August 24, 2004
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Lawrence met in regular session at 6:35 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers in City Hall with Mayor Rundle presiding and members Dunfield, Hack, Highberger and Schauner present.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
The City Commission recognized Delbert and Arlen Richardson for their support of the Lawrence Municipal Airport and the Lawrence Aviation Community.
The City Commission received a presentation from the Lawrence-Free State Unity Run.
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of August 10, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to receive the Sister Cities Advisory Board meeting minutes of July 14, 2004; the Public Health Board meeting minutes of June 21, 2004; the Planning Commission (draft) meeting minutes of July 28, 2004; the Board of Electrical Examiners and Appeals meeting minutes June 10, 2004; the Housing Trust Fund Board meeting minutes of July 13, 2004; and the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of July 8, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to approve claims to 826 vendors in the amount of $2,013,962.04 and payroll from August 8, 2004 to August 24, 2004, in the amount of $1,359,183.47. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Kansas Alumni Association, 1266 Oread Avenue; Qdoba Mexican Grill, 947 Massachusetts (New License – 55% Food Sale Requirement); Lawrence Community Theatre, 1501 New Hampshire; Louise’s Bar Downtown, 1009 Massachusetts; the Retail Liquor Licenses for Wehner Retail Liquor, 945 East 23rd; Danny’s Retail Liquor, 1910 Haskell No. 3; and the Sidewalk Dining License for Thai House Restaurant, 724 Massachusetts (New). Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract agreement with Rural Water District No. 1 for the purchase of five (5) water meters for a total cost of $21,505.15. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
The City Commission reviewed the bids for Laundry/Dry Cleaning for the Police Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
DCI Management Group $39,015.00
Scotch Fabric $42,410.00
Creative Marketing Development, Inc. $53,600.05
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to award the bid to Scotch Fabric, in the amount of $42,410. Motion carried unanimously. (2)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to authorize the sale of surplus vehicles through E-bay. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7804, rezoning (Z-05-17-04) a tract of land approximately 1.59 acres from C-4 (General Commercial District) to M-3 (Intensive Industrial District). The property is generally described as being located at the corner of North 2nd Street and Lyons Street. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7811, adopting the 2004 Standard Traffic Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7819, amending the City Code provisions governing the prohibition on parking vehicles on City streets for greater than 48 hours. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
Ordinance No. 7785, rezoning (Z-02-02-04) 3.255 acres from RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) to M-2 (General Industrial District); 601 North Iowa, formerly known as the Riverside Elementary School, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
Ordinance No. 7813, allowing the sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic liquor during designated times on September 4, 2004 at Clinton Lake Outlet Park for the Lawrence Mountain Bike Club’s fundraiser, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
Ordinance No. 7814, allowing the sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic liquor during designated times on September 11, 2004, on the west side of South Park for the Immanuel Lutheran Church “Oompahfest”, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
Ordinance No. 7816, the approval, adoption, and appropriating by fund the budget of the City of Lawrence, for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2005, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (10)
Ordinance No. 7817, making certain determinations and provisions concerning the appropriation and budgeting of property tax revenue for the year 2005 City Budget, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
Ordinance No. 7795, establishing solid waste service rates, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
Ordinance No. 7797, establishing acceptable containers for yard waste to refuse cans, roll-out carts, and compostable fiber bags, prohibiting use of plastic bags for yard waste, and amending Chapter 9, Article 4, Sections 2, 3, and 6 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
Ordinance No. 7809, amending sections 19-902 and 19-903 of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas 2003 Edition, concerning system development charges for water utility and wastewater utility connections, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
Ordinance No. 7805, providing for revised court costs assessed by the Municipal Court of the City of Lawrence by amending sections 1-113 and section 12-105 of the municipal code of the City of Lawrence, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
Ordinance No. 7806, levying the maximum assessments to pay all of the costs for the construction of George Williams Way from its current terminus north approximately 3000 L.F. to West 6th Street (U.S. Highway 40) including property acquisition and other necessary and appropriate improvements, as authorized by Resolution 6449, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
Ordinance No. 7807, levying the maximum special assessments to pay all of the costs for the construction of Harvard Road from the intersection of George Williams Way East 500 Feet, including property acquisition, traffic calming devices, bicycle facilities subgrade stabilization, stormwater improvements, water main and other necessary and appropriate improvements, as authorized by Resolution No. 6503, was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (17)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to adopt Resolution No. 6557, setting out the findings of fact and ordering the construction of Lake Pointe Drive in Lake View Addition. Motion carried unanimously.
(18)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-04-13-04) of Hines Subdivision No 1, a replat of Lot 47, Doane’s Subdivision of block seven in Earl’s Addition, a two-lot residential subdivision containing approximately 0.43 acre, generally described as being located at 828 East 14th Street, and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a completed master street tree plan.
2. Provision of the following plat correction:
a. Correct spelling of “temporary” in Final Plat Notes.
3. Provision of an approved Master Street Tree Plan; and
4. Provision of the following notes on the Final Plat:
a. The lowest floor shall be elevated a minimum of two (2) feet above the base flood elevation at the time of a building permit; and
b. Impervious surface shall cover no more than 30 percent of that portion of the residential lot within the Floodplain Overlay District.
Motion carried unanimously. (19)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-06-16-04) for Overland Pointe, a proposed multi-family residential subdivision containing approximately 2.7291 acres, located south of Overland Drive and east of E 1000 Road (Queens); and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Provision of a completed master street tree plan;
2. Submittal of public improvement plans to the City Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat;
3. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
4. Provision of a revised final plat that graphically depicts the existing right-of-way for Overland Drive and for Queens Road;
5. Change the name of the Planning Commission Chairperson to John Haase;
6. Change “acovenant” to “a covenant” in Note No. 5; and
7. Provision of the following note on the Final Plat, “No building permit shall be issued until the City is presented with a written guarantee or other financial assurance (e.g. bond, letter or credit, escrow account, etc.), in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing payment for the assessed special assessments on the property for the improvement of Overland Drive. This condition shall be waived by the City Manager if the special assessments district is not subject to litigation.”
Motion carried unanimously. (20)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-06-17-04) for Delaware Commons Addition II, a replat of Lots 1-4, Block 1, Delaware Commons Addition, a planned residential subdivision containing approximately 3.2 acres, located at 1210 Delaware Street; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Submittal and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan.
2. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement;
3. Submittal of public improvement plans (water line, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and sidewalk) to Public Works Department prior to filing of the final plat;
4. Execute an Agreement Not to Protest a Benefit District for street improvements on Delaware, 12th, and 13th Streets; and
5. Pinning of the lots in accordance with Section 21-302.2.
Motion carried unanimously. (21)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to approve the Final Plat (PF-06-18-04) for Raco-Westridge Addition, a replat of a portion of Lot 1, Westridge No. 6, a one-lot planned commercial development containing approximately .769 acre, located at 3600 West 6th Street; and accept the dedication of easements and rights-of-way subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of the following fees and recording documentation:
a. Current copy of paid property tax receipt at the time of submittal of the final plat for filing;
b. Recording fees made payable to the Douglas County Register of Deeds; and
c. Submittal and approval of a Master Street Tree Plan.
