July 20, 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.

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of July 13, 2004.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Public Transit Advisory Committee meeting of June 17, 2004; the Public Library Board meeting minutes of June 21, 2004; the Public Health Board meeting minutes of May 17, 2004; the Aviation Advisory Board meeting minutes of June 10, 2004; the Lawrence Arts Commission meeting minutes of April 14, 2004 and May 12, 2004; and the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of June 23, 2004.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 365 vendors in the amount if $1,178,896.43.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Zen Zero, 811 Massachusetts; and Henry T’s Bar & Grill, 5320 West 6^th.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to enter into an engineering contract for the Preliminary Design Report for the 2005 Waterline Improvements with BG Consultants in the amount of $34,651.28.  Motion carried unanimously.                                               (1)

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 6^th Street (Highway 40) and west of East 1000 Road (Queens Road/Branchwood Drive), was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                  (2)

Ordinance No. 7803, establishing a temporary building permit moratorium during the preparation of the 6th Street Area Plan, was read a second time.  As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                             (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6555, setting out the findings of the governing body and ordering the construction of 3^rd Street from Alabama to Illinois.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                     (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adopt Resolution No. 6556, declaring an unmarked, unfenced excavation located at the 700 Block, No. 3, Lyon, North Lawrence as a nuisance and ordering its abatement.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter officially designating Success By 6 as the eligible Local Council for the City or Lawrence, Kansas for the purpose of the Early Learning Opportunities Act (ELOA) discretionary grant program.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive a letter from Waldeck, Matteuzzi & Sloan, P.C. regarding Western Hills rezoning issues.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                    (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Christina Lesher, 760 North 7^th Street.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                              (8)

Commissioner Schauner pulled from the consent agenda the rezoning requests, preliminary development plan, and site plan for those businesses located at 3400 Iowa (Crown Chevrolet/Toyota and Crown Pre-Owned Cars & Wal-Mart). 

Sandy Day said there were multiple items associated with those requests.  The first item was the rezoning that was associated with the Wal-Mart property.  She said that area was an existing commercial development and the proposed request would expand the conventional C-5 (Limited Commercial District) to the east and somewhat to the south to allow for the proposed expansion of the Wal-Mart building, located on the east, west, and south sides of the existing structure. 

Associated with the site plan element was also a reconfiguration of an existing parking lot. The area was surrounded by existing commercial development and the area to the far east was currently undeveloped and outside of the City limits. 

Jeff Tully, Planner, presented information regarding the memo presented to the City Commission for the Crown Chevrolet/Toyota Preliminary Development Plan (PDP).  Tully reminded the Commission at the June 23, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 9-0 to approve both the rezoning (Z-05-20-04) and the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-05-04-04) for Crown Chevrolet//Toyota and Crown Pre-Owned Cars, 3400 Iowa Street, subject to conditions.

On June 29, 2004, the Planning Office received word from the applicant that modifications to the Preliminary Development Plan were necessary along with additional modifications that were relayed to staff yesterday.  Those modifications would increase the total floor area by 18% for the commercial uses on the Crown site.   

Mayor Rundle asked if one of the modifications led to a need for a waiver.

Tully said the first set of changes staff received on June 29^th, was an increase of floor area by 18% from what the Planning Commission had addressed in the way of the PDP.  The applicant had proposed to demolish the existing Crown Chevrolet Building and then construct a new used car building on that site.  When the applicant learned that they were not able to construct that building because of a franchise situation between Toyota and Chevrolet, they decided to keep their existing Chevrolet building, shave off the back 8,000 to 9,000 square feet of the building which then resulted in a 18,000 square foot difference between what they proposed and what was already there.  He said as a result, that led to the increase of over 10% of the modification to the site based on square footage.

He said the second request based on yesterday’s information, he would feel more comfortable if Todd Thompson, Attorney, representing Wal-Mart, could discuss that issue because it required discussion of right-of-way and KDOT issues beyond his experience in working with that plan.

Mayor Rundle said he wanted to be assured that the granting of the waiver was in the City Commission’s purview and none of this issue would require going back to the Planning Commission.      

Corliss said the City Code was not particularly helpful on that issue.  The code in the Chapter 20, Article 10, relating to Planned Unit Development Districts, explicitly stated that the Planning Commission might approve a lesser set back and limits that setback waiver.  He said the code granted the Planning Commission that authority.  The City Commission’s authority was to receive the recommendation from the Planning Commission and approve the PDP.  He said the City Commission did not have explicit code authority to grant the waiver, but the Commission did have the authority to approve the plan.  He said the Planning Commission would ultimately receive the Final Development Plan.      

Mayor Rundle said Corliss’ explanation satisfied his question concerning the need for a waiver.

Tully explained four possible actions for the City Commission to take concerning the Preliminary Development Plan which were:

1. Approve the Planning Commission-approved Preliminary Development Plan  (without revisions);

2. “Receive” the revised Preliminary Development Plan but because of the increase in square footage, send it back to the Planning Commission with instructions for consideration of approval;

3. Approve the revised Preliminary Development Plan (with revisions) without Planning Commission consideration on a 4-1 or 5-0 vote; or

4. Deny the Preliminary Development Plan with revised findings.   

He said representatives of both Crown Chevrolet and Wal-Mart were present to address the City Commission regarding those modifications and how those modifications impacted their project.

John Hampton, Attorney, representing Crown Chevrolet, discussed the two modifications.  He said the change in the size of the Chevrolet building was made before the used car building on the original PDP.  He said it was important that they were able to reuse an existing building.  He said the net effect of their development was a reduction in retail space at that location.  The Toyota building would be razed and they were taking off a portion of the Chevrolet building which was a net reduction in retail space in that area when considering the Chevrolet building as it would exist under the modification and the Pay-Less Cashways building of an approximate 18,000 square foot reduction.  He said they did not see this modification as significant.  The building did not change much as far as the location that extended back further than the original PDP and the entities changed location from what they were.

He said with regard to the need for a waiver on the setback on the south side which was the Armstrong Road side, it was the original intention that the City would abandon Armstrong Road or 35^th Street.  He said they understood, at the time, that the Kansas Department of Transportation owned, in fee simple, the South Lawrence Trafficway (SLT).  He said when the City would abandon Armstrong Road that road would revert back to the adjoining property owners as far as the ownership which would mean KDOT would then own that property from the centerline, south and Payless Cashways which would become Crown’s Chevrolet property and they would own from the centerline, north.  He said KDOT had agreed to abandon that property and give that property to Crown Chevrolet/Toyota development.  He said that would have given them more than a 30 foot setback from the curb line of the parking area which was south of the building, approximately 80 feet. 

He said they found out that KDOT did not buy easements, but fee simple and KDOT was having a difficulty understanding why they did not own that property outright.  He said KDOT understood from reviewing their documents that they had an easement for use of a highway right-of-way.  He said KDOT was looking into the possibility that their contract actually called for a deed for a fee simple title to the property.  He said they did not know if that would pan out or not.  If it did pan out, it might be that the waiver, eventually, would not be necessary, but at this point in time it appeared that the waiver would be necessary.

He said one issue that was important to understand was that the practical result of a waiver, at that location of the setback, would be that the appearance would be exactly the same as if they had a 30 foot setback.  He said it was impossible for anyone to build any buildings on the south side because that was the SLT.  The SLT when it would be built would look exactly the same as it would whether they had a 30 foot setback or a four foot setback.

Commissioner Dunfield said what was being discussed was not physical change to the development in any way, but a difference in property ownership and therefore the definition of the setback.  He said the change that the applicant was proposing did not physically alter the site in any way from what the Planning Commission addressed in terms of the south end of the site.

Hampton said correct.  He said there could be not change with the appearance in the future because of the characteristics of that particular location.

Commissioner Dunfield said that south building line was actually an existing building.

Hampton said yes.  He said that was the Payless Cashways Building.

Mayor Rundle said there had not been any comment from staff about this issue being a major impact on the plan and he asked if this issue would affect staff’s recommendation to the Planning Commission when they address the Final Development Plan.

Linda Finger, Planning Director, said the waiver was more appropriately granted by the Planning Commission, but the ability for the City Commission to act on a PDP, particularly with a supermajority, would make that legitimate for the City Commission to act in a different motion from what the Planning Commission forwarded.  She said with this issue, the City Commission would be actually approving a PDP, but she pointed out that the boundaries of the Planned Commercial Development (PCD) were moved back because if that property was not owned, fee simple, by KDOT, then there was another property owner who was not a party to this rezoning or PCD so those boundaries were shrunken along that boundary line on the south side.  She said at some point, in the future, street trees would be placed along that line which was part of the SLT overlay district.  She said staff was comfortable with that revision.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Corliss asked if it was accurate that the conditions on the Preliminary Development needed to be altered to reflect the property.  He said that conditions numbers 2 and 3 needed to be removed from the PDP.  Those conditions referred to vacation of right-of-way and staff now knew that they needed to remove Armstrong Road, but staff was not counting on that right-of-way as assistance in the setback boundary.

Commissioner Schauner said he did not want to stop the progress, but he was uncomfortable with this haphazard discussion on this issue.  He said he was not sure he was going to be clear in what the record was.  At a minimum, he thought the City Commission should deal with those issues separately so there was some severability if there were concerns about the lawfulness of the City Commission’s actions, unless there was absolutely a need to move those issues as one motion. 

He asked when the City Commission would receive the specific conditional language and if they could have that information this evening if they placed that issue further down the agenda so the Commission would have a specific motion they were voting on with respect to those conditions.  He wanted to make sure that the record was clear with respect to what the Commission was voting on as it related to those right-of-way issues.

Mayor Rundle asked Finger when the Final Development Plan would be scheduled to go to the Planning Commission.

Finger said the applicants were working towards meeting all the conditions on the Preliminary Development Plan so that tomorrow the applicants could file the Final Development Plan.   She said it the applicant achieved that idea, then the Final Development Plan would be scheduled for the August 23^rd, Planning Commission meeting.   She reminded the City Commission at the Final Development Plan stage, the action was final at the Planning Commission level. 

