moratorium. He said in the 4th recital the City Commission had indicated that this area needed immediate planning, review, and study related to land uses, public infrastructure, community facilities, and related issues to ensure the promotion of the general public health, safety, and welfare of the area.
He said in Section 2 of the ordinance, it established a building permit moratorium that was effective for six months within the moratorium area. There were exceptions to that which included valid permits could be issued for projects where there had been a building permit application. On June 29th the City Commission indicated that they wanted to proceed with that exception where there had been a request for a development plan or site plan approval prior to June 29th. The preceding item was one of those items, but that item had been withdrawn.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that particular item would now not be available for issuance of a building permit during this building permit moratorium.
Corliss said correct, because the applicant had withdrawn the site plan. He said building permits could be issued if the project did not increase the size or footprint of existing building of a structure. It was the intent that repairs or replacement of existing structure would be allowed during the moratorium.
He said in Section 3 of the ordinance, it allowed for individuals with a property interest in the moratorium area to seek an exception if they believed that they had legal rights to do so and the City Commission would be the administrative exhaust if that was going to be a request.
Hill stated that the neighborhood associations strongly supported the area plan and expressed their desire to gain commercial support. She said a person who owned commercial property in their area was thinking about renovations and they did not want to prevent those renovations because that person’s support was important to the neighborhood.
Corliss said that would depend on the facts.
Mayor Rundle said the redevelopment had been a positive example of change on 6th Street.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt on first reading Ordinance No. 7803, establishing a temporary building permit moratorium during the preparation of the 6th Street Area Plan. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Receive report from Chuck Soules, Director of Public Works, concerning KDOT applications for KLINK, geometric improvements and economic development improvements.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. He said there were three applications to KDOT for the KLINK Geometric Improvements, and Economic Development Programs.
He said the KLINK project for Fiscal Year 2007 would be 23rd Street from Haskell to the east City limits; and Iowa Street from the KU overpass to Harvard Road. Those areas had been reviewed by the City engineer and staff would be up for milling and overlay in 2006.
He said this year staff had completed 6th Street from Kasold to Arkansas and next year improvements would be made on 6th Street from Arkansas to Massachusetts Streets.
The other projects were geometric improvements and economic development projects. The geometric improvements were on State Highways which were 6th, 23rd and Iowa Streets.
The projects that staff had chosen for the City Commission to consider included:
1. Center turn lane on West 6th Street from Folks Road east to approximately 1,000 feet west of Monterey Way;
2. Left turn lanes on Michigan Street (north and south bound) at 6th Street; and
3. Left turn lane on Harper Street (south leg) at 23rd Street.
He said concerning economic development projects to consider included:
1. The extension of East Hills Drive to Franklin Road, and Franklin to K10;
2. 31st Street from Haskell to O’Connell; and,
3 15th Street interchange at K-10.
Commissioner Hack asked about the 15th Street interchange and why was that not done when 15th Street was being done.
Wildgen said the County was dealing with that street and he thought they might have run out of funds.
Schauner commented on 31st Street. He said it did not make much sense in doing much with that street until they figure out what would happen with the South Lawrence Trafficway. He said other projects stood higher in line for submission.
Soules said he did not disagree however, staff understood that section of 31st Street would remain after the SLT was built.
Commissioner Schauner said on the economic development piece that dealt with consolidation of curb cuts and acquisition of public access on 23rd Street, he asked how many curb cuts were consolidated in the last three or four years.
Corliss said there were a few curb cuts such as the bookstore and post office.
Commissioner Schauner asked if staff had a long list of those curb cuts.
Corliss said those curb cuts occurred with redevelopment opportunities. He said the grant from KDOT would be proactive where staff would work with the property owners regardless of their redevelopment plans to see if access could not be improved along that street.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Nicholas Luna, current standing President of the Haskell Wetlands Preservation Organization, said he realized there were three separate areas that were being looked at, but his comments were directed towards 31st Street.
He said their stance at the Haskell Indian Nations University Wetlands Preservation Organization was opposed to the widening of 31st Street for a number of reasons.
He said although some continue to disagree over the negative environmental impacts resulting from the construction of the SLT through the Haskell/Baker Wetlands it was impossible to suppose that the widening of 31st Street to four lanes would not result in environmental degradation.