2. Execution of a Temporary Utility Agreement.
Motion carried unanimously. (22)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to accept an amendment to the Lawrence/Douglas County Bicycle Plan. Motion carried unanimously. (23)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-06-22-04) of approximately one acre from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residence District) and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. The property is described as being located at 704 Folks Road. Motion carried unanimously. (24)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-06-25-04) of approximately 1.3363 acres, from A (Agricultural District) to O-1 (Office District) and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. The property is generally described as being located at the southwest corner of West 6th Street and Folks Road. Motion carried unanimously. (25)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to the acceptance of donation of approximately a one acre tract from Larkspur Townhomes Homeowners Association, south of West 27th Street; and to authorize staff to prepare the necessary deed and related instruments. Motion carried unanimously. (26)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for John and Laurie Marshall, 2131 Carolina Street. Motion carried unanimously. (27)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to sign a letter of support to participate in an alliance of transit providers interested in the research, development, and possible acquisition of hybrid bus technology. Motion carried unanimously. (28)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Highberger, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to execute the tax abatement performance agreement with Serologicals Corporation. Motion carried unanimously. (29)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
During the City Manager’s Report, Finance Director Ed Mullins presented the Second Quarter Financial Report. He said nationally the economy was growing and at the end of June 2004 that marked the tenth consecutive month of employment growth in the United States. However, with the high energy prices businesses were hesitant to spend money. He said according to Allen Greenspan, the economy was at a slight pause before continued growth.
He said concerning the City’s General Fund, City Departments were doing a good job at controlling their expenditures. At the end of six months, the City was below 45% of budget.
Mullins also briefed the City Commission on the Transportation Fund and the 2004 Enterprise Funds.
He said the City’s average rate of return on investments during the second quarter were under 2%. He said the City’s investments were fairly short-term in nature. Half of the investments were from government agencies and approximately 38% were in certificates of deposits.
He said in conclusion, two of the City’s trouble spots were the outdoor pool and the golf course. The Recreational Fund would see some off-set to that outdoor pool in terms of adult sports, but the golf course was on its own because they did not have any other revenue source except for the green fees and golf cart fees.
Also, during the City Manager’s Report, Commissioner Hack commented on the Management Team Exchange Activities in which the Management Team signed up for duty assignments in a department other than their own to gain appreciation for other departments. She suggested that the City Commission be involved in that type of activity. (30)
REGULAR AGENDA
Receive funding request from the Coalition for Homeless Concerns, Inc., for emergency funds to continue 24/7 operation of homeless services in Lawrence through December, 2004
Tami Clark, representing the Community Drop In Center and the Coalition on Homeless Concerns, presented the funding request for $11,610 to provide 24/7 coverage September through December 2004.
She talked about the positive aspects of growth in the Lawrence Community and how unfortunate it was that growth increased the homeless population. She said homelessness stemmed from many different sources, but the one thing that people who had recently fallen into homelessness had in common, was the desire to get themselves back into housing and a fulfilling life as quickly as possible.
She said Lawrence Open Shelter opened its doors to people experiencing homelessness at 8:00 p.m. each night along with Salvation Army who opens its doors at 9:00 p.m. Those two services close their doors at 8:00 a.m. each morning when services at the Community Drop In Center became available, Monday through Friday. On Saturday’s and Sunday’s the Community Drop In Center was closed at it became difficult on those people who did not have a home to go to.
The question came into mind why those agencies couldn’t join together in one building in order to fix this problem. Unfortunately, that seemingly simple idea left a lot of people falling through the cracks.
She said the City had the best of both worlds which was the Salvation Army, a faith based organization which spoke to the heart of many; the Lawrence Open Shelter which provided shelter to those not quite ready for this type of program; and the Community Drop In Center where people were given the freedom to learn in many different ways and at their own pace.
In 2003, the Community Drop In Center served over 1,000 individuals, many whom were homeless and many on the cusp on homelessness. She said 80% were homeless and had no place to go from noon to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., Saturday’s and Sunday’s.
In 2004, with the help of the City Commission, the Coalition raised enough money to cover all of those hours throughout the months of July and August. She said they knew it was possible and they now needed the City Commission’s commitment to continue to fill those gaps with shelter plus employment and housing services throughout the rest of the year.
She said each of the Commissioners had a copy of the proposal that asked for $11,610 in order to provide an additional 1,088 hours of shelter and 731 hours of case management to those trying desperately to find their way out of a desperate situation.
The Community Drop In Center was willing to open its doors a full 9 hours each day, including Saturday’s and Sunday’s and to provide case management and employment services each hour they were opened.
The Salvation Army was willing to open its shelter doors at 5:00 p.m. each evening with the assistance of the Lawrence Open Shelter.
Clark said attached to the proposal was a list of supportive comments made by the members of the Task Force on Homeless Services which had identified case management as a large gap in homeless services. The need for case management had also been identified by the Coalition on Homeless Concerns and the Practitioners Round Table. Members on the Task Force who commented were supportive and made note of such key elements as the benefits of providing shelter in a verity of ways and the collaboration among the agencies involved. She said they could only do that with the support of the City Commission. She said they were asking that the Commission continue to help them to provide the steps to employment and housing in order to end homelessness in Lawrence one person at a time.
Edith Williams, Lawrence, spoke in support of the funding request.
Herman Leon said one of the most important aspects of this proposal should be heralded in terms of community planning. He said he had been involved with the homeless community for a number of years and this was the first time, organizationally, that Salvation Army, Open Shelter, and the Drop In Center were officially and organizationally cooperating to work out a 24/7 shelter. He spoke in support of the funding request.
Wesley Teal, Kansas Mutual Aid and the Lawrence Industrial Workers of the World, spoke in support of the funding request. He said the homelessness needed more help than most people in this City and the approval of the proposal seemed like the least that the City could morally do to help out the homeless and get them back on their feet to be functioning members of this community.
Mayor Rundle said the Homeless Task Force was yet to produce a report. He said he was not in town for the last meeting so he could not share any details that might illuminate this decision.
He said this was a difficult population to serve and was not a homogenous population as Clark alluded to. He said there were many people with Mental Health and addiction issues or a combination of both. He said in recent weeks the City had been hearing about Mental Health Network in Kansas which was not addressing all of the needs.
Mayor Rundle asked Clark if this request would be a long-term commitment.
Clark said this request would be considered seed money to get those services going. She said at this point, they did not have any numbers for those hours to send to grantors and different foundations. She said they hoped to make some differences with the additional funding and hours.
Commissioner Hack said comments had been made about the possibility of granting the funding that would get them through until the end of this year without looking at the 2005 Budget Cycle which was just completed. She asked what Clark’s thoughts would be if the Commission was able to fund the $11,610 and working with the Homeless Task Force.
She agreed with Leon that a lot of the reasons those groups were collaborating was because they finally sat down at the same table and realized that a lot of their concerns were mutual.
Clark said it was difficult to ask for only a portion of an annual funding request. She could guarantee that there would be no funding by January 1, 2005.
Mayor Rundle asked how long her agency had been offering case management services.
Clark said case management had been offered since mid March. She said it was amazing how much had been accomplished in 20 hours a week because they were only able to hire part-time, but they were hoping that position could be made more permanent to provide a greater impact on this community.
Vice Mayor Highberger said as a community they needed to find a comprehensive approach to this problem and he hoped that would be addressed with the Homeless Task Force. He said at that point, the Commission would need to commit some resources. He said he was concerned about this request because they were out of the City’s normal budget cycle. He also said he was generally supportive because of the provision of the case management services and it was a service that could help in the long run. He said he was encouraged to hear support of members on the Homeless Task Force because that reassured some of his concerns.
