October 12, 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. Lawrence High School Student Representative Justin Isbell was present.
RECOGNITION/PROCLAMATION/PRESENTATION:
With Commission approval Mayor Rundle proclaimed, October 14th, 2004 as “Lights on After School”; the month of October as “National Disability Employment Awareness Month; the week of November 14 – 20th as “Hunger and Homeless Awareness Week; and October 13th - 14th as “The Kansas Statewide Homeless Summit.”
CONSENT AGENDA
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of October 5, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to receive the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting minutes of September 23, 2004. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to approve claims to 381 vendors in the amount of $1,856,507.23. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Alvamar Country Club, 1809 Crossgate Drive; the India Place, 129 East 10th Street; The Phoggy Dog, 2228 Iowa; and Hereford House, 4931 West 6th Street, No. 126. Motion carried unanimously.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the recommendation of the Mayor and appoint Gary D. Hale to the Jayhawk Area Agency on Aging, to a term which will expire September 30, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
The City Commission reviewed the bids for a golf car lease and maintenance agreement for the Parks and Recreation Department. The bids were:
BIDDER BID AMOUNT
E-Z GO, Bid A $46,197.30
E-Z GO, Bid B $42,466.96
E-Z GO, Bid C $48,623.48
E-Z GO, Bid D $45,032.98
M&M Golf Cars, LLC $53,237.94
The price shown above reflects the price for a one year lease that is renewable for an additional three years providing funds are available. We have the option of paying over a 6 month period from May – October as we have done in the past. The option of paying over a 6 month period costs an additional $488.12 totaling $42,955.08. In addition there is a maintenance agreement option of $2450.00 annually or $35.00 per unit, which provides weekly maintenance from May-October. Staff recommended accepting this maintenance option. The existing leased units would be returned to E-Z-Go.
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to award the bid to E-Z-GO (Bid B) for $45,505.08. Motion carried unanimously. (1)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to place on first reading Ordinance No. 7835, annexing approximately 1 acre, generally located north of Riverridge Road and east of North Iowa (John Joyce tract). Motion carried unanimously. (2)
Ordinance No. 7793, rezoning (Z-03-17-04) a tract of land approximately 2.73 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residential District) (the property is generally described as being located south of Overland Drive and east of 1000 (Queens) Road), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (3)
Ordinance No. 7830, rezoning (Z-07-27-04) two tracts of land; one approximately .32 acre and the second approximately .26 acre from M-3 (Intensive Industrial District to C-5 (Limited Commercial District) (the property is generally described as being located at 642-646 Locust and 645 Locust Street), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (4)
Ordinance No. 7709, rezoning (Z-08-25-03) a tract of land approximately 1.0181 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District) (the property is generally described as being located 1,000 feet south of West 6th Street and west of Folks Road (extended)), was read a second time. As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to adopt the ordinance. Aye: Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner. Nay: None. Motion carried unanimously. (5)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-07-30-04) of approximately 0.9997 acre from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) (the property is generally described as being located on the east side of Folks Road, south of West 6th Street); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (6)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-08-39-04) of approximately 19.283 acres from A (Agricultural District) to RS-2 (Single-Family Residential District) (the property is generally described as being located on the east side of George Williams Way (extended) and west of Stoneridge Drive (extended)); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (7)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-08-41-04) property in the Western Hills neighborhood from RS-1 (Single-Family Residence District) to RS-E (Single-Family Residence Estate District); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (8)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendations to adopt the findings of fact and approve the request for rezoning (Z-08-33-04) of approximately 1.33 acres from PCD-2 (with restrictions) (Planned Commercial Development District) to PCD-2 (with revised use restrictions) (Planned Commercial Development District) to include auto sales in an enclosed building (the property is generally described as being located at the southeast corner of West 6th Street and Comet Lane); and, direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. (9)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to concur with the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP-08-08-04) for 6th and Monterey PCD, for revisions to Phase C-1A. The commercial development proposes permitting auto sales in an enclosed building containing approximately 20.87 acres, generally described as being located at the southeast corner of West 6th Street and Comet Lane, subject to the following condition:
1. On sheet 4 of 5, revise the requested additional allowed use for Phase C1-A to read: “Automobile Sales (new and used) within a commercial building*, *Excludes automobile service and rental and excludes the outside display or storage of vehicles for sale.”
