October 26, 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:

Mayor Rundle proclaimed Sunday, October 31, between the hours of 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. as “Halloween Beggars Night.”

CONSENT AGENDA

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the City Commission meeting minutes of October 19, 2004.  Motion carried unanimously.

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Lawrence Arts Commission meeting minutes of August 11, 2004 and September 8, 2004; the Neighborhood Resources Advisory Committee meeting of September 30, 2004; and the Lawrence Memorial Hospital Board meeting minutes of September 15, 2004.  Motion carried unanimously.   

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve claims to 290 vendors in the amount of $1,982,122.91.  Motion carried unanimously.  

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the Drinking Establishment Licenses for Sushi Station, 1511, West 23^rd; El Mezcal Mexican Restaurant, 1819 West 23^rd; Molly McGees, 2412 Iowa; Westside Deli & Market, 4921 West 6^th; and the Class A Club License for Veteran of Foreign Wars, 138 Alabama.  Motion carried unanimously.

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the 19^th and Learnard Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project for the Utilities Department.  The bids were:

BIDDER                                              TOTAL BID   

Engineer’s Estimate                                                   $202,873.00

RD Johnson Excavating Co.                                      $188,865.00

Redford Construction Inc.                                           $213,171.50

Site Rite Construction                                                 $232,149.00     

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the bid to RD Johnson Excavating Co., in the amount of $188,865.00.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                           (1)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to set a bid opening date of November 16, 2004 for the Utilities Project, Clinton Parkway and Wakarusa Relief Sewer.  Motion carried unanimously.                     (2)

The City Commission reviewed the bids for the Comprehensive Program  to 1525 East 28^th Street Terrace; 2708 Rawhide Lane; 2002 West 27^th Street Terrace and 3107 Longhorn Drive.  The bids were:

CONTRACTOR	1525 E 28^thSt Terr	2708 Rawhide Ln	2002 W 27^th St Terr	3107 Longhorn Dr
Penny Const., Inc.	$20,482.46	$24,951.30	$18,645.00	$9,675.00
Old Home Depot, Inc.	$21,108.45	$24,069.42	$28,255.00	$9,987.50
Clovis Const.	$24,100.00	$32,021.00	No Valid Bid	$21,173.00
General Const., Inc	$25,598.00	Withdrawn	$25,377.00	$16,008.00
Natural Breeze, Inc.	$32,240.14	$35,020.85	$46,699.00	$26,955.10
Staff Estimate	$20,290.00	$24,031.50	$17,690.00	$15,432.10

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to award the bids for the Comprehensive Rehabilitation Program for 1525 E 28^th St Terrace to Penny Construction, Inc., for $20,482.46; 2708 Rawhide Lane to Old Home Depot, Inc., for $24,069.42; 2002 W 27^th St Terrace to General Construction, Inc., for $25,377.00 and 3107 Longhorn Drive to Old Home Depot, Inc., for $9,987.50.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                                    (3)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the request to extend approval for 90 days for UPR-09-06-03 for additional cabins to the KOA Campground.  Motion carried unanimously.                      (4)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the City Manager to sign a memorandum of understanding with Roger Hill Volunteer Center and United Way of Douglas County for the “Safe Winter Sidewalks” pilot program that will coordinate volunteers to shovel walkways for seniors and individuals with disabilities.  Motion carried unanimously.                                        (5)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for A.B. Mary, and Leslie Rials, 912 Rhode Island.  Motion carried unanimously.                                   (6)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to authorize the Mayor to sign a Release of Mortgage for Pravin and Lata Patel, 1004 North 3^rd Street.                                                                                                   (7)

As part of the consent agenda, it was moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to approve the request from the Convention and Visitors Bureau for $7,000 from the Visit 2020 Reserve Fund to assist with permanent installation of lights to line downtown buildings for the holidays.  Motion carried unanimously.                                     (8)

James Bartle pulled front the consent agenda, Ordinance No. 7832, rezoning a tract of land from A (Agriculture) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District), located north of West 6^th Streeet along Congressional Drive, for separate discussion. 

He said he received notice of the proposed rezoning because their property was in proximity to the property in question.  He said he did not oppose the proposed rezoning of the property, but he wanted to take the opportunity for input as a member of the neighborhood. 

He said the proposed use of the property was for a retirement center and he wanted to acknowledge that that type of use was consistent with existing land use in the neighborhood.  He said he lived in an almost entirely single family residential area and to the north of this tract, in question, was also being built up as single family residential.  He said if the City Commission approved this rezoning, he felt that the Commission was making a commitment to the members of the community in the area, 6^th and Wakarusa intersection, that further development of that area on all four corners of that intersection was going to be consistent and compatible with existing land uses and property uses.  He asked the Commission to keep in mind that those retirement centers had a fair amount of traffic that had to be absorbed by the existing infrastructure.  He said if the Commission approved the rezoning it was a commitment that big box development or any other type of use in that area would be incompatible.  He said if the Commission approved this rezoning they would be reinforcing the existing character of that neighborhood and he hoped the Commission would continue with that approach.

Dave Corliss, Assistant City Manager/Legal Services Director, said the property to the north was not just single family residential, but there would also be duplexes, specifically the property north of Overland Drive.

Linda Finger agreed and said the property was a mix of uses of town homes, single family, and duplex.

Ordinance No. 7832, rezoning (Z-08-30B-01) a tract of land approximately 20.0294 acres from A (Agricultural District) to PRD-2 (Planned Residential Development District) (the property is generally described as being located north of West 6th Street along Congressional Drive), was read a second time.  It was moved by Hack, seconded by Highberger to adopt the ordinance.  Aye:  Dunfield, Hack, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.   Nay: None.  Motion carried unanimously.              (9)

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT: 

During the City Manager’s Report, Mike Wildgen said several weeks ago the City Commission asked for an update of the Recycling Report.  

Bob Yoos, Solid Waste Superintendent, said staff had performed studies in 1995 in reviewing the status of waste management and recycling in Lawrence to improve those programs.  As a result of those studies staff developed highly effective, cost efficient and sustainable recycling programs.  Those programs had allowed staff to achieve a 34% recycling rate in 2003 which was the highest in the state and higher than the national average.  He said those programs came about with a mixture of public and private recycling services, including Wal-mart which received a great amount of the recyclables from this community.

There were existing private curb site providers who offered their services to residents that wished to subscribe to those providers.  The City operated drop-offs that provided opportunities for cardboard and newspaper recycling.  The office paper and commercial collection programs had proven to be successful along with the City composting operations, and the hazardous waste and small quantity generator program which served residences and businesses and its primary focus was public health and safety.

He said staff’s recommendation was to continue to grow and expand those programs by specifically expanding the commercial cardboard and the office paper collection to more businesses and institutions and expanding the newspaper collection program.  He said those programs were offered to some of the schools in the community. 

He said another recommendation was to recover more woody waste in their composting program which would begin next year as staff started to take tree branches that were packaged properly with the grass and leaf yard waste program.  He said staff wanted to look at taking clean woody waste such as pallets and other discarded wood and packaging items. 

He said their last recommendation was to increase public education on waste reduction.  

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was any discussion with the Homebuilders Association about providing roll off containers for scrap lumber from construction projects.

Yoos said there had been some discussion.  He said that was an issue that staff wanted to look at, but staff would need to be careful that there was good participation because they would not want paint cans, sheetrock, or treated lumber.  He said there would probably be some charge to that builder, but that charge could be based upon a lesser charge than taking that waste to the landfill primarily because there would be no disposal fee to incur.  He said that fee might be similar to the City’s current roll-off fees minus the landfill portion.       

Commissioner Schauner said it might be worth seeing if builders would be interested in participating in a pilot program.

Mayor Rundle said the City’s Habitat for Humanities was working diligently toward a re-store with usable scrap lumber.  He said in other communities builders tend to be cooperative because it saved landfill costs. 

Yoos said Habitat Re-Store did receive a solid waste implementation grant from the State to help get that ball rolling.   

Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be a 3 to 4 percent annual increase in recyclables.

Yoos said that percentage would be optimistic.  He said each year the City would need to recycle higher quantities just to maintain that 34%.  He said recyclables had grown the past few years because of the new programs and the increase in drop-off locations that were available to people.                                                                         (10)

REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:

A revised Site Plan for Alek’s Auto Sales located at 601 North 2^nd Street.

Jeff Tully, Planner, presented the staff report and updated the Commission on the site plan since the Commission last considered the issue in August.  He said that site plan that was denied requested approval of a driveway approximately 18 feet to the south of the location that was approved in 2002.  He said again in August 2004 the City Commission denied that driveway being 18 feet to the south and requested the applicant return the driveway to the City Commission approved location as approved in 2002.  He said since that time the site plan had been revised to reflect the return of the driveway to the location that was approved in 2002 and the site plan had also been revised to address flooding to the property to the north. 

The current site plan provided the City Commission with a cross section which showed a retaining wall and an additional retaining wall to alleviate the flooding to the adjacent property to the north.  The site plan had been reviewed by the City’s Stormwater Engineer and to the best of everyone’s ability, at this time, the plan would reduce flooding from the subject property to the adjacent property.  However, until that area was built, staff would not know for sure until the asphalt and pavement was added to the site, sidewalks were put in, and downspouts were relocated, staff would not know whether that flooding had been removed as an issue to the property to the north. 

He said Planning Staff recommended that the City Commission approve the revised site plan subject to the three conditions that were outlined in the staff report.