He said he wanted it to be clear that if a homeless person was to be removed from their camp that adequate notice be given. He said he understood the problem of asking for funding for a few months and he was supportive of Commissioner Hack’s suggestion of funding for 2004 and seeing the result of that funding before committing to 2005 funding.
Commissioner Dunfield said this was another of a series of ad hoc decisions regarding funding for homeless services and he did not like that. He said he was interested in the results of the Homeless Task Force. He said at some point, the City Commission was going to need to decide what its level of commitment was going to be to this issue on a long-term basis. He said as the Commission kept making those ad hoc decisions, they kept delaying the real decisions that needed to be made. On the other hand, with the Task Force acting and hopefully ready to make recommendations fairly soon, his inclination was to make another ad hoc decision to get through the end of the year and pick it up in 2005.
He said coordinating this effort with those three organizations was a step in the right direction.
Commissioner Schauner said even if more money was put into homelessness issues, homelessness was not going to go away. Homelessness was going to be with us as long as capitalism was alive. He said at some point, the City needed to make a policy decision about exactly what level it was willing to support those homelessness issues and make it part of the City’s budget process and hopefully avoid the ad hoc decision making that the Commission was faced with from time to time.
He said he was leaning to support the proposal up to July of next year. He said that would put the City through another budget cycle. He said hopefully the Homeless Task Force would have a report and that would give this Commission and/or its successor an opportunity for a longer look at that issue. He supported the 3 month proposal, but he wanted feedback on alternatives through June of 2005.
Mayor Rundle said the Task Force had a goal of coming out with a final recommendation of a comprehensive, coordinated, community response to homelessness approximately at the end of the year and might need some adjustment. He recommended taking a look at where the Task Force was at the end of the year and then approving that extra half year.
He said the response to homelessness in this community had been largely a volunteer and privately funded effort. There was in the last few weeks, yet another private not for profit formed to fund prescription that people needed.
He said they had enjoyed the benefit of not having to be a major player concerning homeless matters, but it might certainly be expected when it reached the end of its work. He supported the short-term funding for this fiscal year funding.
Commissioner Hack suggested that the Commission fund the request of $11,610 with the understanding that at the beginning of December 2004, the Commission would meet to get an update on how this issue was being addressed.
She said she would like to get more information about the case management situation and any collaborative efforts among the agencies.
Commissioner Schauner asked for information in December to show how many people who utilize those services were suffering from some mental disability.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the $11,610 funding request from the Lawrence Coalition on Homeless Concerns for funding through calendar year 2004. Motion carried unanimously. (31)
Mayor Rundle suggested that a report be submitted on the parallel efforts going on among the agencies.
Vice Mayor Highberger said once the Commission had a clearer picture of how to handle this issue in a comprehensive manner, he would be supportive, but right now he would be comfortable supporting the proposal to the end of the year.
Consider motion to recess into executive session for 20 minutes to discuss matters which would be privileged under the attorney client relationship.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to recess into executive session for 30 minutes to discuss attorney/client privileged matters. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission met in executive session at 7:30 (32)
The Commission came back to the regular session of the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Receive request from the Housing Trust Fund Board regarding the future of the Housing Trust Fund.
After returning from executive session, Margene Swarts, Community Development Manager, presented the staff report outlining the creation of the Housing Trust Fund and Housing Trust Board along with the work that they had accomplished.
Ed Tato, Chair, Housing Trust Fund Board, said the Board met to discuss affordable housing issues and the future of the Housing Trust Fund. He said their initial funding from the General Fund was $500,000. He said at this point, they had no funding because the first allocation had been spent. He said there was no point in meeting as a Board and discussing allocating the interest earnings because that could be better spent the same way through the Community Development Block Grant process.
He said without a permanent funding source there was no point in having the Housing Trust Fund Board because it would be a duplication of efforts. At the same time, there was an endowment that could be used to do something larger and longer lasting.
Commissioner Schauner asked how much capital would be necessary to keep this Board viable for the next five years.
Tato said he could only estimate present need and was not comfortable projecting future need. He said the present need was approximately $200,000 a year.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Tato needed both seed money as well as money for the maintenance of those facilities.
Tato said no.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the additional money was to continue additional projects from year to year.
Tato said what the Board envisioned was a larger partnership between the development community and the non-profit organizations to do things that were missing. He said an example would be to rehab some of the neighborhoods that were deteriorating. He said when looking at the price of new homes, a person was out of an affordability range and it made the community segregated by income and there was no market way to have the affordability except clustered in neighborhoods. He said if you want effectiveness there were ways to use public money to see that new development had an affordability component that it could not have otherwise.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
After receiving no public comment, Mayor Rundle said when this was initiated the Commission recognized need for an on-going source of income. He said perhaps they failed in making that part of the charge to start looking at possible sources. He said informally they had talked about some possible sources only to find out that the land trust was looking at one of those as a possible source for funding land trusts statewide and it would not be wise to go at the same source.
He said they also had gone through two recent budget cycles which their theme was “austerity and scarce resources” and he did not think they really considered anything new or dedicating a stream of revenue for new programs during those times. He said he personally would like to see the Housing Trust Fund Board remain. He said perhaps the Board’s time wasn’t well spent meeting continuously through the year, but maybe they could resume some activity whenever there was a source of funds. The concept was important and there needed to be a more major impact on affordable housing needs and this was an effective method in other communities.
Vice Mayor Highberger suggested forming another Task Force to study the question of affordable housing and come back with proposals in approximately one year. He said the future of the Housing Trust Fund could be something that the community could address either to look at finding funding sources or recommend disbanding. He said it was time that the Commission took a comprehensive look at this issue and he asked for a proposed list of appointees including possibly Commissioner Hack to a Task Force to include making recommendations about the future of the Housing Trust Fund.
Commissioner Hack said she did not want the Housing Trust Fund Board to continue to meet with no light at the end of the tunnel. She thought discussions among stakeholders would be a good step.
Commissioner Schauner said only one side of the coin was being looked at regarding high prices for housing, but the other side of that same coin was lack of income or low wages. He said when looking at the memo from the Housing Trust Fund Board, the memo talked about low income renters. He said talking about affordability could not be discussed without an on-going legitimate discussion about lack of income which could be part of an affordable housing task force.
Mayor Rundle said approximately three years ago, Representative Moore’s staff helped put together an affordable housing meeting with all the people in the region and the recommendation out of that meeting was to have a housing needs assessment. He recently noticed that the League of Women Voters had placed that issue on their action agendas.
He suggested coming back with a more concrete proposal in two weeks.
Commissioner Dunfield said it seemed clear from the memo that regrouping and rethinking the strategy was appropriate.
Commissioner Hack thanked the Housing Trust Board for coming up with some potential solutions to this issue.
Commissioner Schauner asked Vice Mayor Highberger for his consideration that the proposed task force look at some zoning options that included some requirements that some part of developments be dedicated to low income housing as a way to provide some additional non-City tax money to support that effort. He said there was some other out of the box ways to deal with this issue. (33)
Consider findings of fact regarding Wisconsin Apartments site plan located at 1710 W. 7th Street.