Motion carried unanimously. (10)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to receive Notice of Intent from Kansas Development Finance Authority concerning University of Kansas Athletic Corporation Refunding Revenue Bond Project. Motion carried unanimously. (11)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to approve as “signs of community interest” temporary signage for the Kansas Statewide Homeless Summit on October 13 – 14, 2004. Motion carried unanimously. (12)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Brandon McClung, 1033 Home Circle. Motion carried unanimously. (13)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the purchase of duplex property at 2814 – 2816 Ridge Court from Glen and Judy Davis in the amount of $123,000 for Priority Level I Stormwater System Improvement from the 1996 Master Plan. Motion carried unanimously. (14)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to approve the purchase of right-of-way, utility and temporary construction easements from First Management, Inc., and Consolidated Properties of Lawrence, Inc., for the Folks Road Benefit District improvements in the amount of $200,000. Motion carried unanimously. (15)
As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Dunfield, to receive a letter from Barker Neighborhood Association accepting the recommendation of the Arts Commission to install the sculpture, “the Mighty Steel Wedge,” in the roundabout at 19th Street and Barker Avenue; and authorize placement of the sculpture at this location. Motion carried unanimously. (16)
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen reported on the Harvard Road traffic calming project. He said staff recommended bidding this project in spring of 2005 due to weather conditions and upcoming holidays.
Also, Wildgen reported that Fire Station No. 5 would be bid in December with construction to start in early spring.
Commissioner Schauner said he understood that the Harvard Road traffic calming project was going to be bid significantly earlier this year and would be a fall construction project.
Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, said that time period was staff’s original schedule for that project. A speed hump and a traffic circle were added to the project. Therefore, the review of those traffic calming devices took longer to process. He said there were final plans at this time, but the timing was such that staff would not be able to finish the project before bad weather set in.
Commissioner Schauner said if the project was bid now, would this project be further up on some contractors schedule for spring work rather than bidding in the spring.
Soules said the project could be bid anytime during the winter to get that project on an earlier schedule. He said staff would prefer to construct the two roundabouts at Harvard and Mulberry and Harvard and Goldfield after school was out because those were main roads to the schools.
Commissioner Schauner said he was concerned because if staff waited until spring to bid that project, that project could potentially be a second or third project on the winning bidders list. He said he preferred that the project be bid sooner so the project would be at a better priority spot for the winning company.
Soules said staff could look at that idea, but sometimes contractors did not like to bid projects too far out because of the availability and prices of material. He said maybe, after the first of the year, those contractors would have a better handle of those prices and materials and staff could bid the project in the January or February for spring construction.
Commissioner Schauner said the bidding process in January or February would be better than waiting until April or May to bid the project. He said he would hate to see another construction season go by.
Commissioner Hack suggested that the construction project not be started when school was in session because it would be difficult for folks living north of Harvard.
Commissioner Schauner said he thought the project had been started because there was major street tear up at one of the cross intersections in that area.
Soules said that construction was at Moundridge. A traffic circle would be constructed at that intersection and the Street Division was doing repairs at that location, in advance, to save money
Vice Mayor Highberger noted that in the City Manager’s Report that Phil Burke, Electrical Inspector, was now certified as a Residential Combination Inspector in which Burke could conduct all inspections on a residential project. The report indicated that other inspectors were also going through that type of training. He said this certification was a great step forward for public service.
Commissioner Schauner noted that Mollie Mangerich, Waste Reduction and Recycling Operations Supervisor won an award for xeriscaping at the Waste Reduction and Recycling division facility. He said Crystal Miles, Landscape Supervisor with Parks and Recreation, also assisted with the landscaping and she did a great job downtown with the additional plantings. . (17)
REGULAR AGENDA:
Receive a request from Douglas County Emergency Management requesting city participation in the Integrated Emergency Management Course in Emmitsburg, Maryland.
Paula Phillips, Director, Douglas County Emergency Management, presented the request. She said in April 2004, the Douglas County Emergency Management Board encouraged the City of Lawrence and Douglas County to submit an application to participate in FEMA’s Community Specific Integrated Emergency Management Course (IEMC). As a result, Lawrence and Douglas County was one of the ten communities across the United States chosen for this opportunity.
She said December 6th - 10th, 55 to 75 key officials, first responders, and elected officials would participate in a week long course and exercise in Emmitsburg, Maryland. She asked the City Commission to support and encourage staff participation; determine which Commissioners would attend the IEMC; and that the Mayor sign a Letter of Agreement.
Mayor Rundle asked if Phillips was requesting one or two Commissioners to attend.