Commissioner Schauner asked why there was some level of uncertainty of the retaining wall addressing the flooding concerns.

Tully said without the asphalt in place, there would be dirt and collected water finding the lowest spot possible to the north.  He said the site was started and then stopped and those things that would alleviate flooding had not been in place to stop that flooding from occurring.  Additionally, there were some design mistakes in the construction of the retaining wall which had also added to the flooding to the property to the north.  He said the Stormwater Engineer was quite sure that the flooding would stop once that retaining wall was constructed based on the revised site plan.     

Commissioner Hack asked whether there was any discussion about the consequences of flooding and whether there was a Plan B if the wall did not work.

Tully said the Plan B would be the property to the north would notify Neighborhood Resources that the site plan was either in violation of what had been approved by the City Commission or simply the site plan was not working and other issues needed to be addressed.  He said, as the Stormwater Engineer pointed out, there was a low spot behind one of the properties to the west.  Again, there was a tremendous amount of fill added to the Alek’s Auto site plan and water was going to find that lowest spot possible.  He said staff had asked that person to speak with Lee Smith, site plan inspector, if there were in fact any problems with that retaining wall.     

Commissioner Schauner asked what tools the City had to address the failure to build a second retaining wall that was in compliance with the site plan that the City Commission might approve at this time.

Corliss said if the property owner had complied with the City Code and had complied with the site plan requirements that would be as far as staff could go in protecting a property owner from the common enemy of drainage and stormwater.  If there was still a drainage concern that the property owner to the north had, the property to the south would need to pursue that issue as a civil matter in court as a trespass or some other type of action or nuisance claim.  He said much as if the City had not been involved at all because of its land use regulations.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

C.L. Mauer, LandPlan Engineering, said he has gone through this site plan with the neighbors.  He said they were trying to get the water away from the buildings as best as they could, but there was only so much they could do when the building was only 6 inches above the drainage area on North 2^nd Street.  He said there were some problems that were brought up with North 2^nd Street with the way that some of the trench drains worked on those entrance drives which was a poor idea and design.   He said when they rebuild that entrance they would not replace it with one of those trench drains, but a concrete drive.    

Adra Burks, Attorney for the property owners to the north, commended C.L. Mauer for his efforts.  She said the proposed secondary retaining wall did look and work like it would be a dam and would be 6 inches above curb. She said there was some concern because that was only proposed to go back to where the building commences.  She said this land was built up and initially the elevation on that land was lower than the property to the north.  She said that land was elevated which caused the water drainage to go to the lower area.

She said the Stormwater Engineer was requiring guttering that should cause water drainage off the roof to go to the east, but there was still a 10 inch spot that had a 24 inch elevation from the retaining wall to the edge of the building.  She said in looking at that drawing, she asked why wasn’t this retaining wall going all the way back so that it was holding the water and keeping the water on the Alek’s property rather than on her client’s property and that was their primary concern. 

She said right now that area was a mosquito bog and from a health standpoint, that raised issues.         

 Linda Finger, Planning Director, said Burks made a good argument, but if water was coming from the west of the site perhaps it should be extended back to be leveled where the building started to the rear wall of the building.  She said the Commission could add that condition if they desired.

Commissioner Dunfield said this could be resolved by making that a condition.  He said clearly, the reason for the secondary retaining wall was to prevent the run-off from that property going directly on to the neighboring property and if the extent of the retaining wall had to be adjusted, somewhat, to accomplish that idea, then it would need to be adjusted.   

Commissioner Schauner asked if they would require that the modular retaining wall go west until it met the building at some juncture that would prevent water from running backwards.

Commissioner Dunfield suggested that the extent of the retaining wall would be determined by what was necessary to perform the function of preventing that run-off from heading north rather than east or west. 

Mayor Rundle said there wasn’t water from the back of the site, just from the portion that was built up.  He asked if it would be possible for the Stormwater Engineer to oversee that idea. 

Finger said if the City Commission would like to add that idea as a condition, staff would make sure that the City’s Stormwater Engineer would add his expertise to how far that distance should be to accomplish that condition.

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Highberger, to approve the site plan (SP-09-58-04) for a revised site plan for Alek’s Auto Sales, located at 601 North 2^nd Street, subject to the following conditions:

1. Execution of a revised site plan performance agreement per Section 20-1433;
2. Applicant secures a “Highway Permit” from the Kansas Department of Transportation, Bureau of Construction and Maintenance with a copy provided to the Planning Office prior to release of site plan to Neighborhood Resources for issuance of a building permit; and
3. Filing of all easements with the Register of Deeds prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. Revise site plan to show extension of retaining wall to rear (west) building wall of existing structure. This extension shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Stormwater Engineer prior to the release of the revised site plan to Neighborhood Resources.

Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                            (11)

Receive Kasold Preliminary Design Report and Option 5 for reconstruction of Kasold Drive, Bob Billings Parkway (15^th Street) to West 22^nd Street.

Chuck Soules, Public Works Director, presented the staff report.  He said on October 6, 2004, the City Commission held a study session at which the Kasold Drive Preliminary Study was presented and four alternatives were evaluated.  Those options were:

1. Option 1:  Remove and replace existing pavement.  This option does not make any improvements for access, future traffic, visibility, or safety.  Pedestrian access is also not provided.  This option does provide reduced construction costs and a reduced schedule.  The typical section included 4 lanes with a median.
2. Option 2:  This option provided some improvements to visibility and a 10’ recreation path was constructed.  A fifth turning lane was provided from Tam O’Shanter Drive to 15^th Street and Augusta Drive to 22^nd Street.  The intersections at Bob Billings Parkway and Clinton Parkway would be improved to meet future traffic volume demands.  There would not be any grassed area between lanes, and costs are more than desired.
3. Option 3:  Improves sight distances and grades of the road section of Option 2 to meet current AASHTO standards.  This option increases excavation costs and requires extensive retaining wall construction which drives construction costs up.
4. Option 4:  This option reduces the scope of the project provided by Option 2.  The project limits are 15^th Street to West 22^nd Street.  No improvements are provided for the intersection at Clinton Parkway.  This option reduces the costs of Option 2 by 20%.  A 10’ rec path and turning lanes are provided, however the grassed median is removed.

He presented information about an Option 5.  He said that option included: a grassed median and narrowing the project scope to the immediate need to repair the section of pavement that was failing.  The project scope/limit for this option is from Bob Billings Parkway (15^th Street) to West 22^nd Street.  The typical section included:

1. 4-11 ft. driving lanes (reduced from 12 ft.)
2. 18 in. dry curb on the medians
3. 8 ft. wide sidewalk
4. South end of project a 7 ft. median;

North end of project a 16 ft. median.

Commissioner Schauner asked if that option would reduce the grade on the hill. Soules said that option did slightly reduce the grade on the hill. He said it was a 10% reduction of grade and presently the existing hill, at Augusta Drive, was 11%.     He said that grade would not get to Option 3 which was an 8% grade.

Commission Schauner said the 8% grade would require a 12 foot retaining wall some place along that street.

Rick Caldwell, Bartlett & West, said yes.

Commissioner Dunfield asked that where that median was the widest, could trees be planted in that area on the north section. 

Caldwell said correct.  He said they discussed that idea of planting between Tam O’Shanter and Seminole Drives because there was 16 feet of green space on the south portion.  He said between Augusta Drive and Tam O’Shanter Drives planting would be difficult because there was only 7 feet.  

Commissioner Dunfield said that would be a good “context sensitive design”.

Commissioner Schauner asked if those trees would need to be irrigated to have any success with those trees.

Soules said Parks and Recreation would prefer that those trees be irrigated.  He said staff was also talking to another firm about that same issue at Kasold Drive and Peterson Road.

Commissioner Schauner asked if this option would lend itself to a future rebuilding of the 23^rd and Kasold Drive intersection with double lefts and other modifications that might be required by traffic counts.  

Caldwell said yes.  He said the horizontal and vertical geometry would be setup to go back at a later date and finish that portion of the project, maybe with a complete intersection overhaul.

Soules said the concrete and asphalt initial costs were approximately $37,000.  He said if the City Commission wanted to proceed with the project and this was an option that was desired by the Commission, he said he would recommend concrete at $37,000.

Caldwell said it was important to note that this project would end at 22^nd Street on the north side somewhat different from Option 2 and Option 3, but similar to Option 4 other than putting in the grass medians.

Soules said the proposed schedule on this project would be to enter into an agreement with Bartlett & West for the design phase.  He said before committing to any schedule, he needed to discuss with Utilities the final plans.  He said it would not be feasible to start the project next year, but staff could do the utility relocates and be ready to go with this project in 2006.  

Commissioner Schauner said there had been discussion about whether this project would be done as one single project or be broken into two construction seasons.  He asked if staff was making a recommendation in the proposal.

Soules said staff could take a look at that project as one or two construction seasons when moving into the design phase.  He said utilities were going to be the issue upfront.

Caldwell said he had discussions with one of the adjacent landowners and the landowner expressed a concern about utility relocations in 2005.  He said that landowner would be impacted at that time and if they wait until 2006 to start that project, those landowners would be impacted again.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

John Olson, representing HyVee, and the other property owners in the shopping center, said things did not appear to be as far along as appeared when reading the initial report.  He said one issue was the scheduling of construction and the closing down of Kasold at Clinton Parkway, north to the intersection where traffic exited into the Parkway Center and at the same time closing down Kasold at 15^th south.  He said the concern was for the business people in Parkway Center along with his own business.