Dave Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said at the Commission’s August 3rd City Commission meeting a site plan was considered for apartments at 1710 West 7th Street. That site plan, in all points, was identical to a site plan that the applicant had earlier submitted and had been the subject of extensive discussion among adjacent property owners, interested neighborhood groups, City staff, and the applicant. The site plan had been withdrawn and the applicant resubmitted a site plan and the Commission considered that site plan on August 3rd. He said the Commission indicated at that meeting that they believed that the site plan was deficient in meeting the code requirements requiring approval and the Commission directed him to come back with findings of fact that would support the denial. He said staff had provided a draft findings of fact and pointed out that there were some relevant portions of the City Code that were important for the Commission’s review of site plans in Chapter 20-1428 which set out the purpose of site plans under the land use regulatory procedures. He pointed out that the City Commission had the option, under the code, of approving that site plan with or without conditions, denying the site plan, or deferring the site plan for further study.
He said in Chapter 20-1432 there were conditions that site plans must meet in order to meet approval. He noted that in the beginning part of the staff report that this property was subject to the temporary building permit moratorium for this area. The proposed findings of fact supporting denial of the site plan essentially lay out three findings that were then directly linked back to the code requirements. He said one of those findings had to do with the proposed height of the building and that it was incompatible with the adjacent land uses. Staff pointed out that while there was some multi-story uses in that area that they were not immediately adjacent to the property and that was a code defect for the site plan.
The second finding responded to the issue of a substandard West 7th Street. He said the he and the Director of Public Works reviewed 7th Street which was formally designated as a state highway, but it was substandard right now as a local residential street. The paved portion of the street where they measured was only 20 feet and the requirements were 23 feet which excluded curb and gutter portions. He said that was a significant concern to allow that site plan to be approved.
The third finding was inappropriate pedestrian egress noting the substandard size. There was not a sidewalk on either side of 7th Street as it went toward Florida Street. The terrain was not supportive of pedestrian travel. He said if there was an apartment complex in that neighborhood it was likely that some of those individuals would want to travel east and west whether it was to downtown or K.U. He said the street and lack of sidewalks did not support that development. He said all of those observations and findings were related directly back to the City’s code requirements for a site plan.
He said the Commission needed to be comfortable with the conclusions that staff made on those findings.
Harold Sheppard, landowner of the proposed site, said the report just received was ambiguous. He said the paving on that street was 23 feet. He said when a gutter was overlaid with paving it was no longer considered as gutter. He said the street was 27 feet wide which was City requirement from back of curb to back of curb.
He said as far as pedestrian safety from his development, they were coming off of Wisconsin Street and they did not have anything to do with 7th Street. He said all of their traffic would be directed to 6th Street.
He said to say that this unit was something that was not in the area, his unit was completely surrounded with three story apartment buildings. He said when High Pointe Apartments were built, they weren’t talking about sidewalks. He said High Pointe was not off of 6th Street because High Pointe had two egress points on 7th Street. He said if on Florida Street, 7th Street was not any wider than it was on Wisconsin and there were 3 story apartments at that location.
He said to say that they were not in compliance with the ordinance because of 7th Street was ambiguous. He said that was not required when they were putting the site plan together.
He said planning staff agreed that the site plan should be approved. He said the City Commissioners had treated him differently than they had other landowners. He said he could not see why he could not get the same respect as the Commission gave the Salvation Army on Haskell. He said as long as he was in compliance and as long as the area was zoned correctly then this situation should be passed.
He said he was charging the City with different treatment and he did not intend to be treated that way. He said he was there to put the Commission on notice that if they continued in that direction to deny him as a taxpayer and landowner when the Commission did not deny the others, then he did not have any other alternative but to seek legal justice. He said his attorney was present and he did not know which way or how to sue the Commission, but he would be suing the City. He said he was trying to go along with the Commissioners. He said he was not going to tolerate that ambiguous report in that his project was going to be a problem on 7th Street when they don’t even egress off 7th Street. He said he thought everyone should be treated equal.
He asked the Commission to recall the issue of the Salvation Army at Haskell and what they told the neighborhood. He asked why he needed to give the City three weeks to find something wrong after City staff had said that the proposed site should be passed and that they had met all of the requirements. He said the Commissioners took it upon themselves in three weeks to go out and find a reason. He said he wanted to put the Commission on notice that he intended to seek legal justice. He asked his attorney to explain this issue because he did not want anyone leaving tonight without knowing his intent if the Commission kept going in that same direction.
Price Banks, Attorney representing the applicant, said this was another situation where the rules were changing in the middle of the game. He said it appeared that the action that the Commission was going to take was not going to be consistent with previous actions and it would be unprecedented. He said it was not fair to someone who had invested money in property. Changing rules in the middle of the game had already landed the City in some costly litigation.
The rules were changing without the benefit of an ordinance amendment. He said that raised a specter, not just for developers, but for anyone that wanted to invest in the City of Lawrence or anyone who wanted to invest in a home. He asked if the standards and zoning regulations were going to apply equally if he wanted to add on to his garage. He asked if the side yard or front yard setback would suddenly change. He said local laws were no longer establishing a framework and were inconsistent.
He said Horizon 2020 began over 20 years ago and there had been plenty of time to develop implementation tools and those tools were simply not in place. He said if those tools had not been adopted then it was not fair to make up the rules as they go along.
He reminded the Commission of the time that he stood before them representing neighbors opposed to a sorority because of the impact of that issue. He said this Commission stated that it was zoned for that use. He said this was the same situation with the Salvation Army on Haskell Ave.
He said suddenly they were in a situation where what was zoned did not make any difference. He said the action that the Commission was about to take flew in the face of a staff recommendation and it flew in the face of recommendations within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He urged the City Commission not to take that action.
Bert Griggs, resident Old West Lawrence, said the Hillcrest, Pinckney, and West Lawrence Associations had made a case regarding this project in this proposed development in several occasions this summer.
Mayor Rundle said he thought the Commission communicated its view earlier and he did not think the Commission had taken that time to find something new. He said there was public record in the Commission’s minutes that had been recorded.
Vice Mayor Highberger said the proposed findings of facts captured the Commission’s view in terms of incompatibility with the City Code. He pointed out that in the case of the sorority that Banks spoke of the Commission initially rejected that site plan and after some further negotiation with the land owner and the property owner they came up with a site plan that was slightly more compatible with the neighborhood and therefore the site plan was approved. He thought the Commission was doing the best of their ability to apply the law consistently.
Commissioner Schauner concurred with Vice Mayor Highberger. He said the delay in getting those proposed findings for the City Commission to consider was not based on any attempt to go out and find something, but simply to memorialize what they had expressed as a Commission a few weeks ago. He said he believed that those proposed finds do in fact comport with, and were supported by, the record that was created by this Commission when they last discussed this issue on July 13, 2004. He supported the findings and believed the Commission should move forward in accordance with those findings.
David Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director read the following:
“The City certainly has the authority to require modification to a plan to mitigate impact on the neighborhood, to mitigate impact on the community, or merely to improve the efficiency on the site. That authority has, in the past, been exercised many times by staff and by the City Commission.”
He said that statement was written by Banks last year in regards to the sorority site plan Bank’s spoke if earlier.
Corliss indicated that City staff believed that the denial of the site plan was a reasonable exercise of this City authority.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to adopt the findings of fact and deny the request for Wisconsin Apartments site plan, located at 1710 West 7th Street. Motion carried unanimously. (34)
Consider approving, subject to conditions, SP-03-18-04: a revised Site Plan for Alek’s Auto Sales located at 601 N. 2nd Street.
Jeff Tully, Planner, presented the staff report. He said at its regular meeting of November 26, 2002, the City Commission approved the site plan for the used car sales operation pending a number of conditions.