Phillips said the letter specifically said the Mayor, but they would take one or two City elected officials if the Mayor could not attend.
Mayor Rundle asked about the local exercise regarding emergency management.
Commissioner Hack said that exercise was conducted at the Law Enforcement Center with City and County officials, Health Department, and school officials.
Mayor Rundle said this was an opportunity to learn what was going on throughout the year to prepare for any unfortunate disasters.
Phillips said they would be tested on their ability at both the local and state levels.
She said FEMA would be paying for this training and the only expense to the City participants would be a $90.00 per person for meals. FEMA would reimburse all airfare, provide lodging, and provide transportation to and from the airport.
Commissioner Schauner asked whether local law enforcement or other emergency personnel would be attending.
Phillips said yes. She informed the City Commission of the people who would be attending the course.
Moved by Schauner seconded by Hack, to receive the request from Douglas County Emergency Management requesting city participation in the Integrated Emergency Management Course in Emmitsburg, Maryland and authorized the Mayor to sign the letter of agreement. (18)
Consider approving CPA-2004-01 and receive Planning Commission recommendation to amend the Comprehensive Plan (Horizon 2020) to amend the Major Thoroughfares Maps (Figures 14 & 15) to designate two additional east-west arterials along the general alignment of the extension of Peterson Road west to George Williams Way and the extension of Stetson Drive to Wakarusa Drive on the Major Thoroughfares Map.
Bill Ahrens, Planner, presented the staff report. He said at the June 2004 Planning Commission meeting, concern was expressed by a number of the Planning Commissioners about the lack of east/west roadways in the northwest part of the community. At that meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Transportation 2025 Major Thoroughfares Map to show the east/west extension of Peterson Road from Peterson to Folks west to Queens Road.
In December of 2003 staff performed a traffic analysis, looking at several alternative alignments in that area and that analysis became the basis for developing the planned amendment that was requested. In addition to the traffic analysis that was performed, staff developed some preliminary cost estimates and looked at issues that would impact all three of the alignments and brought those issues back to the Planning Commission at their September 2004 meeting.
Ahrens said when overlaying the alignments on a topographic map challenges could be seen associated with all three of those alignments. Alignment No. 1, Peterson Road Extension, went through some challenging terrain in the center section which added to the costs of constructing that project.
The second alignment, Martin Park at 1750 Road, avoided most of the terrain, but a good bit of that area was in the flood plain. He said in discussions with the County Engineer, there would be some significant drainage issues associated with that alignment. He said this alignment was the longest of the three alignments and had the highest cost estimate.
The third alignment which would be the Stetson Drive extension was only ¾ of a mile in length and was the shortest alignment of the three alignments and had the least challenging terrain, but in terms of traffic, it provided the least benefit.
He then described the traffic analysis. In terms of traffic impact on 6th Street, he said there was little impact with any of the alternatives mainly because 6th Street entered the town as a state highway; it was a major commercial corridor; and a major destination.
Peterson Road alignment provided the best traffic service in the entire area. The Martin Park alignment was almost too far north to provide a lot of traffic service for that area as it was predicted to develop in the future. The Stetson Drive alignment carried a fair amount of traffic, but one issue that was found when looking at a larger area was that the traffic area on Folks Road and Wakarusa would increase dramatically because the Stetson Drive alignment created an arterial loop.
He said other issues associated with the alignment were drainage and floodplain issues associated with the N 1750 Road alignment.
As for the Peterson Road alignment, there were City Park properties north of the section line. An agreement was entered into between the City of Lawrence and the Kansas Land Trust for a conservation easement which prohibited any development or improvements from impacting those park lands. At the request of the Planning Commission, staff shifted the alignment slightly so it would clip the portion of the City Park property at the southwest corner that was not covered by the conservation easement and run in parallel off of the section line and thereby avoiding all of the easement protected property. The downside would be that some of the residential and undeveloped properties would be impacted.
He said at the September meeting the Planning Commission took action to add both the Peterson Road alignment and the Stetson Drive alignment to Transportation 2025 and the Major Thoroughfares Map in addition to Martin Park which was already on that map.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if the traffic numbers shown for each alignment assumed just one of the alignments would be constructed.
Ahrens said yes.
Commissioner Dunfield asked if alignment 2 was the only alignment where there was currently a road.
Ahrens said yes.
Commissioner Hack asked if there was a proposed timeline for construction of any of these proposed roads.