Mayor Rundle asked if it was necessary for the City Commission to act on the Preliminary Development Plan before the Final Development Plan.

Finger said yes, because the plan would get murky if the City Commission did not act on the PDP.  If the City Commission was uncomfortable with the PDP and wanted to send it back, the City Commission could instruct the Planning Commission to consider both the PDP and the Final Development Plan at the same time.

Commissioner Dunfield said it looked as though there was a proposal that addressed Commissioner Schauner’s issues.

Todd Thompson said yes.  In terms of considering those plans all together, from day one, this had been a package deal.  He said they had filed their site plan at a different time than they normally would to keep it on the same track as the PDP for Crown Chevrolet.  He said they had kept those issues together from start to finish and that was the reason for voting on all four issues in a single motion.

In terms of the waiver, it did not change their plan at all, but it did change the green space on the south side.  He said as a practical matter there were no physical changes that would occur as a result of that waiver. 

In terms of the building square footage, that was mandated by the Chevrolet dealership who said they did not want to be in the same building as the Toyota dealership and that became a compromising arrangement.

Commissioner Schauner said his concern was that the City Commission had on the record, the specific conditions that they would be approving with respect to that setback.

Thompson said the proposed motion specifically referred to the Planning Commission’s adopted conditions.  The only changes would be with conditions two and three which related to KDOT right-of-way and as to 34^th Street and the frontage road, KDOT had said they did not have any interest in that right-of-way.  Therefore, KDOT could not relinquish that right-of-way because they did not have that right-or-way.  He said they were asking that those two conditions be removed. 

Commissioner Schauner said the motion would be to approve the PDP and eliminate conditions 2 and 3 which had been recommended by staff.

Mayor Rundle said the comfort that he had with this issue was that it would be brought back to the Planning Commission for the Final Development Plan and the Planning Commission would fully assess the impact of these changes at that time.

Commissioner Dunfield said the proposed language from the applicant seemed to make sense and corresponded with the changes that were discussed.  He said he did not think that the effect of those changes were significant in the overall approval of the project.  In fact, there had been a 9-0 vote from the Planning Commission on all of those items. 

Commissioner Schauner said he was satisfied with the proposed language.  He wanted to make sure the record was clean with respect to exactly what the City Commission was approving. 

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve the request to rezone (Z-05-21-04) a tract of land approximately 2.63 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) District and PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development) District to C-5 (Limited Commercial) District, the property is described as being located at 3300 Iowa Street.                                                                                                                               (9)

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve the request to rezone (Z-05-20-04) approximately 15.02 acres from C-5 (Limited Commercial District) and PCD-2 (Planned Commercial Development District), the property is described as being located at 3400 Iowa Street.                                                                                          (10)

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-05-04-04) for Crown Chevrolet/Toyota and Crown Pre-Owned Cars; property located at 3400, 3434 South Iowa, subject to revised conditions and use restrictions [original conditions 2 and 3 were deleted]). 

1.         Approval of proposed rezoning, to PCD-2 with use restrictions; and

2. Revision of Preliminary Development Plan to:

a) Reference approved setback reduction on north side of property from 30’ to 1’; and

b)   List all permitted uses on face of Preliminary Development Plan.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                (11)

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to approve the site plan (SP-05-29-04) for the redevelopment of an existing site plan for a building addition to the existing Wal-Mart store located at 3300 South Iowa Street, subject to the following conditions:

1. Submission and approval of public improvement plans for all public improvements; 33^rd Street, 34^th Street, sidewalks, sanitary sewer, municipal water, and storm sewer per approval of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit;

2. Approval and recording of a final plat of the subject property prior to issuance of a building permit. [Final plat shall include dedication of a cross access easement along the south property line as shown on this site plan];

3. The following be provided on a revised site plan with the approval of the city Stormwater Engineer of this information: a. drainage calculations for the primary system pipes; b. labels on all slopes and elevations shown; c. labels on all storm sewer structure sizes and elevations; d. a note that all curb inlets shall be constructed to City standard per the approval of the City Stormwater Engineer;

4. Approval of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) prior to issuance of a building permit per the approval of the City Stormwater Engineer;

5. Submission and approval of a photometric plan, pursuant to 20-14A01 per staff approval;

6. Execution of a site plan performance agreement; and,

7. Provision of a revised site plan that includes: a. A note that indicates a revised site plan must be approved prior to development of the out lots; b. Delineation of the limits of any outdoor sales areas.  c. a note restricting truck trailer parking to the three spaces on the east side of the site.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (12)

James Dunn, a member of the public, pulled from the consent agenda for separate discussion, the authorization for the Mayor to sign a letter of support for the funding of Amtrak.

Dunn said he supported the letter of support for the funding of Amtrak.  He spoke about the convenient access of Amtrak’s services.  He said when the City Commission met with the legislative delegation he asked if the Commission would put forward a request for more Amtrak and rail services throughout this State.

Moved by Hack seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support for funding for Amtrak. Motion carried unanimously.                                          (13)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said the intersection at 19^th and Barker Avenue should be opened for traffic by Monday, July 21^st. 

Commissioner Schauner said concerning the report the City Commission received as to some suggested uses for hybrid vehicles, he asked what the next step would be regarding that report.

Wildgen said Steve Stewart, Central Garage Superintendent, did a good job a analyzing the fleet.  He said when a request for a vehicle came in from a department, Stewart would advise the department of that type of vehicle being available.  He said staff would integrate those hybrid vehicles into the system as opportunities arose.     (14)

REGULAR AGENDA

Receive a report concerning the Environmental Code Enforcement Standard (Section 9-605).

At its July 6, 2004, meeting the City Commission requested additional information regarding the phrase that appears in Section 9-605 (Enforcement Standards), “conditions exist of a quality and appearance not commensurate with the character of the neighborhood.” Staff recommended striking that phrase and replacing it with language making enforcement standards for the environmental code uniform throughout the City. (“No person shall be found in violation of this article unless the public officer, after a reasonable inquiry and inspection of the premises, believes that conditions exist of a quality and appearance not commensurate with the character of the neighborhood.”)

Toni Wheeler, Staff Attorney, provided background information to the Commission on Chapter 9, Article 605 concerning the enforcement standards.  She said she would provide the Commission with a brief history of the current language, discuss some court cases in which the language affected the outcome, list the pros and cons on retaining the existing language, and provide some additional options for the Commission to consider as actions.

She said the phrase staff was concerned about read: “No person shall be found in violation of this article unless the public officer, after a reasonable inquiry and inspection of the premises, believes that conditions exist of a quality and appearance not commensurate with the character of the neighborhood.”  She said that language first appeared in the City Code in 1979, Ordinance No. 5013. 

That ordinance was amended in 1998 and a sentence was removed from the enforcement section that said, “Such belief, of the conditions, must be supported by evidence of a level of maintenance significantly below that of the rest of the neighborhood.” 

She said unfortunately, the minutes of the City Commission in the consideration of those two ordinances did not contain any Commission discussion on those items.

Wheeler said there had been some court cases where this language had come into effect.  In 2002, a property owner was charged with having a dilapidated structure.  At the trial, the property owner’s defense attorney argued that his client could not be found guilty of that section of the code because the City had not provided information of the condition of other properties in the neighborhood.  Subsequently, that property owner was found not guilty.    

After that trial, that same property owner was cited for similar violations occurring after that trial at that same property.  The property owner appealed those violations to the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Board and again, the property owner’s attorney argued that the condition of that building was not out of character with the neighborhood.   The Advisory Board found that City staff had interpreted the code correctly and the property owner was given additional time to make those repairs. 

In 2002, another property owner was cited with having items of personal property on her porch. That property owner was found guilty in Municipal Court and was fined.  She then appealed that conviction to the district court.  At the district court level her attorney argued that the City was selectively enforcing its environmental code because there were other properties in her neighborhood where there were items of personal property on porches.  The City prosecutor’s eventually dismissed that case due to an improper notice. 

In addition to those two cases, she had visited with the City inspectors and they reported that when they were out trying to enforce the environmental code, they often heard conflicting comments like “We’re not the Westside”, “We’re not Alvamar”, or “you would not let this condition exist in West Lawrence.”

She said it was a combination of those court cases and those comments that led City staff to recommend that that provision of code be modified.

She reviewed advantages and disadvantages of retaining the existing language.

a.         Advantages of retaining the existing code language:

1. It has been in the City Code since 1979 and is known to the residents of the community;

2. Having varying neighborhood standards permits the character and diversity of our neighborhoods to be reflected in enforcement;

3. The current standard gives the department greater discretion in enforcing the code (which is also a disadvantage; see below); and

4. The phrase, while it presented a problem for our enforcement officers and municipal court prosecutors in one prosecution and one appeal, and has generated some complaints, it has not generated an overwhelming number of complaints from citizens.

b.     Disadvantages of retaining the existing code language:

1. A non-uniform standard is difficult to enforce because it requires inspectors to collect and provide evidence of the condition of properties in the neighborhood;

2. The increased subjectivity or discretion afforded the department leads to charges of selective enforcement;

3. The standard is subject to being challenged or misused by the accused property owner.  The accused may point to the condition of a property not included in the department’s analysis that is arguably in a greater state of disrepair; and,

4. A review of the on-line codes of Topeka, Manhattan, Wichita, Lenexa, Overland Park, Olathe, Leavenworth, Columbia, Missouri, and Boulder, Colorado found that with the exception of Lenexa, none of the communities had code language similar to what appears in Section 9-605 of our Code requiring the enforcement agency to consider the quality and appearance of properties in the neighborhood.  Lenexa's code does contain similar language as it relates to sidings or exteriors.