The site plan identified as the 2002 site plan which identified a shared access driveway between the subject lot and the lot immediately to the north. As approved the 25 foot wide access drive was to be located along the northern property line of the subject property. Instead, the property owner constructed the driveway approximately 18 feet to the south of its approved location with access limited to the subject property.
Additionally, the City Commission approved a parking lot layout into 2002 that provided a curved layout design towards the southeast corner of the subject lot. The parking lot had also been constructed to layout different from the design approved by the City Commission in 2002.
He said in December of 2003 Mr. Plotnikov, the property owner, met with City staff to discuss the amended site plan. At that meeting Mr. Plotnikov agreed to seek approval of the revised site plan showing the location of the relocated curb cut driveway as constructed and seek approval of the site plan. That approval was conditioned upon Mr. Plotnikov’s agreement that if the property to the north were to redevelop the City would require him to move the driveway back to its City Commission approved location between the subject lot and the lot to the north.
He said anticipating future development of the lot to the north and recognizing the temporary nature of the constructed driveway, the City required the property owner to file a 25 foot wide public access easement with the revised site plan to provide future access from the subject lot through to the adjacent lot to the north which was a condition of approval for the revised site plan.
He read Planning Staff’s recommendation for approval of the site plan.
He said the City had received correspondence regarding the issue of drainage of the site and the impact to the adjacent property to the north.
Commissioner Schauner asked why the some of the building of this project was allowed to move forward when the project was inconsistent with the 2002 site plan.
Tully said he could not fully answer Commissioner Schauner’s question, but he knew that a stop work order had been placed on the project because it was not in compliance with the City Commission approved site plan.
Mayor Rundle asked if there was a site plan performance agreement.
Tully said yes. He said there was an agreement the first time around on the 2002 site plan.
Mayor Rundle asked who enforced that agreement.
Corliss said it started with Neighborhood Resources, but staff had not proceeded with the enforcement because the applicant had submitted a revised site plan and that had been processed.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the Commission did not approve the amended site plan what would be the remedy. He asked if the performance agreement would require the applicant to remove the incompatible construction.
Corliss said the applicant would not be able to occupy until the incompatible construction was removed.
C. L. Mauer, Land Plan Engineering, said some of the changes that were made to the entrance were based on a letter from KDOT after they observed where the entrance was going to be located. He said the power pole located at that site was the cause for all of those problems. He said when they were going to relocate that power pole it was with the idea that it would only cost a couple thousand dollars. He that power pole had a transformer that fed two businesses and the businesses across the street and they had to relocate that power pole and transformer which cost approximately $10,000 at a minimum. He said that was the reason the person from KDOT wrote a letter to his client stating that pole be placed where the existing curb cut was now and widen that curb cut 8 feet.
He said the City placed a stop work order on their site and they began meeting to negotiate. He said they met with the Board of Zoning Appeals and was granted a five foot variance for green space along the existing right-of-way. He said in January and February they also met with the BZA and received an approval to move that curb closer to the existing right-of-way. He said they had been in negotiations during that time to get that right-of-way, but the City felt that they needed to keep that right-of-way for future utilities throughout that area.
He said he understood that the letter he received about the drainage issue was because they stopped work. He said they did not complete what they started to construct. He said from that point they could create a swell in the back to create drainage to get water off the site.
Adra Burks, speaking on behalf of Rusty and Jim Thomas, property owners to the north of the property in question, presented photographs to the Commission depicting their site.
She said there was a retaining wall which was on Mr. Plotnikov’s property. She said under the initial proposal the property was to drain between the curb cut and the retaining wall, but there was an area that needed to be lower than the retaining wall. In actuality what they had was an area where the parking was much higher than the retaining wall and the water flowed onto her client’s property.
She said there was a sidewalk that was on both the original proposal and the revision which needed to be slanted, but it was not built yet. She said there was mud in the shared driveway area and into her client’s building.
She said there were problems in terms of drainage which were:
1. The original site plan showed the drainage was to be toward the street;
2. Water pooled in an area;
3. Client’s property was up for sale.
She said from past experiences with moving utility poles, those costs were approximately $10,000 to $15,000 and she did not think that was a surprise. She said the surprise was that Mr. Plotnikov did not want to pay to move the pole, but that was part of the original proposal.
She said part of the drainage issues would probably be taken care of if Mr. Plotnikov complied with the site plan, but there was a 5 foot area, not a 15 foot area; the grading had not been followed; and the curb cut had been changed without City approval for an amended site plan.
She said City staff had considered the drainage issues, but they were being asked to bear the burden.
She encouraged the Commission to take a close look at this issue and support City staff in terms of the initial work that was done.
Commissioner Schauner asked if the curb cut would have been where the pole was would it have mitigated the pooling of water.
Burks said yes there would always be some pooling and it would be shared between the properties.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if there were drainage issues on the site before construction on that property.
Burks said before the construction started the natural flow of the water was over Mr. Plotnikov’s property.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was Burks’ thought that the height of the parking lot as it approached the building was graded in a way that was inconsistent with the original site plan.
Burks said she believed so. She said the lines between the parking curbing and the retaining wall showed that it should be flowing down toward the street and not over the side of the retaining wall.
Alexander Plotnikov, property owner, explained the history of the project. He said in the original site plan, he asked for a separate driveway.
He said to date, he had spent approximately $345,000 and $15,000 was not the issue.
He said to get into and out of the property with a joined driveway would be dangerous because the view would be obstructed.
He said he wanted to construct a building and property that was up to code and follow the City’s recommendations.
He said they had followed the first site plan which was approved. He said while working on the project, he discussed the entrance issues with KDOT and KDOT recommended the entrance on the new site plan. He said he asked the KDOT engineer if he needed to go to the City to ask for approval for a new entrance and the engineer said it was up to KDOT for State Highways.
He said concerning the issues of water, the construction was not completed and that was why the water went to the neighbor’s property. The main issue why there was water on his neighbor’s property was because the building sat 6 inches below the curb. He asked the City Commission to approve the new revised site plan.
Rusty Thomas, property owner to the north, said she attended the meeting the first time the site plan was before the Commission and expressed concerns about drainage issues. She was assured by staff that if the grading was done there would be no drainage issues. She said comments had been made concerning flooding in their building prior to that construction. Since 1995 when North 2nd Street was reconstructed with new curbs and gutters, they had problems with their building, but when those new curbs, gutters, and drainage system were installed, the problems stopped.
She said there had been a couple of dry years and had not had a lot of rain. When Mr. Plotnikov began his project, they did not realize there was going to be a problem. However, when driving to work one day from the north, she noticed that the site plan had changed. She made a trip to talk with staff at City Hall to ask them when the site plan had been revised and why they had not been notified as requested if any changes were made. Staff researched the issue and could not find any revisions to the site plan or any letter from KDOT. The City inspector came out and stopped the work at that location.
She said after a heavy rain, even with the garage door down, there was water and mud in the plant. She said they had to place sand bags on one of their doors to keep the water out.
She said the retaining wall, when it was built, was not built high enough for the amount of dirt that was behind the wall. She said City staff came out to look at the retaining wall and was told that there was nothing the City could do because there was now a natural channel running through that area.
She said the flooding problem has been since that construction project started and the problem with the heavy rain.
She said she had a lack of faith in Mr. Plotnikov completing the project.
A week ago the telephone pole, ironically, had to be replaced because a driver hit the pole in the middle of the night and knocked the pole over.