Ahrens said there was no discussion about that during the Planning Commission meeting.
Mayor Rundle asked if it was a fair to say there was a desire to send a signal that there were alignment concerns with these roads should anyone come in with development proposal.
Ahrens said before anything could happen on any of those alignments there would need to be a lot more detailed engineering study to identify specific alignment, quantities, structures and an environmental analysis.
Commissioner Schauner asked if there was an area plan for this area that would be bisected either by alignments 1 or 2 or 1 and 2.
Ahrens said no.
Commissioner Schauner said alternate alignment 2 was the longest alignment and in a floodplain.
Ahrens said that was correct. He said there were issues associated with all three alignments.
Mayor Rundle asked if there was no area plan for the northwest area at this time.
Linda Finger, Planning Director, said there was the Northwest Area Plan but no detailed plan for this area.
Commissioner Schauner asked what the Northwest Area Plan called for specifically for the development and zoning.
Finger said it did not specify zoning, but called for low density residential development.
Commissioner Schauner said the road decisions that might be made, with respect to Horizon 2025, would be important for dictating how that ground might be developed in the future.
Finger said very definitely.
Commissioner Dunfield asked if it was fair to say that the Comprehensive Plan, up to this point, considered that all development further north from this point in time was anticipated to be low density.
Finger said yes. She said the Northwest Plan specifically stated that the density declined going northward. Once getting to the next section between Peterson and Martin Park it was considered to be low density residential.
Commissioner Dunfield said that was what he remembered that there was no intention that Lawrence developed new commercial nodes and things of that sort further north.
Finger said correct. She said there was no wastewater plans detailed beyond north of Peterson.
Mayor Rundle called for public comment.
Doug Compton, Lawrence, said when he purchased 160 acres in this area, he could have placed his home anywhere on that 160 acres. After working with the Planning Department to come up with a development plan that would only allow 8 or 10 homes on 160 acres he was led to believe that Peterson Road would follow Martin Park Road. He said during those same negotiations and planning processes, he agreed to sell the City the land for a park piece because they were also in negotiations with his neighbors to the north of acquiring all of that land for a park. He said at no time did anyone talk about running Peterson Road straight west.
He said his house now would sit a few hundred feet away from where the proposed road would be. He said it would greatly impact his home. He said they designed that neighborhood to leave all of the natural terrain. He said to the east of his house was an approximately 60 to 70 foot drop off to a bottom of a creek which ran between the City’s park land property and their property and to the west was approximately a 90 to 100 foot drop off. He said to build a road structure to go through at that location would be incredibly damaging to all of the woods and environment.
Commissioner Schauner asked if Compton had any sense about what the development to the west and north of the current square park land was likely to be based on the topography.
Compton said there was a lot of the same topography as the City’s park land. He said there was very little land that could be developed in that area.
Commissioner Schauner asked Compton about the land, north of Martin Park, between the proposed alignment 2 and the park going further to the west.
Compton said that land was entirely floodplain.
Bob Lichtward said the Northwest Development Plan showed absolutely no road located near that section line. He said the Planning Commission had received a number of letters from individuals and organizations concerning building an arterial along alignment 1. Many of those who wrote letters also spoke to the Commissioners, including concerned individuals, Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, Boy Scouts, the Chair of Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and the Director of Parks and Recreation. All of the written and verbal communication strongly objected to having any road built to extend Peterson Road directly to Queens Road. The reasons included the significant environmental destruction in that area, the drastic effects the road would have on the City’s wilderness park, and the significant costs that would almost certainly result because of the rugged and steep terrain that such an arterial would cut across. He said all City and County plans had recognized the unique features of this area and had designated the area for conservation.
He presented 3 maps to the City Commission showing the area. He said putting an unpredicted road in that area would send a very negative message to others who were considering donating conservation easements on their land. Since the Subdivision regulations allowed no more than 5 percent grade in building arterials, the 120 foot swatch of clearing, excavating, and filling to build the arterial and right-of-way would have a major negative impact on the environment considering the several ridges and ravines it would need to cross. Furthermore, it would require the building of at least one major bridge, very likely two at least, and all of those bridges would certainly lead to costs well beyond the preliminary estimates that the City received. The result of building the arterial would require extensive removal of trees in the ravines that now stabilize the soil resulting in erosion of the streams draining northward into Baldwin Creek.