He said they would prefer an option where one end was closed down at a time. He said if closing down both of ends, Kasold would be effectively closed down entirely. He said another concern was semi trucks that needed access to Parkway Center.  He was not sure those trucks could maneuver on 22^nd Street which was behind Parkway Center.     

George Katt, property owner in the area, said his main concern was a 10 foot pedestrian walkway on the hillside coming down from the crest of the hill.  He said if a child was on a skateboard or bicycle coming down that hill, there could be some serious consequences.  He said this issue needed to be thought out carefully before the City undertook this project. 

He said there would need to be serious retaining walls built to allow this project to happen because some lots were high and the street drops off dramatically.  He said there would be quite a drop for someone using that pedestrian way.  He said that area had gotten by without a pedestrian way for 32 years.  He said there was a safety issue with this project.

Carol Gilmore, property owner in the area, said she was the one who talked to Caldwell about the design features that were anticipated with the renovation of Kasold.  The house had been there since 1968 and when it was originally constructed, the grade on the back side, which was on the west side of Kasold, was much steeper than it was now.  She said in the first few years, after the house was built, there was a considerable amount of slippage.  Now there were only 30 feet between the end of the house and where the hill began to fall.  She said she was concerned because she was in part of the road that had a 50 foot right-of-way and a 7 ½ foot utility easement which brought it up to the top of the hill and there was an electric utility manhole 1/3 of the way down the hill.  She said she was concerned that when this project started, there would be some continuous slippage.  She said when they start to construct the walk way, the whole hill might come down on her house.  She said her house had been mud jacked twice. 

She said the way those trees were going to be placed, she was probably faced with losing 75% of all the plant material which were 30 year old trees.  She said she would like to give input, as a homeowner, as to what the frontage would look like. She asked if the homeowners along the stretch would have some input on what it would look like.  She said they were presently responsible for the maintenance of that hill to the street and she assumed that their responsibility would be to the sidewalk that was built.

Betty Mitscher, property owner in the area, said she had no objections to closing Scioto Drive, but she was not thrilled about having a 13 foot retaining wall built near her property.  She said it would reduce the value of her property and those properties adjacent to her home.  She also expressed some concerns about safety in the area.

Commissioner Schauner asked Gilmore if she said there would be a retaining wall at the back of her property.

Gilmore said yes.  She said the home to the north of hers was proposed to be the highest point.  She said if the wall was 9 feet, it would quickly drop down to 3 ½ feet toward the bottom of her property.  She said this issue was a real safety concern for her.

Soules addressed the scheduling.  He said with respect to the HyVee and their concerns, the closing down of those streets were presented as an option for completing this project next year, but it did not appear that was an option.  He said from 22^nd south to 23^rd, that street would not be closed and that section of Kasold would always be open.

As for the steepness of the path, Soules said there was not a lot of room to do any twisting of that path. 

Caldwell said the option was to go with a shallower grade on the street which was Option 3, but then there would be a negative effect on the east side.  He said it was that balancing act situation that they were up against. 

He said concerning the area west of Wakarusa on Clinton Parkway, when going down and back up that hill, that section was steep and similar to this situation which was a recreational path type facility.  He said it was not an ideal situation, but it was best of the balancing act that could be made.

Commissioner Schauner asked if the sidewalk would be 2 feet inside the back of the curb all the way from 22^nd to 15^th Streets.

Caldwell said correct.

Commissioner Rundle asked if there would be an opportunity for neighborhood comment.

Soules said yes.  He said staff had previously met with residents in the area.  He said obviously those residents were familiar with the City’s website on this issue and staff was trying to keep that updated.  He said when staff was further into the design, Bartlett & West, would have specific conversations with the residents.

Mayor Rundle said usually when there was construction that was imminent, staff would get information out so that everyone knew when construction would start.

Mayor Rundle asked Soules about slippage, retaining walls and any alternatives on the height of those walls.

Soules said staff would make sure they were taking all precautions.  He said staff could perform a pre-construction survey, but staff was not doing any blasting.

Mayor Rundle asked Gilmore if her concern was soil slippage or actual residential slippage.

Gilmore said soil slippage.

He asked if staff had techniques that could be implemented to stabilize that project.

Soules said he did not think the retaining wall would be a big issue.  He said some of the utility might be relocated closer, but staff would need to see.  He said this would not be aggressive construction such as blasting for a sewer line.  He said staff would work with the residents on that matter.

Caldwell said maximum height for the retaining wall, assuming Option 4 or 5 would be about 9 feet and that would be near Augusta and Scioto.  He said when going north of Scioto, on the frontage road, those heights were dramatically reduced.  He said the 13 foot wall that was being discussed was Option 3 when using the 8% grade.  He said if they used Option 4 or 5 with a 10% grade, north of Scioto, the retaining wall would be approximately 5 to 6 feet.  He said it was going to be very similar grade differential to what the grade was today. 

Commissioner Dunfield said Option 5 was the best option available when taking the comments from the study session and trying to resolve those issues.  He noted that some of the concerns that had been raised were legitimate.  He said he had heard from several persons that there was a real need for the pedestrian walkway and he agreed it was important.

He said concerns about the slope were legitimate and it might be that the Commission might want to require the contractor to video tape conditions so there was record of before and after construction. 

He said the need to communicate with the neighborhood was commendable.

Commissioner Hack echoed Dunfield’s comments.  She said there were a lot of ideas, but she certainly heard back from several people about the necessity for the north/south connection with the bike and walkway paths.  She said to get those paths, the green space, narrower lanes, and the potential for landscaping, was all very positive.  

She said one of Soules’ many strengths was that he listened, worked, and talked with the neighbors.

Vice Mayor Highberger liked the concrete option.

Commissioner Schauner concurred.

Commissioner Schauner suggested that the three members of the public that came forward continue to communicate with Soules to express concerns.  He said based on past experience, Soules would want input and for people to be an active player in the design and construction phases of that work.

Moved by Hack, seconded by Schauner, to receive the Kasold Preliminary Design Report and Option 5 for reconstruction of Kasold Drive, Bob Billings Parkway (15^th Street) to West 22^nd Street and directed staff to proceed with Option 5, including the concrete option.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                (12)

Conduct public hearing on the appeal of DR-08-71-04: 944 Massachusetts Street; Storefront Remodel; Certificate of Appropriateness and Certified Local Government Review.  The Historic Resources Commission denied a Certificate of Appropriateness for this project and found that as proposed, the project will encroach upon, damage or destroy the listed property, Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District and its environs. (COA appeal in accordance with Chapter 22-504 of the Code of the City of Lawrence. Certified Local Government Review appeal in accordance with K.S.A. 75-2724.)

Mayor Rundle called a public hearing on the appeal of DR-08-71-04, a storefront remodel at 944 Massachusetts.

Lynne Zollner, Historic Resources Administrator for the City of Lawrence, said on September 16, 2004, the HRC denied application DR-08-71-04, a proposed storefront remodel to a structure located at 944 Massachusetts Street. 

She said this proposal fell under 3 different types of review which were:

1. The Protective Measures of the Kansas Historic Preservation Act (K.S.A. 75-2715-75-2725, as amended) which required the review of projects for their effect on properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

2. Chapter 22 of the Code of the City of Lawrence requires a Certificate of Appropriateness; and

3. Downtown Conservation Overlay District with Design Guidelines. 

The HRC found that the project, as proposed, did not meet the required standards and guidelines for each of the applicable regulations.

The applicant was appealing the decision of the HRC to the City Commission in accordance with the associated regulations.

Mayor Rundle asked to review the feasible and prudent standards.

Zollner said the state statute under the protective measures of the Kansas Historic Preservation Act defined feasible and prudent alternative, which means an alternative solution that could be reasonably accomplished and that was sensible or realistic.  Factors that should be considered when determining whether or not a feasible and prudent alternative exists included the following:

1          Technical issues;

2.         Design issues;

3.         The project’s relationship to the community-wide plan, if any; and

4.         Economic issues.

Zollner said staff recommended that the City Commission hold a public hearing and make a determination based on a consideration of all relevant factors that there was a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposal and that the program did not include all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed property.

Mayor Rundle called for public comment.

Jerry Neverve, property and business owner, Red Lyon, 944 Massachusetts, said he was present to appeal this issue.  He said he previously had presented a letter to the City Commission concerning the basis for his appeal and discussed a couple of issues. 

He said it was mentioned that he was recessing a doorway, but that was not the case and the doorway still existed.  He said what was being added was a second entrance.  The woodwork that was there now still remained and the only difference was there were security bars and a gate.

The storefront was recent as was the amount of glazing. The new amount would not change; it would be recessed. Transparency and view would actually be increased with the removal of windows and doors. The doorway and wooden window structures would still exist, be visible, and give the "feeling of containment" referred to in the standards and Downtown Design Guidelines.  He said the exterior wall would also be glass with the exception of the doorway.

He said the Hanna building which was the property he was supposedly impacting had a recessed doorway 5 feet further than his proposed change would do.  He said there were no significant architectural features on the front and was a non-contributing building to the downtown area.  He said as a non-contributing building in the downtown area, the least stringent guidelines should be used in the application. 

Carol Francis, a Massachusetts Street property owner, said the historic property on Massachusetts Street was the envy of every community in the State of Kansas and she asked the City Commission not to mess around with Massachusetts Street.