The question of Public Works was not what one could do, rather what one ought to do. In this case the Haskell Wetlands Preservation Organization would argue that 31st Street should not be widened since it would only make worse an already bad environmental situation. In addition, the Haskell Wetlands Preservation Organization also wondered about the numerous assurances that they had been given during the last decade that officials were sensitive to the sacred character of this place along the Wakarusa River and the way in which it served as a natural chapel for many in the Lawrence community, not just Native Americans.
Two more lanes of traffic could only make the noise and exhaust of automobiles and trucks more intrusive than they already were.
He asked where the long-range visions of the City and County were. He said for years they were told that the SLT was the answer, but now it appeared that someone wanted the public to approve two trafficways through the fragile eco-system of the Haskell/Baker Wetlands in the surrounding areas.
He said they encouraged the Lawrence City Commission to vote down any effort to build a 31st Street mini trafficway.
Wildgen said they did not need to apply for any of those projects. He said they would need to apply for KLINK Projects because it dealt with maintenance of streets and the City had never been turned down.
Commissioner Dunfield asked if the order that those project were given in indicate priority. He said there were three geometric improvements proposed and in a purely subjective experience, on his part, was that Harper Street was the worst of those three conditions. He said if there were some prioritizing of the list, he would like to see Harper Street at the top of the list.
Wildgen said staff could only apply for one project.
Commissioner Dunfield said Harper Street would be his priority.
He said as far as the economic development proposals, the East Hills Drive tying into other things that had been going on and also as a backdoor way to try to solve problems that had been in existence at East Hills for sometime was a good proposal.
Commissioner Hack agreed.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not have any problem with the Harper improvement. He said the issue that he continued to struggle with was as approaching Lawrence from the east, the speed with which people approach and pass the East Hills Business Park did argue strongly for some improvement, but it struck him as a patch to a bigger problem. He did not want that issue to go off anyone’s radar screen.
Soules assured the Commission that this project has been repeatedly put before KDOT. He said he also would recommend the East Hills Business Park project.
Wildgen commented that he had spoke with the KDOT official that oversaw this area, but to no avail.
Commissioner Highberger concurred with Commissioner Dunfield’s remarks.
He addressed Luna’s comments. He said he remained firmly opposed to the proposed route of the SLT and if he could do something to stop that he would. He said he felt differently about 31st Street. He was concerned about the potential impact on that route, but he did not want to commit to building any further arterials until the design of those arterials were looked at. He said there was innovative work that had been done in different places and were compatible with the neighborhood.
He said the current 31st Street extension was in the City’s transportation plan right now. He said if the Southeast Development occurred, the 31st Street extension would be needed at some point. He said he was not sure how important it was to submit the 31st Street Project at this time, but it needed to be done at some point.
Commissioner Hack asked how much of that stretch of 31st Street was in the City.
Soules said part of that stretch of 31st Street was in the County.
Wildgen said the west part of 31st Street was in the County. He said the City had an agreement with one property owner near O’Connell Road that within a certain number of years the right-of-way was available but after that that agreement was cancelled.
Commissioner Hack expressed a priority for improving the East Hills Business area, but agreed that Harper was bad and should be improved.
Mayor Rundle echoed Commissioner Highberger’s comments about 31st street. He said staff needed a better idea about that system on how it worked before they started 31st Street. He noted that the City Commission would hopefully be talking to the County Commission about Highway 59. He said that was another example where the scope of the project stopped at the edge of Lawrence and did not make sense to not figure out how that project would integrate into the City of Lawrence.
Commissioner Schauner asked if KDOT was performing a study of K-10 highway to make it six or eight lanes.
Wildgen said yes.
Commissioner Schauner said when looking at the urban growth area to the south, having a six or eight lane truck expressway bi-sect what would be 40 to 60 thousand new Lawrence residents from the rest of town, stuck him as a horrifically bad idea. He said whatever role the City played in that idea, he would like to prevent that from happening before it was too late.
Wildgen said part of KDOT’s projections was based on population projections. He said those projections were in a report and he would make sure the Commissioner’s received that report.
Mayor Rundle suggested that some of those future discussions could be broadened. He said the Secretary of Transportation was receptive for discussions.
Commissioner Schauner suggested submitting any road improvements to the Secretary of Transportation.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he had discussions with the General Counsel for KDOT about setting up a meeting with the City and County Commissioners to talk about the long-range highway planning for that area. He said he would be interested in taking on the idea of what the long-term highway future for Lawrence would be. (16)
Receive staff memo regarding adjustments made to 2005 City Manager's Recommended Budget. (July 2 budget adjustment memo attached).