Commissioner Dunfield said when looking at the photographs and the contours on the site plan, he did not see how that north edge of the property could possibly work the way those contours were drawn. He said either the building pad was two feet too high or the retaining wall was two feet too low at that point. He said the drawings show water draining due east and to do that, the applicant would need to undercut his whole parking lot and something needed to be changed even to meet the 2004 site plan that the Commission was being asked to approve.
He said from discussion, it seemed that was the main correctible issue and his inclination, even though he was unhappy about the way this issue had happened, was that if that problem could be solved, that the revised site plan could possibly work. He said, based on the conditions that were there now, he did not have a lot of confidence in the project.
Commissioner Schauner said he took a little harder view. He said the applicant was represented by a professional engineer that had a site plan in hand and knew what was required, but they didn’t do it. He said the engineer did that construction at their own risk and he could not support the proposed revised site plan and they should be required to follow the site plan that was proposed in 2002. He said the Commission would be setting a bad precedent. He said he thought the Commission should require that they honor the 2002 site plan and fix the drainage issue as required as part of the performance agreement of that plan.
Mayor Rundle said he agreed. He said that was why they had this whole process in place, for the staff to review and the Commission to approve or disapprove and for the public to comment to come to some understanding of what the future was going to hold. He said for the Commission not to enforce the site plan performance agreement was not the way this issue was supposed to happen.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he agreed with Mayor Rundle. He said in addition to the other problems that were pointed out, the new site plan had a substantial amount of impervious surface compared to the original site plan and he had heard no explanation for that change.
He said he agreed with Commissioner Schauner in that the Commission needed to enforce the City’s standards.
Commissioner Hack said she could not add anything to what had already been said. She said it seemed that the Commission was being asked to approve some errors and she did not like the way that felt. She did not support the proposed revised site plan.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack , to reject the revised site plan (SP-03-18-04) for Alek’s Auto Sales, located at 601 North 2nd Street, and require that the applicant complete the 2002 site plan as per prior approval. Motion carried unanimously. (35)
Consider adopting findings of fact, approving rezoning request, and authorizing the drafting of an ordinance for placement on a future agenda for Z-06-26-04: A (Agriculture) District to PRD-2 (Planned Residential) District; 2.6638 acres; southwest corner at W. 6th Street and Folks Road
Consider approving, subject to conditions and use restrictions, PDP-06-07-04: Revised Preliminary Development Plan for Oakley Court; west side of Folks Road, south of W. 6th Street
Paul Patterson, Planner, presented the staff report. He said this was a rezoning of two impartial parts of another parcel. He said the zoning request was to go from the County designation of A (Agriculture) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development). The PRD-2 would be in conformance with the adjacent property to the east and to the west Oakley Court planned residential development.
He said the rezoning was heard before the Planning Commissioners on July 28, 2004 with a unanimous approval of (9-0) for the rezoning subject to one condition which that it would be contingent upon approval of a revised preliminary development plan for Oakley Court, planned residential development to include this property and subject to a maximum density of 9.38 dwelling units per acre. He said that would be consistent with the rezoning of the adjacent Oakley Court planned residential development rezoning ordinance that was approved.
He presented and explained a drawing of the area to the Commission. He said the property to the south was planned residential development which the preliminary development plan approved last year. He said for a major portion of the area, it now included the adjacent property that went to Folks Road extension.
He said this was a 34 single-family, two story, residential dwellings with garages off of Larissa Drive. There was a wet bottom pond that was in the southwest corner of the property. The wet bottom pond was offered for dedication to the City, but the City’s Stormwater Engineer recommended that the City decline that offer and the pond would be part of the Homeowners Association’s land that they would own and maintain. He said there was an additional area above where the water would be retained which was for the detention of stormwater run-off that would be happen after a storm event occurs.
In addition to the single-family residential portion, there were four, sixteen-plex apartment units, a clubhouse with four dwelling units above the clubhouse and a swimming pool that would be fenced in to the west of the clubhouse area. There was a walk-way between the clubhouse and a swimming pool back to the residential area, sidewalks along both sides of the road and also a sidewalk along Folks Road.
He said immediately to the north was where the internal medicine group building site plan had been approved and was currently being built.
He said the previous preliminary development plan had 30 single-family dwelling, but this PDP had 34 dwelling units which included some additional dwellings in the parcel that was being added. The previous PDP approved 34 multiple-family dwelling units and had conceptually two 16 plexes or an additional 32 units for a total of 64 dwelling units that were multiple family. He said this PDP contained 68 dwelling units of multiple-family and included the additional 4 dwelling units above the clubhouse.
He said there were three waivers requested for the Planning Commissions consideration that were approved. They approved a peripheral boundary set back along the south side of the property from the required 35 feet for planned residential development to 30 feet and also on the west side of where the single-family lots were from the required 35 feet peripheral boundary to the 30 foot rear yard setback. That setback corresponded to the adjacent RS-2 (Single-Family Residential Zoning District) which also required a 30 foot rear yard setback.
The third waiver request was for a 5 foot side yard setbacks of the single-family residential area and it was required to have 10 foot setbacks in a planned residential development. The 5 foot side yard setbacks for those single-family developments also corresponded to the side yard setback in RS-2 single-family residential district with was 5 feet.
The Planning Commission did recommend approval (8-1) of the preliminary development plan subject to the eight conditions as listed in the minutes of the Planning Commission Report.
Commissioner Schauner asked about the rationale the applicant used to reduce the setback both on the peripheral and side yard setbacks.
Patterson said from the previous PDP there was some realignment of Larissa Drive and Lilly Drive. The required right-of-way was widened because they were looking at larger houses. He said on the front side of the property they were proposing 15 feet from where the structure would be to the property boundary line and 20 feet from the front of where the garages would be located. He said there would be some off-set from the garages to the front of the residence.
Commissioner Schauner said so essentially the realignment of Larrisa had caused the development in combination with the bigger house to expand the development in a way that they needed the additional 5 feet of setback waiver.
Patterson said he thought that was correct.
Commissioner Schauner asked if that changed the dwelling unit per acre requirement that the Commission had approved.
Patterson said the previous requirement was 9.38 dwelling units per acre and in a planned residential development the acreage was measured as net residential area. He said it was the same density as the previously approved 9.38 dwelling units. He said the calculation of the overall density was 8.88 dwelling units per acre on the overall project which included the wet bottom pond.
Walter Emerson, Quail Run Neighborhood Association, said his neighborhood generally liked that plan. He thanked Mr. Keeny for his compromise on the setbacks at the Planning Commission meeting. He suggested that the conditions be attached to the zoning. While they liked this plan and fully expect it to be built, who knew what the future held. Things could change and it might not get built and there would be a zoning without the conditions that were agreed upon over the last two years. He said those conditions were: density; the housing in the southern portion be single-family and detached; no more than 3 unrelated persons could live in a dwelling unit; and the pond be a wet-bottomed pond.
He said attaching conditions to the zoning had been done in the Villa Woods project rather than to the plan. He said they understood that the conditioned planned would go forward and it would be built that way if that was the plan that was built.
Commissioner Highberger asked if the neighborhood was satisfied with the compromise on the setback.
Emerson said yes they were.