Pat Kehde, a downtown business owner, said she opposed the request for several reasons.  She said as a business owner, it never occurred to her to ask the City to waive any of their long studied Design Guidelines, HRC recommendations, or permit the change of streetscape of downtown so her business could make more money. 

She said the owner of the Red Lyon, wanted an open air patio to accommodate the smokers.  She said it seemed that he had an option to move to a place where there was an option to build an open air patio.

She said she did not know what the back of the property looked like, but she understood that the building went right up to the alley.  She said the Replay Lounge had an open air patio at the back of their property and that seemed that was an option to do that without destroying the streetscape.

She said as a long time preservation advocate and a member of various City Task Forces, over the years, studying design guidelines, she opposed this request because this was a severe change. 

The owner’s letter and discussion tried to minimize the impact, but he was going to leave the lower wooden structure and take away the glass.  She said in the application to the HRC, Neverve asked to remove part of the roof to allow smoking.  She said that did not seem like a minor change and to compare this to how deeply recessed the door at the Hanna Building did not compute.  She that the average life of a business in the same location was 12 to 17 years. 

She said this issue was about the Smoking Ordinance and not historic preservation.  To make those types of massive changes to accommodate someone that was annoyed because their patrons could not smoke was irresponsible.             

Carol Von Tersch, past President of Lawrence Preservation Alliance, said there seemed to be a reasonable alternative to making that type of alteration on Massachusetts Street which would be the possibility of an outdoor patio at the back of the building.  She said she noticed that Milton’s had a recessed doorway, it was not as deep as what the Red Lyon would need, but it certainly made for a more interesting alley scape. 

She questioned whether that proposed alteration made it an indoor space or an outdoor space.  She said if it was an outdoor space on Massachusetts, it would certainly be a major change for the streetscape and if it was an indoor space, then she did not see how that alteration would comply with the new smoking ordinance.

Mike Sizemore, member of the Historic Resources Commission, said the plans that were presented to the HRC were quite lacking.  He said it was an obvious attempt to circumvent the process.  The plans were to remove the roof structure, maintaining the structural roof members in place, and removing the roof membrane so there was an open air environment creating a new wall inside the existing wall. 

He said beyond the historic preservation issues, as an architect he had concerns with the technical feasibility of doing that type of work and there were some major unanswered questions.  Specifically how the structural members would be protected from the elements, how the adjacent property owners’ now interior walls would be protected from the elements and would that area be drained.  He said there were a lot of unanswered questions that were not presented in the initial application.  He said he would hate to take responsibility for approving such a set of plans.        

Jerry Neverve said the façade would stay the same way with the exception of the glass and doorway being removed.  The present interior was built at a grade 4 inches above the sidewalk level and it sloped down to the sidewalk area.  He said flashing would take place to protect neighboring stores.  He said those issues were better asked, but he had addressed those types of questions when he addressed the Commission. 

He said this was a rush job for the September’s HRC meeting and he had only one day to prepare for that meeting.  He said all those issues could be taken care of.  The roof removal would not be visible from street and was simply something that needed to be done to comply with the City in order to construct an open air patio. 

He said 30% to 40% of his customers smoked.  He said he was between a rock and a hard place.  He said this was a solution for him because of the smoking ban and the HRC requirements.  He said Zollner had mentioned earlier in the process that if they could have movable window where the glass was, it would be fine.  He said according to City ordinance that area would need to be a totally opened non-closable area to maintain an open air patio. 

He said he was also a member of the Lawrence Preservation Alliance.  He had been downtown since 1985 and they were at the Kansas Sports Bar and Grill in the basement of the historic Eldridge Hotel and he thought they did a nice job of restoring that building.  He said his wife was the founder of Second Chance for children’s clothing that had been downtown since 1980.  He said he had been at 944 Massachusetts since 1993 and he had a vested interest in downtown.

He said he did not think he was changing the City’s streetscape. 

Commissioner Dunfield asked about the possibility of building on the alley side rather than from the front of the building.

Neverve said there was a four foot hallway and restrooms at the back of the building.  He said he could not move the restrooms.

Mayor Rundle said the feasible and prudent standard truly placed the Commission between a rock and a hard place.  He said it was a high threshold that they needed to find in that there was no feasible and prudent alternative.  He said he appreciated Neverve’s efforts to his business, but he could not vote to approve the waiver.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he appreciated Neverve’s commitment to downtown.  He liked what Neverve did to the front of his building, but he agreed with the Mayor.  He said allowing a substantial alteration to a downtown building on the basis of a law that might change in 6 months was not good public policy.  He said as far as a reasonable and prudent alternative, he did not think all of those alternatives had been explored.  He said he was prepared to support the HRC’s decision.

He said one other alternative that had not been explored was sidewalk dining for drinking establishments.  He said the City Commission’s action in the past with the smoking ordinance had put Neverve’s business and other businesses in some degree of hardship and he deeply regretted that.  He said the Commission needed to work with Neverve as much as possible to reasonably help mitigate that problem.  He said it was time for the Commission to take a look at that idea.  He said he was not willing to support the idea, but it was something the Commission needed to consider.     

Commissioner Hack said she appreciated the work of the HRC.  She said the HRC was dealing with guidelines and at the same time there was a business owner dealing with some consequences that his business was operating under. 

She said she was uncomfortable with the comment of Neverve only being at his location for “x” number of years according to some statistic of downtown businesses.  She said Neverve owned his building, had chosen to live and raise his family in Lawrence, was a taxpayer, and was invested in downtown.  She said it was not an accurate statement that Neverve was a fly by night operation that was only looking to make more money.    

Commissioner Hack said since this smoking ban had been brought up, she asked Neverve if it was not for the smoking ban would he be at the City Commission with this proposal. 

Neverve said that was correct.

Commissioner Hack asked Neverve about the financial impact on his establishment and the impact on his employees.

Neverve said from 1993 to January of 2003 his business increased every year.  He said in January 2004, there was remodeling done and that remodel was passed by the HRC on a 3-2 vote because they were concerned about the recessed entry that existed.

He said from January 2004 up to July 1^st, there was a 9% increase in sales and from July 1^st, his business dropped down.  He said there was actually a 2% increase, but it was a false increase.  He said in June with the remodeling, property taxes increased dramatically, liquor and labor costs increased which was approximately an 8% price hike.  He said business was off 6 ½ percent and adding on that 8% price hike there was a 15% decrease in business.  He said he had talked to several other bars and restaurants in the Lawrence area and their businesses off anywhere from 15% to 35%.

The impact on employees had been huge.  He said he had employees that had worked for him for 12 years.  He said one bartender, up until two months ago, supported herself totally on the basis of income in tips from the Red Lyon and now she had to go get a part-time job.  In the last two months they had lost two employees.  One employee quit for health reasons and one employee quit because she was not making enough money.  Bartenders and waitresses around town had stated that their tips had decreased as much as 40%.  He said for the first time in twelve years, he was not able to give his employees raises. 

He said this issue had a dramatic impact.  He said they were trying to react to the new political scene and do what they could to preserve their business.

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to close the public hearing.  Motion carried unanimously.                                                                                   

Commissioner Dunfield said Kehde stated that this issue was about the smoking ordinance and that was clearly the case.  He said the Commission had changed the nature of businesses downtown for certain types of businesses owners.  He said when looking back at the past evolution of the downtown area, the architecture had changed to reflect different business climates.  He said back in the early days of the automobile there were gas stations and other types of automobile oriented businesses that could not exist with glass store fronts.  He said since the downtown had become almost a completely retail environment, now that was the clear and strong pattern in downtown Lawrence.

He said he was not ready to throw out that pattern and go against the ruling of the HRC at this time, but as looking at other issues the Commission needed to recognize changes in the business climate and figure out ways to accommodate those businesses.  He said he was leaning towards the suggestion of Vice Mayor Highberger in looking into the question of sidewalk dining for drinking establishments. 

He said as he looked at the map that was provided concerning drinking establishments in the downtown area, it looked as though, in addition to Neverve’s business that there were about 6 others businesses to which that issue might apply.  He said he thought that issue was worth looking at.  He said the Commission had previously discussed looking at some other aspects of the drinking establishment’s downtown. 

He said there was also discussion of whether the food sales requirement could be retro-actively applied to certain businesses that sell food, but had zoning that did not requirement them to sell food.  He said that idea was another aspect to look at in conjunction with the changing business environment.

He said he could not support this particular proposal, but he did want the City Commission to look at other alternatives.

Commissioner Schauner said Commissioner Dunfield made a good point that the streetscape of Lawrence had not remained static at any point in its existence, but where this was today, with respect to streetscape, was one that was fairly well embodied in the Downtown Design Guidelines.  He said if everyone was honest with one another and with business people downtown, this was a question that the Commission would not be addressing, but for the smoking ban.

He said he was not willing to change the application or interpretation of the Design Guidelines in order to address, through the back door, the no smoking ordinance issue.  However, he thought it made a lot of sense for the Commission to look at the bigger picture of downtown drinking establishments and other affected negatively or positively by the smoking ban.  He said the Commission owned it to the downtown community to have some more detailed discussion about that issue.  He said he did not know what that discussion would look like, but he would be concerned if this City ended up with a streetscape full of outdoor eating and drinking establishments because that was not consistent with how the Downtown Design Guidelines were intended to be applied.

He said he could not support the request.  He suggested having discussion as a City Commission to look at some alternatives for the drinking establishments in the downtown area.    