Wheeler presented the Commission with several options, such as:

1. Leave the Enforcement Standard provision as it is;

2. Leave the enforcement standard as it is and monitor municipal court actions and environmental code violations prosecutions for twelve (12) months to see if it continues to result in not-guilty verdicts or challenges.  At that time, the provision could be amended, if the Commission so desires;

3. Amend the enforcement standard to narrow the comparison data to immediately surrounding properties rather than the neighborhood.  A “neighborhood” encompasses a much larger geographical area than an area that includes the immediately surrounding properties.  The sentence would read:

“No person shall be found in violation of this article unless the public officer, after a reasonable inquiry and inspection of the premises, believes that conditions exist of a quality and appearance not commensurate with the character of the immediately surrounding properties.”

4. Amend the enforcement standard but delay its effective date; and,

5. Amend the enforcement standard and make it effective upon publishing.

Commissioner Schauner asked how many complaints were issued under the environmental code per year.

Victor Torres, Neighborhood Resource Director, said in the environmental code under general blight there would be several hundred complaints.  He said there were approximately 500 complaints per year.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the only two instances where it had been an enforcement issue at a court level were the two issues that were noted. 

He said in one of those cases, it was a failure of the City’s Prosecutor to present some comparative evidence that caused the Judge to dismiss the complaint.

Wheeler said correct.

Commissioner Schauner said it was just a prosecution evidence issue, not the language in the code specifically which caused the dismissal.

Corliss said the Prosecution did not present evidence that showed that that property was not commensurate with the neighborhood. 

Commissioner Hack asked Torres if it would be fair to say that although only two or three complaints had gone to court, the current wording in the code had been problematic in terms of those disadvantages that were stated.

Torres said yes that was accurate.  He said when staff looked at the environmental code they looked at the gray areas in all of their codes such as the environmental code or building code, to try and eliminate those areas because there were probabilities of selective enforcement charges and other issues.  He said staff was trying to eliminate that type of language. 

He said it was not the two court cases that were discussed, it was an area that staff felt was subjective and it placed their inspectors in a position where they needed to make a decision regarding a certain part of town and that was not their intent.  He said staff wanted to enforce the code across the board regardless of where a violation was.

Mayor Rundle said when this issue was previously before the City Commission, he did not support changing the language. 

He said in the context of the City’s zoning code, there are examples of other efforts to account for differences across the community. For example the original town site was built by one standard that was very different than the current standards for new construction.  He said while it might be a challenge, it was important for the community to recognize that different parts of the community had different standards whether it was in the way people live in their houses or the way the original houses were built.  He agreed that monitoring this issue for the next twelve months was good.  He suggested speaking with the court system for guidance on getting over some of the enforcement hurdles. 

Vice Mayor Highberger suggested that alternative 3 addressed how they could get over some of those hurdles while still recognizing the different characteristics in the different neighborhoods.  He said the wording, “immediate surrounding properties” could be substituted for the word “neighborhood” which would make the proof problem easier to address and also recognizing that West Lawrence was different from North Lawrence.

Commissioner Schauner said as he looked at the photograph of the blighted structure, it seemed possible that was a health and safety issue that went well beyond just the general appearance of the neighborhood. 

He said it was not his intention to try and turn every part of town into looking like every other part of town and recognizing neighborhood difference should be looked at.  He supported the proposed change in the language to the surrounding area because it gave the inspectors a better tool and it also gave neighbors who live in blighted properties some tool with which to help improve their daily life.  He said the City Commission should move forward with this other language to see if it would help.

Commissioner Hack said when going back to why this issue was important to pursue in the first place, they were looking at structures that they felt “demolition by neglect” was something the City Commission was concerned about.  She said the attempt here was not to have all houses look exactly like all neighborhoods.  On the other hand, she thought the intent was to not put the City’s Environmental and Code Enforcement staff in a position of being charged with “selective enforcement,” because that was where the City got into trouble in terms of consistency.  She said when looking at the disadvantages, she wanted to make sure that by keeping this code the way it was, that the Commission was not creating the very thing they were trying to correct.  She said perhaps a good compromise position would be the third option, but she would like that option monitored and brought back to the City Commission in six month to a year.

Mayor Rundle asked how “immediate surrounding properties” would be defined or interpreted.

Wheeler said that phrase would be interpreted as looking at the properties on either side of that subject property or on the same block.   She said that would be a much narrower geographical area for the City’s inspectors to review and photograph.

Mayor Rundle asked if there would be some advantage to stating that interpretation specifically to avoid confusion.

Wheeler said staff could change the language to state: “immediate adjacent properties,” if that was language the Commission would prefer.

Corliss said if the Commission wanted to limit it to the properties that simply have boundaries with the subject property, the code could read, “immediately adjacent properties.”    He said the phrase “immediate surrounding properties” staff thought would be adjacent properties and maybe properties across the street.

He said the word “neighborhood” could mean several blocks, but that had not been an evidentiary issue in court. 

He thought staff’s proposed wording would give the code more precision and they would work with the inspectors to make them aware of what they needed to look at in cooperation with the prosecutors and hopefully achieve both of those goals of diversity in community and also environmental blight concerns.   

Commissioner Schauner said the only issue that continued to needle him was that he wanted to make sure the Commission was not trying to fix something that wasn’t really broken.  Although he liked the idea of better precision and a better tool for staff, he wanted to make sure the Commission was not going further than they needed to go on the limited facts that the Commission had for consideration, specifically the two cases that were discussed.  He said there was not a good way to evaluate the depth of the problem.

Corliss suggested looking at what the inspectors had cited in the past.  He said Neighborhood Resources had the ability to show the City Commission that type of information.  He said there were literally 100’s of citations that the inspectors sent out.  He suggested that the Commission could get a feel for the problems and concerns with the digital photos that were available.

Commissioner Schauner said what he was uncertain about was whether those citations had been successfully prosecuted under the City’s existing language or whether there was a need for specific or narrower language in order to be successful in prosecuting or proving up those citations. 

Corliss said he believed there was a good success rate, but to keep in mind this was the same code that was sent with the notices that resulted in quite a bit of compliance.  He said many property owners had been delinquent, but when they were advised of the concern they respond.  He said if they did not comply, it moved up toward a citation in court.  In many cases the citations that were issued in court were dismissed because the property owner was responsive. 

He said it might be in the range of 12 to 20 cases a year that went to court and less than half of those cases actually go to trial.  He said there might be a case once a month for an environmental blight, but it was always the same code whether it was the phone call or the visit out to the property that immediately responded or it was a full-blown trial in Municipal Court.

He said then his question was, changing the language to option 3, he asked if that would have a significant impact in the effectiveness of this environmental code.

Corliss said changing the language would have an impact on the environmental code, perhaps not measured quantitatively because they were not talking about that many subject properties that were at a trial setting, but qualitatively where there was a property owner that did not want to comply.  He said if the property owner did not comply, staff would need to go before a Judge and prove all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Mayor Rundle said his recollection, as a past president of a neighborhood association, was that it was common practice for inspectors to look at other properties along the block when someone was cited.  He understood this was done so that someone wasn’t singled out, and that if the inspectors found similar violations nearby, they would cite those properties as well.   He said at that time the neighborhoods were supportive of that approach.  He suggested more feedback from the inspectors and neighborhood associations.

Torres said that was the same type of approach that was currently used by staff.  He said staff would look at that particular property and other properties along that route.  He said 33% of the cases his staff dealt with were staff initiated and those staff initiated cases resulted from responding to those specific complaint addresses in which staff would identify the violation and pick up violations on other properties along the way.  He said staff currently followed that process.

Mayor said he was following on Commissioner Schauner’s comment about whether or not the Commission was fixing something that wasn’t broken.  He said if they changed the language to “immediate surrounding properties” then according to staff that would mean the two houses next door or across the street.  He asked if the current practice is to assess the whole block, would staff be painting themselves in a corner by changing to assessing only the immediately surrounding properties. He asked what if elsewhere on the block there was similar practice, yet it was not the house that was  next door. 

He said he was also confused why this issue was pressing.

Commissioner Hack said she thought the Commission needed to go back to the fact that the Neighborhood Resources Department staff were the people in the field and the people who were applying this code everyday. 

She said she had called on property that she felt was not appropriately maintained and staff inspected the property, sent a notice and within 48 hours the property was cleaned up. 

She said the inspectors had a recommendation for the Commission to consider regarding language in the code and she thought the Commission would be micro managing staff if they did not allow those small word changes.   She thought staff’s recommendation would help them do their job.

Commissioner Schauner said he thought he heard Torres say that staff currently tried to look at, essentially, adjacent properties or the block in which the address was being complained about.  He said based on that practical application of the current code that word change would just fit with what staff’s practice had been. 

Torres said that was an accurate description.

Commissioner Schauner said if that was an accurate description, then he could support option 3 because it did not appear to create any substantial change in the practice with which the code was being enforced.

Mayor Rundle said as long as this issue was an accurate reflection of what the inspectors, Julie Wyatt and Dan Johnson, were experiencing out in the field and that was what they felt would help them then he could support the proposal.

Commissioner Schauner said it went a little bit beyond that.  He said it went to the issue of the benchmark or yardstick that staff currently used in determining whether there was a blighted condition and that was what he was asking Torres.  He said Torres’ answer was “yes”, the language proposed in option 3 was in fact consistent with the current operational mode of the field inspectors.

Commissioner Dunfield said the sense of the City Commission was that option 3 sounded appropriate.  He asked if the City Commission wanted staff to monitor this issue over the next year as well.

Commissioner Hack said yes.  She said staff already monitored those issues and produced reports for the City Commission.  She said the Commission needed to pay better attention to those reports.  She suggested giving the Neighborhood Resources Department the tools to do what the Commission was asking them to do.

Mayor Rundle asked if staff would bring this issue back with the ordinance changes.

Corliss said this issue would come back to the Commission with option 3 language and the City Commission had already given staff direction on the furniture issue which staff would make it clear in the ordinance that furniture on porches was allowed, but furniture in the yard had to be outdoor furniture.                                         (15)

Receive Historic Preservation Plan and Initiate Text Amendments to Horizon 2020 and authorize drafting of ordinance for placement of a future agenda.