Commissioner Dunfield said he had needed staff guidance on this question. It seemed that whether the conditions were part of the preliminary development plan or part of the zoning that a future Commission by a three vote majority could change those conditions. He said he was not clear what would be gained.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said attaching the conditions to the zoning would require a public hearing to change that. When writing those conditions on the preliminary development plan and it was made a condition and was written specifically as a condition and not part of the plan that would also require a public hearing to revise the preliminary development plan and the conditions. He said they both would require a public hearing. Only at the final development plan stage, if you put the condition on at that time, would be a non public hearing item.
Commissioner Schauner asked Finger to repeat the last statement.
Finger said the final development plan was a non public hearing item. If only placing conditions for single-family dwellings on a final development plan would it be a non-public hearing item and at sometime in the future remove it. If placing the conditions on either on the zoning or the preliminary development plan it would be a public hearing item to make that revision.
Commissioner Schauner asked if those conditions could be placed in both places.
Finger said conditions could be placed on the attached zoning, but that was not primarily single-family. She said Emerson asked that the entire zoning that was PRD for the portion that was already approved and then place the conditions, but that would call for a new hearing by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Rundle asked how this issue compared with the Villa Woods project.
Finger said she did not know the specific condition of how it was worded on Villa Woods on the zoning, but on the plan it was single-family dwellings. It was a reiteration as a note on the plan as to what was being shown.
Commissioner Schauner asked if attaching those four conditions to the preliminary development plan, for that to be changed, would require a public hearing by this body.
Finger said a public hearing would be required by the Planning Commission. It would need to go back as a revised preliminary development plan because changing those notes would be a substantive change.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it was Finger’s view there were no additional safeguards to the neighborhood by attaching those four conditions to the zoning as compared with attaching them to the preliminary development plan.
Finger said she would not say that there was no additional safeguard because what it was a type of double jeopardy if conditions were on both. She thought it was just as good to be on the PDP as to be on both the PDP and the zoning.
Commissioner Schauner said just as good in terms of neighborhood notification.
Finger said yes.
Commissioner Hack asked if there was a pressing need other than the uncertainty of the future that those additions be on the zoning. She asked if there were any reason to think that those dwelling were not going to be single-family.
Finger said she did not have any reason to believe that those would not be single-family because single-family lots were shown. To change those types of dwelling units to duplexes would change the density which would need to go back to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Dunfield said the conditions that were being discussed were already on the preliminary development plan. He said the detention pond was shown as a wet pond and the single-family area was shown as a single-family lot and listed as such on the preliminary development plan.
Finger said the way Emerson had articulated that issue and the way she understood it at the Planning Commission meeting, was to show that it might not be representative enough that there was a great compromise and they would also like a note which specifically stated that this was a requirement that it be single-family. She said it was a further articulation of what had already been agreed to.
Commissioner Highberger said there was one element that had not been addressed which was the request and limitation on three adults per single-family dwelling which did not automatically apply in a PRD.
Finger said correct.
Commissioner Schauner said he did not see any harm in putting specific notes on the preliminary development plan. The neighbors had worked diligently on this issue for a long time. He said everyone had tried to come to a result that they could live with and the neighbors deserved having those notes on the plan to give them that level of confidence that this would be built in the way they agreed to have it built.
Commissioner Hack asked if Commissioner Schauner thought that there was nothing in the plan that stated that.
Commissioner Schauner said it was his understanding that there was no specific note on the preliminary development plan.
Commissioner Hack said as long as they were not delaying this issue and making it go back through one more hoop she was okay with adding the notes to the preliminary development plan.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-06-26-04) of approximately 2.66 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District), the property is generally described as being located on the west side of Folks Road, south of West 6th Street; and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (36)
Commissioner Dunfield said there were three specific notes that the Commission wanted to add to the preliminary development plan.
Finger said the conditions that were on the 2003 plan specified that the density shall not exceed 9.38 to make it fit the dwelling units per acre; and that occupancy of the single-family unit shall be subject to the definition of family per section 2202.518.
Commissioner Schauner added that the wet bottom pond be preserved and maintained by the Homeowners Association.
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Hack, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-06-07-04) for Oakley Court containing approximately 14.478 acres and proposes 34 single-family units and 68 multi-family units, the property is generally described as being located on the west side of Folks Road, south of West 6th Street, with the addition of three conditions, and subject to the following additional conditions:
1. Per City Code Section 9-903 (B), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3) must be provided for this project. This project will not be released for building permits until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Construction activity, including soil disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not commence until an approved SWP3 has been obtained. Provision of a note stating “Public improvement plans must be submitted for stormwater improvements prior to filing of the Final Development Plan;”
2. Provision of an Agreement Not to Protest the formation of a benefit district for improvements to Folks Road and Old Oak Court;
3. Provide a note on the PDP that, “The final plat will show a dedication of half the right-of-way (30’) for the portion of Old Oak Court within this property, and a dedication of that part of the remainder half of the right-of-way (40’) for Folks Road which is not acquired through the Benefit District;”
4. Provision of a note stating that, “The pool/clubhouse has been provided for the use and benefit of all residents within the Oakley Court Planned Residential Development, including the single-family home residents;”
5. Include Tract “D” (the wet bottom living pond, detention basin) in Note No. 18, to be owned and maintained by the Oakley Court Homeowners Association;
6. Revise the density calculation to include the wet bottom pond “Tract D” area to be owned and maintained by the Homeowner’s Association as part of the net residential acreage;
7. Provide a sidewalk connection between the sidewalk in front of the clubhouse and the sidewalk along Folks Road; and
8. Correct the leaders of the “Install 12” Public Water Lines” to point to the water lines on the east side of Folks Road.
Motion carried unanimously. (37)
Receive report from staff regarding the request from Edward Sloan [Waldeck, Matteuzzi & Sloan, P.C.] representing owners of 58 properties within the Western Hills neighborhood. Mr. Sloan has requested that the City Commission initiate rezoning of these properties and an additional 30 properties from RS-1 (Single-Family Residence) District to RS-E (Single-Family Residence Estate) District.
Sheila Stogsdill, Assistant Planning Director, said a request was before the Commission to initiate rezoning of the majority of the Western Hills Subdivision. This was the subdivision that a good portion of the development was originally developed as a county rural subdivision and then was annexed into the city. At the time that property was annexed, it was standard practice to annex property to RS-1 which, at the time, was the lowest density single-family district. She said RS-1 allowed development of lots with a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. The majority of those properties were originally approximately an acre in size.
She said since this land was annexed, the zoning regulations had been amended and had created two additional low density residential districts; RSE, which was an estate district with a minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft., and RSA which was residential agriculture with a one acre minimum.
The request came as a result of a number of lot splits and re-subdivisions of property that had occurred in the last few years and now sanitary sewer was added to this area.
The properties with owners who have petitioned to rezone their property to RSE included 58 out of a boundary that included 88 parcels. There was a parallel request which would initiate the rezoning of the entire area and schedule that for public hearing. Before scheduling this issue to come back to the Commission, staff notified all 88 of those property owners about tonight’s agenda item and those property owners would have an opportunity to specifically speak to the initiation. She said she had conversations with only two recipients of those letters. One individual had concerns and the other individual was a property owner that was in favor of lower density.
The applicant had a second request that if the Commission initiated those rezonings that the rezoning fees be waived that was paid by those 58 property owners originally.
Commissioner Dunfield said out of those 88 properties, how many would be nonconforming if the zoning was initiated.