Commissioner Hack said when looking at the HRC minutes, one of the members indicated that he felt the Downtown Design Guidelines were focused on retail storefronts and would like to review the Downtown Guidelines because of the diversity in downtown Lawrence.  She asked Zollner if that review was going to take place.

Zollner said that review was timely.  She said anytime setting up Design Guidelines or a Conservation Overlay District that would be something to revisit every five to eight years.  She said they were probably at that threshold. 

She said the HRC’s concern was to look at the historic documentation of what had been in downtown Lawrence, what was documented in that National Register District, and trying not to stray away from what those things were intended to protect.  She said when looking at the businesses on Massachusetts Street, in particular, over the past several decades, it had been strongly commercial.  She said when the design guidelines were written, it was that fear of losing that three part storefront that made that process in the Guidelines that presently existed.  She said so many other communities across the nation were fighting to get back that commercial retail storefront in their downtown areas.  She said the Guidelines did not address bank buildings because those buildings typically did not have a three part commercial system.  She said the Downtown Design Guidelines needed to be addressed and look at the existing building types and make those Guidelines more applicable to all the building types.             

Commissioner Hack said she would like to address those Guidelines sooner rather than later.  She said she did not think the streetscape had been modified with Neverve’s proposal.  She supported the proposal.

Commissioner Rundle said he did not mind revisiting the question of the impact to the downtown area concerning the smoking ordinance, but was not willing to concede the smoking ban issue given the short time in discussion of those impacts, or that there were no feasible or prudent alternatives to address the impacts other than the major proposal that had been floating around.  

Commissioner Schauner commented on Commissioner Dunfield’s suggestion that as society and commerce had changed in the past 100 years of downtown Lawrence, things had changed downtown.  He said there was another change that was going on and the Commission knew when they approved the smoking ban on a vote of 4-1 that that was going to have some impacts and that there would be winners and losers and people in between.  He said one of the shifts that were going to be seen as a result of that social change, was a change in the commercial dynamic of downtown and other places.  He said it was a natural consequence that the Commission should have known about in the spring when the Commission voted on the smoking ban.  He said this was a big change in the way people perceive air quality issues and other pieces of that business.  He said he was not saying that to be callous or uncaring about the impact because he did genuinely feel that it was a very unfortunate circumstance, but it was consistent with the social policy decision that the City Commission made.         

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Rundle, to find, based on a consideration of all relevant factors, that there are feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposal and that the program does not include all possible planning to minimize harm to the listed property, Lawrence’s Downtown Historic District.  Aye:  Dunfield, Highberger, Rundle, and Schauner.  Nay:  Hack.  Motion carried.   …                                                             (13)

Receive request from East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, Barker Neighborhood Association, and Brookcreek Neighborhood Association for a new area plan for the abandoned rail corridor.

Beth Ann Mansur, Brook Creek Neighborhood Association, said the neighborhoods of East Lawrence, Barker, and Brook Creek, were requesting an area plan for the abandoned rail corridor because this was land shared by all three of those neighborhoods.  The corridor borders East Lawrence and Barker neighborhoods on the eastern edge and Brook Creek on the western edge.  Southeast of 19^th Street to Haskell there was no organized neighborhood which created a similar situation as the 7^th and Wisconsin site.  The maximum density residential development plans triggered a request for an area plan.

That area plan, if adopted, would ensure a unified vision of the entire area for the next 40 years because this abandoned rail line was a shared boundary of those three neighborhoods. What was created on one side of that boundary in one neighborhood affected the other side of the boundary of a neighborhood.  This included issues like flood water run-off and increased traffic due to development.  In working together in this way they could improve the boundary area in this instance creating something for the benefit of the whole city and come closer to actualizing each of their own neighborhoods visions. 

In requesting the moratorium, she hoped the developers understand that this was not a permanent moratorium.  The moratorium was temporary and would start at the implementation of the area plan and continue for the duration of the plan.  It was merely to give them time to work up a solution for what they felt neighborhoods view as a critical link between their neighborhoods and a chance to create an area that would enhance the quality of life for all of Lawrence, most specifically for those on the east side.              

Michael Almon read a presentation to the City Commission which read:

“Our three neighborhoods of East Lawrence, Barker & Brook Creek (referred to as EBB), like most, want some degree of control over land use activities in our area.  Supposedly, planning documents and the development approval process gives residents the information and leverage to protect us from incompatible uses, low quality development, and overall neighborhood deterioration.

But in spite of having formal plan since 1981 for the East Lawrence and Brook Creek Neighborhoods, too often the plans are misapplied, or issues are confused by their spanning across neighborhood boundaries.  In addition, Barker Neighborhood still has no formal plan.  As you know, our three neighborhoods share a common boundary of the abandoned BNSF rail line from 11^th Street to 23^rd Street.

To the detriment of our neighborhoods, this boundary is also an industrial-commercial wedge in conflict with the residential character we foster.  It is a throwback to active rail days, as well as a time when everything south of 15^th Street and east of Learnard Ave. was outside the City.  This high nuisance zoning opens the door to an imbalance in planning controls.

As an example, the most recent development that galvanized the EBB neighborhoods was the Salvation Army proposal.  Because it is zoned industrial, it was allowed without a public Use Permit Upon Review, without formal public input, and without provisions for a public protest petition.  It merely had to meet non-public site plan requirements.

Several elements of the Brook Creek Neighborhood Plan call for this area of industrial zoning to be downzoned (the sections are referenced below).  The entire five block area by the tracks was and still is platted in residential lots.  Granted, the Plan shows this area as industrial, but that came to pass only because major landowners pushed it through in the 1960’s.  The 1981 Plan simply reflected that fact.  Since the, Brook Creek has tried several times to get it downzoned, but were not supported by staff.

Figure 3-9 “Existing Lane Use, 1979” shows that area predominantly low density residential and agricultural, with a few pockets of commercial uses.

Ch. 4 “Plans & Recommendations-Residential”, page 4-2 “Low density residential land uses are recommended for most of the neighborhood.  The neighborhood residents …view the low density residential character of the neighborhood as a positive aspect and would like to see it maintained”. “Implementation of this Land Use Plan could, in part, be accompanied with the rezoning of several areas to a district consistent with the predominant land use.”

Ch. 2 “Statement of Goals & Polices – General Policies”, page 2-1

1. “Update the Far East Lawrence Plan (Brook Creek Neighborhood) at the request of the Far East Lawrence Improvement Association, or as change in actual conditions, land use or pressures of the community dictate….” Though requested, our Plan has yet to be updated

Ch. 2 “Statement of Goals & Polices – General Land Use”, page 2-2

A) “Evaluate present zoning classification of land…to determine whether it is desirable for the Planning or City Commission to initiate a change of zoning.  “Such requests by the neighborhood to initiate rezoning the southwest industrial zones have consistently been deflected, with the onus of such an effort being placed on the Neighborhood to do extensive canvassing and garnering of support for such reclassification.

Essentially what we envision is the revitalization of our residential neighborhoods by changing this industrial wedge corridor in to a unifying corridor of a bicycle/jogging trail and linear park.  This concept has been a City and neighborhood objective for at least 13 years.  It appears in City Plans such as: Horizon 20-20, Capital Improvement Plan, Burrough’s Creek Stormwater Improvement Plan, Parks & Recreation plans, Bicycle Works Program, Lawrence-Douglas Co. Bicycle Plan (Bicycle Advisory Comm.), and the local Rails-To-Trails Committee, to name a few.

Nevertheless, only the Stormwater Plan section of the trail is seeing progress due to coat-tailing.  It would be the literal backbone of the proposed corridor plan.  To get it off the dime, this trail should be considered a transportation element, and placed under the purview of the Public Works Department to implement, along with the other 98% of bicycle facilities in Lawrence.

While the existing industrial/commercial uses shall continue, we hope to salvage the remaining open areas for single family residential development by exploring downzoning.  And the best scenario would also apply adaptive reuse to some existing industrial uses, at the owner’s option of course, but with City incentives.  Keep in mind that the area plan proposal is 1100 foot wide corridor, more or less.  To adequately incorporate key areas, the edge must extend eastward to Haskell between 15^th and 19^th Streets, and probably adjusted outwards south of 19^th Street to some extent.

Preservation of the remaining fragments of wooded wilderness areas is another aim, as well as extension into underutilized areas as well.  Along with this, we want a Use Permit process and/or Demolition Permit process established before woodland or prairie tracts are destroyed, as did the initial owners of both the Villo woods and the Shepard Woods.

As the planning process evolves, other typical elements shall be included as well such as: traffic flows, stormwater infiltration/runoff, compatible zoning mixes, other pedestrian and bicycle facilities, etc.                     

In the past two decades, conditions have changed dramatically in this corridor between our neighborhoods. Industrial has not moved in.  The railroad has been abandoned.  The land uses that actually have expanded into the agricultural areas are: commercial warehousing service, and retail storage.  The only true industrial use, the Farm Co-op, has gone bankrupt and mostly ceased operation.  It is now time for a thorough re-evaluation and revitalization of the East side of Lawrence.” 

He said they would like the City Commission to instruct the Planning Department to develop an new area plan for the abandoned rail corridor for and area extending approximately 500 feet, more or less to the east and to the west and north and south of the abandoned BNSF right-of-way from 11^th Street to 23^rd Street; impose a moratorium on building permits within extent of the planned area for the duration of the planning process; and appoint a City Planner to work with the three neighborhoods in developing that said plan.