Lynne Braddock Zollner, Planner, presented the staff report and background information including a slide presentation.  She said the City of Lawrence for some time had a Preservation Plan, but the plan never had been adopted as part of the comprehensive planning process and the plan never included the unincorporated areas of Douglas County. 

She said the new plan for Horizon 2020 included an executive summary for the following chapters: Chapter 1 – Introduction; Chapter 2 - Plan Area; Chapter 3 – Federal, State, and Local Preservation Partnerships; and Chapter 4 – Historic Overview. 

The appendix included a background studies companion document and a list of maps, tables and figures.  

She said there were five goals which composed the key elements of the plan.

1. Incorporate Preservation as an Important Component of the City and County Planning Process;

2. Conserve the Rural Character of Unincorporated Douglas County in Strategic Areas;

3. Incorporate Preservation Incentives into the City and County’s Economic Development Polices and Programs;

4. Incorporate Heritage Tourism as an Economic Development Program; and

5. Establish Outreach and Educational Programs.

She presented a timeline to the City Commission on staff’s process concerning the Horizon 2020 Preservation Plan Element.

Commissioner Hack said she attended a session where people were concerned about downtown Lawrence and its environs.  She said she was impressed by Linda Finger’s calm approach because there were a lot of misconceptions about where this issue was going.  She said this had been a huge process and she appreciated the work of Finger and her planning staff. 

Commissioner Dunfield said Zollner had to jump into this issue in the middle of the process and he appreciated all of the effort that that must have taken to get caught up with the work that had gone on previously. 

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Kent Van Housen, Lawrence, said he was involved in the resistance to the Pinckney neighborhood designation last spring and he was successful in getting his block removed from the historic designation.  However, he wanted the City Commission to know that he was in favor of historic designation and preservation of the City’s historic buildings and neighborhoods. 

He said being involved in the Pinckney process made him aware of the concern about the use of environs around historic areas and houses.  The people who lived in environs receive none of the benefit of the historic district and they get no tax benefits yet, they carry the burden of increased costs of improving their homes, the increased time of going before the Historic Resources Commission (HRC), and having to subject themselves to the opinions of the HRC. 

He said his neighborhood learned that when a neighborhood or a house was considered for designation, it was a foregone conclusion that the people in the environs wanted to be in those environs.  He said no one came to them and asked if they wanted to be in the environs, but that if they did not want to be in the environs, they would need to muster a 50% negative vote in the neighborhood.  He said they tried to get 50% of the people in their neighborhood to write personal letters which had to be notarized and mailed to the Historic Resources Board in Topeka and apathy being what it was, they failed miserably.  He said the way the people in the environs should be approached was that those who were sponsoring the designation should be required to provide a 50% positive vote of the neighbors in the environs.         

He also suggested that the Commission consider designating neighborhoods and houses without environs.  He said that process was practiced in other cities where there was a freestanding historic house and the environs around that house were not affected.

He said he saw the purpose of the environs issue in a neighborhood that was endangered by negative forces such as gas stations, but in the Pinckney neighborhood, for instance, that was not the case at all.  He said their neighborhood was not threatened at all by negative forces.  He said with their proximity to Old West Lawrence and Downtown, their neighborhood was improving constantly.

He asked the City Commission to make it a “yes” vote for environs and consider designating neighborhoods and homes without environs if the Commission did not get a “yes” vote.

Marci Francisco, Lawrence, noted that in Policy 1.2, which was the development of appropriate City codes including the zoning code, the fourth implementation strategy called for the adoption of the original town site ordinance.  During the time of the workshops on this proposal the original town site ordinance was being considered as part of the new zoning code.  Since that time, the approach had been to look at overlay districts as a possibility for the future, rather than include specific language in the zoning code that would address historic districts or in fact, the original town site.  She suggested changing the wording to say, “adopt an original town site ordinance or overlay districts.”

She said it had been a long time since they had discussed this issue and a long time that people in the older neighborhoods had asked for zoning that more accurately reflected the situation they found themselves.

She said the zoning code did not address alleys very well.  She said if a person lived in a district with an alley, it was often a special variance or an exception.

She said she hoped the City Commission might indicate their interest in following up in short-order, initiating a review of an overlay district for the original town site after the adoption of this preservation element and the new zoning code  

She said as a member of the Oread Neighborhood Association, they recently sent out a letter asking for support in a 2^nd State District in the Oread Neighborhood.  She noted that the State had changed their policy to a 51% positive indication before that district went ahead.  She said there might be some way to parallel that idea in the Local District, but it was current a requirement at the State level.

Mayor Rundle said he appreciated Van Housen raising those suggestions.

He said in numerous places the plan discussed incentives and removing disincentives and that idea was focused on the historic properties. He suggested keeping in mind the non-historic properties that were in environs and attempt to find ways to provide similar assistance .   

Commissioner Dunfield said Francisco’s comment about the original town site ordinance or overlay were valid.  He pointed out, in terms of the environs issues, those issues were always a struggle because the City was limited by the State environs regulations and in fact, the language in the Lawrence City Code about environs was much better than what was in the State’s language. 

He said the City was required to meet the State standards and one of the issues that was in the policy that the Commission was being asked to adopt under Policy 1.4 stated “reconcile the differences between State law environs review and the City of Lawrence environs review standards”.  He thought was being implied was for the City to try and get the State to come around and do it the way they it should be done.

He said there were a lot of implementation strategies and issues in the preservation plan and he hoped the public was not getting a wrong impression that there were certain issues that the City was going to rush out and do and other issues that the City might not do. 

He noted that restoring brick streets and sidewalks in the City of Lawrence was one line in that document, but immediately following that line, the City was going to implement a appropriate traffic calming measures in residential neighborhoods; investigate and implement initiatives to improve parking in downtown; improve bicycle and pedestrian routes and rural trails; and improve flood control to protect historic properties.  He noted that this was a document of aspirations and it was not a budgetary requirement for any particular timeframe or any particular projects.     

Vice Mayor Highberger addressed Francisco’s concern about the City Code not directly addressing alleys.  He said it was his understanding that the code did address alleys because the code prohibited alleys. 

Finger said the subdivision regulations prohibited alleys.  Actually it was the subdivision regulations that needed to be in that revision.  She said RS-3 actually encouraged that those properties only take access from alleys.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he lived in house that was subject to environs review and it could be frustrating at times, but he had seen the benefits in his neighborhood.  He said were empty properties in his neighborhood that could have been redeveloped into cracker box duplexes, but instead those properties had attractive apartment buildings that fit in with the character of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Schauner said in a former life, he lived in the environs of an historic district.  He said if where he had lived, at that point, in a new house in an old neighborhood what had been permitted to be built there would be inconsistent with the historic neighborhood it would have a detrimental impact on that neighborhood.  He said whether it was a gas station or a house that did not fit, environs on balance were the best tool to help protect those historic neighborhoods.

He said to the extent that the City could have some impact on the State to change the rules, he hoped the City would do that.

Commissioner Hack echoed the other Commissioner comments, but she added the issue of the economic development benefits.  She encouraged people to take advantage of all the possible tax credits offered to those historic homes.  She said there were people who were unaware of the types of things they could qualify for and the more education that the City could provide, the better.        

She said we needed to be sensitive to the environs issue because they did not want the unintended consequences to be painful or create unnecessary implementation issues. 

Mayor Rundle asked about implementation issues.  Concerning prioritization, he asked was this a matter for the City Commission to consider in their goal setting sessions or would the Historic Resources Commission give guidance on what might reasonably be done with the limited staff resources and the community involvement.  He said those were very worthy goals, but making those goals happen did take some follow through.

Zollner said that document was a comprehensive document that aspired to great things as most comprehensive documents did.  She said you want to set your goals as high as possible so that hopefully in an attempt to reach those goals, you get somewhere that was a good place to be livable, economically feasible, and doable from a staff perspective. 

She said at the end of that document there were goals and objectives and based on the input from the Public Participation Workshop and the consultant, they did try to prioritize those goals and objectives.  She said one of the things that had to happen with a document like this was to look at budget concerns and political concerns and identify what needed to be implemented and when should it be implemented which was an on-going process that changed with budget constraints and issue that would arise.  She said that was something staff would do with the HRC and/or another public participation workshop on an annual basis to try and identify what type of implementation strategy was appropriate for those goals and objectives. 

Commissioner Schauner asked who would parent the progress of this document.

Finger said Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan played a similar role for HRC that Horizon 2020 did for the Planning Commission.  It was the guiding document for the HRC in setting forth their long-range planning policies and goals.  The HRC with the Historic Resources Administrator, Lynn Zollner, would work on what was achievable and set goals on an annual basis.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be long-term strategies and shorter-term annual goals to hopefully fulfill those strategies.

Finger said correct.

Commissioner Schauner asked if Zollner would be the adoptive parent.

Finger said Zollner would be the aasked what direction did staff need.

Finger said the Commission could initiate the plan with an amendment to Horizon 2020, Chapter 11 or direct staff to take this issue to the Planning Commission with City Commission comments as to the initiation of the plan.    

Commissioner Schauner said it seemed that the Planning Commission was the place for this issue to go to next and take into consideration the comment by the City Commission for their review and comment.

Mayor Rundle said if they initiate the plan, it would go to the Planning Commission anyway.

Finger said if the City Commission initiated that element it would go to the Planning Commission.  She said staff would not take the full document to the Planning Commission, but the element that replaced Chapter 11.  Staff would like the City Commission to take affirmative action to endorse the full document and the element itself (executive summary) would be part of Horizon 2020 at the City or Planning Commission level.

She said at the Planning Commission level there was a process where the Comprehensive Plan Committee, which was a subcommittee, would look at that recommendation to make the format consistent with Horizon 2020. 

Moved by Highberger, seconded by Hack, to receive the Historic Preservation Plan and initiate a text amendment to Horizon 2020.  Motion carried unanimously.     (16)

Receive staff recommendation to publish the 2005 Budget and set August 10, 2004 as the public hearing date.  Publication of the 2005 Budget Expenditures will establish the maximum limits of the 2005 budget.