Stogsdill said staff did not know that number specifically, but she believed there were less than five. She said staff had begun to do that calculation on the properties that had specifically requested rezoning, but had not looked at the rest of those properties. She said those properties would be looked at in the next month.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Edward Sloan, Waldeck, Matteuzzi & Sloan, representing the 58 applicants who had made the application for the rezoning of Western Hills Neighborhood, said the City staff report was exactly the points that he was prepared to make. He said there were 58 out of 88 property owners who had asked for this change. He said they were requesting that the Commission consider initiating the request for rezoning of all 88 properties. Of the 58 property owners, they were able to contact an additional two or three residents that opposed the rezoning and the rest of the residents they were unable to get in contact with so they filed the application.
The answer to the non-compliance issue, to the best of his knowledge, it would consist of the lot splits which had been approved and those would be the nonconforming properties inside that district. He said based on when this annexation occurred and how this property came into the city, the neighborhood and the owners of those properties were very proud of the characteristics of that neighborhood. Those property owners enjoyed the larger lot size, but what had generated this request was primarily as a result of the lot splits that had been approved. There was the hope those lot splits would no longer occur in the neighborhood. He said because of those lot splits, the residents came together as a neighborhood, contacted his office and they put together a petition for the Commission’s consideration. In the event, the Commission decided not to be the initiator of the request for the rezoning of all those properties the Commission would hear from them next month as to those 58 properties.
Christine Hallek, Western Hills property owner, spoke against initiating the rezoning. She had recently purchased her property shortly after it had been annexed by the City. She said when looking at properties within this neighborhood one of the issues that struck them was that the realtor said that those properties were laid out on the lots and the zoning was adequate to allow subdivision. When purchasing in this neighborhood it was a possibility that subdivisions would be allowed. She said this was an item that they looked forward to when selling their home in the future which was the ability to sell to someone who wished to place an additional home on their property.
She said this zoning change would take her property and would disallow her from splitting her property even once. If the zoning was maintained the way it was, she would be allowed to split her property only once.
She said she listened to people talk about affordable housing and this was one of the issues the Commission had to deal with. She said the annexation of this parcel into the City made it quite clear that Lawrence came out to them in terms of being a neighborhood and that was anticipated.
She said there was an alternative viable option that those property owners had not considered and that was that they could place a covenant upon their deeds. She encouraged the Commission to not enforce their wishes and their not in my back yard mentality of expansion upon her.
Ron Helmick, property owner in the area, spoke in favor of the rezoning initiation. He said this was an issue of character in the neighborhood. He said this petition also included supporting preservation in efforts to limit rural development and smart growth initiatives. He said this petition fell within those guidelines. He said their neighborhood valued the character of their large lots for green spaces. He asked the Commission to initiate the rezoning request for the entire neighborhood based on the vast majority of the petition support.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he did not mind that the Commission initiated this rezoning since it was obviously supported by the majority of the neighborhood. He said he would reserve his judgment on the actual rezoning itself until after the Planning Commission hearing.
He said he was torn on this issue because on one hand this type of development was not something that they could support as a City, just the cost to provide the costs of services. He said lots of those sizes were high.
Commissioner Schauner echoed Highberger’s comments. He said the Commission needed to initiate the rezoning and get this matter on to the Planning Commission for their feedback. He also reserved his judgment on the actual rezoning because the City came to them and they did not ask to be surrounded by City development.
Commissioner Hack agreed with Commissioner Schauner. She said this was a unique neighborhood and should be protected, but she was willing to listen to Planning Commission input.
Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Hack, to concur with Planning Staff’s recommendation to initiate a rezoning form RS-1 (Single-Family Residence District) to RS-E (Single-Family Residence Estate District) for 88 properties in the Western Hills Neighborhood; conduct a public hearing at the September 22nd Planning Commission meeting; and waive the filing fee as requested. Motion carried unanimously. (38)
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVED:
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 2004
1. Contract – Rural Water District No. 1, 5 water meters for $21,505.15.
2. Bid – Laundry/Dry Cleaning for Police to Scotch Fabric for $42,410.
3. Sale – Surplus vehicles thorough e-bay.
4. Ordinance No. 7804 – 1st Reading, rezone (Z-05-17-04) 1.59 acres, C-4 to M-3, located at corner of N 2nd & Lyons.
5. Ordinance No. 7811 – 1st Reading, 2004 Standard Traffic Ordinance.
6. Ordinance No. 7819 – 1st Reading, amend code prohibiting parking vehicles on streets for greater than 48 hrs.
7. Ordinance No. 7785 – 2nd Reading, Rezone (Z-02-02-04) 3.255 acres, RS-2 to M-2, 601 N Iowa, Riverside Elementary School
8. Ordinance No. 7813 – 2nd Reading, Consumption of Alcohol, Sept 4, 2004 at Clinton Lake Outlet Park, Lawrence Mountain Bike Club.
9. Ordinance No. 7814 – 2nd Reading, Consumption of Alcohol, Sept 11, 2004 on W side of S Park, Immanuel Lutheran Church “Oompahfest.”
10. Ordinance No. 7816 – 2nd Reading, Fund Budget beginning Jan 1, 2005.
11. Ordinance No. 7817 – 2nd Reading, 2005 City Budget.
12. Ordinance No. 7795 – 2nd Reading, solid waste service rates.
13. Ordinance No. 7797 – 2nd Reading, acceptable containers for yard waste.
14. Ordinance No. 7809 – 2nd Reading, system development charges for water utility & wastewater utility connections.
15. Ordinance No. 7805 – 2nd Reading, court cost for Municipal Court.
16. Ordinance No. 7806 – 2nd Reading, Levy max assess, GWW to W 6th.
17. Ordinance No. 7807 – 2nd Reading, Levy max assess, Harvard from intersection of GWW.
18. Resolution No. 6557 – Benefit District, Order Construction of Lake Pointe Drive.
19. Final Plat – (PF-04-13-04) Hines Sub No. 1, .043 acres, 828 E 14th.
20. Final Plat – (PF-06-16-04) Overland Pointe, 2.7291 acres, S of Overland & E of E 1000 Rd. (Queens)
21. Final Plat – (PF-06-17-04) Delaware Commons Add II, 3.2 acres, 1210 Delaware.
22. Final Plat – (PF-06-18-04) Westridge Add., .769 acre, 3600 W 6th.
23. Lawrence/Douglas County Bicycle Plan amendments.
24. Rezone – (Z-06-22-04) 1 acre, A to RS-2, 704 Folks Rd.
25. Rezone – (Z-06-25-04) 1.3363 acres, A to O-1, SW corner of W 6th & Folks.
26. Donate tract – 1 acre from Larkspur Townhomes Homeowners Assoc., S of W 27th.
27. Mortgage Release – 3131 Carolina St., John & Lauri Marshall.
28. Letter of Support – transit providers interest in hybrid bus technology.
29. Tax Abatement Performance Agreement – Serologicals.
30. City Manager’s Report.
31. Funding Request – Lawrence Coalition for Homeless Concerns.
32. Executive Session
33. Housing Trust Fund Board – future housing.
34. Site Plan – deny request for Wisconsin Apts., 1710 W 7th.
35. Site Plan – (SP-03-18-04), Aleks’s Auto, 601 N 2nd.
36. Rezone – (Z-06-26-04) 2.66 acres from A to PRD-2, W side of Folks, S of W 6th.
37. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-06-07-04) Oakley Ct, 14.478 acres, W side of Folks, S of W 6th.
38. Rezone – RS-1 to RS-E for 88 properties in Western Hills.