Mayor Rundle said the action of the Commission concerning the 2005 City Manager’s recommended budget, if appropriate, would be to finalize that budget. He said he had made a mistake and told some people that the final meeting would be on July 20th and that they did not need to come to the Commission meeting at this time. He suggested approving the revisions, but not finalizing the budget.
Wildgen said staff anticipated that the 2005 City Manager’s Budget would be authorized on July 20th. He said those people could attend that meeting for continued discussion on that matter.
It was moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to place the budget on next week’s agenda as revised up to this point. The motion passed unanimously. (17)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
COMMISSION ITEMS:
Mayor Rundle said he thought the Commission was good about leaving a matter on the table and then moving on. He said he kept hearing about the Duncan Donuts issue. He recapped his perspective of that issue which was in the context of being user friendly and making policies business friendly. He said his assertion in dealing with that issue was that to be clear and consistent, but they couldn’t apply a code that wasn’t yet adopted. He said if the Commission was talking about applying standards, which at that time were the 23rd Street access standards, the Commission could apply standards of the 6th Street area plan before it was adopted. He said if this was an on-going issue, he suggested bringing that issue back to the City Commission to decide how they would codify the application of unapproved policies. He said he would like to see the Duncan Donuts issue put to rest.
Vice Mayor Highberger said for the record, he thought the City Commission applied the code to the site plan that was discussed tonight.
Mayor Rundle said he was making an analogy. He said at that time the Commission had not approved the 23rd Street access codes, but they were directed to approve the project. How an applicant could know what unapproved standards were going to be was beyond his grasp.
Corliss said staff was working on a re-write of the Access Management Guidelines that the Commission had conceptually approved, but not adopted in ordinance form. He said hopefully that issue would be placed on the agenda soon.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that would be for any place other than 23rd Street.
Corliss said yes. He said the City Commission had an adopted 23rd Street plan that talked about access guidelines for 23rd Street. He said it was not in ordinance form, which was probably the City preference. He said the Planning Staff had created a document that concerned access management for the entire community.
Commissioner Schauner said in an email from Wildgen concerning pesticide free parks, there was a reference to a machine that used some non-toxic materials. He said as he looked at that website for that company, that machine was also used for general cleaning purposes. He said it brought to mind Downtown Lawrence and the issues around sidewalk cleanliness and general zigzag parking cleanliness. He would like staff to look at that type of machine that might have multiple uses including some regular scrubbing of the downtown footprint which could use some help.
Commissioner Schauner also asked about the trash and cigarette receptacles to accommodate the increase smoking on the sidewalks. He asked if staff was moving forward on that idea.
Commissioner Hack said she would visit with Lynn Green, Van Go Mobile Arts, about that issue.
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 13, 2004
1. Bid – 2004 Overlay & Concrete (Phase 3) to LRM Industries for $575,753.80.
2. Ordinance No. 7800 – 1st Reading, Rezone (Z-03-14-04) 4.07 acres, A to RS-2, S of W 6th & W of E 1000 Rd.
3. Ordinance No. 7792 – 2nd Reading, Rezone (Z-02-04-04) 1.01 acres from C-3 to RO-2, plate recorded in 1869 named S ½ of Blk 5, N Lawrence.
4. Ordinance No. 7796 – 2nd Reading, picketing & tethering dogs, Animal Control Code
5. Ordinance No. 7801 – 2nd Reading, Street name change from 25th Terr (within Fairfield W Add) to 25th Pl, and 25th St (within Fairfield W Add) to 25th Terr.
6. Rezone – (Z-05-17-04) 1.59 acres, C-4 to M-3, N Town Add, N 2nd & Lyons St.
7. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-05-06-04) Oread West Office Park, 15th & Wakarusa.
8. UPR – (UPR-05-02-04) Summer Camp at Googols of Fun, 4931 W 6th.
9. UPR – (UPR-08-06-81) Penn House fence, 1035 Penn.
10. Encroachment Agreement – Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Fox Chase S Subdivision.
11. City Manager’s Report.
12. Economic Development Report.
13. Site Plan – (SP-05-33-04) 2nd story deck at Quinton’s, 615 Mass.
14. Site Plan – (SP-10-62-03) Wisconsin Apts, 1710 W 7th.
15. Ordinance No. 7803 – 1st Reading, temporary bldg moratorium, 6th Street Area Plan.
16. KDOT Applications for KLINK – geometric & economic development improvements.
17. 2005 City Manager’s Budget adjustments.