Mayor Rundle said he recommended increasing the funding for Partnership for Children and Youth to $50,000 and increase the contingency fund $100,000. He to have the flexibility to consider doing some of the things that were left out of the budget if, after the end of year the City ended up in a more positive financial condition than projected and if the Commission felt it was prudent. Rundle had recommended in correspondence prior to the meeting that staff make the appropriate adjustments in projections of some of the 2004 revenues that he believed were underestimated which would leave be reflected in an increase in the balance forward for the General Fund. He suggested that staff make those adjustments where they felt most comfortable.

Jason Boots, K.U. Student Senate, said he had discussed with Commissioners Highberger and Schauner about possible changes to how the City purchased fuel with transportation and maintenance vehicles that use diesel engines.   He said possibly to move toward bio-diesel fuel which was a bit more expensive, but he suggested placing some type of budgetary allowance.  He said once the information came forward, he suggested putting that into the budget next year.

He said as he talked to K.U.’s Transportation Coordinator who was also a member of the Public Transit Advisory Committee (PTAC), and they estimated $100,000 to $150,000 of cost to move to bio-diesel fuel which was a 5% increase in the transportation budget.        

Mayor Rundle asked about the cost for the bio-diesel suggestion.

Boots said they had estimated $100,000 to $150,000, but to be completely safe, the Commission might want to bump that figure up to $200,000.  He said this idea was for the benefit of the City’s interest to consider.

Pam Weigand, President, Partnership for Children and Youth, said she appreciated that the City Commission included their Partnership in the budget this year and they would appreciate any additional funding. 

She said they did important work at the Partnership and in conversation along with the additional information that was provided to the Commission, she hoped they had clarified what they did in the Lawrence Community.

Mayor Rundle asked Wildgen whether there was flexibility in the department budgets to cover the cost of the bio-diesel or whether an increase in the overall budget was necessary.

Wildgen said there was some flexibility in the Public Transit Advisory Committee budget at least for part of the year.

Commissioner Dunfield suggested that the Commission should not give specific direction on that budget proposal at this point, other than to have them continue to research that idea and implement the idea if it was feasible.

Commissioner Hack suggested addressing that budget proposal as they had with the hybrid vehicles.  She said the Commission wanted to be as energy and environmentally efficient as could, but at the same time, there were fiscal responsibilities.  

Commissioner Hack asked Weigand if the additional funding for the Partnership for Children and Youth would be for data collection. 

Weigand said correct.

Commissioner Hack said it was her understanding that the Boys and Girls Club had done some data collection on the kids that they served.  She asked if Weigand was planning on using that data so there was no overlap.

Weigand said there were a lot of different entities that collected data.  The issue, even when they did the juvenile justice plan several years ago, was how to pull that together and make it useful information for grant applications.  She said they would be talking to the Boys and Girls Club about what data they had along with other entities that had data concerning kids. 

Mayor Rundle said there was a general concern expressed by funding groups concerning avoiding duplication.  He said it was clear that the Partnership often provided service to existing organizations that might otherwise necessitate those organizations to hire additional staff.  He said it was important for more organizations and agencies to know that this resource existed.  He suggested the possibility of The Partnership for Children and Youth joining the Practitioners Panel or at least attending those meetings..

Commissioner Dunfield suggested that the City Commission authorize the publication of the 2005 Budget with the two modifications that were suggested by the Mayor which were the increase to the Partnership and the change in the general contingency fund.             

Commissioner Schauner said he supported the change in the contingency fund, but he was not comfortable with the increase to $50,000 for the Partnership because he was not as clear about what value was added to the data stream by the additional expenditure.  He said if this was going to be a joint motion, he was not going to vote against that motion, but when next year’s budget came around to have better and earlier information about how that Partnership work was in fact independent of or at least served other social service activities in the community. 

Weigand said in terms of the community database that the Partnership was proposing, she said they were aware that there were pockets of critical information and data that was being collected.  She said the Partnership was proposing to convene a series of roundtable discussion and talk to non-profit agencies about the gaps and missing pieces of information they needed when applying for funding.  She said it was a constant challenge for a number of the non-profit agencies to find adequate, current, and reliable information when preparing grant proposals to federal, state, and local funding sources. 

Again, the Partnership was proposing to convene a series of roundtable discussions with agency leaders and community stakeholders and figure out exactly what the need was and identify key indicators in making that data accessible to the entire community through their existing website.  She said they wanted to be able generate that useful information in a user-friendly and readily accessible way so agencies did not need to contact several locations to get that information.             

Commissioner Schauner asked if it was the expectation that the on-going cost of maintaining this database was high as the cost of creating that database.

Weigand said in the proposed process, they would constantly review and assess that data.  She said she anticipated that they would be looking for additional funding sources from other areas to help support and sustain that database.  She said it would depend on the review and the needs that the community and roundtable discussion would produce on a regular review basis.

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to receive staff’s recommendation to publish the 2005 Budget, increased the adjusted recommended budget for the General Fund by $125,000, and set August 10, 2004 as public hearing date.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                                    (17)

Receive staff presentation and memorandum on the new zoning code and implementation plan for the new code. The memorandum will bring the Commission up-to-date since the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation for adoption in February.

Linda Finger, Planning Director, presented the report and presented highlights of the new zoning code implementation.  She said the background provided in staff’s memorandum went over the history of the zoning code and subdivision regulations that were adopted (1966 or 1968 respectively) and had been amended on an as needed basis.  She said in 1998 those were those regulations were evaluated by Duncan and Associates at the request of the City Commission which was an implementation step at the back of Horizon 2020.

She said there was a Zoning and Code Advisory Board established in 2000 that was a sounding board representative of many different segments of the community. 

The Planning Commission received the draft document in May 2003 which was posted on the City’s website.  The Planning Commission adopted a schedule of listening sessions to gather additional information once everyone could see the entire document rather than a segment at a time.  Those listening sessions resulted in a myriad of comments that were helpful and clarified issues. 

She said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft code in October and December of 2003 and their actions were completed at their January meeting.  She said the Planning Commission made recommendations and revisions which were presented in a study session to the City Commission on February 27^th. 

Since that time, staff has reformatted that document, added illustrations, and the revised document has been posted.

Finger said there were seven areas on the zoning map where the transition provided in the new code was not automatic and five of those areas were new districts. Those new zoning designations were:

1. GPI – [General Public & Institutional]

2. OS – [Open Space]

3. U – [University]

4. H – [Hospital]

5. UR – [Urban Reserve]

She said the next step was working on an implementation plan to help educate the public on the new zoning code.  She said there were other provisions of the City code which would need to take effect on the delayed effected date of the new Zoning Code.

David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said there were four items that staff felt were appropriate for the City Commission to consider.    There was also an issue that needed City Commission discussion and direction which was the draft zoning code provided for Planning Commission review of the Planning Director’s administrative approval of site plans.  He said currently the City Commission based upon a staff report approved a site plan.  The new code provided that they would be administratively approved keeping in mind that site plan review was essentially a confirmation that the property was in compliance with the City’s Zoning Code/Subdivision Regulations and other things that allowed the site plan to be approved.  He said once the site plan was approved a building permit could be issued.  The new zoning code allowed for appeals from that administrative determination by the Planning Director.  It allowed for appeals by property owners and it also allowed for appeals by the Planning Commission, but it did not provide for any type of timing mechanism for approval by the Planning Commission.  He said there was a concern as to whether or not that would delay the opportunity for a property owner to know if they had an approved site plan because after the administrative decision by the Planning Director had approved the site plan, there was an argument that you would need to wait for the Planning Commission to meet to consider whether or not to appeal the decision of the Planning Director and then schedule another Planning Commission meeting the actual decision of whether or not to sustain or overrule the Planning Director’s decision on the site plan.  He said there were 9 days under the proposed new zoning code to appeal the Planning Director’s decisions and the Planning Commission currently met on a monthly basis and there was a time lag which was not spelled out in the zoning code.  He said he was not a party to the discussion when that idea was initiated.  He said that was one of the administrative machinery issues that he had in his review of the document.

Finger said the consultant had originally made the Planning Commission the Appeals Board thinking that Board would be more of a body familiar with Horizon 2020.  She said the thought was to take the political influence out of the City Commission approvals and appeal to the Planning Commission, but the appeals process would be elongated.  She said what happened was that the site plan process which was now required by the ordinance to be contracted to 20 days to streamline the process has now became something akin to 90 days.  She said in their effort to be comprehensive, they forgot the goal.

Commissioner Schauner said thinking back to their discussion of the site plan at 7^th and Wisconsin where neighborhoods had concerns about the site plan.  He said staff had recommended site plan approval.  He said under the proposed process, he asked when the property owners in that neighborhood would have a voice in that project.

Corliss said property owners were allowed to appeal to the Planning Commission.  The proposed language read, “The following persons and entities have standing to appeal the action of the Planning Director or Planning Commission on applications for site plan approval:  The applicant, the Planning Commission, City Commission or neighboring land owners who submit a valid appeal petition to the City Clerk within 14 days of the conclusion of the public hearing held by the Planning Commission.”  He said the only mechanism was that the applicant could appeal the approval or denial of the site plan and the Planning and City Commissions could review that decision, but the neighboring landowners could only appeal the decision to the Planning Commission.

He said in this instance, if the Planning Director had approved the 7^th and Wisconsin site plan, the property owners would need to ask the City Commission to appeal that decision to the Planning Commission.

Mayor Rundle asked how a neighboring property owner knew that there was a site plan being proposed.

Finger said before a property owner could submit a site plan, the property owner would need to talk to the adjacent property owners.  She said there was a written notice provision that allowed, after that public notice, those who where interested to file an appeal of record.  The step right before the appeal, which was the notice of the decision, was a written notification to anyone that had requested that notice.  One of the procedural guides was all the pubic review and notice that was written into the code and was now strongly suggested and encouraged, but not codified in a document.  She said the appeals procedure might be best to come directly to the City Commission if someone wanted to appeal the decision so it happened quicker.  She said that idea seemed like a more streamlined approach in keeping in consideration of how the document was originally drafted.