The natural park system that the City had developed was unique in Douglas County. Having a half mile exposure to a road on its southern border would open the park to various forms of misuse that could not be monitored and controlled adequately by the City. In addition, the southeastern part of the park would be bisected from the remaining park land, thus losing the value of continuity of trails that were now being built. He said for all of those reasons, they believed that it would be short sighted, severely damaging to the environment, and more costly to consider an arterial along alignment 1. There were other solutions to east/west routes. He said they respectfully and urgently requested that the City Commission remove alignment 1 from any further consideration. He said they believed the City Commission had the authority to do so.
He said in the event the City Commission did not elect to remove alignment 1 tonight and to decide to direct that an in depth study be made of the 3 proposed road alignments, he said they urged the City Commission to hire a totally independent and impartial consultant with expertise both in environmental impacts and costs of road construction before any selection of routes was made. He said they sincerely hoped that the City could avoid this expense by considering east/west routes other than alignment 1.
Alan Black, League of Women Voters, said they had submitted a letter to Planning Commission meeting opposing alignment 1. He understood there would be an Environmental Impact Study on those three alignments because the major concern was the major affect on the landscape, but somehow that idea was dropped and did not appear in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and also that idea was not included in the recommendation to the City Commission. He said at that time no one knew what that would costs or how much time it would take to perform an Environmental Impact Study of those alignments. He said he wanted to bring up that idea again, because that was the next issue that needed to be addressed before the City Commission made any decision.
Black said The Planning Commission did not endorse alignment 1. He said the Planning Commission decided to add 2 new alignments to the existing alignment as a way to putting off a decision until more information was available.
Mayor Rundle said there was a motion noted in the Planning Commission minutes requesting City established funds for Environmental Impact Studies, cost estimates, and other relevant studies for all three alignments.
Forrest Swall, an area resident, said they had followed the development of the wild life park in that location. He said he was surprised and amazed that the staff report made no mention of any significance of the value of the park land itself. It was as though the park land was there to be utilized at the whim of the City for other matters that might seem to some to have higher priority. He said the management of traffic was a significant priority, but it seemed that there would be in a report for the Commission some comment on the value of that park land that was acquired at considerable interest and dedication on the part of the number of people.
Secondly, there was no question in anyone’s mind about the need for adequate traffic corridors.
Thirdly, he wanted to second what had been said at this meeting in terms of the material presented at the Planning Commission meeting where the members of the Planning Commission did respond to the need for additional environmental impact studies.
Fourth, he said, from his contacts from people in that area and friends around the country who knew about the City of Lawrence, Lawrence was becoming noted for its parks. He said cities that were noted for its parks were cities that treat their parks as treasures. The land that had been set aside of wildlife park area was a “priceless jewel.” As the City continued to grow, the glow of that jewel would become ever brighter.
He said finally, on behalf of this City’s future, the City’s children’s’ future, and the future of the well being of all of the City’s families, he urged the City Commission to take a very reasoned approach and look at all possible alternatives to the corridor through this park land.
Sharon Spratt, Vice Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, said their Board unanimously voted to oppose the recommended alignment 1. She said they had followed the urban growth area in their efforts to acquire more park land for the future, for separate, but connected parcels of land making a 97 acre site in that northwest corridor which was acquired 2 to 4 years ago. She said during this time there was no drawing showing road alignment in the area west of Peterson Road, west of Folks Road. She said there were not any easements established for the future streets in that area when the Bauerbrook Subdivision was platted and they began to plan for preservation of this unique natural area and open space.
She said they felt the City Commission had already made a long term commitment to preserve a unique geographic area of the community by purchasing some of this land for future parks and accepting conservation easements on some of this site. She asked that the City Commission not penalize them for good future planning and preservation of a unique natural corridor, particularly when other options for future streets were available.
Francis Kelly, North 1700 Road, said the area, at one time, was a country setting and now the land was all developed except for the north section. He said they felt that country setting peacefulness was being threatened by a big road that would go in front of their house.
He said a recent front page story in the Lawrence Journal world talked how the South Lawrence Trafficway might not ever be finished which pleased him. He said he and many others might not have minded at all if the South Lawrence Trafficway had been done correctly, the way it was suggested in 1969 to go south of the Wakarusa River about a half mile where it had presently been fought over for all of those years. He said his point was to build the road where it should go.
He said alignment 1 was unnecessary and inadvisable, and extremely damaging to natural environment. He said from an engineering viewpoint the word “challenging” had been used which was an understatement. He said there were steep hills of forest land and thousands of trees that would need to be bulldozed down which would contribute to massive soil erosion and sediment buildup in the area creeks.