He said what might be open for discussion was the definition of the area, extending it out to incorporate the area east of Haskell and south to 15^th Street, but also that this moratorium be in place for the duration of the plan.  If the moratorium had a particular deadline that was not consistent with the planned deadline, then obviously once that deadline was reached, developers in anticipation of this kind of plan, would just rush and get building permits and everything would be moot and that was the reason this moratorium to be in place for the duration of the plan.          

Ed Tato, East Lawrence resident, said he had been involved in this request for some time.  He thanked the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and staff for making maps and meeting with the neighborhoods to clear up some issues.

He said anyone who spent any time on the east side of Lawrence knew that a good part of the built environment had not been kind to the residential neighborhoods.  The biggest issue about this rail line was that there was an opportunity to take something that was generally seen as a deficit in the neighborhood and detracts from desirability of residential and it was also an opportunity to put something in a part of town that was probably not going to be somewhere else to this extent.  The only way to get it done properly to get down to work and look how it could get done and in the mean time as it was being done, make sure that nothing happened.  He said they were lucky in that the Villo Woods development and the proposal so far for the development at 15^th and Haskell Ave., had wanted to include the Rails to Trails open space as part of their plans, but there was no guarantee that would happen which was their concern.  He said before they would get a chance to put together a plan to show what this could do and how it could be done with this land, the opportunity would be lost.

He said when thinking about what was actually involved in doing this, there was the issue of the land itself and how it was going to be made available. The other issue was what the land was going to look like and how the land was going to be used.  He said that idea involved the first part of their request which was a non-rail transport as a bicycle/jogging/walking trail. 

He said when looking at the second request which was a linear park/wildlife corridor including Hobbs Park, the Burroughs Creek stream naturalization project, Parnell Park, and the Villo Woods nature preserve, his assumption was that this was a process that the neighborhoods could start right of way.  He said the corridor itself was not a huge swath of land and they could figure out how that land could be used and designed and incorporate that land into what would be a residential benefit.               

James Grauerholz, Brook Creek Neighborhood resident, said this rail line, by the time neighborhoods formed associations and groups was a long standing division.  It was the obvious division for the neighborhood group’s geographical boundaries.  He said, at this point in time, it offered opportunities to knit together those edges.  He said it was a type of thing that did not need much focus or planning because it was already in use with the railroad. 

He presented the history of east Lawrence neighborhoods to the City Commission.  He said in the mid-1960 the City enacted its first comprehensive zoning laws.  One of the main points of zoning was to provide predictability for people who were anticipating the future uses of land that was not used. 

He said one of the arguments over changing the zoning was that people had investment, involvements, plans, or history with the land based on that being a law.  He said that was what was wrong with spot zoning.  He said spot zoning applied to this current situation and was ad hoc and uncoordinated.

He said it was a wonderful opportunity and crucial moment to take an overall look at the future of this land that no longer divided but united the three neighborhoods on the east side.  He said this region contained 12,000 people and what proportion of that was that to the increasingly rapidly growing population of Lawrence.  He said there was a quality and a feeling of this demographic that were handed down and to prevent this inner-city neighborhood from being inner-city instead of a revitalized more central as the peripherals of the City grew outward at the edges, this became closer downtown.             

He said this initiative was almost too late.  He said this issue occurred because the neighborhoods were galvanized by a string of issues in recent years that drew their attention to this issue.

He said Almon was right to emphasize their proposal was approximately 500 feet because Planners should have a free hand to make it unified.  But obviously everything from 19^th to 23^rd was already highly industrialized and built up to some extent. 

There had been quite a few pretentious planning decisions and that brought people together from the three neighborhoods.  He said beginning in the mid 90’s, there were stormwater problems of this area that they were addressing.  Brook Creek, now called Burrough’s Creek had major drainage problems.  The Stormwater Engineer, identified that problem in the 1996 Master Plan as Priority 1.  He said millions of dollars were being spent for this project, which was very intelligent, to get the creek out of the culvert.  The city started acquiring for that project years ago, for example, buying Morton Block for $400,000 in 1997. 

The southern portion of the rail trail was opened in 1991.  Morton Block was still a customer until 1997 and the Farmers co op was still a customer until 2001, until their bankruptcy.  That marked the end of any rail use at that location.   He said staff had focused on the rail trail advancing which there were difficult legal issues to address. 

He said this issue had brought the neighbors together to look to the future, but it was almost too late.  He said he could not see how it would be terribly controversial to approve a request for a new area plan.  All the big projects that were industrial or higher density residential were infill and were already in the pipeline and under way.  The only thing left to do was to tie up those loose ends. 

He asked the City Commission to accept this proposal because it has the intention of a brighter future on a neighborhood that received a history of neglect.

Jim Carpenter, speaking on behalf of the Barker Neighborhood Association and the Lawrence Association of Neighborhoods, said this issue, as far as Barker neighborhood was concerned, was mostly about the rail to trail.  He said they were hoping to preserve the area along that pathway to reexamine the zoning and hopefully push along the process for that pathway from 29^th Street to the center of town.  It’s a unique opportunity for the city for a natural path that went that distance.  This would be connected to the current rail to trail at 23^rd Street that went by Haskell. 

He said when looking south from 15^th Street, down that corridor, were the area that bordered both Brook Creek and Barker and the area that they were especially concerned about in keeping as close to that as possible.  He said on the western side of that was Parnell Park and a donation to the City of additional woods from the Villo Woods Project and they would keep that corridor of trees. 

He said directly to the east was a new proposed housing project at the corner of 15^th and Haskell.  He said the project at 15^th and Haskell and the Villo Woods projects were being used as sale points as contributions to the community.  The pathways that connected those new housing development to the proposed rails to trails site was a big selling point for Barker to finally get on board and agree to backing the Villo Woods project which was approved unanimously by both the Planning and City Commissions and was held up consistently as an example of developers working with the neighborhoods on projects.

He said one of the bigger goals was that accessibility to a proposed rail to trail.  He said at that time they did not know of all the difficulties that that land had already been abandoned. 

He hoped the City Commission would direct staff to look at what easements already existed, point out that Villo Woods donated easements to the city for the purpose of rail to trails.  He said everything between 15^th and 19^th on the west side the city had easements along the railroad tracks. 

The project that was goring to be discussed, they were claiming that they owned that land and had filed documents with the Register of Deeds setting out their basis for claiming that ownership.  He said part of their plan was to donate easement to the city for purposes of rail to trail.  He said this was a dream of many people for many years.  He said if there was any help those three neighborhoods could give in approaching land owners about the advisability of donating easements, they would be glad to help.

He asked the City Commission to receive the letter and direct staff to act in an appropriate manner to look at the zoning and push forward with the rail to trails project.

Timothy Morland, President, East Lawrence Neighborhood Association, said the residents of East Lawrence would like the City to adopt this plan to preserve the residential nature of East Lawrence and also to connect the Hobbs Park nature area, which the city had invested a considerable amount of time and funds.

He urged the City Commission for their support for imposing the moratorium on building permits within the extent of the duration of planning process.  He urged the City Commission to consider their letter and adopt the actions that they had asked for. 

Commissioner Schauner said the neighborhoods did not have a lot to lose, but a lot to gain with an updated area plan and to move quickly with a rails to trails approach to that area.  He said he was confident that City staff could lead them through the appropriate discussion and find the most efficient legally appropriate way of addressing questions so they could help knit those neighborhoods together.  He said let’s try to salvage what was left of that area that had not already been built upon.  He said they would not have much luck changing what had already been built, but they could do a lot to continue to make those neighborhoods an attractive place to be. 

He strongly supported the area plan concept, the moratorium, and rails to trails project.

Commissioner Dunfield said he thought the idea of studying this area was an important idea.  He said there were not a lot of properties in question anymore within that area and was a little different scenario than areas plans done in other locations.  He said they were not talking about land use for the entire corridor, but a few select areas.  For example, between 19^th and 23^rd Streets, that area was well established as industrial land and that would not be changed with an area plan.  The challenge for that four block area, relative to the rail to trails project was how they would make that project work through an industrial stretch of land which was a good question for the City Commission to study.

He said there were three issues.  One issue was the rails to trails project and there was not any lack of consensus.  The rails were not available for us to use until 2001 and there were still considerable legal issues to be resolved before that could be a reality.  The reason that this had been sitting on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, was because the community had identified it as important and it had remained important, it was a matter of figuring out how to get it done.

He said there would be some disagreement on redevelopment opportunities.  He could not figure out how someone could walk through Villo Woods and not see that area as an asset to the neighborhood, but there would be disagreement over those types of issues when talking about redevelopment of specific pieces of land. 

He said when it came to the moratorium question that was when he questioned the need for a moratorium.  He thought they could take projects like Villo Woods and work on those project, negotiate, and judge those projects on their merits and act on those projects without putting a moratorium in place and waiting awhile.  He said they generally know what they wanted to see in the way of infill along that corridor and what they wanted to see in terms of compatibility with the rail to trails project.  He was not convinced that a moratorium was necessary.

Commissioner Schauner said Commissioner Dunfield was right in that the Villo Woods project could be observed as beneficial to the area.  The problem was there were parcels of land, as currently zoned, that did not give this Commission a lot of leeway of what to approve and not to approve.  The idea of creating an area plan and looking at the appropriate level of zoning and that area was a part of the area plan look that would provide greater stability to the largely residential character of this neighborhood.

Commissioner Dunfield said that was a good argument.