Corliss said that was essentially the process that was currently exercised.  He said all site plans were placed on the consent agenda for approval.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the proposed language required larger signage on the property.  He asked if there was any requirement that those posted notices on property be of a usable and legible size.    

Finger said a posted notice requirement on a site plan was not in the new code.  She said there were posted notices only for public hearing items, zoning map amendments, preliminary development plans, and use permitted upon review.  She suggested that staff use a generic sign that was already written and printed to notify the public of a site plan and that idea could be amended in the new zoning code.  She said staff might need to extend the review time from 20 to 27 days to allow adequate time for the public to get information to staff. 

She reiterated that it was required, before a site plan was submitted, to discuss that plan with the neighborhood.  She said the person submitting the site plan did not need neighborhood support, but that person needed to show documentation that site plan had been discussed with the neighborhood.

Commissioner Hack said it seemed that the people who were most directly affected by a site plan were the people that had been notified.

Finger said that was correct.

Commissioner Dunfield said a written notification to the public seemed like a much more meaningful provision than putting a sign up, but he did not object to adding a sign requirement.

Commissioner Schauner said he was not suggesting a substitution, but rather an additional notice.

Corliss said when this draft document was discussed last year there was some discussion about the creation of the University (U) zoning district which would apply to property owned by universities in the community; Haskell Indian Nations University and the University of Kansas.   At that time, there was comment from the university indicating their lack of interest in being zoned by the City and having the city enforcing its zoning codes on University of Kansas property.  He said an ad hoc committee was created and the committee met with university officials over the past year to talk about the issue and whether or not there was an opportunity to further understand and codify or memorialize their participation in the City’s land use regulations. 

He said that document had not been completed, but they were fairly close in finalizing a recommended document for the City and Planning Commissions to consider.  He said staff met as a group to further analyze the suggestions from the university and they believed they were able to respond to a number of issues which would be discussed in August with the City Commission.

He said it was important to keep in mind this was a draft document and nothing has been approved.  He said staff was at the point of finalizing the wording in the document.  Conceptually, the document removed the University of Kansas from the U district regulations and in its place referenced a cooperation agreement between the City and the University whereby, the university, through the agreement, would follow certain standards depending upon which properties and which City standards were being discussed. 

He said the new zoning needed some additional work and staff was not at the point to lay out those final details.  He said there had been good progress with the University in that they were agreeing to follow certain standards in the community.  He said staff recognized that the University had State interests that in certain situations it was not necessary to enforce the full City’s land use regulations on their property.  It was the balancing of interests that really reflected what the state of the law was in Kansas.

Commissioner Schauner said the question was if the University was subject to the City’s zoning regulations.  He said as he understood their position, the University believed that they were not subject to those regulations and their “compromise” position was that the University would agree to some softer language where certain properties would be covered in a particular way and other properties won’t be covered at all, at the University’s discretion. 

Corliss said the final agreement was not going to be that soft.  The University agreed on some property that they would completely comply with all City land use regulations.  He said the property on the interior of the KU campus that had been built up for decades, the City was not going to enforce its land use regulations at that location with the exception of water, wastewater, stormwater issues that the University agreed to comply with. 

He said the issue was that in the buffer area, they would have discussion as to how the University was going to comply or meet City standards.  He said for property that was not within their current boundaries, but the University would be expanding, they would comply with City regulations.  He said this was an agreement that recognized the stratification of the City’s interest.

Commissioner Dunfield said not much was gained by talking about the provisions of an agreement that was not before the Commission.  Also, there was not much gained by trying to impose a district on universities that had no intention of submitting to the City’s authority.  He said the process involved and the solution that staff was seeking, was the right solution.  He said the City needed to cooperate with the University and formalize an agreement that protected the City’s interests and it sounded like staff was working in that direction. 

Corliss said when the Commission received that agreement, the Commission needed to be fully briefed.  He said they would brief the Commission on staff’s position on the City’s legal authority.   He said there would be public discussions to discuss the pros and the cons of that arrangement.

Mayor Rundle said on other issues in the past he appreciated the explanation from Corliss that it was our practice but not our policy that we did not enforce zoning regulations on University property.  He asked Corliss to explain the current practice on this issue.

Corliss said the University was zoned RD (Residence-Dormitory District), but the City’s practice was that they never enforced its zoning regulations on KU property.  He said where they were headed with this issue, significantly tidied up that relationship.  He said staff had enjoyed the cooperative spirit of the discussions to date.  He said the University had strong beliefs and sentiments about their state mission and whether they had to follow local regulations, but they also had an interest in the community.  He said they were working out a good cooperative agreement, but it was not ironed out yet.  He said staff wanted to cooperate with KU on how that draft was released.

Commissioner Schauner said he would be anxious to see how that 2^nd and 3^rd tier or concentric circle looked like in that agreement.

Corliss said that was an important point.  He said this was a key to the zoning code adoption.  It was following along concurrently with that the Planning Commission needed to review changes to the U district. 

He said the other significant item was that the City was essentially publishing a new zoning map for the community.  He said staff wanted to make sure that when the new zoning code was effective, the new zoning districts were also effective.  He said that was why there was a later effective date to make sure that once it was initiated that it all landed on the same date which should be accomplished this year.  . 

Commissioner Schauner said any project proposed before the published effective date of the new zoning would fall under the existing zoning regulations. 

Corliss said that was true because staff intended to say that it would be effective 90-100 days after its publication.  He said most projects were submitted and reviewed in that time frame. 

Finger said there were transitional provisions in Article 1 that addressed that concept.  It was specifically addressed in the code today as a development permit.  If someone came in with a site plan during that enactment period between the adopted code and when the code would take effect, her thought was there would be a brief moratorium because once acted on, it opened a window that was fairly gray.  She said when working to change the map, it might be appropriate for staff to say that any new permits that were submitted during that period of time could not be slipped under the rug.

Commissioner Schauner said he was concerned about when things were in the pipeline and under which set of rules would fall under and secondly, trying to avoid some sort of land rush, a site plan rush, or a project initiation rush in that interim period of 60/90/120 days, whatever it might be.

Corliss said those were good concerns to focus on.  The other issue that was mentioned in the memo was that the sign code needed to be changed to reflect the new zoning district.  He said staff would be looking through the entire City Code to see what other zoning districts were referenced throughout the City Code. 

Commissioner Schauner asked if Corliss anticipated significant changes in the sign code or just tweaking it to fit.

Corliss said staff would not be able to give the sign code that attention level.  If there were issues staff could clear up cleanly and effectively at that time, then yes, but he thought it would be more of a transitional table.

Mayor Rundle said there was a practical and timing issue.  He asked, if the City Commission approved this, would it then go to the Planning Commission.

Finger said because of the changes in the U district, what staff thought was that this was just an informational report for the City Commission.  She said staff would come back with more detail, specifically a list of all the changes, major and minor, that needed to happen.  Those changes would then go to the Planning Commission for review and it would then be sent back to the City Commission in a timely manner to complete the process this year.  She said the 120 day window was what staff was focusing on between the approval date of an ordinance by the City Commission and the enactment date that was on the ordinance after it was published. 

Mayor Rundle asked about the new U District and if they had enough of a window for the University to consider.  He asked if that did not happen, would that part be pulled off.

Corliss said if staff needed to further study the U district issue it was staff’s recommendation to not do any actual zoning text requirements for the U district and move ahead with the rest of the code.  He said within the next few weeks, staff would be making progress on those other items.

He said In August, staff would hopefully address the U district issue and initiate those issues to the Planning Commission by reference for their review and then it would come to the City Commission to establish that time frame date for effectiveness and the zoning map would then catch up with that effective date and all the other code changes and there would be a new zoning code by the end of the year. 

Finger said there was a large list of property owners on the individually initiated items.  The Planning Commission would consider the initiation of those seven areas that she discussed at their July 28^th meeting.  That initiation would be for two months out so staff could notify all those property owners.  She said staff would either have a special meeting to address those zoning map revisions or establish a time period within our regular meeting period where staff would address those zoning map revisions which would be in September or more likely October.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Gwen Klingenberg, speaking on behalf of the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said the her first point concerned buffer yards, setbacks, transitional standards in regard to RM (Multiple-Family Residence District) and RS (Single-Family Residence District). She said there was a need for better transitional standards between single family and other districts, especially regarding scale.  What was really needed was a requirement to place smaller scale buildings at the periphery of multi-family districts because the landscaping requirements or buffer yards were inadequate to provide privacy to single family housing adjacent to the type of apartments being built in Lawrence today. 

She said six foot fences did not necessarily adequately buffer RM zoning districts next to RS zoning districts.  Balconies as stated in the current code allowed two feet into the projected setback basically were two feet closer to the RS and the whole building should be setback two feet to accommodate the balconies. 

She said trees did not necessarily address screening.  She said when those trees died there was no rule that stated that those trees needed to be replaced.

In section 2701, that section gave a description of RS or RM districts compared to Planned Unit Developments (PUD).  The City Commission might increase maximum height into the base district if the City Commission determined that such an increase was warranted to support the public benefit.   She said privacy screening must be defined as effective. She said RM zoning districts should be generally expanded in logical increments that preserved an orderly boundary between RM uses and adjoining RS uses.

In section 2218, that section was for institutional expansion.  She said with the RM zoning district changed from institutional and the RS zoning district changed to residential, it would read, “expanding RM uses adjoining RS uses.”  RM zoning should be inline and match RS zonings in scale.  Therefore, they believed RM’s should be considered equal to institutional or other buildings. 

She said privacy performance standards between incompatible uses did not necessarily need to be businesses.  The purpose of the performance standard was to place the burden avoiding the invasion of privacy onto the developer of the apartment complex. 