He said in contrast Wiggins Road and Martin Park Road already existed and could be paved with relatively little damage to the environs. He said if getting commuters to the turnpike were the issue, then Martin Park Road did that job already. He said there were issues of the floodplain, but many roads had been built through the floodplain.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if Kelly was opposed to alignment 2
Kelly said the Martin Park alignment would be relatively okay.
Fred DeVictor, Parks and Recreation Director, said that he told the Planning Commission that they would be more than willing to be part of the solution to look at other options other than alignment 1. He said they thought alignment 1 would have some adverse impacts on the park because it bisected the park.
Betty Lichtwardt said sometimes the shortest road wasn’t the best road and occasionally an important natural resource would get in the way. The wilderness park was an invaluable natural resource for Lawrence and would eventually be surrounded by the City.
She said concerning attention deficit disorder and wilderness parks, scientists had conducted a study. That study indicated that green environments generally improved a child’s attentiveness and focus. She said the area would be severely jeopardized with a road placed at that location.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked how Martin Park was currently identified in Transportation 2025.
Ahrens said Martin Park from where it took off from Peterson Road which turned into N 1750 Road to Queens was designated as a future principle arterial and west of Queens was designated as a future minor arterial.
Vice Mayor Highberger asked what the difference was between that and alignment 2.
Ahrens said by the Planning Commission’s actions, they were requesting that all 3 of those alignments be placed on Transportation 2025 as future arterials.
Commissioner Dunfield said the Planning Commission wanted to add two proposed alignments to the Martin Park alignment.
Commissioner Schauner said the Planning Commission wanted to add alignment 1 to the existing alignment 2/Martin Park Road along with alignment 3.
Vice Mayor Highberger said it was mentioned that the traffic numbers were done for each alignment separately.
Ahrens said correct. He said staff looked at combinations of two with all three alignments being analyzed.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he was not clear why the traffic numbers were different from Transportation 2025 and alignment 2.
Ahrens said on the Transportation 2025 travel model, it was showing Martin Park as a collector and that made some difference in the numbers.
Vice Mayor Highberger said given the information they received about the density of the development in the general vicinity of that road, his assumption was that the primary purpose of most of those roads was not designed to carry neighborhood traffic.
Ahrens said arterial streets were generally designed to carry higher volumes of traffic, longer distance trips, serve the general area, and connect to other arterials.
Commissioner Schauner said in a sense, alignment 2, becomes sort of a ring road in the northwest area.
Finger said the alignment would go east and west on K-10.
Mayor Rundle asked what percentage of 6th street was local traffic, going to and from neighborhoods and shopping areas.
Ahrens said there was no way to determine that percentage of local traffic.
Mayor Rundle said he thought the Planning Commissioners were looking at this idea as a relief for 6th Street.
Ahrens said if looking at the traffic numbers on the graph on 6th Street volumes, there was very little fluctuation on 6th Street. He said 6th Street was a major corridor and major destination.
Commissioner Hack said basically, this east/west corridor was not designed to relieve traffic on 6th Street, but it was designed to provide an additional way in the future for someone to get east to west without going on 6th Street, if they were considerably north of the area.
Ahrens said it was the Planning Commission’s concern when looking at the map without those alignments west of Monterey Way, there was a large gap with no east/west connection whatsoever. As the City continued to develop north of 6th Street, there was no way to move that traffic and the north/south roads would be carrying all the traffic and end up on 6th Street.
Commissioner Schauner asked if it would be helpful if there was a more detailed Northwest Area Plan as part of the Commission’s consideration for what roads needed to be built and where in that area.
Ahrens said probably so.
Commissioner Hack said it seemed there was not as much environmental information to look at all three alignments, but she would like to see alignment 1 eliminated for many reasons.
Commissioner Schauner said if looking at alignment 1 through the eyes of a road builder, it was a great way to make a lot of money building a road, but looking at it from any other perspective, it struck him as a lousy idea. He said it was clear that they needed some plan for moving traffic east and west through that area sooner than later, but alignment 1 did not make sense in filling that need. He said the Commission needed a lot more information about alignment 2 to see how it would be built, based on its topography.
He said he appreciated Compton’s comments about not wanting a road within 200 or 300 feet away from his property. Unfortunately, that was a comment that was heard on a regular basis every time anything was built.
Again, he said he did not support alignment 1, but every project had an impact on someone.