Commissioner Schauner said what no one was saying very loudly was that the Salvation Army issue caused a fair amount of heartache in the area and this was an attempt to try and prevent a future event like this in the area.  He said that was why he thought a moratorium was important so staff could look at, not just rails to trails, but also the zoning in that area as well.

Mayor Rundle said he tried to reassure one of the Salvation Army Board members that that project would not be affected because it was already one of those projects that was in the pipeline.

He said he concurred with all the reasoning except the moratorium.   He said this was no different than the Old West Lawrence, Hillcrest, and Pinckney, area plan that was being worked on. 

He said the Commission stepped back after they denied a site plan and included a moratorium.  He said he did not think the Commission should have any hesitation on honoring this request.  It was certainly not deviating from request the Commission had in other areas of town. It had been troubling over the years to watch this struggle and there were people who tried to make a commitment as a neighborhood to keep that area residential.  He said they should make an effort to stabilize that area.  He said the area compliments the recent redevelopment which Villo Woods was an asset and was the direction that they wanted to go.  He said that issue would cement that direction. 

Vice Mayor Highberger said he was glad to see us moving forward on the rail trails project and there was clear, unanimous support.  He said now that there wasn’t a railroad track in the area, it made sense to take a look at the zoning in place to see if it needed to be changed.  There wasn’t a lot of potential development in the corridor left which made him more comfortable about supporting a moratorium.  The potential damage was much less and it would be to what had been done in other areas.  He supported the request.

Commissioner Hack said she agreed with Commissioner Schauner and she was encouraged to see the collaboration of the various neighborhoods.

She also agreed with Commissioner Dunfield that there was clear support for the rails to trails project.  She said she was supportive of an area plan.  Her only concern was how to define where the pipeline started. 

Commissioner Dunfield said if he misunderstood the intent of the moratorium, he apologized.  He said the letter talked about a moratorium on building permits and when that had been done in the past, a moratorium on building permits meant that it did not matter where someone was in the pipeline, that they would not be allowed to build.

He said if talking about consideration of future project, then that was a different animal.  He said as long as there was a clear schedule for getting an area plan done, which was one of the legal requirements of a moratorium, then that relieved his concerns about a moratorium.      

Commissioner Schauner asked Corliss to remind him of the proposal that was used on the West 6^th area plan moratorium and the parameters that were used to define a moratorium.

Corliss said one of the issues was the area that the moratorium was covering and the other issue was the length of time.  He said it was very clear in the court decisions that were reviewed, development moratoria, that a reasonable time period that had a certain date was one of the criteria that a court looked at when there was a regulatory taking, or due process claim, in regards to a moratoria.

The other issue that needed to be worked on was finding the projects that were in the pipeline.  He said that was a legal issue and a community fairness issue about investments and processes that had gone through as well as certain land use reviews.

He said the HOP ordinance was a moratorium on building permits that expanded the footprint of the size of the structure.  He said staff could write the ordinance in a fashion that if there had been a submitted development proposal for a site plan or a plat, that prior to October 26^th, 2004, that that be included in the pipeline. 

He said one key to ordinance’s that were drafted in the past, had been an appeals procedure.  He said if someone believed that their property interests were adversely affected, they could come to staff with their building permit application and state that they did not believe staff intended to prohibit them from building.  Then, the City Commission could review that issue and make an exception if that was appropriate. 

He said he understood that the concern was that there might be land uses that were allowed by the rezoning that was in place today that would allow someone to prepare a site plan or request a building permit and that those land uses might be adverse to some of the values that had been discussed as far as the character of the property had changed overtime and the rezonings on the map did not reflect that change.  He said staff needed to draft the ordinance in a way that attempted to capture those ideas.

He said it was also important for the City Commission to get professional direction from Planning Staff as to the scope of the area plan.  He said that was not a legal issue, but a management concern.  The neighborhood came with their view of what was the appropriate area to include in the area plan, but Finger and her staff needed to provide direction on that area because staff did not want to exclude or include something that did not make sense from a professional planning standpoint.

Commissioner Dunfield said another issue was that the latest map the Commission received showed the area extending all the way along Haskell Indian Nations University and that area south of 23^rd Street did not seem to require study under this plan.   

Moved by Dunfield, seconded by Schauner, to receive the request for a new area plan for the abandoned rail corridor and direct staff to draft an appropriate ordinance and a Planning Staff memorandum that would discuss the scope of the area plan and place those items on a future agenda.  Motion carried unanimously.               (14)

Receive Mechanical Code Board minutes and discuss notification procedures for mechanical inspections.  Mechanical Code Board met on October 20 and a draft of those minutes will be posted when available

Jim Sparks, Chair, Mechanical Board of Appeals, said one of the issues that needed to be addressed was the finalization of building permits.  He said the homeowners as well as the contractors, on occasion, received a letter that, he felt, contained some strong language.  He said when the homeowner received that letter, the contractor would hear from that upset homeowner.

He said the first paragraph of that letter stated: “It is the Contractors’ responsibility to request and provide access to the work that requires inspection.”  He said they tried to exercise that requirement.  In the third paragraph of that letter it stated: “Possible actions include filing a complaint in Municipal Court for failure to follow city code, and/or refusal by the City to issue permits for future work.”  He said that was strong language. 

He said if a Contractor had not done their job, then City Inspectors needed to get in touch with that Contractor and then get in touch with the property owner.   He said to send a property owner this letter after the Contractor had completed their job; they had caught a lot of flack from that procedure.  He said they advertise and a lot of their work was by word of mouth and when you have an irate customer for something that might not be their fault, it was not pleasant to have that irate customer calling.

He said those letters could be sent to the contractors and then if the contractors did not follow up with city code requirements, then a letter could possibly be sent to the homeowner.  

Commissioner Highberger asked if those types of letters would be sent to property owners for other permits as well.

Sparks said he did not know.

Bryan Wyatt, Mechanical Board of Appeals, said in response to Commissioner Highberger’s question, he had heard from a member of the Plumbing Board that they had recently addressed this type of issue, but he did not know the outcome.  He said it was a contractors’ responsibility to pull the permit for the replacement of a furnace or air conditioning equipment.  He said it was his responsibility to make sure the inspection was done.  He said it was a law that City staff be allowed access to a home for inspection purposes.  He said they charge their customers a fee.  He asked that the letter go to him as a business owner

He said they had a fee that the City charged them that they past on to the customer.  He said their business was service driven.

He said as a smaller company, he was out on the job with the inspector.  He said there was a time when he received a letter stating that the job had not been inspected, but it was obviously a mistake because he and the inspector were out there together.  The problem was that that upset homeowner received that same letter.  He said City staff did a good job considering the turnover and amount of work that they did.  The end result was that he was hurt, and it was not business friendly.  He asked that staff send that same notice to him, but give him 30 days to make sure that he had inspected a home.  He said when an inspection had been completed and he received a letter from staff notifying him that no inspection had taken place it seemed that he was doing something against the law and that hurt.

He suggested that initial notice be sent to the contractor to complete their inspections and if the contractor did not follow through then send a letter 30 days letter letting the homeowner know of the required inspections.

Tom Patchen, member at large of the Mechanical Board, said he was present to support his fellow board members.  He said to have a customer be upset with their business was not a good situation. 

Victor Torres, Neighborhood Resources Director, said the letters were going to miscellaneous permit holders.  He said there had been a policy that had been in effect for over two years where staff contacted the contractor and the property owner for work that had not been inspected.

He said staff’s permit process was straightforward.  A request for a permit was received, the work was completed, staff conducted the inspection, and the permit was closed.  

He said the letters in question were sent to contractors and property owners when the contractor had not contacted staff to request the inspection.  In those cases those permits were issued more than 30 days from the date of their letter.  

He said the reason he sent the letter to the property owners as well was because when they started this policy two years ago, they originally sent them to the contractor and there was not very good response.  Now that the property owner was involved staff received instant response.  He said staff had good luck opening and closing permits and the process was working well.

He said within the last couple of months the Mechanical Board had brought up that issue at their meeting and staff looked at what they could do to accommodate the request.  The request was to stop notifying the property owner.  He said staff decided to keep that information from the property owner, in some cases, 60, 90, 120 days down the road.  Also, staff had modified their letter said it clearly stated that the letter was a copy of the letter sent to the contactor requesting the contractor set up inspections.     

He said they did receive several negative calls and they ask why it took so long to contact them.  Therefore, staff would like to continue the practice and the policy of sending out the letters.  He said staff felt the contractors had ample opportunity to contact staff to schedule inspection.  Staff did everything to accommodate that homeowner regarding inspections.

He said a report was drafted every Thursday to check that all inspections had been completed.  Staff then met to discuss the planning review process, open inspections, and discuss their report.      

Mayor Rundle said he did not think anyone would question the validity of a 180 day old permit that had not had inspections.  The question was those projects that had been inspected, but the homeowner would receive a letter from staff indicating inspections had not been completed.

Commissioner Hack asked Torres if every Thursday staff reviewed that report concerning completed inspections.

Torres said yes.

Mayor Rundle said he was hearing contractors say that they had numerous incidents where there had been an inspection, but the inspection had not been recorded.  He said it seemed that they were not discussing issues that were way out of date, but making sure staff did not unnecessarily alarm a homeowner whenever the inspection had already been made.  He said since staff gave homeowners 180 days, staff could give the homeowner another 30 days.  He said staff could contact the contractor first and then send the second letter out.  That type of process seemed quite reasonable.          