She said there were no RMD’s (Duplex Residential District) listed in the new zoning code.  Those districts went from RMD to RM-12.  The parcel of land that was for duplexes could now have no more than twelve dwelling units.  It seemed multi-family units had been increased and the chance of someone wanting to build the maximum allowed was not a stretch in her mind

She read a letter dated Aug. 21, 1999 that was given to the City Commission by the Land Use Committee the League of Woman Voters of Lawrence/Douglas County which read:  “There is often forgotten, especially in Lawrence, that the basic use of cities is as a habitat for people.  It is generally recognized by urban planners that the primary unit of the city is not the individual dwelling but the neighborhood.” 

Land use planning provides a framework for neighborhoods.  However, if important design considerations are ignored, neighborhoods can start deteriorating almost as soon as they are built.  She said this was a relatively new neighborhood where people were talking about putting their houses up for rent. 

She addressed notification. She said on January 25, 2004, the Lawrence Neighborhood Association asked the Planning Commission to consider notification.  She said that in some cases notification of neighborhood associations might be warranted for development proposals that lie outside the boundaries.  In particular, planning development and redevelopment of any part of a commercial node should necessitate the notification of all neighborhood associations with boundaries touching on any part of that commercial node.  

She said their Neighborhood Association asked that any development within a nodal plan or an area plan that all registered neighborhoods that were adjoining that area plan or nodal plan be notified. 

She said there were three paragraphs and eleven lines that were the heart and soul of the whole zoning regulation subdivision document.  Those three seemingly unimportant paragraphs and seemingly unimportant eleven lines of a 298 page document were the reason for that document.  Those three paragraphs were the only reference to nodal plans or area plans.  Nodal plans were the commercial development direction that had been decided for Lawrence’s future.  Area plans for the new neighborhood as well as present neighborhood were becoming a necessity to the point that the City Commission recently decided to add an Area Planner to the Planning Department. 

She said the department code was intended to implement the Lawrence/Douglas County Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans adopted by the City Commission here and after collectively referred to as a comprehensive plan in a manner that protected health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens.

In Section 2105, that development code had been prepared in accordance with the comprehensive plan.  It was intended that the decisions made pursuant to the department code would implement and be consistent with the comprehensive plan and with that stated purpose of this developmental code.

She said in Section 2109(B), concerned conflicting provisions and that conflicted with other City regulations.  If the provisions of that development code were inconsistent with one another, or if they conflicted with provisions found in other adopted ordinances or regulations of the City, the more restrictive provision would control.  The more restrictive provision was the one that implied greater development restrictions or more stringent controls. 

Those three paragraphs were the only reference to two of the major tools in the zoning regulations.

Somewhere there should be a real statement of purpose to direct future developers as to the importance of Horizon 2020, Transportation 2025, Traffic Impact Studies, and Access Management.  Somewhere those applicable plans should be named and other plans named as they were implemented.  The need to define zoning regulations as the law to fit the comprehensive plan needed to be stated clearly.  Perhaps in the process toward getting building permits might be easier for developers to understand why, although the maximum was stated, the maximum might not be allowed and better relations with the business community could begin.

The comprehensive plan was a guide to Lawrence growth, nodal plans, area plans, neighborhood plans, neighborhoods, commercial plans and other plans were the footprints, but the zoning regulations were the law.  She said this document coming closer did not yet adequately protect Lawrence’s guide and footprints so that the public welfare would prevail.

Alan Black, speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters, read a letter that was delivered to the Commission earlier in the day which read:

“The Land Use Committee of the League has been studying the formulation of the proposed Land Development Code from its inception, and we find that this new code will open up needed development possibilities as well as correct some deficiencies of the current Lawrence zoning ordinance.

However, we find that some of the most glaring deficiencies of our current zoning ordinance have not been remedied in the proposed Draft of the new Land Development Code. These deficiencies pose serious threats, not only to the stability of existing neighborhoods, but to the ability of the City to develop new livable, functional, and stable neighborhoods. Below are the four major issues we found needing remedy, referenced in the extracted pages of the final text of the Draft Code (as downloaded from the official web site of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Department). These can be summarized very briefly as (1) lack of predictability in the conventional districts, (2) lack of adequate protection for residential districts, especially for single family districts, (3) a general lack of understanding of the differences between conventional districts and planned districts as illustrated by some sections in the Draft Code, and (4) a lack of needed criteria in administering the ordinance.”

He presented four examples to the City Commission.

1. The Code should ensure predictability in housing types and zoning requirements where single family detached dwellings are allowed. New RM districts must not allow single family detached dwellings by right. Currently, a special use permit is required for detached single family dwellings in new RM districts for all categories of RS dwelling except cluster dwellings. Allowing cluster dwellings by right in multiple family districts effectively circumvents this rule [PDF pages 61, 130.]. The purpose of cluster dwellings is to provide more common open space in a tract of land by allowing smaller lots for detached single family dwellings at the same overall density, thereby preserving the remainder of the tract as open space. Cluster dwellings are still single family dwellings, and their residents are entitled to the same expectation of predictable growth that residents of other single family districts may expect. As a development technique for preserving open space, cluster dwellings are useful only up to a maximum density, such as RS5. At densities greater than those allowed in RS5 districts, cluster dwelling developments become impracticable.

2. The Code must ensure better transitional standards between single family and other districts, especially regarding such incongruities as scale. The restrictions in Article 6, Density and Dimensional Standards, [PDF page 123, Section 20-602(h)(2)(ii)] are inadequate with respect to building height and mass. The new zoning ordinance continues to allow every building type in the RM districts by right to any bulk and scale, up to 35 feet in medium density districts and up to 45 feet in height in the density districts. Because uses in conventional districts cannot be arbitrarily conditioned or restricted beyond what the district requires, there can be no predictability without adequate protective standards that apply to transitions between districts. We ask that, at a minimum, where higher density districts abut RS districts, in addition to the required Buffer yard setback, the City require one foot additional setback for every foot by which the building height exceeds 25 feet. While this would be much better than the present requirement of one foot additional setback for every foot by which the building height exceeds 35 feet, it is still far less than optimal. Because, in fact, the landscaping requirement is inadequate to provide privacy to single family housing, the best solution would be to require smaller scale buildings at the periphery of multiple family districts. Short of that, it would be appropriate to require satisfaction of a set of performance standards for insuring privacy to single family districts. However, at the very least, it is imperative that the City increase setback requirements for large buildings adjacent to RS districts. (See also "Protection Standards for Residential Districts." [PDF pages 173 and 174].)

3.         We believe that there are at least two important misunderstandings preventing appropriate interpretation of this ordinance. The most glaring example is in the section on "limitation on successive petitions^" [PDF page 241, Section 20-1307(m)]. Restrictions with respect to density and intensity of use are established in the code for each conventional district. Consideration of rezoning requests must be made based on the highest possible density and intensity of use for the particular district, not on some specific, proposed use for the site. Following denial, because this consideration has presumably already made for the first application, the only valid resubmission of a petition within the time frame specified would be for a different rezoning. In our opinion, this would not constitute a successive petition. But, at any rate, because the Commission would have denied the first conventional rezoning request based on the highest possible density and intensity of use, and because their reasons for doing so would presumably apply evenly to all of the uses of highest density or intensity, items b, c, and d are logically impossible. We suggest that the City revise substantially the limitation on successive petitions. At a minimum, the term "successive petition^" must be clearly defined in the terminology section. Once the term is defined, the problem may be approached more easily.

A second example is in the ^"Protection Standards for Residential Development^" [PDF pages 173 and 174, Section 20-1101]. This applies only to discretionary approvals, which in this ordinance are Planned Developments or Special Uses only, and would be applied on a permissive, not mandatory basis. Strictly speaking, this provision would NOT apply to conventional districts or site plans for conventional districts, because both of these must adhere to the existing regulations and cannot be modified by discretionary judgments or conditioning beyond what the ordinance allows, once the zoning district has been approved. We suggest that the City adopt effective protective standards that apply to all specified situations in all districts, conventional as well as planned, on a mandatory basis. Such regulations must not be dependent on arbitrary judgments, as happens when regulations are permissive. Such protection standards should preserve sunlight, shade, air circulation, privacy, views, and other environmental amenities.

4.         The site plan ordinance has no provision for denying a project design or requiring a remedy on the basis of its potential harm to adjacent property. A protective criterion should be added [PDF page 234, Section 20-1305(j), Approval Criteria.]

He said it was their hope that the City Commission would not approve the code, take some time to study the code and consider revising certain parts of that code.  

Commissioner Schauner complimented the League of Women Voters and the Lawrence Neighborhood Association for taking the time to review what had to be some of the driest material available, but also some the most important material that the City Commission would consider.     

Vice Mayor Highberger echoed Commissioner Schauner’s comments and he assured the public that the Commission was not adopting the code at this time.   He said there were a lot of things in the code that he would like to change, but he was not sure they were going to be able to change everything in the adoption process.  He said this issue had been going on for so long, that the major points should be hit without delaying the process and continue to make the improvements that this City needed to make in order to build the kind of City that Lawrence wanted to see. 

Commissioner Dunfield agreed that this was not going to be a perfect document and it was going to continue to evolve after the document was adopted.  He said he had received three CD’s from the League of Women Voters annotating drafts of that document.  He said that document was in large part the result of a process where former Commissioner Schacter and staff went through not only the League’s comments, but a lot of other comments that were submitted. 

He said this process started in 1998 before he sat on the City Commission and he would like to see it completed before he left the City Commission next year.  He said in order to complete the process we were going to need to accept that there would be imperfections and that it would continue to evolve.  The fact that this process had been going on for six years did represent an incredible commitment on the part of staff, consultants, Planning Commissioners, and on the part of the public.  He said on balance, it was a great step forward for Lawrence.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the City Commission had the authority to make some individual changes in that document as opposed to accepting it as written.  He said there was a process available to the City Commission to take into consideration the comments of the League and the Lawrence Neighborhood Association. 