Commissioner Dunfield said he was prepared to go a little farther in terms of investing more in studies. He said he did not see the need and that the numbers that had been generated bear out a need for neither alignment 1 nor 3. In fact, the idea of maintaining or rebuilding and improving alignment 2 as a collector rather than arterial did not seem to have any negative impacts on any of those numbers that he could see. He said it appeared that 6th Street would function as 6th Street irrespective of any of those alignments. Alignment 3 clearly had some negative impacts on the people who lived next to it. Alignment 1 clearly had a lot of negative impacts that had been discussed. He said it seemed that the assumptions in Horizon 2020 and Transportation 2025 had been borne out and confirmed by this study. He said when looking at the portion of the map there was nothing but low density residential with a very large protective green space in the center. That type of low density did not call for the same level of street development than other parts of the City. He said what he saw from all of those issues was a confirmation that, if anything, alignment 2 made sense, but as a two way collector might work fine.
Commissioner Hack said she agreed. She said she saw no reason to change anything that was already there in terms of Horizon 2020. She said alignment 2 would not function as an arterial.
Mayor Rundle said Finger spoke briefly about the difficulty of doing environmental impact studies prior to knowing road routes specifically. He asked if there was some intermediate general survey work that could be done.
Finger said this was the third time the Planning Commission had looked at those alignments. She said the public might not have been aware of those alignments as much, but staff was given a specific direction of looking at just what the traffic impacts would be. She said she did not want the public to think that staff or the Planning Commission did not value parks. She said they were trying to be thorough in what they were looking at as far as a transportation network.
She said as far as this area, she suggested starting with a basic environmental study of the area itself. She said when the Northwest Area Plan was drafted there was considerable discussion, at that point, about the fragile environmental integrity and the nature of the area that was north of Peterson Road continuing on to the west.
She said perhaps the starting point was to determine the environmental integrity of the area today and then talk about how a road would impact that area. She said it would be beneficial to the entire community for staff to start at a more global area.
Mayor Rundle asked if the information would be valuable regardless of a road going through that area. He said if Peterson Road alternative was removed, it would still be good to know more detail about environmental characteristics.
Finger said absolutely and they would be ahead of the game because there was a chapter in Horizon 2020 yet to be drafted which was environmental, natural, and sensitive areas.
Vice Mayor Highberger said he agreed with what other Commissioners that alternative 1 needed to be eliminated. He concurred with Commissioner Dunfield in that the existing model seemed to have worked and was accurate and saw no need to change it. He said he did not see a strong need to spend a lot of resources on an environmental study.
Mayor Rundle asked what would happen with the Commission’s decision.
Finger said because this was an amendment to Horizon 2020, this issue would need to be referred back to the Planning Commission. The County Commission had not yet received this recommendation or action by the Planning Commission. She said Transportation 2025 was the Planning Commission’s document and it was amended to add all 3 routes. If the City Commission elected to return this issue to the Planning Commission, the City Commission might want to address both items 17 and 18 on the Planning Commission’s agenda on the reasoning why the City Commission would like the Planning Commission to reconsider item 17.
Mayor Rundle said he did not take exception with what any Commissioner said, but he wanted to affirm the Planning Commission’s desire to forecast the transportation needs to be clear about where roads were being looked at and preserving corridors. He said this idea was an example of what was being talked about regarding setting the area backbone so that this development was not pieced together like a jigsaw puzzle.
Commissioner Dunfield said he was not clear on what actions were available to the City Commission and what the consequences were for the Planning Commission.
Finger said the action was, by simple majority, the City Commission could send this issue back and if the City Commission disagreed by a super majority, the action could be overridden.
Commissioner Dunfield said if the City Commission overrides this decision, then essentially it was being said that they were not going to change the text. He said that idea was his preference.
Mayor Rundle said if the Planning Commission felt that the City Commission did not like the Peterson Road idea, would it be useful to the Planning Commission to have the flexibility to come back with any type of additional suggestions or directions. He said if the City Commission did override the Planning Commission completely what limits did the Planning Commission have.
Finger said there would then be two documents, and if City Commission did over ride this decision, staff would have Transportation 2025 which did not have a major thoroughfares map that was consistent with the major thoroughfares map in Horizon 2020. She said it would be helpful to send comments and thoughts back to the Planning Commission on why the Planning Commission might what to consider and also to address the environmental question.
Commissioner Dunfield suggested talking about the environmental aspect after the City Commission resolved the road question.