Commissioner Dunfield said the discussion had been about miscellaneous permits so the 180 day period was really a 30 day time window that the contractor was given to complete those small jobs.

Torres said correct.  He said staff thought the time period seemed reasonable to perform that change out within that 30 day period.

Commissioner Dunfield asked if staff had any idea how many letters had been sent incorrectly.

Torres said he did not know.  He said there was no doubt that a letter could be sent incorrectly.  He said a report was received from Information Systems and staff would review those reports to make sure everything was ready to go.  He said it was a process that was practiced, but human error was an option.

Commissioner Schauner said in staff’s Inactive Permit Policy, paragraph 1 of the policy stated that: “Contractors of record shall be notified by mail of all inactive permits on a monthly basis.”  He went on to state in paragraph (b) stated:  “Miscellaneous permits that have had no inspection activity for 30 days but are still in progress shall be removed from the inactive permit list for 30 days.”  He asked how staff knew if those permits were still in progress if there had been no inspection activity for 30 days.

Torres said those types of jobs were bigger on-going projects. 

Commissioner Schauner said he did not understand how staff knew that the project was still in progress if there had been no inspection.  

Torres said some of those projects might have other inspections that were pending.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there would be some internal check to know that another inspection had taken place which would keep this miscellaneous permit from being on the inactive list.

Torres said yes.  In some cases a project might have multiple permits.

Commissioner Schauner asked if there was a substantial cost to the department by sending a letter to the contractor without a copy to the property owner saying our records show that there had not been any activity on this permit for “x” days and to notify staff in the next 15 days or further action would be taken.  He asked if that would mess up the internal process.

Torres said staff could handle that process.  Again, staff liked the process that was in place at this time because staff received response from the homeowners.

Commissioner Schauner said what he heard the mechanical people say was the last thing they wanted was a negative letter to go to a customer because of the negative impact that had on their reputation in the community.  He said his sense was that if you send a letter to the contractor without a copy to the homeowner, staff would get the same quick response.

Commissioner Hack said that was not what Torres was trying to say.  She said this issue was a classic rock and hard place for Torres and staff.  What the Commission asked staff to do was to not have all those open permits and to take care of that issue.  She said their priority as a Commission was to make sure the work was done, that the work had been inspected and that the permit was closed.  She said Torres was hired to do his job and the Commission should let Torres do his job.  The way Torres took care of the City Commission’s direction was with those dual letters that worked for staff which had been shown to produce results.

She sympathized with the contractors concerning customer relations, but there was an easier answer than blaming somebody.  She suggested that the contractors tell their customers that it was a record error and they would get in contact with Neighborhood Resources to take care of that issue.  She said as a homeowner she did not see that as a problem.

Torres said the process was very effective for closing open permits.  In fact, staff’s open permits were way down.  For the period of 2004, staff had 100 open permits.

Commissioner Rundle said he thought they were talking at cross purposes.  He said everyone was in support of getting open permits closed.  What the Commission was trying to address was those homeowners who had accidentally been sent a letter.  He said it seemed easy to make if a 15 day delay before a second letter was sent to the homeowner.  He said the Mechanical Board was only saying that they did not want letters to go out where those letters could not be justified.

He said the Management Team had a customer service series of meetings earlier this year.  He said it was determined that City employees should interact with the community in a professionally, responsive, caring manner that meets or exceeds the customer expectations.  He said the Mechanical Board was staff’s customers just as much as those homeowners.  He went on to say that staff would provide clear, direct communications while striving to be a partner when responding to a request for service.  He said this was a clear win/win partnership.  He suggested sending a letter to the contractor.  He said if staff’s records were wrong, the contractors could let staff know and then it would be resolved.  If it was not resolved, then the second letter could go to the homeowner.  He said he was talking about delaying the letter, putting an extra step in between that process which seemed quite reasonable.

Commissioner Schauner concurred with Mayor Rundle in that a 15 day window for making certain it was not a human error in the process before notification of the homeowner would slow up the process significantly of closing and opening permits.         

Commissioner Rundle asked who performed that record keeping in terms an inspection being made.

Torres said the inspector.  He said every Thursday staff would receive a report to make sure that all inspections that had been requested that week had been done.

Commissioner Rundle said but unfortunately staff had missed them for whatever reason.  He said it was apparently true that sometimes mistakes had been made.

Sparks presented some of those letters to the Commission.  He said he personally went to each one of those jobs with the inspector.

Wildgen said the best solution was that 15 or 20 day gap between letters.

Mayor Rundle said when that huge backlog of open permits had first been identified, at that time staff was not using the double letters.  He said the policy that Torres was talking about was a later version because he had the policy when staff was initially trying to catch up on those final inspections.    

Torres said that initial policy was developed in 2002 that addressed the hundreds of open permits that were still pending inspection at that time.  He said a lot of those open permits were issued in the 90’s and a lot of those contractors and homeowners were no longer at that location so letters were sent to the homeowners, which was the batch that Mayor Rundle was discussing. 

Vice Mayor Highberger said he appreciated Torres’ efforts to clean up the backlog of permits.  He said it was his understanding that the contractor received two letters before any action was taken.  He asked if it was possible to send the homeowner a copy with the second letter.  He asked if that idea would have the same effect that staff was receiving now, but only with a small delay. 

Torres said the only delay staff would have was that the homeowner would be notified several months after the work had been completed.

Vice Mayor Highberger said he had concerns about homeowners receiving the notice that inspections had not been completed when the inspection had been completed.  He said staff needed to find ways to improve that process as far as customer service for the contractor. 

Mayor Rundle said he understood that on the older backlog there was no final inspection on new construction.  He asked why that would not be of interest to the homeowner regardless if the inspection changed hands.   He said he was trying to get the comparison between the urgency to send this notice of a water heater or a furnace change out versus the entire home that did not have a final inspection.

Torres said all of the old permits that were open in the 1990’s were all types of permits.  He said staff sent letters directly to the address.

Mayor Rundle said it said it went to the contractor of record.

Torres said there were two separate permits that were being discussed.  This current policy addressed the work that had been done this year.  The older permits were going to the address.

Mayor Rundle said he had a copy of that process that said it went to the contractor. 

Commissioner Hack summarized Wildgen’s proposal.  She said if no inspection had been recorded then after 30 days a notice would be sent to the contractor and after 15 days beyond that 30 day notice, if staff had not been contacted by the contractor, a notice would go to the contractor.  She asked if that process would be a financial burden and work for staff.

Torres said staff did not track internal dollars, but obviously staff would need to process a second batch.  He said staff sent out 50 to 75 letters a month.  The errors in those letters were probably minimal.

Mayor Rundle said he thought the contractors would be supportive of that idea, but that the shoe should be put on the other foot and to ask the contractors to make an extra call and possibly visit with the homeowner was probably a burden to the contractor as well.  

Dunfield said he was willing to have us make this change but as a homeowner he would want to be notified.  He said if the notification was wrong, he could contact the contractor and find that out.  He would rather find out and correct the problem and any misunderstanding than not know what was going on.  He said he would not fight this situation if that was the will of the other Commissioners.

Commissioner Schauner offered a different perspective.  He said his mother was 83 years old and if his mother had her furnace changed out and received that initial letter that stated the inspection had not been done, she would be frantic.  He said he was trying to find a balance between the two letters going simultaneously and trying to develop a little different customer relationship with contractors.  He said a 15 day window might be a way to provide a balance.

Mayor Rundle said he was sorry to be short but they were talking about correcting misunderstandings and preventing misunderstandings.  He said unless the old an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure was no longer applicable, he said it seemed the Commission had a very easy, simple solution to prevent misunderstandings.

Commissioner Schauner thanked Torres for his efforts.  He said a lot of permits had been closed and the system was working a lot better before Torres started work with the City and the community was well served by Torres’ efforts.                                        (15)

PUBLIC COMMENT: None

Moved by Schauner, seconded by Dunfield, to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.  Motion carried unanimously.

_____________________________

Mike Rundle, Mayor

ATTEST:

___________________________________                                                                       

Frank S. Reeb, City Clerk

CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2004

1. Bid – 19^th & Learnard Sanitary Sewer to RD Johnson, for $188,865.

2. Bid Date Set – Nov 16 for Clinton Pkwy & Wakarusa Relief Sewer.

3. Bid – Comprehensive Rehabilitation Program.

4. UPR-09-06-03 – Additional cabins to KOA Campground.

5. Memorandum of Understanding – Roger Hill Volunteer Ctr & United Way for “Safe Winter Sidewalks.”

6. Mortgage Release – A.B. Mary & Leslie Rials, 912 Rhode Island.

7. Mortgage Release – Pravin & Lata Patel, 1004 N 3^rd.

8. Convention & Visitors Bureau – installation of lights downtown for holidays.

9. Ordinance No. 7832 – 2^nd Reading, Z-08-30B-01, 20.0294 acres, A to PRD-2, N of W 6^th along Congressional.

10. City Manager’s Report.

11. Site Plan –  (SP-09-58-04) Alek’s Auto Sales, 601 N 2^nd.

12. Kasold Preliminary Design Report & Option 5, reconstruction of Kasold, Bob Billings Pkwy & W 22^nd.

13. Public Hearing – 944 Massachusetts for storefront remodel.

14.  E Lawrence Neighborhood, Barker Neighborhood & Brookcreek Neighborhood Associations for new area plan for rail corridor.

15. Mechanical Code Board – notification procedures for mechanical inspections.