Finger said correct.  She said it was similar to any text amendment only much larger

Corliss said staff was recommending that once a lot of those issues were settled that the City Commission send the document back to the Planning Commission with suggestions for changes.  He said staff would then republish the notice that would concisely allow staff to proceed.  The City Commission could adopt the document on that recommendation, send it back, or by a supermajority vote, make changes.

Commissioner Hack suggested that Finger’s comments on the League’s letter be given to the League because it helped her work through some of her concerns. 

She said this had been a long process and the document would not be perfect. 

Mayor Rundle echoed all the compliments that were previously made.

He suggested Klingenberg submit her comments along with the illustrations and asked that those documents be circulated to the appropriate sub-committee of the Planning Commission.     

He said he had been looking forward to the completion of the process of updating the zoning and subdivision regulations. He said it would provide a clear guide to staff and the development community and perhaps the City Commission would see fewer issues on their agenda as long as the document was applied consistently.

Corliss asked if the City Commission had any direction on the issue of the site plan appeal process. 

Mayor Rundle said when that question was raised at the agenda meeting the idea of having the Planning Commission hear appeals seemed to contradict every discussion and effort they had in terms of trying to expedite and be business and neighborhood friendly since it would delay the process.  He preferred an alternative that was not going to slow things down since other efforts were being made to smooth things along.

Commissioner Schauner said that would mean that the City Commission would be the body to which the appeal would be processed.

Corliss said staff could provide the City Commission with that option before it was initiated back to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Dunfield said the Commission would like to study that option and any other suggestions Corliss might have about how the Commission could streamline that process without cutting out the opportunity for an appeal.

Commissioner Hack appreciated Corliss bringing that issue to the City Commission’s attention.  She said the Commission was always talking about consequences and unintended consequences and staff would be dealing with this document long beyond this City Commission.  She said if there were any other red flags that the City Commission was missing that she would appreciate knowing about those issues as they go through the review process.

Commissioner Schauner asked about the comments concerning the nodal plans.  He asked if the City Commission would have another opportunity to look at those concerns, setbacks, and transitions between RS and RM districts.  He asked how they, as a body or individual City Commissioners, could express their strong interest in having the Planning Commission amend the draft document.

Finger said once staff received the written comments from Klingenberg, staff could make written comments to her concerns and report back to the City Commission.  She said that would give the City Commission something on which to make recommendations.

She pointed out that nodal and area plans were a tool and many times regulatory restrictions and comprehensive plans were confused.  She said this was not a district so it did not cleanly fit into a zoning or development code it was a process that needed better definition and separately adopted as a policy statement that would be used in conjunction with the comprehensive plan.  She said in the code, the area plan was considered a part of the comprehensive plan.  She said there was no process on how area nodal plans were developed and that process was the missing link.

Commissioner Schauner agreed about the missing link, but added that in the zoning document some reference to other policies might be applicable.

Commissioner Hack said in the area plan there were different zoned districts.

Commissioner Dunfield said when Klingenberg read from the text of the zoning code that it seemed the code did exactly what she was asking it to do by stating at the beginning the first substantial statement in the zoning code which was that the development plan referred to the comprehensive plan and other applicable plans.  He said that statement was at the top of the document where that statement needed to be, but he was willing to entertain other ways of trying to make that statement more forceful.  He said when the first substance statement of a piece of code was labeled “purpose” and referred to the comprehensive plan and all applicable plans that pretty much said it.  

Commissioner Schauner said his concern was around the notice to other interested parties.

Mayor Rundle asked if Finger could circulate any additional public comment that came in to the Planning Commission zoning code sub-committee  He said the committee had been over this issue and they would be the best body to review additional concerns. 

He said where the new zoning code discussed “notice” he assumed there was be some specificity on what an applicant needed to tell the neighbors, but he could not find that language.  He said staff could provide that information by email.

Finger asked if the City Commission was comfortable with what staff proposed in enacting an effective date that would be delayed to allow staff to make the map and document come together.

Commissioner Schauner said in reviewing that document, the development plans would take place on April 4^th.

Finger said that date was just a place holder and was subject to change.  She said the registration date for the non-conforming use was also a place holder.

Commissioner Hack said that transition component was extremely important in terms of making that code an effective tool.                                                                           (18)

Receive draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for Cost of Growth Study (Public Improvement Task Force Recommendation

Dave Corliss presented the draft RFP.  He said staff suggested that the RFP’s come back in a digital format.

Mayor Rundle said the cost of growth study was a first step to a number of current City Commission goals and plans.  He suggested that staff negotiate a contract with Duncan and Associates rather than take the time for the RFP process. He had been concerned whether that group would be available because they had many clients but had been informed that was not a problem.

He said Clancy Mullen of Duncan & Associates, was involved in the State of Florida’s cost of growth studies which was an important landmark study.  He said Mullen indicated that he would clear his schedule to work on this project. Rundle said he wanted to pursue the option with Duncan & Associates to expedite the process. 

Commissioner Schauner said he was not familiar with Duncan and Associates, but if that group had familiarity with this City that might be a group to look at to move that agenda quickly.

Mayor Rundle acknowledged the city manager’s suggestion that a couple of the City Commissioners sit on the committee.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

After receiving no public comment, Commissioner Dunfield said this was another one of those projects that was taking longer than expected and he did not want to see the project drag on. 

He said this proposal was unlike any projects that they had done in the past.  He thought it was important to receive proposals from two or three different consultant groups to look at their approaches.  He said Duncan & Associates might be a good candidate for this study, but he would not want to hand this project to one consultant without going through that interviewing process.

Commissioner Schauner asked when was the anticipated due date.

Corliss suggested staff send out the RFP’s within the next couple weeks and in four or five weeks for those consultants to respond.  An expected due date could be at the end of August with interviews in September. 

He said the Mayor had suggested that a couple City Commissioners sit on the interview committee to get a good feel of what those consultants had to offer if the RFP process was how the City Commission wanted to proceed.

Mayor Rundle said this issue would be decided by a majority but pointed out that staff often negotiated contracts.

Commissioner Hack said she felt strongly that they should go through the RFP process for many of the same reasons that were given by Commission Dunfield.

She said in the past, there had been survey studies presented to the City Commission and individuals had expressed concerns about the neutrality of those particular studies and she wanted to make sure they were not proceeding in that same manner.

Corliss said there were a number of consultant groups nationwide and staff needed to make sure to get those RFP’s out.

Mayor Rundle said his effort was assessing the availability of that particular firm and he had not focused a great deal on the RFP.  He said he needed time to look at the RFP language and offer comments before that proposal was implemented.         

Commissioner Schauner suggested serving on that interview committee if the City Commission went to an RFP process.

He said he concurred with Commissioner Hack in that they were looking for objective, defendable, and usable data, but no matter how objective and defendable that data was, there would be someone who would complain about it being biased.  

He said the August/September turnaround date for receipt and interviews shortly thereafter was a reasonable timeframe.

Mayor Rundle suggested that comments from the Commissioners on the RFP be given to Corliss by July 23, 2004.

Corliss said staff would work on the mailing list and try to post the RFP a week from today.

PUBLIC COMMENT:  None

COMMISSION ITEMS:

Commissioner Schauner discussed the proposed Wal-Mart expansion on South Iowa.  He said the City Commission received, at one time, retail sales tax information from the State as a tool to determine capacity for retail growth in the City.  He said he would like some feedback from staff about what information was available.  Specifically, how that information could be used, and what it would take in terms of staff time to make available whatever models might be appropriately used as part of consideration on a retail development growth in the community.      

Commissioner Hack asked if that information was not part of the commercial chapter of Horizon 2020.

Commissioner Schauner said that information was part of that chapter, but they did not actually use that data in any decision making with respect to retail growth.

Commissioner Dunfield said in amending that commercial chapter they had taken a step toward requiring that data be provided for commercial developments of a certain size.

Finger said staff would bring Commissioner Schauner a memorandum that summarized what Chapter 6 stated and what staff had used to date.

Mayor Rundle said the Homeless Task Force adopted a timetable and process for finishing its work which would involve a City Commission Study Session probably at the end of the year. It also involved opportunities for stakeholder input throughout the community.  He said they did not want to bring proposals that left something out so there would also be various methods for soliciting input. He said they were very hopeful and were going to be working very hard throughout the end of the year to finely bring that task force to a conclusion. 

Moved by Schauner , seconded by Dunfield , to adjourn at 9:45 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                 APPROVED:

_____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 20, 2004

1. Engineering Contract – 2005 Waterline Improvements with BG Consultants for $34,651.28.

2.  Ordinance No. 7800 – 2^nd Reading, Rezone (Z-03-14-04) 4.07 acres, A to RS-2, S of W 6^th & W of E 1000 Rd.

3. Ordinance No. 7803 – 2^nd Reading, temporary bldg moratorium, 6^th Street Area Plan.

4. Resolution No. 6555 – Benefit District, Order Construction, 3^rd St., from Alabama to Illinois.

5. Resolution No. 6556 – nuisance at 700 Blk, No. 3, Lyon, order abatement.

6. Rezone – (Z-05-21-04) 2.63 acres, RS-2 to PCD-2, 3300 Iowa.

7. Rezone – (Z-05-20-04) 15.02 acres, C-5 to PCD-2, 3400 Iowa.

8. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-05-04-04) Crown Chevrolet/Toyota, 3400, 3434 S Iowa.

9. Site Plan – (SP-05-29-04) redevelopment Wal-Mart, 3300 S Iowa.

10. Letter of Support – Funding for Amtrak.

11. Early Learning Opportunities Act – Success By 6, Local Council.

12. Rezoning issues – letter from Waldeck, Matteuzzi & Sloan.

13. Release of Mortgage – 760 N 7^th, Christina Lesher.

14. City Manager’s Report.

15. Environmental Code Enforcement Standard.

16. Historic Preservation Plan – Text Amendments to Horizon 2020.

17. 2005 Budget.

18. Zoning code – new code, presentation & memorandum.