He said it seemed clear when looking at the Planning Commission minutes that there was never any intention that all 3 of those roads should actually be developed. He asked why were all 3 of those roads included in a major thoroughfares map that they did not intend to follow.
Finger said she could not explain that.
Mayor Rundle read from the Planning Commission minutes what Chairman Hasse stated which was to “light a fire under the interested parties to work together on a solution.” He said this discussion had certainly lit that fire.
Moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger, to deny CPA-2004-01 an amendment to Comprehensive Plan (Horizon 2020) amending the Major Thoroughfares Maps (Figures 14 & 15) to designate two additional east-west arterials along the general alignment of the extension of Peterson Road west to George Williams Way and the extension of Stetson Drive to Wakarusa Drive on the Major Thoroughfares Maps. Motion carried unanimously. (19)
Vice Mayor Highberger asked if staff could encourage the Planning Commission to reconsider the amendments to Transportation 2025.
Finger said that idea would be appropriate.
Commissioner Hack said she appreciated Vice Mayor Highberger’s comments concerning environmental issues.
Commissioner Dunfield said as part of the larger effort on the environmental chapter of Horizon 2020, it was understood that this area was going to be an important part of that study. He agreed that to make a special effort growing out of this issue was inappropriate.
Commissioner Schauner agreed.
Mayor Rundle said in terms of environmental studies, he questioned the necessity that it had to be expensive. He said from the Planning and City Commissions’ discussion, he said they did not want this issue hanging over them, but to come to some resolution on where the road network would be. He said this issue was not always going to be out there as an open question, but they would come to some consensus and move forward to implement that plan.
Commissioner Hack said this issue had sent a clear message of what this City Commission would want to see happen in that area, but certainly other factors might enter in and maybe that road needed to go far north of where Martin Park was.
Mayor Rundle said he certainly did not think that 6th Street was going to have unlimited capacity and there was going to be a need to plan a good system for that area.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
_____________________________
Mike Rundle, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 2004
1. Bid – Golf Care Lease to E-Z-GO for $45,505.08.
2. Ordinance No. 7835 – 1st Reading, annex 1 acre, N of Riverridge & E of N Iowa.
3. Ordinance No. 7793 – 2nd Reading, rezone (Z-03-17-04) 2.73 acres from A to RM-1, S of Overland & E of 1000 Rd. (Queens)
4. Ordinance No. 7830 – 2nd Reading, rezone – (Z-07-27-04) 2 tracts, 1 tract .32 acre & 2nd tract .26 acre, from M-3 to C-5, 642-646 Locust & 645 Locust.
5. Ordinance No. 7709 – 1st Reading, rezone – (Z-08-25-03) 1.0181 acres, A to PRD-2, 1,000 ft. S of W 6th & W of Folks.
6. Rezone – (Z-07-30-04) .9997 acre, A to RS-2, E side of Folks, S of W 6th.
7. Rezone – (Z-08-39-04) 19.283 acres, A to RS-2, E side of George Williams Way & W of Stoneridge.
8. Rezone – (Z-08-41-04) Western Hills, RS-1 to RS-E.
9. Rezone – (Z-08-33-04) 1.33 acre, PCD-2 with restrictions to PCD-2 with revised restrictions to include auto sales in bldg, located SE corner of W 6th & Comet Ln.
10. Prelim Dev Plan – (PDP-08-08-04) 6th & Monterey PCD, 20.87 acres, SE corner of W 6th & Comet Ln.
11. Notice of Intent – KS Development Finance Authority concerning KU Athletic Corp Refund Revenue Bond Project.
12. Signs of Community Interest – KS Statewide Homelss Summit, Oct 13 & 14.
13. Mortgage Release – 1033 Home Circle, Brandon McClung.
14. Purchase property – 2814 -2816 Ridge Ct, from Glen & Judy Davis for $123,000.
15. Purchase Easements – 1st Management Inc., & Consolidated Properties of Lawrence for Folks Rd Benefit District for $200,000.
16. 19th & Barker – Sculpture approval “the Mighty Steel Wedge.”
17. City Manager’s Report.
18. DC Emergency Mgmt – request City participate in Integrated Emergency Mgmt Course in Emmitsburg, MD.
19. Comprehensive Plan (Horizon 2020) amend Major Thoroughfares Maps, @ additional E-W arterials along Peterson W to George Williams Way & extension of Stetson to Wakarusa.